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: 39
36
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
I'm leaning towards there is SOMETHING here because of all the people using these slick tactics.


slick tactics aren't evidence either


as far as I can tell, being a slick tactician, my slick tactics consist of having actual verifiable evidence.......and what you are saying is that you think that me having evidence one thing is evidence that exactly the opposite is true!

Yes it sounds crazy when put like that....but...honestly that's what I get




I am sure military chaff spraying accounts for the high readings of aluminum from the video What in The World Are They Spraying.


You'd be able to see the chaff if that was the case - it is millimeters long, not microparticles. And the readings are not high - they WOULD be high for water...but they are testing pond sludge, which is dirt, and dirt contains a lot of aluminium.


There is rock solid evidence for it.


For chaff as the source of aluminium? I've never seen that mentioned before.

As far as I am concerned the aluminium in WITWATS is well within the normal range of aluminium in soil - and since they were measuring pond sludge it is exactly what you'd expect to get.


I like phage's or weedwhacker's thought that gobi sands might in part also contribute to those levels. In short it's probably a mix of answers.


I'd agree with that - pretty much all soil contains aluminium, wherever it has blown from.


So between tests, and chaff there is things being sprayed. There is no CONCLUSIVE only CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence presented so far that there is current ongoing geoengineering.


I'd say there isn't even that - there is a FEAR that it is happening


My main assertion is we must stop it before it begins. If it has begun we must halt it immediately.


that's what the UN resolution is all about - not letting people start it in the first place.


Now, as to your suggestion. I will test it when I get a chance. Can someone post a link to the services which will allow me to check where the flights are? Also How do you get the readings for the weather balloons like this guy did? Is there a website for this?


No problemo


Flight Aware - flightaware.com... (but note that, contrary to popular belief, it is not actually 100% perfect, and it has a time delay of possibly as much as 10 minutes)

Weather balloons USA - weather.unisys.com...
Weather Balloons UK & Ireland - www.btinternet.com...



edit on 22-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: fix quoting




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze

I'm leaning towards there is SOMETHING here because of all the people using these slick tactics. I am sure military chaff spraying accounts for the high readings of aluminum from the video What in The World Are They Spraying. There is rock solid evidence for it. I like phage's or weedwhacker's thought that gobi sands might in part also contribute to those levels. In short it's probably a mix of answers.



The problem is that there were actually not high readings. Yes, they did tell you that they were. However, they were giving you pseudoscience, and not giving it to you actual science.

As I have told others, you will find Aluminum in any soil sample that you take. You will also find it in dust too, since a part of dust is going to particles picked up by the wind.

And you can look up for yourself and see, that about 8 percent of the earths crust is made up of Aluminum, so that will be an average value that will of course vary with location, but it still be present.

Your mockumentary movie, causes alarm with values significantly less than that average Al amount, and implies that you should not have any Al in the ground or in dust. That however, is not true. I have challenged believers of this video, to email the maker of that movie and ask him what should be an average Al value in the ground. Go ahead with strontium and barium too.

You can verify on your own with research, what kind of values to expect, without taking the world of that guy, or any of us for that matter too.

edit on 22-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

BTW...clouds, composed of ice crystals (and, of course...CONtrails as well....basically the same composition) cannot be detected by radar....NORMAL weather radar. Certainly, a radar could be (theoretically) tuned to a wavelength to detect extremely small particles....but that same radar would also be severely hampered, in practical use.


It's more than theoretical - millimetric cloud radar exists on land and space - but it is, as yuo say, a completely different wavelength to normal weather radar & not (AFAIK) in any sort of regular aircraft use.

You can search for "cloud radar" & "drizzle radar" to find installations that are specifically designed for detecting those 2 weathers. And "Cloudsat" too for more info on the spaceborne version there's a wiki page for that too)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by weedwhacker

BTW...clouds, composed of ice crystals (and, of course...CONtrails as well....basically the same composition) cannot be detected by radar....NORMAL weather radar. Certainly, a radar could be (theoretically) tuned to a wavelength to detect extremely small particles....but that same radar would also be severely hampered, in practical use.


It's more than theoretical - millimetric cloud radar exists on land and space - but it is, as yuo say, a completely different wavelength to normal weather radar & not (AFAIK) in any sort of regular aircraft use.

You can search for "cloud radar" & "drizzle radar" to find installations that are specifically designed for detecting those 2 weathers. And "Cloudsat" too for more info on the spaceborne version there's a wiki page for that too)


I do not know how many times I tried to explain this to Mathias, that frequency and therefore wavelength matters with radar, and its designed not to display particles, but he reflexively assumes that aluminum particles must reflect due to being metallic.

One factoid that people, whether chemmie or not, can find interesting is that insect swarms and bat colonies CAN appear on weather radars though. And again, it goes back to size of the object.
edit on 22-3-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pianopraze
 

(Are you starting to figure it out, yet?).......]


There was absolutely no attack. I did point out the techniques used and invited a factual based discussion, even give a tip of the hat to good evidence provided on every side including yours. I also took up his challenge to check, validating his questioning if it were possible to use radar.

If (and I say IF because I do not think there was) there was any "disparaging" it was not on any factual or technical issues, it was on hie use of certain tactics. Why do you try to frame me as attacking or disparaging his technical when I affirmed his questions and agreed to pursue it? I did challenge him to prove his side, just as he challenged me to prove mine. Do you assert geoengineering deniers do not maintain an equal responsibility to prove their assertions?

It was long because I addressed every salient point he made and pointed out tactics used. I always attempt to until the poster proves all they want to do is use certain tactics, and not address my salient points.

How does restating my position that chaff shows up on radar negate my position? You agree yet try to appear to deny my position???

I assign no magical characteristics to radar, your asserting. Also you have no knowledge of my level of understanding of radar. Set up a straw man, attack character.. etc... don't start with these. Address fact and I will return the compliment. As it happens I know very little about radar outside that evidence which has been presented my matt in earlier posts.

Ok, would you care to provide this information on radar you suggest I research? I have always read every paper you presented. Also please provide the reasoning for reading into this material and what you suggest it proves or disproves. If this information has no bearing on the argument at hand why should I read it? Otherwise there is not reason for me to do so.

These radars detect chaff. I do not know whither they are capable of detecting any geoengineering aerosols or not, or if any aerosols are being sprayed. Which radars would you suggest I use and on which wavelengths to detect particles sprayed in the .2micron size as suggested by this study?

The larger geoengineering particles, the faster they settle out of the atmosphere. If they are too small, they do not effectively scatter incoming solar flux. The peak scattering effectiveness of H2SO4 aerosols is about 0.2 microns (Mie theory). To achieve the proper particle size, the vapor must be emitted at a rate that prevents particles from coagulating into large particles. Analysis7 has shown that a release rate of 0.1 to 0.003 kilograms per meter travelled by the aircraft limits coagulation. For the purposes of this study, concepts of operations are designed around a release rate of 0.03kg/m. However, in some cases higher rates are required due to limitations on airplane range or dispersal method.

source paper

You suggest I research, but do not answer the assertions of the video. He took the atmospheric data from the radio balloons which showed contrails could not form. How do you refute this? The radar data is totally secondary to me, and a much weaker argument. Radars seem a side track to me. I want your side to address how contrails, which only form under given conditions, could form when those conditions are not present by observed NWS data?

I have no impetus nor desire nor obligation to prove or disprove any other arguments for geoengineering than those I raise. I will not waste my time chasing down rabbit holes. I find this video on weather data compelling and your side has the obligation to refute it with data if you wish to engage me in conversation, or agree that the information is valid or that you can not disprove it with the means you have available. I continually validate points you make and others on the non-geoengineering side, yet have found no, or extremely little honest admissions of valid points I have made. This is not honest dialog.

My assertion was the video made a strong argument based on the weather balloons showing contrails could not form; you must address the videos assertion geoengineering was happening because contrails could not have formed on those days which was substantiated by weather data if you wish to engage me in conversation. The radar is a week side argument to me which you side continues to try to bring to the center. You can not debunk by raising side arguments.

I am starting to figure out that your side refuses to address pertenate data and attempts to shift the territory to fall back positions. Another familiar technique which i detest. If you wish to address me or my arguments address me and my arguments don''t raise side arguments in which I have no vested interest.

You have in no way disproved my post that chad addressed. I have not attacked you weed, or chad in any way other than your use of certain techniques which is not an attack so much as a call to honest dialogue. I am open to honest dialogue... but dialogue is a two way street. You must acknowledge my points as I acknowledge yours. You must address ALL my salient points as I address ALL yours as I have done in this post.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze

These radars detect chaff. I do not know whither they are capable of detecting any geoengineering aerosols or not, or if any aerosols are being sprayed. Which radars would you suggest I use and on which wavelengths to detect particles sprayed in the .2micron size as suggested by this study?


My understanding is that you'd need to have a 2 micron wavelength to be able to detect that - at the most.

2 microns is not radar - it is infrared "light", which goes from about 0.7 micron to 300 microns - so it is close to visible light.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
You can verify on your own with research, what kind of values to expect, without taking the world of that guy, or any of us for that matter too.


You also do not address the data I provided or arguments I raised. If you wish to dialogue with me address my assertions in this thread.

I did not create the movie, nor did I ever deny aluminum is common nor any of the other things you are suggesting. Do not attempt put words in my mouth. Your straw man does not exist. You are obviously unaware of my past arguments as well. But that was a past thread which was sadly closed under suspicious circumstances, to me. I'm done with them, as I'm sick of heart over how that was handled; if you want to argue those address Matt who is arguing them.

Please address my assertions presented in this thread if you wish to dialogue with me.

I only raised the fact in this thread that I have proved one sources of aluminum, nothing else.

If you care to address me, address the arguments I am putting forth in this thread. Please explain how contrails could form where NWS ballons have shown the conditions for contrails to form could not exist in this video:



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze

If you care to address me, address the arguments I am putting forth in this thread. Please explain how contrails could form where NWS ballons have shown the conditions for contrails to form could not exist in this video:
]


Fine..but can you tell us how the maker of this video arrived at his conclusion that contrails should not have formed. I know what he said, but I want it in your own words.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

slick tactics aren't evidence either


Flight Aware - flightaware.com... (but note that, contrary to popular belief, it is not actually 100% perfect, and it has a time delay of possibly as much as 10 minutes)

Weather balloons USA - weather.unisys.com...
Weather Balloons UK & Ireland - www.btinternet.com...



edit on 22-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: fix quoting


Thank you for these sources of information. I will use them in some experiments myself later.

I have never talked with you in any thread I'm aware of, so I am not accusing you of any such tactics. Why do you assume I was talking about you? I have repeatedly pointed them out in other threads on other people and pretty much refuse to engage with those individuals now. You can reason with them as much as you can reason with the television newscaster spewing propaganda. Most people on ATS are playing the main game and only use these techniques accidentally and occasionally which is normal, it is those few who for whatever playing the sub-game I was addressing with that comment.

I take these slick tactics repeatedly used by certain individuals as a circumstantial weather vein. That's my opinion, your free to yours.

There have been lots of papers presented on this in the three threads I participated in. The chaff was seen, questioned sampled etc.. and a senator or such came back with an answer it was chaff spraying. The aluminum does break down quickly when it reaches earth, the defense department asserts it has no harmful results and they only have an in house study backing their assertion. I stated every polluter states this and I am skeptical but have no evidence and it sounds like the fox guarding the hen house.

ETA... here is the GAO paper I was referring to where they say the airforce did research and they caim it is not harmful. I don't believe them and would like 3rd party independent research.
GAO from GAO.gov on chaff pdf
edit on 23-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 




Notice how they shift the conversation away from the absolutely damning evidence. They instead focus on the big strip chaff and say you debunk yourself. This is a major part of the sub game. Shift focus from damning evidence. Twist what you say, misquote, misrepresent, use alice in wonderland illogic, deny... on and on. Learn the game they are playing. They are not playing the game you are playing. They are playing you.


The pattern here has been quite obvious. They are using Alinsky-style tactics. Who else but a disinfo agent would resort to those tactics over and over again? It's a semantics game and personally, I'm getting real tired of it.

“What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?” - George Orwell



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toots
reply to post by pianopraze
 




Notice how they shift the conversation away from the absolutely damning evidence. They instead focus on the big strip chaff and say you debunk yourself. This is a major part of the sub game. Shift focus from damning evidence. Twist what you say, misquote, misrepresent, use alice in wonderland illogic, deny... on and on. Learn the game they are playing. They are not playing the game you are playing. They are playing you.


The pattern here has been quite obvious. They are using Alinsky-style tactics. Who else but a disinfo agent would resort to those tactics over and over again? It's a semantics game and personally, I'm getting real tired of it.

“What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?” - George Orwell


I will have to look this up. I am quoting from this webpage, here are two examples:
link 1
link 2


To Matt:

I was researching your posts on radars and came across this very interesting tidbit. They are upgrading all the WSR88D radars.

The operational benefits include improved rainfall estimation, discrimination of precipitation types, discrimination between hydrometeors and non-hydrometeors, and improvement in data quality.

NOAA source

What are hydrometeors?

Hydrometeors are liquid or solid water particlesfalling through, suspended in, or condensing/sublimingfrom the atmosphere, as well as solid or liquid waterblown from the surface by wind. The term refers to allforms of condensation, such as clouds, fog, dew, andfrost; all forms of precipitation, such as rain, drizzle,snow and hail; and all forms of moisture blown about bythe wind.

source

So basically this would allow them to view the water particles, and selectively remove any and all non water particles. While probably a good feature, it will also presumably stop anyone from seeing any other particles, such as any aerosols they might be spraying. Neat trick. "It doesn't show up on radar so it must not be there."

So a local weather station today would no longer show any geoengineering aerosols being sprayed


Oh well chad, scrap that experiment it wouldn't work even if I tried.

Weed ty for suggesting i research radars you saved me a lot of time and effort.
edit on 23-3-2011 by pianopraze because: spelling and grammar



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Otherwise chemtrails are just suppositions.


"Just suppositions?" Really? I beg to differ with your erroneous statement. Here is PROOF that the term chemtrails was entered into a Congressional Record (H.R. 2977 Space Preservation Act of 2001) and therefore the exact term was not only acknowledged, but was defined as an exotic weapon!!! The bill never got off the ground (too revealing and restrictive, perhaps?), but that does not diminish the fact that chemtrails DO exist and was recognized as a possible threat to the environment. Put that in your persistent CONtrail and blow it out the other end because white is black and black is white in an Orwellian world of lies, deceit and doublespeak.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Toots because: grammar correction



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
admin title edit We don't allow the exclusion of ANYONE on ATS.




I am not a "debunker" just someone who is asking a simple question.

If chemtrails are true and they are poisoning the air, to try and weaker the immune system, then wouldn't it poison themselves??
Or do they get special deals on gas masks?

A clarification would be nice



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghpink
If chemtrails are true and they are poisoning the air, to try and weaker the immune system, then wouldn't it poison themselves??


This same question has been asked many times, but each time no answer was given......



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Well I'm glad you've used a paranoid, delusional site as a basis for your argument against me.

Let's break it down!



**Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule** using "chemtrail" instead of geoengineering and chaff dispersal. By keeping the argument on chemtrail searches will reveal more speculative and less scientific studies and political headlines. Those believing in geoengineering should be aware this is a major tactic and use the correct terminology in their threads also. They are inadvertently shooting themselves in the foot.


Where is the name calling and ridicule, where is the side tracking? It would seem you are sidetracking by placing geo-engineering and chaff in the same basket as chemtrails, they're completely different things, same as cloud seeding is completely different.

Geo-engineering is an extremely broad term, from using volcanoes to launching rockets into space.
Chaff is rarely used for a start, then there is the way it dispersed, nothing like chemtrails.

And if you have an issue with the use of the word chemtrail, you better take it up with the hundreds of people here who use the word to describe lines in the sky from jets.



**Play Dumb** totally ignore my main main issues, you did not address any of my salient assertions


So what is the main issue?

Chaff shows up on weather radar and chaff is chemtrails?

I believe I did address this issue by suggesting an experiment for you to carry out, which I will address next...



**Enigmas have no solution** i do not have access to a weather station to do what that guy did


Yes you do, there would be dozens of online weather stations with live, up to date information as well as live Doppler (happy mathius?) radar, which is what the guy on youtube is claiming contrails are showing up on.

Since I have no idea where you are, I can't link you to a weather site for your area but here's an example of what I am talking about:

www.intellicast.com...

and

www.bom.gov.au...



**Change the subject** totally ignored everything I said


You post up videos discussing chaff/chemtrails on Doppler (happy mathius?) radar and I address these claims.

Don't see how that is deemed as changing the subject.



**Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs** Explain how the weather ballon evidence showing no contrail could for on those days Chad. Also you totally ignored I showed aluminum chaff made it's way to Mt. Shasta. If you want to address my statements please do so directly, don't use these techniques


I'm sure this has been pointed out to you already but weather balloon readings are for a guide only, it takes readings in a small column of air as it rises, move away from these areas and conditions can and often change.

As for Mt Shasta, there was evidence of chaff possibly passing over the mount, is there any indication that it fell to the ground there?

Why do things like the hundred year old wood processing plant get ignored?

You know the one that is now a super-funded site?



As to your assertion I am using this techniques, yes I have inadvertently used some in the thread on "what in the world are they spraying" because I got goaded by individuals there. I did so with much less effect as I was doing them unknowingly... as I see some of the geoengineering believers on here doing. I strive to not use any of them now knowingly or accidentally. But they and I were doing it inadvertently, not purposefully and knowledgeably. It's the difference between an amateur golfer hitting a good shot every now and again, and the seasoned pro who knows how to swing correctly. Of course that analogy is reversed because I do not see these as "good" tactics, but it illustrates my point.


It was more addressing the incorrect information being posted.

Yes chaff shows up on radar, but I challenge that it's proof of chemtrails, I find it funny that people ignore lot's of glaring issues with the theory, such as the fact that radar readouts of a line of chaff can easily cover the length and width of several (5 in one case) counties, yet a single contrail/chemtrail does not.

Plus there is the biggest one of all and why I suggested the experiment to you, and others in other threads who say that chemtrails show up on radar (read: chaff = chemtrails).



Chaff DOES show up on radar, I do not know if other substances do or not, I can not confirm nor deny your assertion that they do not show up on radar. Can you prove your assertion? If this was chaff, it most definitely would as that is what it's designed, in part, to do in these wide dispersals they use in operation and training exercises.


Many things will show up on Doppler radar, even a large swarm of moths and dust.

One thing that doesn't is clouds, which is what a contrail is, which is what a chemtrail is.



There is good and bad on youtube, this video seems very good and well researched. Using bad videos as a straw man might win you points with those unfamiliar with the technique. This is also an "all or nothing" technique... things are rarely all good or all bad.


There's mainly bad IMHO.

But it is best to determine on a case by case basis.



I really have no dog in this fight, I'm relatively neutral but have been cast in with the people believing in geoengineering by tactics that have been used when I stated the geoengineering believers have good arguments and evidence. I still am undecided. But I see the geoengineering believers presenting better evidence at this point, and those arguing against are most often using slick tactics and rarely hard logic or evidence.


Geo-engineering, as I stated before is too broad a topic to be called chemtrails if you ask me, like how does launching a rocket into LEO tie in with jet trails? Or spraying salt water into the air with ships?

Too broad, each method of geo-engineering needs to be broken down because they are so various.



I'm leaning towards there is SOMETHING here because of all the people using these slick tactics. I am sure military chaff spraying accounts for the high readings of aluminum from the video What in The World Are They Spraying. There is rock solid evidence for it. I like phage's or weedwhacker's thought that gobi sands might in part also contribute to those levels. In short it's probably a mix of answers.


Definitely a mix of various elements going on.

For example, in the last 12 years to 2009 3.5 billion pounds of aluminium and barium has been dumped into the environment from ground based sources, getting into the air and groundwater, this 3.5 billion pounds is just the total of the legal and recorded quantities, there's no saying how much is dumped illegally.



I have never argued against persistent contrails. However there seems to be evidence of spraying of other substances also. There have definitely been tests of spraying, as these have been published. The chaff spraying is known and well documented also.


And again, chaff isn't chemtrails.

Hopefully this video makes it clear:





So between tests, and chaff there is things being sprayed. There is no CONCLUSIVE only CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence presented so far that there is current ongoing geoengineering.

My main assertion is we must stop it before it begins. If it has begun we must halt it immediately.


Agreed, it's is circumstantial at best.

Also, if chemtrails are some form of geo-engineering, then they've been doing it for 20 years, even the B2 bomber wasn't top secret for that long and we're supposed to believe they're carrying out a top secret operation (with long, obvious trails) for 20 years?

Colour me skeptical on that one!



Now, as to your suggestion. I will test it when I get a chance. Can someone post a link to the services which will allow me to check where the flights are? Also How do you get the readings for the weather balloons like this guy did? Is there a website for this?

I think I will try to get in personal contact with a local weather man.

I do not however have access to a NWS station as this guy appears to have. Does anyone reading here on ATS have such access? Please pipe up if you do and by some miracle happen to read this.

If you wanted to debunk the video you should have suggested that the NWS data was not backed up by simultanious outside verification pictures. I do not trust anyone, so that would have been a batter argument and also one which is good & logical. Until proven by pictures, these could be rain clouds. They could still be chaff as in the other weather photos also.


See above for most of these points.



I think I have addressed all your salient points. Please don't bother to respond if you want to try those techniques again and not address my salient points. I weary of such and will not address those who continue with such techniques. I don't know you well enough to know if you are using these on purpose but that post used a lot of them. You still owe me an address of my salient post from initial post as well as this one if you wish to continue to discuss honorably.


Dude, it's a forum not a debating league, there is no honor here, nor do I or anyone else owe you or anyone one else anything.

So having said that, I feel I have answered your points as best I can, it is hard when you don't seem to fully understand things such as chaff, but I tried.







edit on 23/3/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Toots
 




The pattern here has been quite obvious. They are using Alinsky-style tactics. Who else but a disinfo agent would resort to those tactics over and over again? It's a semantics game and personally, I'm getting real tired of it.


Ah but you are the one spreading disinfo by posting lies and misinformation, I don't know if it's deliberate or not but what is known that the below "proof" has been proven to be misinformation spread by "truthers"



"Just suppositions?" Really? I beg to differ with your erroneous statement. Here is PROOF that the term chemtrails was entered into a Congressional Record (H.R. 2977 Space Preservation Act of 2001) and therefore the exact term was not only acknowledged, but was defined as an exotic weapon!!! The bill never got off the ground (too truthful and restrictive, perhaps?), but that does not diminish the fact that chemtrails DO exist and was recognized as a possible threat to the environment. Put that in your persistent CONtrail and blow it out the other end because white is black and black is white in an Orwellian world of lies, deceit and doublespeak.




One of the more pervasive myths regarding “chemtrails” is that current presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich tried to have them banned by an act of congress, but was pressured by the government to modify the act to remove the mention of “chemtrails”.

So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to:

Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”
Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy
Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.

They listed a bunch of weird weapons, including mind control, tectonic weapons and (very briefly) chemtrails. The bill was re-written several time in less unusual language to give it chance of passing, but ultimately fizzled in committee.


You can read the full story HERE.

So this is where you come to a cross road my friend, you either acknowledge that you've been had by lies and disinformation, remembering that these lies have come from people claiming to spread truth or you ignore the obvious, (namely the whole bill was written by loonys with an agenda and Kucinich learnt a valuable lesson in reading things before presenting them to congress) and continue spreading lies and disinformation yourself, thusly making you what you loath.

The choice is yours!






edit on 23/3/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


thankyou for the link and it certainly is an easer read than the current paper I'm researching I have only one criticism and its one I have with many of the links given to me in that although it gives information about the conditions under which a contrail may persist it dose not say a time scale of how long a persistent contrail will last for.
In fact there is only one source that I have found that has any mention of time scale at which a persistent contrail will last and using this as a reference I'm going to cross check it before I quote it here.
edit on 23-3-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


OK phage so the 4 important factors that determine how long a contrail will persist for are:
1. atmospheric pressure
2. vertical air movement.
3. moisture content
4. temperature
I think we can discount the other 2 you mentioned as I know from the paper I'm reading that these may have an effect but it's not worth including because contrail's will form without them.
I'm just making sure that you agree with the reasons given are correct and that there is nothing else missing.
many thanks
djc



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

If that reference is your lone persuasive argument to what I posted, then IMO, it raises more questions than it answers. The reasoning stated therein bodes well for a conspiracy in itself. Oh, and that guy's about page......pfffffT. I am not a sheeple and will not stop seeking answers to the truth. At this time I do not blindly accept the popular rationale that we are being poisoned or harmed by chemtrails. But knowing that the globalists want the world population reduced by 80-90% could make it plausible, in any case. I simply refuse to acquiesce to the argument that they are normal contrails. My eyes and common sense tell a different story when I have to live under constant assault by these so-called persistent contrails. So far the "chemmie threads" feel more like a game of chess with pigeons...the fly-by's knock down the chess pieces, crap all over the board, then retreat to their flock to claim victory. Checkmate.


"The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is the truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth." – Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. il


edit on 23-3-2011 by Toots because: correction to quote



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Toots
 


I see that you have taken the latter option, whilst failing to elaborate as to why.

And you then have the gall to say you are seeking truth.

Ha!

It seems the only truth you are seeking is a truth that validates your beliefs.




top topics



 
36
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join