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.

 

Chemtrails and quiet governments.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The thing that I think is obvious in this whole chemtrail busines is the fact that not all leaders of governments and decision making people in governments are corrupt and that they must have a very good reason to keep us out of the chemtrail loop.

This is what the situation must have been, governments had to make a choice between two wrongs, one of which is better than the other. One choice is spraying, the other is doing nothing.

The only valid and plausible reason for spraying must be to protect the Earth from an expected global deterioration of life caused by solar or cosmic radiaton.

Because these planes are allowed to fly and spray over many if not all countries in Europe you can easily understand that the governments of these countries must have unanimous agreed to keep silent and deny such activities to the public.

The reason for silence is in my opinion because there is a serious downside to it. A down-side that can cause civil unrest and force the governments to stop or to delay the "chemtrail project", There is a time-table to keep which can not be interupted because of debate and legislative delays. Stopping or indefinite delay can or will result in serious consequences for the entire planet.

I refuse to believe that all these countries are governed by a brotherhood or an elite secret-society with the power and intension to murder the population. What I do believe is that scientist have identified and ascertained a immediate threat which can only be nutralised by spraying a certain chemical agent.

Yes, I know there are countless threads about why, who, what and where chemtrails but feel free to write what your thoughts are about the fact that these airplains can spray over any nation without restrictions. That is the thing that keeps me busy...Governments must have damn good reasons to do so and keep us in the dark.

Because there is little tangible evidence to proof chemtrails are a fact, this thread is not for chemtrail debunkers or misplaced funny people. If you have evidence that chemtrails are the imagination of confused people please start your own thread just about that.




edit on 12/3/2012 by zatara because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 


"Those planes" are "allowed" to fly over Europe because they are regularly scheduled normally equipped passenger and cargo airliners, going on about their business of travel and commerce.

The "spray" H2O, primarily. Not to diminish or disregard the fact that as a result of normal combustion of fossil fuels, there are also the normal types of pollutants in the exhaust, as a result of that combustion.

But, that is all.

Period.

End.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
The thing that I think is obvious in this whole chemtrail busines is the fact that not all leaders of governments and decision making people in governments are corrupt and that they must have a very good reason to keep us out of the chemtrail loop.


that would be that there's no actual evidence that chemtrails exist, that there's no actual geo-engineering programmes going on spraying anything into the sky, and that therefore there is no loop.

Glad to have cleared that up for you



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird and post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Originally posted by zatara
Because there is little tangible evidence to proof chemtrails are a fact, this thread is not for chemtrail debunkers or misplaced funny people. If you have evidence that chemtrails are the imagination of confused people please start your own thread just about that.
(emphasis added)

Boy, you guys are quick to try to shoot down these threads, huh? If you think that the "believers" of "chemtrails" are a bunch of misguided idiots, then are you really confident that your criticism will magically change them?
Why do you bother? Are there any recent reports of the direct physical analysis of the contrails that you can provide to disprove claims? If so, as the OP suggested, you should start another thread. Otherwise, your argument is purely inductive and does not disprove the possibility of atypical chemicals being added to the jet fuel among other theories. Your cynicism and crusade of hijacking threads for discussion of the possibilities such as this one are seemingly ineffective, sirs.

As for the OP, [i.]if this is happening, I would assume it would be along the intentions of battling climate change or perhaps solar flares. There seems to be a lot of speculation of possible effects from these solar flares, and most of which never come to be. I also wonder if there is any correlation with the freezing spells they've recently been experiencing in Europe and trail activity?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


The OP doesn't get to decide who is allowed to reply.

If he's willing to start a thread that acknowledges that there's no actual evidence of chemtrails and yet he states that they do exist as if it were a fact then it should be no wonder he swiftly gets corrected.

Asking for proof that something doesn't exist is called argument from ignorance - it is a common tactic for people who have no actual evidence to support their case, and don't want to have to face that reality.

The counter argument is evidence of absence - which is not a formal or informal logical proposition, but is still a logical construction.


In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.


In the case of chemtrails I believe that the bar for being a "qualified investigator" is not particularly high - air or fuel sample results are relatively easy to come by and have analysed by "Joe Public", for example.

So, given the amount of "research" that has been done into chemtrails over the last 15 or so years, and the complete and TOTAL lack of any actual verifiable evidence supporting their existence, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that chemtrails do not exist, and to continue to claim otherwise, knowing the lack of evidence, is dishonest.


edit on 12-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

reply to post by zatara
 

The reason for silence is in my opinion because there is a serious downside to it. A down-side that can cause civil unrest and force the governments to stop or to delay the "chemtrail project", There is a time-table to keep which can not be interupted because of debate and legislative delays. Stopping or indefinite delay can or will result in serious consequences for the entire planet.


The haven't been completely silent.

Just enough for plausible deniability.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Well I am asking a very simple question to the chemtrailers.

First I would like to know where these planes are taking off from, and where are the chemicals that are supposed to be used manufactured at?

If one chemtrailer could come up with the answers it would help to prove they exist...So are there any one of you up for the challenge? If so good luck and can't wait to see this evidence.....



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by ProudBird and post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Originally posted by zatara
Because there is little tangible evidence to proof chemtrails are a fact, this thread is not for chemtrail debunkers or misplaced funny people. If you have evidence that chemtrails are the imagination of confused people please start your own thread just about that.
(emphasis added)

Boy, you guys are quick to try to shoot down these threads, huh? If you think that the "believers" of "chemtrails" are a bunch of misguided idiots, then are you really confident that your criticism will magically change them?
Why do you bother?


Because if they don't, they don't get paid


That's all.

End.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Until an international consensus is reached, no individual government will admit to partaking in actual (not computer modules) geoengineering endevours.

Aerosol spraying has been touted as the least expensive and practical solution to combat global warming. As a failsafe, ANY gov't will deny these programs exist to protect against possible litigation, and diplomatic tensions, should these programs have negative consequences.

Once the UN and various international agencies ratify accords to implement geoengineering, then (and only then) will any disclosure be forthcoming.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by ProudBird and post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Originally posted by zatara
Because there is little tangible evidence to proof chemtrails are a fact, this thread is not for chemtrail debunkers or misplaced funny people. If you have evidence that chemtrails are the imagination of confused people please start your own thread just about that.
(emphasis added)

Boy, you guys are quick to try to shoot down these threads, huh? If you think that the "believers" of "chemtrails" are a bunch of misguided idiots, then are you really confident that your criticism will magically change them?
Why do you bother?


Because if they don't, they don't get paid


That's all.

End.


Got any actual evidence that I get paid to do this? A payslip perhaps?

'cos if you don't then you are a liar.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by ProudBird and post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Originally posted by zatara
Because there is little tangible evidence to proof chemtrails are a fact, this thread is not for chemtrail debunkers or misplaced funny people. If you have evidence that chemtrails are the imagination of confused people please start your own thread just about that.
(emphasis added)

Boy, you guys are quick to try to shoot down these threads, huh? If you think that the "believers" of "chemtrails" are a bunch of misguided idiots, then are you really confident that your criticism will magically change them?
Why do you bother?


Because if they don't, they don't get paid


That's all.

End.


Got any actual evidence that I get paid to do this? A payslip perhaps?

'cos if you don't then you are a liar.



Call it "a hunch"


Of course I'm a liar. Have you been 100% honest in your life? I thought not.... next



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


Yes, because we all have time to spend around the clock, on ATS, on topics which we don't even beleive.

We all have countless hours to surf forum sites and try to derail threads with the same argument over and over 24/7.

That's not suspicious at all.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
[Got any actual evidence that I get paid to do this? A payslip perhaps?

'cos if you don't then you are a liar.



Call it "a hunch"


Of course I'm a liar. Have you been 100% honest in your life? I thought not.... next



OK - let me be more specific then - if you don't have any evidence that I am being paid to debunk, then any claim that that is the case is a lie.

good on you for having the honesty to retract your allegation since you lacked any evidence for it.

shame so many people persist with the chemtrail hoax despite the total lack of any verifiable evidence for it too!



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
[Got any actual evidence that I get paid to do this? A payslip perhaps?

'cos if you don't then you are a liar.



Call it "a hunch"


Of course I'm a liar. Have you been 100% honest in your life? I thought not.... next



OK - let me be more specific then - if you don't have any evidence that I am being paid to debunk, then any claim that that is the case is a lie.

good on you for having the honesty to retract your allegation since you lacked any evidence for it.

shame so many people persist with the chemtrail hoax despite the total lack of any verifiable evidence for it too!


I didn't retract anything. I believe you and your buddies hang around these threads for a reason. That reason is to disrupt and derail conversation by persons with legitimate concerns regarding geo-engineering.

It has nothing to do with "denying ignorance" when SO MUCH of all your time is dedicated to one topic which you admit to believing is false. At best, you are all trolls, at worst, you are paid to be here and be disruptive.

Can I prove it. Nope. Do I care? Nope. Because it doesn't change anything I believe in and I know I'm not the only one.

The funny thing is, I bet for every person you think is rolling their eyes at the "chemtrail conspiracy talk" there are probably 10 doing the same reading all of your (buddies inclusive) posts.

There is a VAST amount of data out there supporting this project is a reality. It's unfortunate that much of that is circumstantial at this point, leaving us with educated conclusions upon which to form our opinions.
That doesn't make them any less valid IMO as where there is smoke there is always fire.

I will not be dissuaded by you or anyone else, simply because Obama or some other high ranking gov official hasn't made a tv appearance publicly stating "WE ARE SPRAYING CHEMICALS IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE! JUST THOUGHT YA SHOULD KNOW! MMMK? BYE!"

You guys are wasting your time.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
[Got any actual evidence that I get paid to do this? A payslip perhaps?

'cos if you don't then you are a liar.



Call it "a hunch"


Of course I'm a liar. Have you been 100% honest in your life? I thought not.... next



OK - let me be more specific then - if you don't have any evidence that I am being paid to debunk, then any claim that that is the case is a lie.

good on you for having the honesty to retract your allegation since you lacked any evidence for it.

shame so many people persist with the chemtrail hoax despite the total lack of any verifiable evidence for it too!


I didn't retract anything.



Was't it you who wet from saying I get paid to do this to saying you have a hunch tht I get paid to do this?

Looks like a retraction to me.


I believe you and your buddies hang around these threads for a reason. That reason is to disrupt and derail conversation by persons with legitimate concerns regarding geo-engineering.


Nope - my reason is to deny ignorance, prevent the spread of needless fear and anxiety, and to defend myself and my colleagues against slander - as I wrote here - www.abovetopsecret.com...


It has nothing to do with "denying ignorance" when SO MUCH of all your time is dedicated to one topic which you admit to believing is false.


Well that's one of the most self-contradictory statements I've seen on here for a while -


At best, you are all trolls, at worst, you are paid to be here and be disruptive.


Telling the truth, pointing out ignorance, posting facts and correcting errors is not trolling - although you and yuor ilk commonly present it as such.

repeating scaremongering with no verifiable evidence that it is actually happening, accusing people of being paid to do nothing but disrupt, again without evidence, making up "evidence", posting long debunked falsehoods - that is trolling,and it is all coming from the side perpetuating the chemtrail hoax.


Can I prove it. Nope. Do I care? Nope. Because it doesn't change anything I believe in and I know I'm not the only one.


Yes we all know that you and your ilk have no interest in actual evidence, and that there are many like you who spread your disinfo - and that is precisely why why others post reason, logic, and critical thinking.

the motto here is deny ignorance - we are doing that. you, OTOH, are displaying it.


The funny thing is, I bet for every person you think is rolling their eyes at the "chemtrail conspiracy talk" there are probably 10 doing the same reading all of your (buddies inclusive) posts.


irrelevant - it doesn't matter how many people think that chemtrails exist - there still isn't a single piece of verifiable evidence to support it.


There is a VAST amount of data out there supporting this project is a reality. It's unfortunate that much of that is circumstantial at this point,


There isn't even good circumstantial evidence - there is just assertion, paranoia fed by scaremongering, and ignorance of the real world.



leaving us with educated conclusions upon which to form our opinions.


Well it would be good if you demonstrated some educated conclusions instead of illogical and sometimes simply impossible ones!!



That doesn't make them any less valid IMO


Of course not - what makes your guesses invalid is the total and complete lack of any actual credible or verifiable evidence to support them.

And that remains the case whether someone points it out or not.



as where there is smoke there is always fire.


There are also smoke generators - so much chemtrail evidence has been shown to be completely false, often deliberately fabricated, that the idea that "where there's smoke there's fire" is patently (sic) and demonstrably incorrect in this case.


I will not be dissuaded by you or anyone else, simply because Obama or some other high ranking gov official hasn't made a tv appearance publicly stating "WE ARE SPRAYING CHEMICALS IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE! JUST THOUGHT YA SHOULD KNOW! MMMK? BYE!"

You guys are wasting your time.


So why do you go to so much effort to make personal attacks on us then?




edit on 12-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by zatara
 


"Those planes" are "allowed" to fly over Europe because they are regularly scheduled normally equipped passenger and cargo airliners, going on about their business of travel and commerce.

The "spray" H2O, primarily. Not to diminish or disregard the fact that as a result of normal combustion of fossil fuels, there are also the normal types of pollutants in the exhaust, as a result of that combustion.

But, that is all.

Period.

End.


Why are the facts different for each new thread?

I thought it was 1 ton of fuel equals
1.2 tons h2o
3.24 tons of co2
the rest misc kilos of soot and such.


3.24 tons of co2 per ton of fuel ,does not seem to match you post,

The "spray" H2O, primarily.

3.24 tons of co2 gas per ton consumed, may be taken as, form of geoengineering by the ton.



edit on 12-3-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
From the 1970's they launch a major campaign,
they redesigned cars, airplanes, smoke stacks to meet new emission standards
by pumping out more co2, good for trees and the environment at the time they claim.
then 30 years later they launch a major campaign,
co2 bad we need carbon tax, cap and trade etc.
So we are now in our next geoengineering campaign to be funded by a tax.

So in the 1970's planet cooling, add co2,
year 2000 plus, planet warming remove co2.
Airlines, smoke stacks first in line for new co2 tax.

At the same time we see what we call debunkers
trying to form opinion.

I just have not figured out if it is to form opinion
for, more or less tax.

But they sure are trying to point contrails as a great harmless thing.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Now if they are planning geoengineering
and need funding,
is it from this new tax.

Interesting question,
How to pay for geoengineering?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


Stakeholders, lobbyists, and anyone else who can donate to the cause.

Here's an interesting blog I found.
thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.com...
Excerpts:

I agree, after reviewing the video... that geoengineering did not fare that well. I also highly doubt AMEG are going to change their minds. However, what I find comforting is that researchers into geoengineering have been very quick to argue strongly that rapid deployment in the artic is hugely premature and exceptionally unwise. Those researching both cloud whitening and stratospheric aerosols (both presented as potential solutions by AMEG) have been exceptionally clear on this. Surely this points to strong self-governance and undermines the argument that those seriously researching geoengineering are desperate to deploy?


The most alarming thing to me is the lack of understanding of this issue from within the environmental audit commission itself.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
From the 1970's they launch a major campaign,
they redesigned cars, airplanes, smoke stacks to meet new emission standards
by pumping out more co2, good for trees and the environment at the time they claim.
then 30 years later they launch a major campaign,
co2 bad we need carbon tax, cap and trade etc.
So we are now in our next geoengineering campaign to be funded by a tax.

So in the 1970's planet cooling, add co2,
year 2000 plus, planet warming remove co2.
Airlines, smoke stacks first in line for new co2 tax.

At the same time we see what we call debunkers
trying to form opinion.

I just have not figured out if it is to form opinion
for, more or less tax.

But they sure are trying to point contrails as a great harmless thing.


So lets look at the first geoengineering device placed on cars.


In a catalytic converter, the catalyst (in the form of platinum and palladium) is coated onto a ceramic honeycomb or ceramic beads that are housed in a muffler-like package attached to the exhaust pipe. The catalyst helps to convert carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide.


auto.howstuffworks.com...

So all cars are required to make dreaded co2 planet warming gases, they claim now.
So why did they make you pay more for cars in last 30 years, with new parts that are now bad for the planet,
they claim now?


edit on 12-3-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: link



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join