Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Weather Channel Founder Debunks Chemtrails

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:56 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.


I did exactly that and you dismissed it offhand. You are not interested in the truth, only your image.




posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
If you really want to know what NOAA meteorologist Thomas Sclatter thinks about the chemtrail theory, then read this:

web.archive.org...://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html


I contend that there is no visible or other physical evidence of high-altitude spraying, and so I do not believe in chemtrails.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude

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.


I did exactly that and you dismissed it offhand. You are not interested in the truth, only your image.


Your videos were about chaff, not chemtrails.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
When I see threads like this, it SCREAMS propaganda. I cant believe there are people out there that still try to disprove something the government has been doing for years and it is something that is our there for you all to see if only you would take the time to dig for the information and your then find the truth. Here let me give you a starting hand with some links and if you are too lazy to look it up and read these links then you have no business in any of these threads.

Link 1

Link 2

That is just for one state, You be the sleuth and find your own state to find out what they are doing in your state.

Thank you



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by onecraftydude

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.


I did exactly that and you dismissed it offhand. You are not interested in the truth, only your image.


Your videos were about chaff, not chemtrails.


Good point. So now we can add that some airplanes are spreading microscopic particles of "Chaff" over Florida and California to the list of suspected airline emissions. Well done.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
If you really want to know what NOAA meteorologist Thomas Sclatter thinks about the chemtrail theory, then read this:

web.archive.org...://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html


I contend that there is no visible or other physical evidence of high-altitude spraying, and so I do not believe in chemtrails.


This is fun.

Here you go, a German scientist confirms Germany's climate change/geo engineering program.

www.rense.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


And here is another article that refers to a symposium in Belgium in 2010. Are all of the scientists that attended this symposium and agreed that these events are taking place not credible?

coto2.wordpress.com...

Its like I said before, their are just certain people and certain conspiracies that these people wont believe until their beloved government admits to them. At which point its to late to do anything to prevent them or change the current course of action.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by coven83

Originally posted by Uncinus
If you really want to know what NOAA meteorologist Thomas Sclatter thinks about the chemtrail theory, then read this:

web.archive.org...://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html


I contend that there is no visible or other physical evidence of high-altitude spraying, and so I do not believe in chemtrails.


This is fun.

Here you go, a German scientist confirms Germany's climate change/geo engineering program.

www.rense.com...


nope - that's chaff - "duppel" - whoever translated it was either dishonest or not good at German



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by coven83
reply to post by Uncinus
 


And here is another article that refers to a symposium in Belgium in 2010. Are all of the scientists that attended this symposium and agreed that these events are taking place not credible?

coto2.wordpress.com...

Its like I said before, their are just certain people and certain conspiracies that these people wont believe until their beloved government admits to them. At which point its to late to do anything to prevent them or change the current course of action.


That is "Case Orange" - also rubbish - so much rubbish in fact that the "scientists" who "wrote" it didn't put their names to it!

I wonder who they were??



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:45 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??


It works like this;

Herp da-durp herp. Herpittity Derpitty Gomschminigan.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Good point. So now we can add that some airplanes are spreading microscopic particles of "Chaff" over Florida and California to the list of suspected airline emissions. Well done.


No. Chaff is not a suspected airline emission. It's something that the military occasionally spray during exercises. This was explained in your two videos. It's not suspect, and it's not secret. It's certainly not what most people refer to as "chemtrails", seeing as it's invisible to the naked eye.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Good point. So now we can add that some airplanes are spreading microscopic particles of "Chaff" over Florida and California to the list of suspected airline emissions. Well done.


No. Chaff is not a suspected airline emission. It's something that the military occasionally spray during exercises. This was explained in your two videos. It's not suspect, and it's not secret. It's certainly not what most people refer to as "chemtrails", seeing as it's invisible to the naked eye.


If that were the case and the military used chaff over a civilian airport they would have to be notified as would the local weathermen.

These weathermen knew what was on radar. They knew it was from airplanes.

Were they told it would be used?

If not why would they tell them about anything else that was being sprayed?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


There are lots of papers and heavy research that go into Weather Modification and the seeding (chemtrails) of clouds and the use of flares. I really don't have the time to write a 5 page report for you to read not that you would care to anyway. But, Just because you hear some old man on TV say chemtrails do not exist, doesn't mean that is the truth.

All you have given here is a video and nothing more but, here I give you studies and heavy research from colleges and government granted companies. People that have poured their lives into the study of cloud chemistry, how a cloud works, how to control a cloud, how to make that cloud rain and injecting a cloud with a certain chemicals and flares to see how that cloud reacts and then to note the results.

Cloud seeding and cloud flaring, which is what the public calls chemtrails, is every bit as real as the nose on your face. So, please if you are really that interested in trying to discredit something that is real then try to discredit 9/11 or JFK.

You have the proof right here if you choose to look and BTW, it only took me 30 minutes to find this.

Weather Modification Association




Abstract: Secondary seeding, whereby unseeded clouds ingest ice particles from cloudsthat earlier had received direct glaciogenic (e.g., silver iodide) treatment, is hypothesized to be a possible additional mechanism for the propagation of seeding effects in space and time. The ingested ice particles, after experiencing some growth in the donor cloud, act toglaciate the receptor cloud during its active growth phase and provide it precipitation embryos. These embryos give the new cloud a head-start on precipitation development asthey grow further as graupel to precipitation size in the updraft laden with high quantitiesof supercooled cloud water. This enhancement of precipitation-forming processes is postulated to be strongest in microphysically continental clouds in which natural andseeding-induced primary glaciation and hydrometeor growth are slow. A case study is presented to illustrate these processes.



and look that site even has a visitors section for all your unanswered questions concerning cloud seeding and the like. All the things that you are saying is not true so, do you want to tell these people that they are bringing home a fake paycheck and that all the research they have been doing is all in their heads?


Click here for all your questions answered about chemtrails/cloud seeding ect.

and here is a snipit to debunk your claim of chemtrails are contrails:




Similarly, “warm rain” cloud seeding agents can be produced by “hygroscopic” flares. These flares contain some type of salt (e.g., calcium chloride). When the flares are burned they produce minute particles of the salt which attract water vapor, forming cloud droplets in addition to those already present in the cloud. Hygroscopic seeding can also be done using dry common salt (NaCl) that has been processed to optimum sizes in powder form for the promotion of droplet growth in the clouds. This salt is dispersed normally from an aircraft flying immediately below or in the updraft regions of the clouds


another snipet of the equipment on a plane to dispense the chemicals also certified by the FAA:



The pellets are placed in special insulated containers (called dry ice hoppers) for dispensing the pellets. Dry ice is most frequently dispensed from aircraft. Installations on aircraft are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).


this is all in the FAQS page for anyone to view.

So, I don't see any reason to continue this crazy notion that there are no chemtrails. do you because if you do then you are clearly just trolling us to death.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mustangill
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Cloud seeding and cloud flaring, which is what the public calls chemtrails,


No it isn't.

Anyone saying that cloud seeding is chemtrails is trying to change the issue.

chenmtails are, specifically, long white lines left by high altitude aircraft. They are secret, and for some nefarious purpose.

For example see Educate-yourself.com - What are chemtrails - a typical chemtrail website.

Or there's Wil thomas's statements from around 2000-2002 - he';s teh guys who invented the term "chemtrail" AFAIK, so he's eth onw who would know what it refers to.....





* Thomas was quoted in the Santa Fe New Mexican, a newspaper in Santa Fe, NM, on 6/20/99 as saying, "My colleague and I will release the name of our lab and detailed lab results as soon as we find a publisher willing to pay us for many months of research - and reimburse those lab tests."
* "700 tankers 'kc-135s' doing the spraying, md-80 involved, "it" is in commercial airplane fuel" 3/14/01
* Thomas admits "no insitu samples have ever been taken"...2/28/02
* "Asks for $20,000 to do the sampling"...on 2/28/02
* "late summer chemtrails will be disclosed and common knowledge"...2/28/02
* "the impending ATC crossover in wanting to know why they are not told about chemtrails" ...2/28/02


That was 10 or more years ago - he never released any results, he never mentioned cloud seeding - it was all large airliner-class aircraft (KC-135's), it was all going to be revealed, etc.

Or this interview with him at Rense - airforce tankers & MD-80-class aircraft are mentioned (It's called an "MV-80" - I suspect the transcriber misherad MD-80), and "it's in the fuel" more or less.

Cloud seeding is invariably at low altitude, the trails it leaves are either invisible or barely visible and if the later do not hang around. It is for a well known reason, and, as you said in parts of your post I did not quote, there has been a lot of study into it.

Some people have tried to back-define chemtrails as any chemical trails - but this is a disinfo tactic by people who have found that they cannot actually support the "original" definition, but are so wedded to the idea that chemtails have to exist that they are changing the "definition" to include things that are not secret at all.

In short it is intellectual dishonesty - an attempt to find something, anything, that allows the word "chemtrail" to refer to something that does actually exist, whether it is the actual problem suspected or not, so that debunkers will be forced to conceded that chemtrails exist.

it has ceased to be about whther or not there is some secret programme anymore - now it is about getting people to admit that chemtrails exist - even at the cost of honesty


by this definition the atmosphere itself is a chemtrail - since it consists of chemicals!! And of course so is your breath.



Weather Modification Association


Yep - not secret, not at high altitude, not leaving long white trails across the sky, does not spread aluminium or barium or morgellons, is done for a known purpose, usually done by small aircraft and not airliners - every single one of these is something that shows weather modification is not "chemtrails".



So, I don't see any reason to continue this crazy notion that there are no chemtrails. do you because if you do then you are clearly just trolling us to death.


there are plenty of chemicals in the sky - there are no chemtrails as normally defined - unless you choose to expand the term to include things that were not originally part of it.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mustangill
reply to post by Uncinus
 


There are lots of papers and heavy research that go into Weather Modification and the seeding (chemtrails) of clouds and the use of flares. I really don't have the time to write a 5 page report for you to read not that you would care to anyway. But, Just because you hear some old man on TV say chemtrails do not exist, doesn't mean that is the truth.

All you have given here is a video and nothing more but, here I give you studies and heavy research from colleges and government granted companies. People that have poured their lives into the study of cloud chemistry, how a cloud works, how to control a cloud, how to make that cloud rain and injecting a cloud with a certain chemicals and flares to see how that cloud reacts and then to note the results.

Cloud seeding and cloud flaring, which is what the public calls chemtrails, is every bit as real as the nose on your face. So, please if you are really that interested in trying to discredit something that is real then try to discredit 9/11 or JFK.

You have the proof right here if you choose to look and BTW, it only took me 30 minutes to find this.

Weather Modification Association




Abstract: Secondary seeding, whereby unseeded clouds ingest ice particles from cloudsthat earlier had received direct glaciogenic (e.g., silver iodide) treatment, is hypothesized to be a possible additional mechanism for the propagation of seeding effects in space and time. The ingested ice particles, after experiencing some growth in the donor cloud, act toglaciate the receptor cloud during its active growth phase and provide it precipitation embryos. These embryos give the new cloud a head-start on precipitation development asthey grow further as graupel to precipitation size in the updraft laden with high quantitiesof supercooled cloud water. This enhancement of precipitation-forming processes is postulated to be strongest in microphysically continental clouds in which natural andseeding-induced primary glaciation and hydrometeor growth are slow. A case study is presented to illustrate these processes.



and look that site even has a visitors section for all your unanswered questions concerning cloud seeding and the like. All the things that you are saying is not true so, do you want to tell these people that they are bringing home a fake paycheck and that all the research they have been doing is all in their heads?


Click here for all your questions answered about chemtrails/cloud seeding ect.

and here is a snipit to debunk your claim of chemtrails are contrails:




Similarly, “warm rain” cloud seeding agents can be produced by “hygroscopic” flares. These flares contain some type of salt (e.g., calcium chloride). When the flares are burned they produce minute particles of the salt which attract water vapor, forming cloud droplets in addition to those already present in the cloud. Hygroscopic seeding can also be done using dry common salt (NaCl) that has been processed to optimum sizes in powder form for the promotion of droplet growth in the clouds. This salt is dispersed normally from an aircraft flying immediately below or in the updraft regions of the clouds


another snipet of the equipment on a plane to dispense the chemicals also certified by the FAA:



The pellets are placed in special insulated containers (called dry ice hoppers) for dispensing the pellets. Dry ice is most frequently dispensed from aircraft. Installations on aircraft are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).


this is all in the FAQS page for anyone to view.

So, I don't see any reason to continue this crazy notion that there are no chemtrails. do you because if you do then you are clearly just trolling us to death.


Sir, let me make something clear for you.

Cloud seeding has nothing to do with your imaginary chemtrails. Please, please, please ... look up the technology behind cloud seeding, materials used, when it is done, the altitude it is done at, etc, etc. Trying to pin the two together succeeds only in making the chemtrail believers look worse.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Of all the conspiracies out there, this has to be the one I find least plausible.

Surely you've gone outside on a very cold day and seen the result of exhaling from your moisture laden lungs in the form of seeing your breath. Contrails are the same result, just on a larger scale!

I'm sure we can test this by taking a field trip to 35,000 feet and blowing 600mph winds through a straw...



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Yes, weathermen are just so effing accurate.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


It's not even sprayed. It is bundled up in a dispenser that shoots it out into a small cloud.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mustangill
 


Thats a great find thx for the links.

To put an end to this (at least for me) ill say this:

No one here that supports the theory of chemtrails has said that "every" contrail is a chemtrail.

Yet those that don't support this theory say that "no" contrail can be a chemtrail.

So who here is closed minded??



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by coven83
reply to post by mustangill
 

No one here that supports the theory of chemtrails has said that "every" contrail is a chemtrail.

Yet those that don't support this theory say that "no" contrail can be a chemtrail.


Who is that? there is no particular reason why a contrail couldn't be a "chemtrail" - it is a fairly simple technical exercise to "spray" "something" from an aircraft.


So who here is closed minded??


Probably the ones who don't bother with the actual verifiable evidence and insist that chemtrails exist despite hte total, complete and fairly conclusive evidence of absence






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join