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.

 

Why do you NOT want chem trails to be real?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
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.


You're saying because they are high the graph is wrong. The article mentions how it is 700 times or so above normal limits. You say people would die if that were the case, and the insider acknowledges that some will die, and some also get sick.

I don't see why this graph has to be dismissed, although I know most people will dismiss it because it comes from rense which is just a way of dismissing something out of hand.
edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


It is actually quite easy to read, because the percentages are still easily visible.

Now, the Arizona skywatch graph.

I don't dismiss it because it comes from rense, I dismiss it because it's wrong.

The explanation of how and why it's wrong can be found HERE

Don't dismiss it because it's from contrailscience.com now....


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



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I can't tell if 5.2 % refers to soot or metal because both are colored in black.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The title says it all: 'chemmies' want chemtrails to be real, and the don't get why some people actually need hard evidence before they believe something to exist.
edit on 23-8-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by filosophia
 




Don't dismiss it because it's from contrailscience.com now....


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


You see that's where you're wrong. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not in a chem trail "cult" I don't have to believe whatever someone who waves a pro-chem trail flag has to say, and as I already mentioned it's not accurate to call someone on ATS talking about chem trails a chem trailer unless they are also up in a plane spraying (dumping) chemicals. And I checked your link and basically it says the same thing you say, that the levels are so high it just can't be true.

And if you think that graph is wrong, that's fine, again I'm not in a cult where anything rense says just has to be true. The high limit does not for me automatically discredit it but I'll give you at least the effort of giving me some reasons as to why you distrust it. So I'll give you the graph is not a smoking gun just so we can move on, how about the story from the chem trail insider? I'd like to know your thoughts on that.
edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Like any pie graph, you start at the "12 o'clock" position and work clockwise.

So the 757 contrails are

5.2% Soot
12% Metals
and so on.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by filosophia
 


Like any pie graph, you start at the "12 o'clock" position and work clockwise.

So the 757 contrails are

5.2% Soot
12% Metals
and so on.


So you are admitting then that contrails contain metals? As I stated in my opening post, I'm more on the fence with the whole chem trail thing, and even if it is just contrails from commercial jets, shouldn't we be concerned with the obvious contrails which contain 12 percent metal that can be visibly seen in the sky?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
The title says it all: 'chemmies' want chemtrails to be real, and the don't get why some people actually need hard evidence before they believe something to exist.
edit on 23-8-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


My belief depends more on when I see chemtrails/contrails filing up the sky. But at least if the government were spraying in the air, it'd have a lot of people willing to dismiss any and all forms of evidence of their operation.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
The title says it all: 'chemmies' want chemtrails to be real, and the don't get why some people actually need hard evidence before they believe something to exist.
edit on 23-8-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


As I said before I'm not a chem trailer nor am I a "chemmie" because I don't spray anything in the air out of a jet. I am an anti-chemtrailer.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
There's plenty of real, proven and verifiable things going on in the world that warrant our attention and worry.

Bunk like chemtrails is just a ridiculous distraction.

Nothing like people claiming to be one of a select few with their eyes open, yet close them to reams of evidence showing that chemtrails are hooey.
edit on 23-8-2011 by jtap66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I never said contrails didn't contain metals...or soot...every internal combustion engine, every jet engine contains metal and soot in it's exhaust.

If you're going to make an issue out of jet exhaust, you will need to also make an issue out of car, truck, bus and train exhaust too, because while jet exhaust mostly stays in the upper atmosphere, car exhaust stays on the ground where you breath it in every day.


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



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtap66
There's plenty of real, proven and verifiable things going on in the world that warrant our attention and worry.

Bunk like chemtrails is just a ridiculous distraction.

Nothing like people claiming to be one of a select few with their eyes open, yet close them to reams of evidence showing that contrails are hooey.


Then you better stop wasting your time on this issue. Think of all the other things you can be proving and verifying if you weren't wasting your time on this "bunk".



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by filosophia
 


I never said contrails didn't contain metals...or soot...every internal combustion engine, every jet engine contains metal and soot in it's exhaust.

If you're going to make an issue out of jet exhaust, you will need to also make an issue out of car, truck, bus and train exhaust too, because jet exhaust mostly stays in the upper atmosphere, while car exhaust stays on the ground where you breath it in every day.



well why not? There should be efforts to make cleaner cars that emit no pollution, instead the government gives GM billions of dollars to waste on cars no one buys. And while there are not as many jets in the air, jets are bigger than cars. You don't see a car filling the roadway hours after it left (unless it was a beat up pinto). And that's assuming that it's just a harmless contrail and not a government operation. And that's assuming a lot with this government.
edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


If I can make just one chemtrailer thtink about the myriad ways in which they're wasting their lives, then my time here has been time well spent. Thanks for the concern, though.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by filosophia
 


If I can make just one chemtrailer thtink about the myriad ways in which they're wasting their lives, then my time here has been time well spent. Thanks for the concern, though.


So chem trails are a "ridiculous distraction" but also time well spent? Thanks for clarifying that for me. Or is it that you wish to impart your enlightenment upon the ignorant masses? Kind of like you are spraying your wisdom from the skies onto their unwitting noses. Nice.
edit on 23-8-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Pointing out the fact that chemtrail obsession is rooted in fantasy and is a gigantic waste of time is time well spent. Poring over half-baked chemtrail websites in order to refute the oceans of evidence that shows your belief in the chemtrail conspiracy to be folly? THAT is a waste of time.

I respect your passion, but at some point doesn't all the evidence showing that chemtrails don't exist have to be taken into consideration?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by filosophia
 


Pointing out the fact that chemtrail obsession is rooted in fantasy and is a gigantic waste of time is time well spent. Poring over half-baked chemtrail websites in order to refute the oceans of evidence that shows your belief in the chemtrail conspiracy to be folly? THAT is a waste of time.

I respect your passion, but at some point doesn't all the evidence showing that chemtrails don't exist have to be taken into consideration?


doesn't all the evidence showing that chemtrails do exist have to be taken into consideration?



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
The title says it all: 'chemmies' want chemtrails to be real, and the don't get why some people actually need hard evidence before they believe something to exist.
edit on 23-8-2011 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


As I said before I'm not a chem trailer nor am I a "chemmie" because I don't spray anything in the air out of a jet. I am an anti-chemtrailer.



If you've frequented the chemtrail discussions here on ATS you'll see that a person who believes in the chemtrail phenom is usually labelled a 'chemmie', just as people who don't are labelled 'debunkers', I don't beilieve either moniker is intended to be derogatory.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
...well why not? There should be efforts to make cleaner cars that emit no pollution, instead the government gives GM billions of dollars to waste on cars no one buys. And while there are not as many jets in the air, jets are bigger than cars. You don't see a car filling the roadway hours after it left (unless it was a beat up pinto).

There are standards on airline exhaust emissions...

HOWEVER, the visibility and persistence of contrails really cannot gauge the amount of soot in a contrail, because the visible part is mostly water vapor. What I mean is that just because you see more contrails does not mean there is more pollution.

In fact, the newer and more efficient (and less polluting) high-bypass jet engines in use today have an exhaust that has more moisture (more water) and is a cooler temperature than most jet engines had 10 or 20 years ago. Because of this, those newer and more efficient engines may create a denser contrail because the exhaust contains more water and is cooler, conditions which are more conducive to contrail development.

Therefore, the newer jet engines engine may be cleaner (particulate-wise) AND create more of a contrail.


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



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


If any evidence is ever presented that isn't already proven false, outright lies/distortions or rooted in debunked pseudo-science, then yes - that evidence would need to be taken into consideration.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join