Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Spraying of NANO CHEMTRAILS !!! It's Not Science Fiction Anymore. MUST READ !!

page: 13
63
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
This is a story I knew whould be coming sooner or later. It's easy to understand and it is real.The story starts,,


If you did not enjoy "traditional" chemtrails raining down on you, you are not going to like the new version, which the United States Air Force promises will feature aerial dumps of programmable "smart" molecules tens of thousands of times smaller than the particles already landing people in emergency rooms with respiratory, heart and gastrointestinal complaints.






Under development since 1995, the military's goal is to install microprocessors incorporating gigaflops computer capability into "smart particles" the size of a single molecule.
Invisible except under the magnification of powerful microscopes, these nano-size radio-controlled chips are now being made out of mono-atomic gold particles. Networked together on the ground or assembling in the air, thousands of sensors will link into a single supercomputer no larger than a grain of sand


Acomputer, no larger than a grain of sand !!! Networking on the ground or assembling in the air !!


Brought to you by the same military-corporate-banking complex that runs America's permanent wars, Raytheon Corp is already profiting from new weather warfare technologies. The world's fourth largest military weapons maker bought E-Systems in 1995, just one year after that military contractor bought APTI, holder of Bernard Eastlund's HAARP patents.


The link below takes you to the full story,

willthomasonline.net...
edit on 13-11-2011 by CherubBaby because: (no reason given)


Doesn't sound at all feasable to me. No real evidence to back up such claims.




posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


I have visited "The Holmestead" before and found no serious research there.

The "research" presented is of the same poor standard as elsewhere - supposition, insinuation.

The classic is the "interview" with "Deep Throat" on the page you link to, where no factual, checkable informatoin is presented at all - the answers are generally assertion for which no supporting evidence has appeared AFAIK in the several years since the interview. Indeed several questions are answered with cryptic message to look up somethign and figure it out yourself - when it should be a simple matter for the interviewee to answer.

So I am not going to waste any more of my time on that site than I have already - unless you can point me to something specific that you consider to be verifiable evidence.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Interesting.
Not serious information...so that is how you respond. I suppose this debate is a waste of my time.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


I didn't realise it was a debate - I thought you weer pointing me to some links you think are serious research.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

There is much you are not aware of.
It is very clear. Check out my links for more info.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


I have had a look through will thomas.

It is rubbish - the man is ignorant of the basics of what he talks about - for example lets's look a the very first paragraph:


If you did not enjoy "traditional" chemtrails raining down on you, you are not going to like the new version, which the United States Air Force promises will feature aerial dumps of programmable "smart" molecules tens of thousands of times smaller than the particles already landing people in emergency rooms with respiratory, heart and gastrointestinal complaints.


Well ultrafine particulate pollution is now and always has been "nanoparticles" - they come from automobile exhaust, fax machines, photocopiers, smokers, citrus fuit.

If you think this person is informative then I do not believe we have any common understanding of what constitutes serious research.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Seriously though, what is it about sources such as Will Thomas, Alex Jones et al that makes them so believable that merely their opinion can be taken at face value without checking? What is it about them that some people will lift a quote straight from them and accept it hook line and sinker without checking out other sources at all? Even to the point of simply dismissing counter claims founded on proven science?

Is it because they say chemtrails are real? Is that ALL it takes?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 

I don't know Waynos...
give some examples of what you are talking about.

I really don't know where the hell you are coming from.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
On this occasion I'll not bother thanks. I simply get frustrated when I see sources used that have been repeatedly proven wrong.

For someone like me, the methods used on here by people to show that there is something to this particular conspiracy are all wrong. So, as a general letting off of steam which you may wish to skip its not a direct response to your question, here goes.

Pictures of contrails, declared to be chemtrails for no reason at all might convince a simpleton, but an enquiring mind wants more.

Once a particular source has been shown to have lied or demonstrated a basic lack of understanding, their appearance in support of chemtrailing is just irritating clutter on the board. An example of this would be Alex Jones slavering rant on chemtrails posted in a video on here in another thread in which he declares that contrails don't persist, a basic error that undercuts everything that follows. Then you get the same error declared on here as I f it's a fact and the whole temperature-plus-relative-humidity explanation HAS to be written all over again for the 50th time, which is fair enough if the member in question hasn't seen it, but then occasionally the member it was written for the benefit of will call it a lie, based on nothing other than what AJ said. It's all so circular! However, even more grating is when another member that you strongly suspect has seen ALL 50 previous posts responds as if it's the first time they've seen it or even asks a direct question a few posts later as if the scientific explanation had never been given before!

While I'm letting off steam something else that pisses me off is when, not only do members on the pro side of the argument call other members trolls, shills, disinfo agents etc, they THEN have the gall to say that the debunkers are being rude in their replies! Oh, boo hoo.

Something I've witnessed A LOT, directly to myself and already to another member today, is when direct questions related to something that the pro chemtrailer has written are either ignored completely, or sidestepped with accusations of not having read a previous, and sometimes non existent reply. That these can then be the same members who repeatedly ask the same questions about contrail formation is just icing on the cake.

Possibly the most pathetic and infantile line of all is taken by those who, having been shown that what they hold to be evidence is nothing of the sort, label people as stupid deniers or govt agents working as part of a cover up - NO, IDIOT, IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF CHEMTRAILING WE WANT TO SEE IT. BUT WE WANT IT TO BE REAL, NOT YOUR MADE UP FANTASY/PERSONAL PARANOIA.

It's becoming very tiresome trying to find genuine evidence or having a debate with people who repeatedly demonstrate themselves to be ignorant arseholes.

Should anyone on here think this is directed at them personally, then if you recognise that you have deliberately done any of the things I mentioned, it is. Then ask yourself, are you on here to find/discuss truth, or to spam the board with preconception and annoy other people? If its the latter, then YOU are the troll.


And breathe.
edit on 15-12-2011 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
This is something that we can go around and around with till the cows come home but the fact is the trails come from tthe jets and the temperature and moisture arguments are not valid because the trails happen when they shouldn't according to the excuses of temp and moisture. See you have a lock on the argument you propose because no one can take a temp reading at 30,000 feet but we know the temp is -30-40 degrees at leaste.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


This makes no sense:


.....but the fact is the trails come from tthe jets and the temperature and moisture arguments are not valid...


Of course it's ALL "valid"....each time, the science and facts are clear.


......because the trails happen when they shouldn't according to the excuses of temp and moisture.


Huh?
This has never been the case.



See you have a lock on the argument you propose because no one can take a temp reading at 30,000 feet but we know the temp is -30-40 degrees at leaste.


What do you mean "no one" can measure the temperature at 30,000 feet?? That's just plain false.

Or, do you suggest that ALL the weather balloon (radiosonde) data that is collected daily is all "faked" and part of some "vast Gubmint plot" or something??



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Im not suggesting I am saying very plainly thaat if your going to say me and the multitudes of others are wrong ( who think your wrong ) then tell me what the temp has been at 30,000 ft for the past 72 hours. Throw in the humidity while your at it.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Here you go, you can look up to your heart's content:

weather.uwyo.edu...

Contact them, just for starters.....and they can steer you to the recorded data that is going to be on record.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


They aren't affiliated with the same ones that predict rain and are wrong 90% of the time are they? I mean are we talking about "Taking someones word for it "?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
This is something that we can go around and around with till the cows come home but the fact is the trails come from tthe jets and the temperature and moisture arguments are not valid because the trails happen when they shouldn't according to the excuses of temp and moisture. See you have a lock on the argument you propose because no one can take a temp reading at 30,000 feet but we know the temp is -30-40 degrees at leaste.


If no-one can take such temperature and humidity readings then how do you know the contrails shouldn't be existing and are "not valid"?



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


I do not understand your question, nor the intended "point". Could you clarify?


They aren't affiliated with the same ones that predict rain and are wrong 90% of the time are they?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


My question is a bit on the tounge n cheek sarcastic side because I don't have alot of agencies that are under the "Blessings" of the same Govt. That Murders The Rights And Freedoms Of It's Own Citizens..



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


I am still not understanding.

You mentioned a poor record of meteorological forecast predictions of rain, it seemed.....in the earlier post.

Then, somehow jumped to some sort of implication of mass murder???

Wait!! Are you now saying that the local TV weathermen in Las Vegas are part of some plot to murder people??

Or, is there some other "secret agenda"???



edit on Fri 23 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join