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.

 

Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 22
36
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
firepilot assumes an afwul lot considering i never went into to detail what i have studied and what i have learned about chemtrails... hes hellbent on putting down anyone who feels like a free speaking person... how do you know what i have done in my research you dont even know much about me besides what i have stated on this thread... see discrepancy [dɪˈskrɛpənsɪ]
n pl -cies
a conflict or variation, as between facts, figures, or claims
Usage: Discrepancy is sometimes wrongly used where disparity is meant. A discrepancy exists between things which ought to be the same; it can be small but is usually significant. A disparity is a large difference between measurable things such as age, rank, or wages
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms


Your assumptions are bold there fella... Just because you feel chemtrails are not real simply is opinion because there are many instances chemtrails can infact be proven... your knowledge or lack thereof is proof of common disreguard for research and debate... where you dismiss anyone who is already sided with the facts at hand and broadened there search through debate of fellow researchers. You have no ground to stand on with your baseless claims and you quite miserably dissapoint me as a fellow human being. You have allowed no room for debate on the topic of chemtrails beyond constanstly asking members on this thread for proof or pushing for reasons why chemtrails cannot be real and have so in my honest opinion done your best to derail the true purpose of this thread... discussion of chemtrails and the reality of... I cannot state enough there is no reason for your constance annoying debate on whethere these are real or not its almost unimaginable why a person like yourself would try so hard to stop the discussion of by constant nagging questions and throwing the discussion off time and time again ... dont debunkers have their own thread where they can discuss why they feel chemtrail do not exist? im sure they wouldnt have much to talk about. But on the other hand we are actually trying to see all sides of the table and its time for you guys to drop out of sight for a while allow for some real discussion for all members to see all points and key literature. Please




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by firepilot
 


So what you are saying is that my friend with his 15 years serving our country in the RAF is wrong and you are right?
Its good to know that we have such a fine expert on here perhaps your talents could be put to a better use.


I am not going to play that game with you.

What I am saying, is that contrails can last a long time, and thats been documented since World War II. Why do you say that ice crystals can only last a short while? Can you logically explain why? While you are at it, what is that white stuff on top of Mt Everest?

Oh and here, this is from 1921



An altitude flight was made in the morning at McCook Field recently by Lieut. J. A. Macready in a La Pere with supercharged Liberty [engine]. When the airplane reached a height of 26,000-27,000 feet at 11:50 a.m., a long feathery white streamer was observed forming behind a rapidly moving dark speck. The cloud was of the cirrus variety, well defined at the edges and apparently 10 to 15 times the width of the plane. The sky behind the first portion was clear blue with no clouds in the near neighborhood. The first streamer seemed perhaps 2 miles long. Then a gap of one-quarter mile. The second streamer formed with a background of light cirrus cloud and after 2 or 3 miles the plane seemed to go into the cirrus background, for the streamer formation ceased while an apparent path of blue continued beyond for a way in the cirrus cloud. The whole streamer may have been 3 miles long. After 20 minutes the streamer had drifted and spread until it merged indistinguishably with the other cirrus clouds visible.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


I'm sorry if you saw it that way. I don't see it as ad hominim. Granted I will admit that the last set of posts I made were and I am trying to be conscious of not doing that again. I just thought it was interesting and spoke directly to what DJCarlosa was saying in the quote that I replied to. Feel free to look into me in the same way. I wasn't attacking, just getting a better picture of "the opposition." I'm sorry if that felt like an attack-wasn't my intention.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


So you are using the world war 2 argument which is OK but has one big flaw.
It is my belief that world war 2 fighters and bombers ran on prop engines and not jet engines so how can you compare the contrails left by 2 totally different forms of propulsion.
Secondly you can not discount that bombers may have been using chemical warfare in world war 2 after all mustard gas was used during the first.
thirdly when you look at how a prop engine works and the exhaust system and lets face it alot of oil and unused fuel would be expelled due to the way the engine works same as you find in the exhaust of your car.
Therefore this would spray out of the exhaust and create a smoky like contrail.
A side note i would like to point out is that you told me to go find out about contrail's but as you have stated the internet is not a reliable source of information so i went and asked someone who would know and yet again you say to me that the info is wrong.

edit on 18-3-2011 by djcarlosa because: correction



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by gloomyblue707
firepilot assumes an afwul lot considering i never went into to detail what i have studied and what i have learned about chemtrails... hes hellbent on putting down anyone who feels like a free speaking person... how do you know what i have done in my research you dont even know much about me besides what i have stated on this thread... see discrepancy [dɪˈskrɛpənsɪ]
n pl -cies
a conflict or variation, as between facts, figures, or claims
Usage: Discrepancy is sometimes wrongly used where disparity is meant. A discrepancy exists between things which ought to be the same; it can be small but is usually significant. A disparity is a large difference between measurable things such as age, rank, or wages
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms


Your assumptions are bold there fella... Just because you feel chemtrails are not real simply is opinion because there are many instances chemtrails can infact be proven... your knowledge or lack thereof is proof of common disreguard for research and debate... where you dismiss anyone who is already sided with the facts at hand and broadened there search through debate of fellow researchers. You have no ground to stand on with your baseless claims and you quite miserably dissapoint me as a fellow human being. You have allowed no room for debate on the topic of chemtrails beyond constanstly asking members on this thread for proof or pushing for reasons why chemtrails cannot be real and have so in my honest opinion done your best to derail the true purpose of this thread... discussion of chemtrails and the reality of... I cannot state enough there is no reason for your constance annoying debate on whethere these are real or not its almost unimaginable why a person like yourself would try so hard to stop the discussion of by constant nagging questions and throwing the discussion off time and time again ... dont debunkers have their own thread where they can discuss why they feel chemtrail do not exist? im sure they wouldnt have much to talk about. But on the other hand we are actually trying to see all sides of the table and its time for you guys to drop out of sight for a while allow for some real discussion for all members to see all points and key literature. Please


Umm no, there have not been chemtrails that have been proven, there is no evidence for it, and its not just that people debunk it, its the science that debunks it. its not just that there is no evidence for it, the evidence debunks it all and disproves it.

If there was all this proof of it, then why do we have all these debunked and even hoaxed photos that end up time and time again reposted? If there was all this evidence of it, there would not be the same trotted out discredited photos and hoaxes. if there was evidence for it, we would not have videos of an aircraft junkyard as chemtrail evidence. We would not have pictures of single turboprop airsampling plane, as a chemtrail plane. We would not have pics of small cloudseeding planes that weight as much as a car, as a chemtrail plane.

And yes, I will definitively say that you have not studied aviation, science or meteorology. Any one of those, disproves the chemtrail religion very quickly.

edit on 18-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


are you speaking on behalf of every single meteoroligist, aviator, scientist wordwide? Once again a very very bold statement considering its highly unlikely you have spoken or interviewed all of them on the chemtrail subject...If i was you i would at the very least be hopeful that i got payed for the time i put in to disprove chemtrails in a thread where the discussion is the reality of ...And once again you maintain to throw this thread off topic... Dont you have a life or is debunking chemtrails your life? I for one am all for learning evermore what could be causing the unusual clouds that made me sick last year... thats not for you to choose and pick... but what you have done is made it very hard for anyone to discuss experiences or reports of even mistaken chemtrails... lol seriously bro get a life...real talk



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I have to say that today has been cloudy for the most part but still as warm as it has been for the last 4 day's and as this subject is one I debate alot I've kept my eyes on the sky through out the day.
Now I have noticed 2 things about today that have been different from the last 4 day's
1.the planes going over have been following the flight route that goes over my house there have been no planes criss-crossing the sky like the last 4 day's.
2. the contrail's of the planes in the sky have dissipated within 2 minutes.
Now don't get me wrong it's great to have had a day free of chemtrail's I even liked the fact that I wasn't worried about my kids heath as they played out the front.
But I had to point out those 2 facts because there where member's here who have stated that I'm under a busy air route with planes criss-crossing the sky so if that is so say normal then where were these planes today or was today a quiet air traffic day lol.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by firepilot
 


So you are using the world war 2 argument which is OK but has one big flaw.
It is my belief that world war 2 fighters and bombers ran on prop engines and not jet engines so how can you compare the contrails left by 2 totally different forms of propulsion.
Secondly you can not discount that bombers may have been using chemical warfare in world war 2 after all mustard gas was used during the first.
thirdly when you look at how a prop engine works and the exhaust system and lets face it alot of oil and unused fuel would be expelled due to the way the engine works same as you find in the exhaust of your car.
Therefore this would spray out of the exhaust and create a smoky like contrail.
A side note i would like to point out is that you told me to go find out about contrail's but as you have stated the internet is not a reliable source of information so i went and asked someone who would know and yet again you say to me that the info is wrong.

edit on 18-3-2011 by djcarlosa because: correction


No, it does not have a big flaw. They ran on primarily PISTON engines not prop, a propellor is not an engine, and there were jets in WW2 also.

A piston internal combustion engine, burns fuel and air, resulting in a hot exhaust with water as a byproduct
A jet turbine, burns fuel and air, resulting in a hot exhaust, with water as a byproduct too.

And jet engines can turn propellors too ya know, that is a turboprop engine. So you have speculation of aircraft making massive trails of chemical gases? Wait, you know they flew in formations and flew often behind each other? You have no evidence, just your own speculation, and your idea is just absurd.



A side note i would like to point out is that you told me to go find out about contrail's but as you have stated the internet is not a reliable source of information so


Now, that my friends, is irony. A chemtrailer talking about the internet being unreliable for information. Your friend did not exactly believe in chemtrails huh?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


I asked him about contrail's not chemtrail's because that is what you told me to research did you not.
I have since sent him the vid I took and he agrees that the trails are strange and the flight paths on which these planes where flying was also strange and he will be keeping an eye on the sky and get back to me.
As any open minded person he will base his answer on his own observations.
Twisting my words won't help you after all it was you who said that every bit of info I gave you as prof from the internet was unreliable or misleading so it was you that pointed out that all internet sources must also fall under this premises because we all know that any info on the net can be changed by anybody at any time.
So I have conceded this point why don't you.

edit on 18-3-2011 by djcarlosa because: added info



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


I notice also in your reply that you discounted two points I made and skipped over or sidestepped the other one which say's alot really now dose it not after all you can't comment on that subject so better to just ignore it and hope no one notices.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


so caeser didnt rule rome its one thing to be weary but this overwhelming distrust is a sign of the weak and unconscious look back through history you will see this is childish stuff



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


yes and that is the point it is impossible and you brought up.
then you would in addition be implying that a private entity is going to operate in a way to make the US gov. look bad amongst people without permission or profit you prove what im saying if it is all a conspiracy ALL AND everything the word is then in itself meaningless
edit on 18-3-2011 by triplescorpio because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I find it strange that both my posts were deleted without mention or warning?? I had two pictures of chemtrails I had taken myself from my window this morning, and supplied links to patents.. perhaps I just missed them? lol. weird.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher
 


there after you



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by triplescorpio
 


Yes Caesar was the figurehead of the Roman empire but the power of the empire was in its army and the generals in charge same as the British empire the monarch is a figurehead but the real power was in the navy and its commanders.
Now you can not deny that big company's can be found with branches in all parts of the world with trillions of dollar's euro's pounds at there disposal and we all know that everything is for sale at the right price.
Thats real control and proves that they have the real power.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

he was a general keep tryin



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


the navy do you even no how rome came to its apex seriously who was it then history buff cause you are wrong



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by triplescorpio
 


Yes he started as a general but if you did some real research on him you will see that he was never made emperor of Rome in fact they killed him because that's what he wanted so in effect that shows that he really didn't control Rome the senate did so it proves my point that he was just a figure head and like any figurehead can be removed if they don't toe the line.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by triplescorpio
 


perhaps you should read a post properly before you post a reply so that way you don't miss quote.
If you had read my post properly my reference to the navy was in regards to the British empire not the Roman empire.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I was saddened to receive a mail from a good friend mathiasandrew and felt I should share it here in the thread he started.
They banned me from posting again. It looks like they really don't want people to be talking about this subject. Hopefully I'll be back soon .
Mathias
Its my hope that he returns soon.




top topics



 
36
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join