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.

 

Its happend before, so why not now?

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
If the USA arms Taiwan against chinese demands not to, is it not possible the chinese might do the same thing back to the US?

Makes sense, they would want to get rid of the US and not get the debt they're owed back. A+ for logic on your part.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Hmmmm, I wonder how much help NK got from the chinese on their nuclear program?


Probably not from the USSR, no, that would be impossible.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Wake up, there's more than chemtrail conspiracies out there.

Yeah, I'm aware. And most are bunk, but you know one of the few that is easily disproven by the common person? Chemtrails, they're more of a non-spiracy perpetuated by Art Bell and other nuts trying to sell books and make a dime on ignorance.




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Didn't you say there's video on YT about it? I can't find any footage of aircraft releasing chemicals at high altitude. In fact there is no footage of LAC USA or LAC UK anywhere.

Hmmmmmm. It's almost as if releasing chemicals at high altitude wouldn't make much sense. Since you couldn't target a specific area and the tracers might not reach the ground. Interesting. Why would you assume it was high altitude?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Hmmmmmm. It's almost as if releasing chemicals at high altitude wouldn't make much sense. Since you couldn't target a specific area and the tracers might not reach the ground. Interesting. Why would you assume it was high altitude?


Really? You must have missed or selectively discarded this post of mine discussing the shooting down of a chemicaly armed scud missle.


The Prospects for Successful
Air-Defense Against Chemically-Armed
Tactical Ballistic Missile
Attacks on Urban Areas

THEODORE A. POSTOL
March 1991
DEFENSE AND ARMS CONTROL STUDIES PROGRAM

Center for International Studies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

However, since the air temperature at higher altitudes can be as low as -70 °
Fahrenheit, it is likely that dispersal of chemicals at these altitudes would result in the
formation of considerably larger aerosol particles that would fall at still higher rates.
These particles would initially be frozen (rather than being a liquid that suffers
evaporation as at lower altitudes) until they drop below about 2 kilometers altitude.
Since the cloud of large particles (of diameters perhaps of thousands of Am) would fall
quite fast (perhaps 10 or more m/sec), it would likely be distributed in a column of air
of only a few kilometers altitude. In a wind field of .9 m/sec, such a cloud could deposit
a large fraction of its total chemical content on the ground over a downwind distance of
several kilometers.

Source

Not effective huh?


This is 100% proof high altitude chemical dispersion can be effective and has been studied.
edit on 13-6-2011 by FreeSpeaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Makes sense, they would want to get rid of the US and not get the debt they're owed back. A+ for logic on your part.


Your failing hard here.


A terrorist attack whether conventional, chemical, nuclear, does not suddenly forgive the US debt.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Chemtrails, they're more of a non-spiracy perpetuated by Art Bell and other nuts trying to sell books and make a dime on ignorance.


Thanks for the opinion.

Now I'm going to do what you do, and ask that you substantiate all your opinions with scientific facts.


And if you can't prove it then your opinion is obviously wrong.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Chemtrails, they're more of a non-spiracy perpetuated by Art Bell and other nuts trying to sell books and make a dime on ignorance.


Thanks for the opinion.

Now I'm going to do what you do, and ask that you substantiate all your opinions with scientific facts.


And if you can't prove it then your opinion is obviously wrong.

Forgetting the burden of proof, again? Your opinion is wrong, no evidence suggests it is even remotely close to right. I form my opinions based on facts, not the lack thereof.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by adeclerk
Makes sense, they would want to get rid of the US and not get the debt they're owed back. A+ for logic on your part.


Your failing hard here.


A terrorist attack whether conventional, chemical, nuclear, does not suddenly forgive the US debt.

It seems like your reading comprehension is lacking, read the post again.

BTW: It's you're
try to be more grammatically correct when you are trying to be insulting.
edit on 6/13/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Forgetting the burden of proof, again?


You mean your ignorant personal definition, that says the burden of proof is always on everybody else?


Your opinion is wrong, no evidence suggests it is even remotely close to right.


And that's also your opinion. I won't even bother asking you to prove it because I already know you can't.



I form my opinions based on facts, not the lack thereof.


Then let's see your facts.

Do I smell another argument from ignorance coming down the poop shoot?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Forgetting the burden of proof, again?


You mean your ignorant personal definition, that says the burden of proof is always on everybody else?


Your opinion is wrong, no evidence suggests it is even remotely close to right.


And that's also your opinion. I won't even bother asking you to prove it because I already know you can't.



I form my opinions based on facts, not the lack thereof.


Then let's see your facts.

Do I smell another argument from ignorance coming down the poop shoot?

How many times do I need to explain the burden of proof? It is on the claimant of anything out of the ordinary. If you claim chemtrails, you have the burden of proof on your shoulders because you are disregarding science, meteorology, logic, reason, and all of known history. If you are on the other side of the argument, you have nothing to prove (not that we could PROVE a negative, but i've already explained how we can deduce you are wrong, again, and again).

You're a chemmie, though, so this is once again falling on 'deaf' ears.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by adeclerk
Hmmmmmm. It's almost as if releasing chemicals at high altitude wouldn't make much sense. Since you couldn't target a specific area and the tracers might not reach the ground. Interesting. Why would you assume it was high altitude?


Really? You must have missed or selectively discarded this post of mine discussing the shooting down of a chemicaly armed scud missle.


So now chemtrails are missiles carrying chemicals?

Well at least we know they don't from lines in the sky and we'll only know they've arrived when they explode over us. Just as well the authrorities conducted all those tests in the 50s and 60s to determine chemical dispersal rates so they'll know who chemtrails might spread, should the soveits ever attack us with them



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
How many times do I need to explain the burden of proof?


You mean how many times must you distort and misrepresent the burden of proof?

I couldn't tell you, that's all up to how long you want to keep trolling.


Again, here is the fallacy you keep perpetuating:


Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.


www.nizkor.org...



It is on the claimant of anything out of the ordinary.


That's not what the burden of proof is, either.


It's simply on whoever is making the claim.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

BTW: It's you're
try to be more grammatically correct when you are trying to be insulting.
edit on 6/13/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)


Sure, attack my grammer and ignore the fact I have rubbed you're face in the fact chemical dispersion at high altitude is effective contrary to the debunkers claims its useless.


I know your game.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
So now chemtrails are missiles carrying chemicals?

Well at least we know they don't from lines in the sky and we'll only know they've arrived when they explode over us. Just as well the authrorities conducted all those tests in the 50s and 60s to determine chemical dispersal rates so they'll know who chemtrails might spread, should the soveits ever attack us with them


That wasn't the point of the post and you know it. The post debunks the claims that chemical dispersion at high altitude is useless. The delivery method is unimportant.

Do you think its impossible for a large missle to be set up for chemical dispersion? Seems entirely possible to me.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Do you think its impossible for a large missle to be set up for chemical dispersion? Seems entirely possible to me.


You dont' even need a large one - the US has used quite small misiles to launch barium clouds into hte ionosphere at altitudes of 90-100 miles and more - t his google search links to many documents on them - mostly not secret, and look nothing like contrails



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It's amazing how you can find even more ridiculous technology for dumping chemicals into the air with such a quick Google search, but you still deny that any planes would dump such things, huh?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I hav evidence of the rockets making barium clouds, and none for aircraft dumping stuff that looks and behaves like contrals.

I don't deny that there are planes dumping such things - I have said to you befoer tehy may well be doing so, but unless there's some evidence of it I say that I cannot conclude that they are ACTUALLY doing so.

Got any evidence that they are doing so?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I hav evidence of the rockets making barium clouds, and none for aircraft dumping stuff that looks and behaves like contrals.


That's because you always assume anything that looks like a contrail, is a contrail, period.

And you justify this with a slew of logical fallacies.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I hav evidence of the rockets making barium clouds, and none for aircraft dumping stuff that looks and behaves like contrals.


Do you know of any videos of making barium clouds? I have looked and can't find anything official. How do you know what the process looks like?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 

The barium releases are in the ionosphere.
www.w7ftt.net...
skywatcherobservatory.com...



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I hav evidence of the rockets making barium clouds, and none for aircraft dumping stuff that looks and behaves like contrals.


That's because you always assume anything that looks like a contrail, is a contrail, period.

And you justify this with a slew of logical fallacies.


What are the "slew of logical fallacies" in this deduction then?

1/ contrails are known to exist
2/ nothing else is known to exist that looks and behaves exactly like a contrail
3/ therefore it is reasonable to conclude that somethign that looks and behaves like a contrails is a contrail.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join