Chemtrail believers have no idea!

reply to post by blangger


You'll have to give a bit more information than that. What statement made to who about what?

reply to post by Beavis


Proof of harmful substances being sprayed over populated areas is not proof of chemtrails, ever.

Any useful tactical (or experimental) deployment of substances to affect a population would be perfomed at low altitude to ensure it actually reaches the intended target. Dropping it at high altitude would not cause it too fall anywhere near the intended target, and it might not even reach the ground for days.

For instance, look at last years eruption in Iceland. That Ash cloud reached France, say a couple of days after it was erupted, and was only sent up to 9km. It only reached the ground in tiny amounts (though this was enough to warrant closure of the airspace), and a simply massive volume (by artificial standards) of it was actually produced in the first place. Yes, some fell near the source, but not that which went to 9km up.

reply to post by apex


It was intended to be a yes or no question. I'll probaly kick myself later but I'll bite. I thought the defintion of a chemtrail was a biological substance being sprayed over a populated area from a plane. I think it fits that description. Whats your definition of a chemtrail?

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I grew up next to Newark airport and have lived all over the world for 40+ years. I know the difference. But carry on.

reply to post by Beavis


What is your definition of "chemtrail"?

Just so you are aware, we are debating the existence of a "chemtrail conspiracy". We are not debating the existence or history of aircraft that spray chemicals.

-edit-

Woops, cross post. You answered my question before I hit Send. I'll make another reply.

Originally posted by Beavis
It was intended to be a yes or no question. I'll probaly kick myself later but I'll bite. I thought the defintion of a chemtrail was a biological substance being sprayed over a populated area from a plane. I think it fits that description. Whats your definition of a chemtrail?

Well, I thought that the definition of chemtrails was high altitude spraying of chemicals over a populated area. That is what most of these threads here seem to be about. As well as the fact all the pictures are of this too and is generally shown to be chemtrails.

To then say the definition of a chemtrail is a low level drop of chemical such that it actually hits the area you want it to, well, none of the pictures save those of a cropduster or similar actually shows such a thing.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


You know the difference of what?

Care to explain?

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


No, I really don't care to explain. I've been on the forums on this subject since 1999, and just wanted to let you know not to waste too much time on me.

So we can agree that there are planes designed to spray chemicals and bio agents over populated areas and have sprayed in England . You guys seem to be stuck on what the appearance of chemtrail should look like. Not if they exist or not. History shows us they do.

reply to post by Beavis


I can agree that there are planes capable of spraying whatever in any location.

There is sky writers, crop dusters, cloud seeding aircraft, a lot of jets even have fuel jettison capabilities, there are even firefighting aircraft that can drop thousands of gallons of water (or whatever).

Does any of that prove that there is a multi-million or maybe even multi-billion dollar operation which involves hundreds of aircraft and pilots which are uselessly spraying billions of gallons of chemicals at high altitudes all over the world in broad daylight? No.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.
A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.'

If you actually read the link I post be sure to read the last paragraph.
guardian

Originally posted by matrix12
reply to post by Mayura

 

dude did you see the morgellons photos of those nanobots thats glow, wow

Yeah my man, that stuff is out of this world... literally.

To really understand chemtrails it is essential to have a view of the grand scheme of things and the extraterrestrial influence over this planet. Squabbling about contrails does very little and is quite shameful, well, let's just say ignorant.

There are big players pulling the strings on these projects, who have little regard for the health of humanity. It goes beyond writing a letter to your congress man. Chemtrails are warfare on elevating consciousness, yet also experimental in nature, with a byproduct of major discomfort.

Saturating the entire Earth with metal particulates has made harmonic weaponry much more effective. Look into how HAARP can effect people's emotional state and thought patterns.

These things are paving the way for the dark agenda's grand finale on Earth, late 2012.

Its ongoing research my friends. We are being experimented on. It really doesn't matter what these "chemtrails" look like when you know the facts.

Originally posted by GeechQuestInfo
reply to post by network dude

 

If you really care about an answer go to new mexico. Go to the library and ask for the Chemtrails, Chemistry 131 manual published by the united states air force department of chemistry in 1990. Nobody on here will give you an answer that will suffice so do the work and go get it from the horses mouth.

Then come back to ATS and tell us what you discovered.

edit on 19-1-2011 by GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2011 by GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason given)

Ahhhh more chemtrailers having no idea again what they are talking about.

That is a Freshman Chemistry course at the Air Force Academy, for cadets. And when you looked at that textbook, was in it? I bet it was just normal chemistry from a college course. Most of those are 18 years old, and fresh out of high school. They are years away from being commissioned, and more years away from becoming pilots, for those that will be. Its a required course for every cadet there.

And another thing. Why was it called chemtrails? It was a play on a book that USAFA cadets have to memorize from called "Contrails", and its full of various facts about the USAF, aircraft, history and people that must be memorized. Chemtrails was just a play on that.

But if one on you chemmies is so certain the USAF Academy is actually teaching "chemtrails" then show us scans from the book.

Originally posted by Beavis
So we can agree that there are planes designed to spray chemicals and bio agents over populated areas and have sprayed in England . You guys seem to be stuck on what the appearance of chemtrail should look like. Not if they exist or not. History shows us they do.

edit on 20-1-2011 by Beavis because: (no reason given)

No, its chemtrails who go by the appearance to judge if it is a "chemtrail" or not, so do not put this on us debunkers. . We are the ones saying appearance can vary, just like it can vary with cloud.

Its the chemmies who say that a contrail can only be a skinny short line, and that if it appears to be anything else, and lasts longer, its chemtrails. And they are always saying to look up, so that inherently about appearances!

Well maybe they are right, here is a unmarked tanker painted red and white, just like the chemtrailers post about. Who knows, maybe that is a load of red blood cells too as chemtrailers allege!! Go hide!!

reply to post by firepilot


I agree its a mute point to debate what a "chemtrail" looks like. But to say that their not experimenting on us through mass spraying is ignorant.

Originally posted by Beavis
reply to post by firepilot

 

I agree its a mute point. But to say that their not experimenting on us through mass spraying is ignorant.

No, its never ignorant to be skeptical until proof is given. Its more ignorant to just believe things from conspiracy sites, without anything to back it up, solely because it fits until ones worldview. I mean how many different variations of "chemtrails" are there?? Do you think every different opinion is correct?

reply to post by firepilot


No just mine! Yeah,yeah, huhuh. Opinions are like sphincters. Everbody has one and no one thinks theirs stinks. But the facts speak for themselves. That being said there are some facts to consider before you discount the "chemtrail" consiracy.: