Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do you NOT want chem trails to be real?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   




Yep, typical vapor condensation slowly evaporating to the ground, nothing to see here, right?

Is it at least safe to say contrails/chemtrails whatever you wish to call it, they are at least altering the sky?





Is it safe to say that if planes weren't flying around patterns like this would probably not be seen in the skies?

And even if this was just natural condensation or natural formations of air vapor, how do you explain the studies done showing metals found in the air higher than the normal limit?



www.rense.com...

The easiest thing to do is to shoot the messenger and blame it on the miscalculations of a kooky conspiracy theorist. Or you can say that planes always leaves this kind of debris in the air, and isn't that worthy of investigating? Isn't this the green age where we are supposed to care about our environment and want to clean up pollution? Or maybe the metals are not there from chemtrails at all and are from other things and the health limit is just a way of making us feel safe.

And here is an interesting question-answer session from a chem-trail "insider" who gives a lot of information, you be the judge of its merit.

www.holmestead.ca...

So, either the government is spraying chemtrails for some reason, or it's just a natural phenomenon, but one thing is clear, there is a chem trail "movement" so to speak that is very interested in this area. So, the question is:

Why do you NOT want chem trails to be real?

And in case your reason is that because science is on your side, why is it that in the opening post from this thread asking "Why do you WANT chemtrails to be real?" there are no facts given, no links, no arguments, just this:


A question for the chemtrail cult, why do you WANT chemtrails to be real? You constantly defend them, pick and choose "geo-engineering" research as "chemtrail proof", and defy logic, reason, science, and high school level meteorology.

All for what? Why do you WANT them to be spraying?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Calling the opposition a "cult" saying it defies logic, with no argument or reason given as to why it defies logic, and insinuating sub-high school level mentality from the defenders of the research. Does this sound like the arguments of a sound, logical thinker or rather something devoid of all critical thought and just out to insult the opposition?




edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Why wouldn't I not want chemtrails to be real?
Chemtrails are supposed to be bad, aren't they?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 





Does this sound like the arguments of a sound, logical thinker or rather something devoid of all critical thought and just out to insult the opposition?


You are probably correct, but it's a symptom of spending countless hours pleading, begging, you guys to take 5 minutes of your time to learn about normal contrails. That's all we ask, you refuse, and call each and every contrail a deadly cloud of chemicals.

According to the chemtrailers:

Every plane in the sky is spraying
Only secret military jets are spraying
Planes have special spraying devices installed
Additives to the fuel are the source
contrails can only last seconds
A contrail lasting more than a few minutes can only be a deadly chemical cloud

So how about this. Clearly define the difference between a normal contrail and a chemtrail. clearly define it. And you'd be smart to at least read the wikipedia article about contrails and clouds, what they are, how they form, and how long they last under the right conditions.

Also I wouldn't post sources from Rense.com and expect them to be respected.
edit on 23-8-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)


Some geoengineering could indeed be taking place in the form of high altitude spraying. But the methods, reasons, and numbers, you guys quote as fact is just absurd.
edit on 23-8-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
www.holmestead.ca...

I'd just like to add that this insider sounds like he is supporting the government's use of chem trails


As stated in a previous email, people will get sick, and some will die. It is estimated that 2 billion worldwide will be affected to some degree by the spraying. Without spraying we have a 90% + chance of becoming extinct as a species with in the next 20 years.


This insider is okay with killing some people because of the spraying in order to save the world from becoming extinct, which is a 90 percent chance of happening without the spraying. I think this guy's mentality is completely loco but that doesn't mean what he says is completely irrelevant. It's either a sophisticated hoax to make the government look cruel by employing the any means necessary philosophy, or it really does explain the sick mentality of those who spray chem trails.



edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I have read that chem trails are correcting a previous bio mistake.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 




Yep, typical vapor condensation slowly evaporating to the ground, nothing to see here, right?


Wrong, actually.

Evergreen firefighting tanker in the first image.

Plus, contrails don't evaporate to the ground, you would know if they did because they're exactly like clouds and when clouds come down to the ground it's either in the form of mist/fog or rain/hail/snow.

You'd know it if whatever is in contrails/chemtrails came down to ground level because you'd be walking in this mist/fog.

Does that happen? No.

As for your graph, don't you think those figures are a little bit high?

Like thousands of times high?

Whoever took those samples should be dead and so should everyone around them, but they're not, do you know why? Because they did not actually measure the concentration of barium in the air, they measured the concentration of barium in the airborne particulates.

How and why did they get it so wrong?

So kudos for a well researched thread, wait did you do any research at all??

Anyway, maybe you can explain why no pro-chemtrailer has taken it upon themselves to get the evidence needed to prove their beliefs?

I got torn a new one by the chemmies for posting this thread pointing them in the right direction on exactly how to get the evidence needed.

Why can't you guys do it? Seems as if it's easier to whinge about it on the internet rather than doing something about it....it is afterall killing you and your family right?

The thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 23/8/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
Clearly define the difference between a normal contrail and a chemtrail. clearly define it.




This is not a contrail. The chemical is being dropped from the plane and sinking at a fast rate, unlike contrails which are not this thick and do not drop immediately to the ground. This was the first picture from this thread and yet you are still asking me to define the difference.


edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters


Also I wouldn't post sources from Rense.com and expect them to be respected.
edit on 23-8-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



I already addressed this claim by saying the quickest and easiest thing to do is to shoot the messenger. Thanks for being predictable.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Apparently normal non-GMO seeds are vulnerable to barium..it renders them infertile. But GMO seed are immune. Even some brands of seeds are modified so the fruit produces yeilds infertile seeds. Can you say 4$ tomatoes



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


If a plane can spray retardants to fight fires it's also possible for a plane to spray a chemical in the air.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus


So kudos for a well researched thread, wait did you do any research at all??



Typical insult exactly as I described in my opening post. The thread this thread is a response to contained no research at all, not even a single link. I provided pictures, links, graphs, and info from an insider. You dismiss the picture, the graphs, the links, the info, and then you tell me I didn't do any research. Deny much?
edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


It doesn't spray, it dumps it.



20,000 gallons in 12 seconds.



edit on 23/8/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


But your links and pictures aren't what you claim, The Evergreen supertanker does not spray anything, it dumps fire retardant.

The graph is incorrect, verifying the figures yourself would go a long way in showing that it's inaccurate.

Why are you trying to suppress the truth?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


So now we're going to argue the semantics of if it is "spraying" or "dumping" well how about this one



This is a sort of in-between spraying and dumping. Kind of a spray, then dump. What do you think?
edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by filosophia
 


The graph is incorrect, verifying the figures yourself would go a long way in showing that it's inaccurate.



That's your opinion, and that's fine, but it's not a scientific argument to just tell me it's inaccurate and then ask why I am suppressing the truth. Do you have a counter-study to compare to? No, so while my links may not be to your standards, at least they are links.

And just to throw this out there, I'm not a chem trailer because I don't go up in airplanes and spray chem trails in the air. So you can reserve the term chem trailer for whoever is flying the jets.
edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


If a plane can spray retardants to fight fires it's also possible for a plane to spray a chemical in the air.

Sure, it's possible. Lots of things are possible. That doesn't mean that those trails I see coming out of high-altitude planes are chemtrails. They look and act just like contrails, so what evidence do you have that they are not?

If it is your contention that some of those trails (that I call contrails) are actually chemtrails, then what is YOUR method for spotting a chemtrail that is disguised as a contrail?


...and to answer the question that is the topic of this thread, it doesn't matter if I WANT them to be chemtrails or not, I just haven't seen any evidence that they ARE chemtrails. What I want is irrelevant. A lot of people have said "well, it's possible that they are chemtrails", but simply being "possible" doesn't cut it for me.

edit on 8/23/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Every video I've seen of "chemtrails" are really just videos of contrails forming. That first image looks like it's crop dusting or something.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I await the cloud seeding stuff next.

Then chaff/dupel.

Seriously, just search for chemtrails here on ATS and you'll find hundreds of threads covering everything you've brought up and everything you will bring up.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Go verify the figures in the graph yourself.

I'm not going to do the work for you when you will just dismiss it anyway.

You need to do the due process yourself.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



Photo's and videos aren't proof of anything, patents aren't proof of anything, pseudo-science isn't proof of anything and the words of charlatans aren't proof of anything.


Again, why do you NOT want chem trails to be real?

You dismiss anything at all and I can easily say how your science is pseudo-science as well



This is your graph, and you can see how soot and metals are both graphed in BLACK. Well, quite the difference between soot which is mostly carbon and a metal which is the main thing we are concerned with. So your graph is impossible to read, thus it is pseudo-science.






top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join