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.

 

When did you start/stop believing in chemtrails

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Never any doubt that it was bogus


It is interesting you never even considered the possibility it might be true...


It's interesting how most believers never even considered the possibility that "chemtrails" are just contrails. Wait, no it isn't really surprising considering what chemmies consider to be "reliable evidence"....Sorry, I forgot, "chemtrailers" don't need evidence, they state so in their posts all of the time.

edit on 5/17/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by longwinter

You are incorrect, i do not believe this, but i know when chemtrailing is going on.


how do you KNOW?

It's a real simple question - ther must be some criteria that tells you what is a contrail and what is a chemtrail by sight?

so far the only one I've ever heard of is persistence - contrails only last a few minutes - but there's no set "standard" that chemmies can agree to - Ive seen times from 10 minutes to 30 minutes - does that make 31 minutes a chemtrail?

Chemtrails OTOH last "a long time" (or words to that effect) - again no standard.

Why is an 15 minute contrail a chemtrail for 1 chemtrail believer but not another??

Why is it that contrails made up of H2O lasting 1 hour are chemtrails, but clouds made up of H2O lasting 10 hours are not??

these are all perfectly reasonable questins to someone who KNOW's what a chemtrail is - but I dont' believe you actually KNOW at all - I think you BELIEVE - see this thread for why - www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
A not of advice to all "Chemies"

Spend a little of your cash on a really good pair Binoculars
and then watch the skies.

When you suspect a chemtrail in progress, quickly point your bino's at the
offending contrail sorry chemtrail.

You may find that every time you do this, you might well be surprised at just who
is involved in the cover up. My guess is you will see things like "British Airways"

"Air France" Lufthansa" " etc etc etc.

You will then have to ask yourself a question.
I will award cookies if you know what the question is.
edit on 17-5-2011 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
A not of advice to all "Chemies"

Spend a little of your cash on a really good pair Binoculars
and then watch the skies.

When you suspect a chemtrail in progress, quickly point your bino's at the
offending contrail sorry chemtrail.

You may find that every time you do this, you might well be surprised at just who
is involved in the cover up. My guess is you will see things like "British Airways"

"Air France" Lufthansa" " American Airlines" etc etc etc.

You will then have to ask yourself a question.
I will award cookies if you know what the question is.

Good idea, but I think if they are so sure that a massive conspiracy is happening to poison us, they are incredibly irresponsible for not spending the money to collect air samples and have them tested in a lab. Who knows, they could possibly blow the lid off of this whole conspiracy!
edit on 5/17/11 by adeclerk because: spelling

edit on 5/17/11 by adeclerk because: sp x2



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


I don't think most Chemies use responsibility in the
same context as most of us do.

The answer to my question above may surprise even the most
stubborn Chemie.

You see, I used European airlines on purpose to prove a point to them............

Why would the American government allow foreign aircraft to spray
hazardous unknown material over US soil.

So now i have given you the question , can I now have the answer please.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I am going to bump this thread until i get an answer from
at least one Chemie.

it's simple question.... if you're so sure of your evidence then come at me with it.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I have work in the morning so it's good night from me.

Have a think about it and let me know.

I think none of you can answer, hence the silence.

Night all



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I first heard about them early last year from ATS, I believed them for a short while however after reading the arguments on both sides and using logical thinking, I was able to determine that these "chemtrails" are in fact normal contrails.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I first heard about them years ago....but only started "paying attention" late last year when some correspondance regarding them came across my desk and I had to actually look into "it".

That was a real "
" experience!

edit on 17-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Signals
 


You cannot just "add" stuff to jet fuel!!

This is covered at great length, already in several threads. I will try to find the best post, by Alyoisius the Gaul (I believe) that was yesterday, or day before.....covered it perfectly, and succinctly.....


No need for a link, I'll take your word for it.

I really hate this debate and I don't want to be on either side...But it just seems silly to debate what almost amounts to semantics it seems....

I guess a "Contrailer" will say that Yes, jet engines emit "exhaust", similar to a car...but not enough to hurt anybody or form clouds...In that exhast is most certainly a brew of chemicals....Do you see what I'm saying?

The debate should be whether nefarious substances are added to the fuel or not.
edit on 17-5-2011 by Signals because: classified



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals

The debate should be whether nefarious substances are added to the fuel or not.


Right, then we can just go right back to these additives changing the properties of contrails, thereby creating "chemtrails".



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


not sure what you mean by that actually - I thought the point was a reasonable one.

and also one which lends itself to obtaining good evidence - go down to your local aviation fuel supplier and ask them how you go about buying some jet fuel, do so, and get it tested.

Even the tightest-fisted chemmies should be able to do this - thus removing one of the never-mentioned causes of their whining - that they can't get organised enough to get samples at 30,000 feet.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
lol ye think that some of us did not work and test these things..silly boys!

Again c ye around, in court, and don't bother sending around the usual gob#e's!



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by longwinter
 


What does that mean??



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by longwinter
 


What does that mean??


In my country we cannot chat about court evidence before the case take place..bla bla



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Never any doubt that it was bogus


It is interesting you never even considered the possibility it might be true...


It's interesting how most believers never even considered the possibility that "chemtrails" are just contrails. Wait, no it isn't really surprising considering what chemmies consider to be "reliable evidence"....Sorry, I forgot, "chemtrailers" don't need evidence, they state so in their posts all of the time.

edit on 5/17/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)


He actually admitted the evidence had no effect on his opinion.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


What "evidence"??

You talkin' to (about) me?

Again....what "evidence"??

There simply isn't any.....what the "chemmies" called "evidence" and tried to claim as "proof" was laughably absurd, to people experienced and knowledgeable about the topic of aviation in particular, and many aspects of physics and science in general.

Again....I have just under 40 years , well most of my entire lifetime flying. I have seen countless more situations, in the atmosphere, than people who lack such experience....it is not difficult for me to assess these "claims" and the very ignorant "proofs" that are constantly tossed up....



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


....and it's very easy for us to see how biased and "boxed" your understandings are.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


"Biased"?

Because I have science, and reason on my side, instead of idiotic claims that are fed to gullible, ill-informed people by con artists who wish to perpetuate the scam, to hoax people for their own profit and self promotion??

WoW!!

Delusions come in all shapes, but one size fits many.....apparently.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Jezus
 


What "evidence"??

You talkin' to (about) me?

Again....what "evidence"??

There simply isn't any.....what the "chemmies" called "evidence" and tried to claim as "proof" was laughably absurd, to people experienced and knowledgeable about the topic of aviation in particular, and many aspects of physics and science in general.

Again....I have just under 40 years , well most of my entire lifetime flying. I have seen countless more situations, in the atmosphere, than people who lack such experience....it is not difficult for me to assess these "claims" and the very ignorant "proofs" that are constantly tossed up....


Funnily enough some of us can claim the same...just under 40 yrs, where we in the same class?




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join