Weather Channel Founder Debunks Chemtrails

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 




APTI is owned by BAE, not Raytheon.


HAARP's Family Tree


Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), an employee-owned company, was awarded the contract to design and build the IRI, based on a proposal submitted in response to an RFP issued by the Office of Naval Research in 1992, and published in the Commerce Business Daily.


APTI was owned by Raytheon...


...up until earlier this year, when it was purchased by BAE Systems.


convoluted ain't it? and you're not helping.




posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
does't explain the sprayer patents

did he test the rainwater for aluminum ?

he's a skeptic who makes his living telling the weather

and I think a reason for chemtrails is to slow down global warming so the big boys can still sell oil, so the fact he's a sketic on global warming but doesn't see the connection is telling to me
edit on 23-6-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)


That was what I was trying to state originally. Having a high ranking official side with you on any topic to release to the public is usually a sign that person was a paid representative. It is probable that he believes his story, but without testing the exhaust from the planes how could he know?

Since radar was used by weathermen on TV all of us have become informed about wind patterns and high and low pressure systems. We are much more intelligent than our grandparents in that regard because we grew up with the technology. The same can be said for computers and communications (cell phones).

This video might alleviate some peoples' suspicions , but knowing how things really work it raises others.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

you prove to me there is no chemicals in a contrail.


No. You prove to me there ARE. That's how it works here in reality.


Ok meet you at the hanger,
you start the engines close the doors and I will call 911 for you.
edit on 23-6-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)


AGAIN, not how it works. YOU provide the proof for your claims. Not me.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Having a high ranking official side with you on any topic to release to the public is usually a sign that person was a paid representative.


So, your argument is that if the story is supported by people who knw what they are talking about, it cant be true?



It is probable that he believes his story, but without testing the exhaust from the planes how could he know?




No lack of testing the exhaust seems to prevent the chemtrail believers from holding firm to their beliefs.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Chadwickus
 




HAARP was built by BAE Advanced Technologies, not Raytheon...


H.A.A.R.P.


Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of E-Systems, Inc., which is owned by Raytheon Corporation, designed and built HAARP.


picky....


Seems pretty convenient that there would be two shell companies protecting Raytheon from any potential damages from an untested array of antennas and untested methodology of power transmittal. I really don't care what they tell the public. I know that messing with the power and frequencies they are using can have consequences. Tesla understood this as well and was almost killed by it. He learned the hard way that sometimes you can't fix what you started.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Having a high ranking official side with you on any topic to release to the public is usually a sign that person was a paid representative.


So, your argument is that if the story is supported by people who knw what they are talking about, it cant be true?



It is probable that he believes his story, but without testing the exhaust from the planes how could he know?




No lack of testing the exhaust seems to prevent the chemtrail believers from holding firm to their beliefs.



Lack of testing of the exhaust by a third party is all that is missing from your "Proof". I understand that jet exhaust is always going to exist. I know that the atmosphere makes a big difference in the amount of time a contrail can exist. I know that high by-pass motors are more common now and they tend to leave a larger trail.

I also know that the government lies. I know people make up stories and get 'Professionals" to support them when needed. These professionals either believe the lie or get paid enough to lie. Either way they pass on disinformation to those who might otherwise stop whatever project the government is trying to protect. That means that I can smell a rat from a mile away.

This smells like a rat.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
 


E.L.Rothschild LLC Acquires a Majority Stake in Weather Central, LP

70% stake back in 2011 the article says. The article surrounding that article also says that they get their weather from Raytheon, the HAARP builder. Get real. Stop promoting propoganda.


So how is it propaganda if he's simply saying what every single meteorologist in the entire world says about "chemtrails"?

Have you asked any meteorologist? Go ahead, find one (with a degree in meteorology, so not Scott Stevens), and ask them. They will say the same thing.


You have listened to EVERY meteorologist in the world and they ALL agree? If I disprove that then you might as well hang up your argument that the whole world thinks it is just contrails. How about this guy?
www.youtube.com...

Or maybe this guy?
www.youtube.com...

I say we put this little exercise in futility to rest until a third party test is done and published with documentation!



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


You linked to a video about Chaff. Chaff is not the 'chemtrail' you an others are claiming 'they' are spraying in mass amounts all around the world.

Why do you guys constantly move the goal posts for what entails a 'chemtrail'?

Is it because if you get too specific, actual facts will eviscerate your claims?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


So, again, you discount any and all data that refutes your claims, not by actually addressing the science behind these explanations, but by merely claiming that they are all part of some 'disinfo' campaign.

Do you not see how incredibly lacking that tact is?

If you want to prove chemtrails exist, then prove they exist. Make a concrete statement about what they are and why they are used, and then use science to prove it. Not vague references to ever-changing definitions. Concrete data. Do it.
edit on 24-6-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-6-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 




So how is it propaganda if he's simply saying what every single meteorologist in the entire world says about "chemtrails"?


o.m.g. Uncinus! I'm going to pretend you didn't make a statement involving absolutes because you're smarter than that. Further, you're not asking meteorologists these questions of yours; you're asking the house of Rothschild.

Do I want the house of Rothschild telling me that there are no chemtrails? Seriously?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
 




So how is it propaganda if he's simply saying what every single meteorologist in the entire world says about "chemtrails"?


o.m.g. Uncinus! I'm going to pretend you didn't make a statement involving absolutes because you're smarter than that. Further, you're not asking meteorologists these questions of yours; you're asking the house of Rothschild.

Do I want the house of Rothschild telling me that there are no chemtrails? Seriously?


Well, don't ask the house of Rothschild then. Ask a meteorologist. Let us know how it goes.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
So a Rothschild buys a weather forecasting company, and that proves chemtrails exist?

How does that work exactly??



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So a Rothschild buys a weather forecasting company, and that proves chemtrails exist?

How does that work exactly??


Yeah, I'll keep it on the front page. Is there some kind of a ban on replying to me directly? Too much 'K' whatever that is?

If the house of Rothschild owns the weather channel, which they do, who is directing weather as portrayed in that media? What...do I have to start spelling here?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
So a Rothschild buys a weather forecasting company, and that proves chemtrails exist?

How does that work exactly??


Yeah, I'll keep it on the front page. Is there some kind of a ban on replying to me directly? Too much 'K' whatever that is?

If the house of Rothschild owns the weather channel, which they do, who is directing weather as portrayed in that media? What...do I have to start spelling here?


Explaining would be preferable - how do you jump from predicting the weather to directing it?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Explaining would be preferable - how do you jump from predicting the weather to directing it?


It's a cable show. They have a script. They have a director. Hello....



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
If the house of Rothschild owns the weather channel, which they do, who is directing weather as portrayed in that media? What...do I have to start spelling here?


That's ludicrous. There are literally tens of thousands of organizations and individuals who are predicting the weather. . None of them has ever raised even the faintest suggestion that the Weather Channel is faking the weather forecasts or weather discussions.

If it were happening, then it would be moronically easy to demonstrate. Go for it - simply find a meteorologist who thinks chemtrails are not just persistent contrails.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
If the house of Rothschild owns the weather channel, which they do, who is directing weather as portrayed in that media? What...do I have to start spelling here?


That's ludicrous. There are literally tens of thousands of organizations and individuals who are predicting the weather. . None of them has ever raised even the faintest suggestion that the Weather Channel is faking the weather forecasts or weather discussions.

If it were happening, then it would be moronically easy to demonstrate. Go for it - simply find a meteorologist who thinks chemtrails are not just persistent contrails.


"Simply find a meteorologist who thinks chemtrails are not just persistent contrails"

No problem. Go to the paragraph labled 1). Its even a NOAA meteorologist.

worldaffairsbrief.com...

Anything else?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by coven83

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
If the house of Rothschild owns the weather channel, which they do, who is directing weather as portrayed in that media? What...do I have to start spelling here?


That's ludicrous. There are literally tens of thousands of organizations and individuals who are predicting the weather. . None of them has ever raised even the faintest suggestion that the Weather Channel is faking the weather forecasts or weather discussions.

If it were happening, then it would be moronically easy to demonstrate. Go for it - simply find a meteorologist who thinks chemtrails are not just persistent contrails.


"Simply find a meteorologist who thinks chemtrails are not just persistent contrails"

No problem. Go to the paragraph labled 1). Its even a NOAA meteorologist.

worldaffairsbrief.com...

Anything else?


Really? A NOAA meteorogist is quoted like this:


According to NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, quoted in the article, “At temperatures lower than approx -40 deg F contrails almost always form, regardless of relative humidity. The higher the ambient temperature, the less likely that contrails will form. At temperatures above -40 degrees F, contrails are not expected. The persistence of contrails depends upon temperature, relative humidity, and the vigor of mixing between the exhaust plume and the ambient air. At low temperatures, with high humidity, and with stable temperature stratification (which inhibits vertical mixing of the air), contrails persist for many hours."


So where exactly does he think chemtrails are real?
edit on 24-6-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by coven83

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by luxordelphi
If the house of Rothschild owns the weather channel, which they do, who is directing weather as portrayed in that media? What...do I have to start spelling here?


That's ludicrous. There are literally tens of thousands of organizations and individuals who are predicting the weather. . None of them has ever raised even the faintest suggestion that the Weather Channel is faking the weather forecasts or weather discussions.

If it were happening, then it would be moronically easy to demonstrate. Go for it - simply find a meteorologist who thinks chemtrails are not just persistent contrails.


"Simply find a meteorologist who thinks chemtrails are not just persistent contrails"

No problem. Go to the paragraph labled 1). Its even a NOAA meteorologist.

worldaffairsbrief.com...

Anything else?


Really? A NOAA meteorogist is quoted like this:


According to NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, quoted in the article, “At temperatures lower than approx -40 deg F contrails almost always form, regardless of relative humidity. The higher the ambient temperature, the less likely that contrails will form. At temperatures above -40 degrees F, contrails are not expected. The persistence of contrails depends upon temperature, relative humidity, and the vigor of mixing between the exhaust plume and the ambient air. At low temperatures, with high humidity, and with stable temperature stratification (which inhibits vertical mixing of the air), contrails persist for many hours."


So where exactly does he thing chemtrails are real?


1) Chemtrails often occur at altitudes and in environmental conditions where normal contrails cannot and do not occur. According to NOAA meteorologist Thomas Schlatter, quoted in the article, “At temperatures lower than approx -40 deg F contrails almost always form, regardless of relative humidity. The higher the ambient temperature, the less likely that contrails will form. At temperatures above -40 degrees F, contrails are not expected. The persistence of contrails depends upon temperature, relative humidity, and the vigor of mixing between the exhaust plume and the ambient air. At low temperatures, with high humidity, and with stable temperature stratification (which inhibits vertical mixing of the air), contrails persist for many hours." Chemtrails also occur at altitudes where contrails occur and thus the two are mixed.

you conveniently left out the first line of the paragraph. Okay maybe u just missed it. Ill put it in parenthesis for you.

" Chemtrails often occur at altitudes and in environmental conditions where normal contrails cannot and do not occur" . There you go now when he goes on to explain how contrails cannot form at the same levels you should better understand.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by coven83

you conveniently left out the first line of the paragraph. Okay maybe u just missed it. Ill put it in parenthesis for you.

" Chemtrails often occur at altitudes and in environmental conditions where normal contrails cannot and do not occur" . There you go now when he goes on to explain how contrails cannot form at the same levels you should better understand.


I left it out BECAUSE HE DID NOT SAY IT.






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join