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.

 

Proof of Chemtrails!

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl

Originally posted by Human_Alien
But he is the nicest one we have. It wouldn't be ATS without him.


I have to agree he has provided some great info on space topics but I can't help notice the same adamant comments of the same subject over and over again by certain users.


when the same bunk appears time after time of course the debunking is the same.

Perhaps you could invent some new "evidence" for chemtrails - then I'm sure you'd get some new debunking too
!!



All denying 9/11 stories and Chemtrail stories, not matter what is presented you get a BS comment over and over that doesn't address the issue. Deny, deny, deny - seriously I don't believe a lot of things on here but I don't spend half the day telling people they are wrong over and over with no credible explanation.


no credible information?? Really? chemtrail debunking invariably involves actual science sooner or later - and you think that science is not credible.

But you happily go for completely unsupported assertions about chemtrails existing based on some photo's and some guy saying it's true?

Of course that's always been the case - chemmies simply have a totally screwed up concept of what constitutes credible evidence.


edit on 13-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

You got 2 out of 6 right.
Congratulations.

edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Debunking means removing the "bunk" - ie the obvious errors and fallacies.


Exactly. I'm pointing out how Phage's opinions regarding geoengineering are bunk.


"Pointing out" - well that's mighty fine of you.

AFAIK Phage mostly posts facts here - and what you have said he "knows" look like things that are factually supportable - not opinion at all.

So how about some actual evidence that they are bunk rather than your opinion??


I can also tell you what Phage knows because of all the indepth discussions we've shared on other threads involving this topic.
I'm sure you can attest to that.


so you can tell me what phage has posted about, and you think that is what he knows.

riiiiggghhhttttt.....


that explains a lot about how chemmies "know" chemtrails exist too!!

edit on 13-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


See my point exactly, no info to provide, they just tell your wrong with a sarcastic statement or joke. HAHAHA chemmies, truther, birthers, ways to make fun of people that think something is not right.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl

Originally posted by Human_Alien
But he is the nicest one we have. It wouldn't be ATS without him.


I have to agree he has provided some great info on space topics but I can't help notice the same adamant comments of the same subject over and over again by certain users.


when the same bunk appears time after time of course the debunking is the same.

Perhaps you could invent some new "evidence" for chemtrails - then I'm sure you'd get some new debunking too
!!



All denying 9/11 stories and Chemtrail stories, not matter what is presented you get a BS comment over and over that doesn't address the issue. Deny, deny, deny - seriously I don't believe a lot of things on here but I don't spend half the day telling people they are wrong over and over with no credible explanation.


no credible information?? Really? chemtrail debunking invariably involves actual science sooner or later - and you think that science is not credible.

But you happily go for completely unsupported assertions about chemtrails existing based on some photo's and some guy saying it's true?

Of course that's always been the case - chemmies simply have a totally screwed up concept of what constitutes credible evidence.


edit on 13-3-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


Let me dumb it down for you.....

1. NASA: rockets will be launched on a clear night within a period of minutes, so the trails can all be seen at the same time. The trimethyl aluminum will then be released in the atmosphere out over the Atlantic Ocean at altitudes from 50 to 90 miles. The cloud tracers will last for up to 20 minutes and will be visible in the mid-Atlantic region, and along the east coast of the United States from parts of South Carolina to New Jersey.
www.nasa.gov...

2:CHEMTRAILS THEORY: The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials.[1]
en.wikipedia.org...

3:ROCKETS: A rocket is a missile, spacecraft, aircraft or other vehicle which obtains thrust from a rocket engine. In all rockets, the exhaust is formed entirely from propellants carried within the rocket before use.
en.wikipedia.org...

Trimethyl aluminum will then be released in the atmosphere out over the Atlantic Ocean at altitudes from 50 to 90 miles by NASA rockets (ATREX). The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials. A rocket is a missile, spacecraft, aircraft or other vehicle which obtains thrust from a rocket engine.

POINT
A ROCKET WHICH BY DEFINITION IS A AIRCRAFT, CHEMTRAILS BY DEFINITION ARE CHEMICALS RELEASED BY AIRCRAFT. THE ROCKET (AIRCRAFT) IS GOING TO BE RELEASING CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

Is it truly that hard to understand?
edit on 13-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl

Originally posted by Uncinus
If your definition of "chemtrails" is simply "they are spraying things in the air", then you "win"


Another instance of people 'winning' seriously how do you win? The only person that would see a news site as a chance to win is a troll. You here to win not discuss topics - disinfo troll plain and simple.


Sorry I was not clearer, but that was why I put "win" in quotes. Of course you don't actually win.

Debunking is not about winning. It's about exposing and removing things that are bunk. Your assertion that these rockets are "proof of chemtrails" is bunk, because you are simply stretching the definition of "chemtrails" to include things that nobody has ever denied, and for which unequivocal proof has been available for 50 years.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl

Originally posted by Uncinus
If your definition of "chemtrails" is simply "they are spraying things in the air", then you "win"


Another instance of people 'winning' seriously how do you win? The only person that would see a news site as a chance to win is a troll. You here to win not discuss topics - disinfo troll plain and simple.


Sorry I was not clearer, but that was why I put "win" in quotes. Of course you don't actually win.

Debunking is not about winning. It's about exposing and removing things that are bunk. Your assertion that these rockets are "proof of chemtrails" is bunk, because you are simply stretching the definition of "chemtrails" to include things that nobody has ever denied, and for which unequivocal proof has been available for 50 years.


The definition of Chemtrails comes directly from WIKI as sourced, many times over - so it would be wiki that is stretching the definition, I suggest you contact them and set it right.

Here I'll even add it here...
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 13-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

No need to shout.

A ROCKET WHICH BY DEFINITION IS A AIRCRAFT,
Nope. Some rockets are aircraft. Sounding rockets are not. By definition, aircraft require that lift be provided by the atmosphere.

An aircraft is a vehicle that is able to fly by gaining support from the air, or, in general, the atmosphere of a planet.

en.wikipedia.org...


CHEMTRAILS BY DEFINITION ARE CHEMICALS RELEASED BY AIRCRAFT.
Yup


THE ROCKET (AIRCRAFT) IS GOING TO BE RELEASING CHEMICALS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
The rockets (non aircraft type rockets) will release chemicals into the upper atmosphere.

Here's more of the definition (which you so kindly provided) of "chemtrails".

for purposes undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials.


The term specifically refers to aerial trails allegedly caused by the systematic high-altitude release of chemical substances not found in ordinary contrails, resulting in the appearance of characteristic sky tracks. Supporters of this conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be for solar radiation management, population control,[1] weather control,[2] or biological warfare/chemical warfare and claim that these trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[8][9]


Chemtrails, coming from "chemical trails" in the same fashion that contrail comes from "condensation trail" is a term coined to suggest that contrails are formed by something other than a natural process of engine exhaust hitting the cold air in the atmosphere. Proponents of chemtrails characterize these chemical trails as streams that persist for hours, and by their criss-crossing, grid-like patterns, or parallel stripes which eventually blend to form large clouds.


en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think the ATREX experiment qualifies. On any level.

edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Why is chemtrail in the space preservation act of 2002


SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.


www.fas.org...
Obviously the government knows about chemtrails, the created them.
Chemtrails listed as exotic weapon in the Space preservation act of 2002 but noooooo they don't exist
edit on 13-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

Why are extraterrestrial weapons there?

That draft of the bill (which never got anywhere) was not produced by the government.


edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
double post


edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
I see disinfo as people that tell lies to keep people from learning the truths. Every one has there say to each their own, so don't believe it, that's your choice but you keep coming back to tell different, why do that if you are set in your mind that chemtrails are not real. Ok, you think there not real, move on but you don't.
edit on 13-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)


Hey, it's all just entertainment value for me. Doesn't matter if you agree with my points or not. I simply enjoy the debate. In this case, not only do I disagree about chemtrails, I disagree that there is any correlation between chemtrails and a rocket launched 70 miles into the atmosphere.

As I said before, to effectively spray the populace without diluting the spray to an ineffective level, altitude is everything; and this aint crop dusting!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

Why are extraterrestrial weapons there?

That draft of the bill (which never got anywhere) was not produced by the government.


edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Yea they just mentioned chemtrails for funny, crazy government always messing around and their silly chemtrail patents - oh here come the "oh just because it a patent doesn't mean it's used" people. Go figure the same people, page 4 alredy, getting a picture of this attempt to keep you ignorant? Same people over and over to no end, for some it's a job, how sad.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


That has been discussed ad nauseum since it was introduced in 2002.

Have a little looksy here:

HR 2977



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

"The government" did not write the bill.

(See above)


edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
I see disinfo as people that tell lies to keep people from learning the truths. Every one has there say to each their own, so don't believe it, that's your choice but you keep coming back to tell different, why do that if you are set in your mind that chemtrails are not real. Ok, you think there not real, move on but you don't.
edit on 13-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)


Hey, it's all just entertainment value for me. Doesn't matter if you agree with my points or not. I simply enjoy the debate. In this case, not only do I disagree about chemtrails, I disagree that there is any correlation between chemtrails and a rocket launched 70 miles into the atmosphere.

As I said before, to effectively spray the populace without diluting the spray to an ineffective level, altitude is everything; and this aint crop dusting!


Yea your point has been made like 3 or 4 times now but keep coming back in case we forget.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

"The government" did not write the bill.

(See above)


edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


No a member of the government did Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich. More nit picking of course the government as an entity can't create a bill, a person from the government has to do it.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

Incorrect.
You didn't read the link, did you? Anyone can author a bill. Sometimes they can get a representative to introduce it (apparently without having actually read it, since the oddball references were removed in later versions).
edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

Incorrect.
You didn't read the link, did you? Anyone can author a bill.
edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


So Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich didn't write the Space Preservation Act?

This is hilarious any which way to fire from go with it whether off topic of just completely random. Stop the spreading of truth, hurry, hurry, hurry!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

You didn't read the link.
The bill was not authored by Kucinich.

Anyone can write up, or draft a bill, but only a member of Congress can introduce it. However, the more work that you do for members, the easier it is for them to work on your behalf. When you have a bill that you want Congress to consider, writing it up in legal language and presenting it to your representative or senator as a draft is a good idea. Lobbyists routinely draft legislative proposals.

www.dummies.com...

So Rosin, et al wrote the bill and handed it to Kucinich, probably saying "this bill will ban weapons in space". Dennis, kind fellow he is, says; "Great! I'll introduce it!".

edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 

Incorrect.
You didn't read the link, did you? Anyone can author a bill. Sometimes they can get a representative to introduce it (apparently without having actually read it).
edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Indeed so, most indeededly...




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join