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.

 

Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!

page: 28
52
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by tommyjo
 


Actually China and Russia and to some degree Germany are the only countries who have admitted to the practice of of altering the weather using "chemtrails".


None of them have admitted to "chemtrails". Cloud seeding is not chemtrails, nor did Germany admit to anything with chemtrails either.

You are just rehashing the same stuff that has been covered here, time and time again

Actually cloud seeding is definitely one type of chemtrail and your just in denial and rehashing old arguments. You belong in chemtrailers anonymous.......De-Nile ain't just a river in Egypt




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Quite apart from the fact that cloud seeding is something altogether different to what people call chemtrails,. the biggest proponents of cloud seeding are in the USA where it's big, big business - and has been for 60 years. It's also taken off in India, SE Asia and Australia in recent years.

Obviously the flim-flam men are still good at their stuff! Cloud seeding is, in most cases, a total and utter waste of time and money.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by tommyjo
 


Actually China and Russia and to some degree Germany are the only countries who have admitted to the practice of of altering the weather using "chemtrails".


None of them have admitted to "chemtrails". Cloud seeding is not chemtrails, nor did Germany admit to anything with chemtrails either. You are just rehashing the same stuff that has been covered here, time and time again

Actually cloud seeding is definitely one type of chemtrail and your just in denial and rehashing old arguments. You belong in chemtrailers anonymous.......De-Nile ain't just a river in Egypt


No, its not. You do not know anything about cloud seeding, and they do not leave big trails across the sky. Its done inside of precipitating storms with small flares, using small airplanes.

You can even watch them on flightaware.com too. Do you just blindly repost things, rather than actually try to learn about any of it?

But, if you think you are knowledgable about cloud seeding then by all means tell us about it.
edit on 16-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Quite apart from the fact that cloud seeding is something altogether different to what people call chemtrails,. the biggest proponents of cloud seeding are in the USA where it's big, big business - and has been for 60 years. It's also taken off in India, SE Asia and Australia in recent years.

Obviously the flim-flam men are still good at their stuff! Cloud seeding is, in most cases, a total and utter waste of time and money.


I wouldnt say its big big business in the US, there are only a small number of companies that are involved in it, and there is probably less that goes on now than 20 years ago. There is some winter cloud seeding that goes on in the US, but there are only a few planes doing it and they only few a few times a month at the most. A bit more in the summer with thunderstorms, but still not much of that.

India may still do it, but that has more to do with politics out there, than actually doing anything.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

What makes you the authority on what is or isn't related to chemtrails ? I can keep track of and discuss all 20 reasons why chemtrails might exist. Why can't you? Although I think to be accurate it's more like 5 or 6 reasons.

I am sorry, I was using that all to often forgotten common sense. I will try to find a link to explain that to you in a bit. It's a cool concept, but one that is obviously foreign to you.


I wonder how many ignorant responses with "what does this have to do with chemtrails" I am going to get today. How cute your government shill, dis-info agent partner Mr Soylent Green Jeans aka Soiled His Pants gave you a pretty little blue star.

awesome. So anyone who doesn't fall right in line with your paranoid delusions is a government shill? Do you see black helicopters everywhere too? They are after you. Hide!


Remember now to always hold hands when you two decide to cross the street and don't go anywhere without your backup contrailscience partner. That's why they call it the buddy system. The most important thing to remember whatever you do now is do not under any circumstances ever admit that chemtrails are real and you should do just fine at this job.


in closing, I mentioned why localized bird kills would not be related to chemtrails that apparently stretch out for hundreds of miles behind KC135 tankers. My reasoning is that the trail that went for miles might affect all the birds in the direct path of the poison and therefore you would be able to plot the death and destruction on a linear scale according to the map and direction the plane flew. Since you are obviously part of group B, I will stop using login when replying to your posts. Are you sure you aren't that guy who wasn't smart enough to pass the test to become a government shill and was told to leave the office last week? He sure was angry when he left. Kept complaining about getting question 1 wrong.
(question 1. Name______________________)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Who knows, next he will probably post that video from Pinal airpark of all the stored aircraft that dont fly and will claim thats a secret chemtrail base. Even chemmies repost that anyways.

He seems to reposting anything and everything, whether it has anything to do with the chemtrail religion or not.
Its just the typical method for people in any conspiracy, he just does it even worse.



edit on 16-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I wonder how many ignorant responses with "what does this have to do with chemtrails" I am going to get today. How cute your government shill, dis-info agent partner Mr Soylent Green Jeans aka Soiled His Pants gave you a pretty little blue star.

awesome. So anyone who doesn't fall right in line with your paranoid delusions is a government shill? Do you see black helicopters everywhere too? They are after you. Hide!

Hmmm. It seems that what Mathias is saying doesn't fall in line with my thinking, either, so perhaps HE is the government shill (seeing that I'm not). I'm not sure about his motives yet, but that doesn't matter.

That's the only explanation for why he is always on here rebutting everything I say. I can't make a simple point without him coming up with a seemingly scripted counterpoint. I smell COINTELPRO.

[/sarcasm]



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Fair enough, I guess in part that's because it doesn't work


Similar conclusions from Australia and India:

www.abc.net.au...

articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by firepilot
 


Fair enough, I guess in part that's because it doesn't work


Similar conclusions from Australia and India:

www.abc.net.au...

articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...


Well its one of those things that in theory can, but really hard to know if it does in practice. But the National Center (or Centre as you all spell it) for Atmospheric Research, and UCAR, both do quite a bit of research into it now.

But I do know meterologists who do believe in it, and who do not believe in it.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

But I do know meterologists who do believe in it, and who do not believe in it.


None of the guys I know believe in it. This is my friend Tom's view:

www.independent.co.uk...

and he's not indicated he's changed his opinion since writing that



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by firepilot

But I do know meterologists who do believe in it, and who do not believe in it.


None of the guys I know believe in it. This is my friend Tom's view:

www.independent.co.uk...

and he's not indicated he's changed his opinion since writing that


"I do believe it’s possible it can be effective in some clouds in the right conditions and at the right temperature. Nevertheless, I feel some of the stronger claims made recently need further verification, before we herald this as a breakthrough in scientists’ ability to manipulate natural weather cycles"

Well thats basically what any scientist or meteologist who believes in cloud seeding would say also, that it requires very specific conditions to even be able to work. And when it said that in a cloud with a lot of ice crystals in it all already, it will not help, but maybe one composed mostly of supercooler water drops that it could, well thats basically what cloud seeding efforts are going for anyways. So while he is obviously a bit pessimistic, the points he does make about how it potentially could work, is exactly how its usually attempted



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

I wonder how many ignorant responses with "what does this have to do with chemtrails" I am going to get today.


Ignorant ones? none.

but you will probably get a lot in response to your normal spam



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I like the way you worded your attack there but I would like to quote something you said that seamed kind of strange maybe it was a slip or just a simple mistake but it stood out like a sore thumb.

Photos they claim as "proof" that are actually NOT "chem"-planes.
In order for you to make that statement you must know what a chem plane looks like in order for you to say that the photo was not of a chem plane.
Otherwise your statement would be false as if you don't know what a chem plane looks like then you would have no right to state that the plane in question is not one.
I know that you are a so say expert who has enough spare time to belittle members who know the truth but in this i think you have tripped yourself up.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


Good point.....but it is not unreasonable to say that something is not a "chemplane" if you know what it actually is.


But you don't know what it is it is more honest to say "I don't know what it is".



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yes I agree that weedwacker is an expert on all planes etc but my point is still valid because lets say that chemtrail's are real i know its not something you like to entertain but I am asking you to because it proves a point I'm trying to make.
Now if there are planes that are used for spraying its unlikely you would build a plane esp for that purpose as it would be cheaper to modify a plane already in use.
So with that in mind an expert may look at a plane and say that is a Boeing 747 or kc 10a etc but in order for you to say that the plane has not been modified to spray chemicals you must know what a plane that has been modified dose look like in order to call the pic of that plane a fake.
would you not agree



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yes I agree that weedwacker is an expert on all planes etc but my point is still valid because lets say that chemtrail's are real i know its not something you like to entertain but I am asking you to because it proves a point I'm trying to make.
Now if there are planes that are used for spraying its unlikely you would build a plane esp for that purpose as it would be cheaper to modify a plane already in use.
So with that in mind an expert may look at a plane and say that is a Boeing 747 or kc 10a etc but in order for you to say that the plane has not been modified to spray chemicals you must know what a plane that has been modified dose look like in order to call the pic of that plane a fake.
would you not agree


Or you could just be "Tanker Enemy" and intentionally mislead people and claim parts of an aircraft are spray nozzles, that are not at all. I guess that takes the hard part out of it.

Or one could be Rod Hillerman and claim the airplanes in his videos are all fake airplanes
Or could be the people from "aircrap.org" and take pictures of an aircraft storage and scrapping operation, and claim its a secret chemtrail base.

Or use the KC-135 modified for icing tests, and claim that is proof of a chemtrail fleet
Or use the E-6A TACAMO aircraft dumping fuel, and claim that is chemtrails
Or use the Emirates 777 photo with prominent contrails, as proof of chemtrails
Or use the Boeing 777 CG test photo with water barrels as proof
Or use photos of small general aviation planes that cant even fly high enough to make contrails as proof
Or use a photo of a single Gulfstream I turboprop outfitted for air sampling, as a chemplane

I mean chemmies do not exactly let the truth get in the way of promoting the chemtrail religion apparently.
edit on 16-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

So with that in mind an expert may look at a plane and say that is a Boeing 747 or kc 10a etc but in order for you to say that the plane has not been modified to spray chemicals you must know what a plane that has been modified dose look like in order to call the pic of that plane a fake.
would you not agree


No I would not.

You can look at a plane, see that it is not different from other planes of its type in any way, and then conclude that it has not been modified for anything at all.

Alternatively you can lok at a plane, recognise the modifications because you know about the modifications (even if you know nothing about the plane), and thus know what the plane has been modified for.

There is no need to be an expert on something that does not exist in order to identify things that are not the thign that does not exist...it is sufficient to know that it REALLY is in order to know that it is not something else.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yes I agree that weedwacker is an expert on all planes etc but my point is still valid because lets say that chemtrail's are real i know its not something you like to entertain but I am asking you to because it proves a point I'm trying to make.
Now if there are planes that are used for spraying its unlikely you would build a plane esp for that purpose as it would be cheaper to modify a plane already in use.
So with that in mind an expert may look at a plane and say that is a Boeing 747 or kc 10a etc but in order for you to say that the plane has not been modified to spray chemicals you must know what a plane that has been modified dose look like in order to call the pic of that plane a fake.
would you not agree


Well here you go, maybe you are right after all




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Here''s a good video on chemtrail dis-info agents.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Here''s a good video on chemtrail dis-info agents.

www.youtube.com...


Oh god, not that crap yet again.

I got to :15 seconds, before I heard yet another reference to that stupid "WITWATS" movie, and bringing up Aluminum. Aluminum makes up on average around 8 percent of the ground, and that movie tries to create alarmism and hysteria over amounts of much less. Its a total junk science movie for people who are willing to turn their minds off and not question what they are told.

There was no point in watching it if they think the science in that mockumentary is sound. But to a chemmie, that movie is the epitome of modern science.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join