It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

page: 40
131
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Soooo KMA
Learn how to read and I won't have to post videos. There is plenty of Info I supplied that none of you have mentioned. I doubt you can figure out how to open the file though can you.

Good work..




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Nah - we jsut don't have the time to go through every single point of your spam and show how silly it ALL is, so we pick the ones that interest each of us most.

Still interested in why you think it is significant that the short contrail is above the long one - I presume you think you have some understanding of the video, so please entertain us some more.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
There will never be enough of you liars that can ever even hope to challenge just one truth

HAARP holes in heaven

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Naw, it's much funner watching your ignorance. Besides, it is so obvious I don't need to explain anything.

You don't have the time but you're still here trying as hard as you can and not one of you has done anything to dis prove any of the videos or any of the documents. It's all just been a "that's fake" or "so what".....



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



You really want to run with Martin Sheen as the most credible person in your conspiracy??



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Naw, it's much funner watching your ignorance. Besides, it is so obvious I don't need to explain anything.


Can't explain seems more likely.

Shame - I was really hoping you would say "well it's higher so it's colder so the contrails should be just as long there too" or some other such nonsense, and then I could demolish your obvious error.

But if you don't even know that much then I guess all I can do is point out that you don't even understand the videos you think contain "proof".



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



That would be better than hanging out here with you fools who can't see straight and don't know your left from your right. Or which way is up and which way is down. Quick get your compass out. ..ah ha ha ha




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Naw, it's much funner watching your ignorance. Besides, it is so obvious I don't need to explain anything.


Can't explain seems more likely.

Shame - I was really hoping you would say "well it's higher so it's colder so the contrails should be just as long there too" or some other such nonsense, and then I could demolish your obvious error.

But if you don't even know that much then I guess all I can do is point out that you don't even understand the videos you think contain "proof".

Do I even need to tell you how foolish you sound here?
I got here about 20 pages ago and I can keep going till e get to 200 or more. How many pages you think you have debunked ?


Here is a hint...........0........

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
HR 2977 IH

107th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2001

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.
SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.

Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.
SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.

The President shall--
(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and
(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.
SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.

The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.
SEC. 5. REPORT.

The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--
(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and
(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.
SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.

Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--
(1) space exploration;
(2) space research and development;
(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or
(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.
(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:
(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--
(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;
(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;
(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.
(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--
(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);
(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or
(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(v) laser weapons systems;
(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.
(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Yet another example of basic aviation ignorance appearing in a 'chemtrailer' video.

The person asks

']Dangerous flying, don't you think?

Would you be happy flying away on holiday on planes this close to each other?'

Does the stupidity and ignorance ever end. Do you yourself understand Air Traffic Control procedures? Do you think that what was shown in the video was 'dangerous flying'?

Watch the following videos. Do you think that this is dangerous flying or do you simply not understand ATC procedures and separation of aircraft?





Notice in the video the assumption is that the aircraft must be a military aircraft. No attempt is made to identify it, but it is simply passed off as 'military' to suit the agenda. A classic fail 'chemtrail' video. No idea what they are filming nor even basic knowledge about ATC.

Answer the specific questions rather than hand waiving and going into your 'copy and paste' diatribes.

TJ

edit on 2-3-2011 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I think you are repeating yuorself - didn't you do the punch hole clouds and HR 2977 already?

I know I alrady provided plenty of information on teh former that you didn't read so I'm not going to repeat that, and here's HR 2977 gotten rid of, again if so....



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
www.asp.bnl.gov...


MERGER OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE PROGRAM AND THE ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION MEASUREMENT PROGRAM [2009-10-08]

The Atmospheric Science Program and the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) have merged, effective October 1, into a new program called Atmospheric System Research, ASR. Discussions and planning are underway to bring the research elements of the two programs into better alignment to further the common research goal of understanding the climate system and representing this understanding in models. A major benefit of the merger is expected to be a strengthening of the aerosol- and cloud-related research components of the programs by bringing together the ARM capabilities of continuous remote sensing measurements of cloud properties and aerosol influences on radiation with the ASP capabilities for in-situ characterization of aerosol properties, evolution and cloud interactions. The Science Plan for the new Atmospheric System Research program is in preparation.

Programmatic questions arising out of the merger are addressed here. [2009-09-10]

This web page will be maintained until appropriate content has been migrated to a new web page. [2009-10-08]



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Nice try but your bogus website doesn't really impress me much....Keep on trying.......


Now watch how I will use your own favorite source to crush you.....

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


It's not there to impress you - it is there to provide information to pepole who might think you have something useful to offer, and to correct them of that mistake.

As always - if there is anything actually incorrect on that website there is a standing invitation to identify it and it will be corrected.

So is there anything actually incorrect there? I mean it has comments from the senator who sponsored teh bill, the perople who drafted it, UFO-believers, etc.....did he misquoet any of them perchance?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



So research into and understanding of the atmosphere somehow proves chemtrails exist??



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



So research into and understanding of the atmosphere somehow proves chemtrails exist??


Hey you're not as dumb as I thought now are you? That's exactly right maybe you can learn after all...



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Perhaps yuo can explain it to everyone who hasn't quite managed my transcedant understanding then - I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do it the justice you can while I am waiting to be crushed by Contrail Science......



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


So your hand waiving claim is that nobody has debunked some of the videos that you post? So what about the tanker enemy videos? Do you simply believe that everything he states in his videos is true? How do you explain his 'white unmarked tanker' that DOES carry registration?. How do you explain that his 'evidence of nozzles' on a KC-10 is simply the flap mechanisms. How do you explain why he can't identify a Tupolev 154 with the classic Tupolev designed undercarriage pods?

It is no use just hand waiving this type of ignorance away. It is repeated time after time in his videos. No doubt you are one of the applauding clowns that make comments on his videos and just accept what he is telling you? This is basic aviation knowledge. Ask yourself why he manipulates and mis-identifies and blocks anyone who disagrees even when presented with the actual ident?

Another classic fail video from Tanker Enemy. The aircraft is not a C-17, but an Antonov 124. Note he is trying to pass it off immediately as a military aircraft when in fact the An-124 is routinely used as a civilian cargo freighter. See how simple it is to do? Film - claim that the aircraft is at 6,000 feet, mis-identify, and invent a story around it.




TJ



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
U.S. Climate Change Science Program
Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3
January 2009

OK first question for you is ....What does the word synthesis mean as it is being used here?

Need help ? Here en.wikipedia.org...

You won't find it on your website

edit on 2-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


It's like a slow-motion train wreck...it's horrific, yet somehow I can't tear my eyes away.

Carry on...



new topics

top topics



 
131
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join