Are They Spraying Anything?

reply to post by TheRealMrX


So:
Some tests that were not in the movie are wrong
and
Some test that were in the movie were wrong.

So what? The tests were all wrong. The ones in the movie were the most wrong. Yet all you want to talk about is Phage using one of the not-in-the-movie-but-part-of-the-background-material tests?

Does that somehow excuse all the tests in the movie being wrong?

Let me ask you a direct question TheRealMrX: which tests in the movie demonstrate unusual levels of aluminum, based on what was actually tested (sludge, dirty snow)?

reply to post by Uncinus

Well now, let's be fair.

Since the tests which show the high levels aluminum found in soil were apparently not made available we can't be sure about them.

But one does have to wonder why the "best" evidence was not made public.

reply to post by Phage

Do you give me that the sample data from underneath Mr. Mangels' house and the Brookings, OR sample data were both not used in the movie?

reply to post by TheRealMrX

The data was not shown in the movie.

A stack of tests was shown while high aluminum levels were being discussed. The tests were used in the movie.

reply to post by Phage

Thank you. If the sample data taken from underneath Mr. Mangels' house and the Brookings, OR sample data were both not used in the movie, why do you write about them as if they had been?

reply to post by TheRealMrX


So the claims of high aluminum levels were based on guesses, not data? If that is not the data which was used in the movie, where is it? Where is the data which led to the claim? Why has it not been made public as the rest of it has?

There is good reason to believe that the data I used is the same data used to claim high levels of aluminum in the soil and no reason to believe it is not.

reply to post by Phage

I am writing about something that completely destroys your OP and you keep changing the subject. Now, if the data from samples taken from underneath Mr. Mangels' house and the Brookings, OR sample data were not used in the movie, why do you write about them as if they had been?

reply to post by TheRealMrX

I didn't change the subject, I answered you. The data is not shown in the movie, a stack of reports is. Unless they are being deceptive, the test results I wrote about are in that stack. They have Mangels' name on them, don't they? If those aren't the reports, why did Mangels release them to the public? If there are reports which do show high levels of aluminum, why not release them?

reply to post by Phage

The fact of the matter is that you presented stuff in your OP which DID NOT APPEAR IN THE MOVIE as though it had. Next!!!

reply to post by TheRealMrX

The fact of the matter is that I did not say that the reports appeared in the movie.

I said the test results were used in the movie and that they were discussed in the movie. Do you really think they were talking about some other test results?

If you can show me the "real" test results they used, the ones they discussed, and if they are not the ones published I will concede your point.

reply to post by Phage

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the test results in question are NOWHERE IN THE MOVIE and ARE NEVER DISCUSSED. Why don't you go back and check? Is anybody out there?...

reply to post by TheRealMrX


0:27:59
What reports are they discussing? What reports did they use? Not Mangel's? Then who's?
www.youtube.com...

Do they not make the claim that the high pH levels are a result of the "high" aluminum levels?

www.youtube.com... saw two planes side by side behind a third.. looked like boeings. this was in CT

Can some of the scientific people here explain to me how you can believe CO2 rises into the atmosphere, (Greenhouse Gasses) when it has a heavier molecular weight to air?

When I've watched groups of planes flying back and forth, they are much lower than 35,000ft.
Anybody with a brain can see the difference between the size of a plane at cruise, and one which you can see every feature on, which would be somewhere in the vicinity of 10,000ft or below... where it is NOT cold enough to form a natural contrail. No I didn't get out the measuring tape for EVIDENCE of these planes being below cruise, I relied on my eyes for that.

Sometimes you won't be able to (it will be impossible to) come up with hard evidence for something you know to be occurring. What do you do then as a scientist? Stop thinking about it??

The CO2 vs Global Warming farce has been shown by far better scientists (than the UN paid to concoct this) to be false and that the Earth is at the middle/end of a 15-year cooling trend.
This is why you don't hear true scientists referring to "Global Warming" anymore. Now they have to call it "Climate Change".

This is not off-topic, though it may seem it at first. Al Gore's CO2 vs TEMP chart has been shown to be out of phase by a few-hundred years (can easily happen over a 100k yr period) and this has been done deliberately to show the reverse effect, than what is truth.
The chart says CO2 effects temps... but if it were put back into proper phase, it would show the opposite to be true.. when temps natural rise, the oceans warm, with a lag-time of a few hundred years. When the oceans are warm, the life that it supports releases more CO2 at higher temps.

There has been significant documentation to show that the Rothschild family is benefitting (monetarily) from the CARBON TAX (Carbon Trade market) which is already functioning and trading and the money ends up in Rothschild-owned Swiss banks.

The son of Sir Lord Evelyn de Rothschild (Lord of London City and richest man/family in world w/ $500trillion) whose name is David de Rothschild goes around the world to all ECO fairs/conventions talking about CO2 and Global Warming. He is selling the world on his family's Carbon Tax, earning his keep.

Where are the true scientists?

If you demonize one of the necessary components for life, you are an idiot, unless you convince everyone and manage to monetize it, then you're a genious...
If you can convince everyone else that necessary component is evil, then they are idiots.

Where's your 3rd grade education people?

CO2 is what we emit and what plants breathe. At the time when most of "our" plants began (millions of years before we came along) the Earth's CO2 levels were around 1400-1500PPM and nowadays they average about 200-300PPM (this is why certain types of growers enrich CO2 to these levels for better plant yield).

This is due to high volcanic activity during the primordial era.. and also, in areas of volcanic activity, the most lush landscapes of plants can be seen growing.

So tell me how did we cause a rise in CO2 levels, if they are 1/7 of what they were before we popped up?

And if you can't project your imagination enough to see where they're headed then maybe I can help you with that. Ever hear of Future Energy Commodities Trading?
You can tax people based on future energy usage or pollution-output. They start with the big model (factories) and then scale down to cars/vehicles and people.

You know you can monitor emissions out of vehicles (and mouths) and charge people for it.. or come up with a weight-based average of human CO2 output and tax people for it per year or quarterly.

When babies are born from hospitals, you can pay a Carbon Tax for that child's first 4 years of CO2 output.
Just another way of inserting leaches onto our "skin" and tapping into your veins for energy.. it's what they know how to do best since it's all they've ever done.

This may seem Off-Topic, but I ask any mods to find it in their heart to see how it is pertinent to the conversation and not delete this post.

Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
Can some of the scientific people here explain to me how you can believe CO2 rises into the atmosphere, (Greenhouse Gasses) when it has a heavier molecular weight to air?

It's the wind, natural convection currents.

You don't see the atmosphere separating out into a layer of oxygen and a layer of nitrogen, do you? Same thing.

Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to include my point on Aluminum & Barium vs Air - molecular weight.

Those of you who believe Geo-Engineering isn't already occurring, can probably find it in yourselves to admit that it is in fact a concept, and a field, which is being worked on by people, correct?

Are these people scientists?

How do they seem to ignore the fact that Aluminum (or Aluminium for Mr.Aloysius) and Barium -like CO2- both have a heavier molecular weight than air??

Do they expect it to stay up there or something? Just held on currects within the Stratosphere?
They're proposing the spraying of MEGA-TONS of aluminum, not small amounts.

I have watched these planes lay down "U"s over my city before.
How would you pilots like to justify that? That they're circling the local airspace waiting for a chance to land at the local airport? AT CRUISING ALTITUDE???

You can accept and admit for a fact that when jet airplanes circle an airspace waiting for clearance for landing, they CANNOT be putting out naturally-occurring contrails, because they ARE NOT at an altitude which would support that.

I was watching a bunch of U's. the other day. That is not something which can be attributed to normal flight-patterns in air travel.

I have looked through binauculars and seen the lack of markings and windows on these white jets... something which I unfortunatly wouldn't be able to capture on video for you guys, obviously.

But if they were at 35k altitude, I wouldn't be able to see them that closely with a regular pair of binaucs.

Sorry that I cannot disagree with the OP, which DO show the motives & accuracy of WITWATS are in question.

This isn't enough to fairly entitle you skeptical debunkers to the right to call the entire "aerial spraying" (call it CHEMTRAIL when you want to discredit us) topic a huge conspiracy-hoax.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
Can some of the scientific people here explain to me how you can believe CO2 rises into the atmosphere, (Greenhouse Gasses) when it has a heavier molecular weight to air?

It's the wind, natural convection currents.

You don't see the atmosphere separating out into a layer of oxygen and a layer of nitrogen, do you? Same thing.

How does it rise, when it's heavier than what it starts off in (air at the ground, ie our mouths & tailpipes)?

We're not talking about CO2 that is already up there, from volcanic eruptions, which has nothing to do with human life/industry and cannot be removed & sequestered by reflecting sunlight.

And one of the proposed MO's of Geo-Engineering (in writing) is to remove large areas of dark land mass (trees) and replace with bright reflective material, (like snow).

How does that reduce or sequester CO2, when the trees do that already??? You take them away and you've removed the CO2 eaters.

It's such a big headslapping DOH that I cannot believe you guys.. it's shocking.

And WE are the ones who lack "critical thinking". That's great.

This is very insightful and it really is a shame this doesn't have more flags.

It's sad but obvious people come to ATS for the fear more than for the truth.

Originally posted by theshepherd2
This is very insightful and it really is a shame this doesn't have more flags.

It's sad but obvious people come to ATS for the fear more than for the truth.

The truth?

Can you admit that the truth has yet to be discerned??

No skeptic has *proven* that a covert operation is NOT taking place.
If a covert operation is taking place, by it's very nature, those involved will do their damndest to conceal the *truth*.

So when I put forth observations and *facts* (which have not been discussed), I am trying to work towards truth, like you..

Here are scientific facts, which I'd like to discuss with other scientists:

- the oceans put out more CO2 when temps are higher.
- when atmosphere warms (air), water will lag behind, but eventually catch up.
- CO2 does not rise up into the atmosphere, unless it's under force, like volcanic eruption (we don't have any control over that and don't need to).
- Aluminum will not remain at altitude indefinitely, it will sink, due to molecular weight. Convection currents aren't sufficient to completely over-ride gravity at such a differential in molecular masses.