How to get rid of a Chemtrail from what I have done

page: 26
18
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Mine?

Regardless of what they have taken or seen, a scientist is a person that seeks truth regardless of what they have been told.




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


oh, now I understand your position. Your part of a team that you don't know of.

No matter, it's just a career to you, and it's your life. Flying to and fro to places you've never been to or revisiting.

I'll leave you to your belief that there is no such thing as chemtrails.

I, on the other hand, have a massive cleaning job to do, which involves the sky.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


done on my own time, done with my own desire, and done with no one else's money but mine.

I have no proof to say the previous statement is true other than I just wanted to help.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


oh, now I understand your position. Your part of a team that you don't know of.


But apparently you do...except you say in your next message you don't.....



No matter, it's just a career to you, and it's your life. Flying to and fro to places you've never been to or revisiting.


Nope - you really should try not getting into things you don't know anything about.


I'll leave you to your belief that there is no such thing as chemtrails.


Case in point


I, on the other hand, have a massive cleaning job to do, which involves the sky.


for something you say you have no actual evidence for!

edit on 28-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


I agree, which is why I argue so much about chemtrails.

Fixating on the visible trail that is only produced when the engine is running at its leanest and most efficient state is nonsense. It is not the contrail that is the threat, that is only ice, it is the exhaust itself that could present the problem and that is present all the time.

Its ridiculous how threads get posted about how there wasn,t any spraying for x number of days because the skies were clear and blue, totally ignorant of the fact that the same scheduled flights they were fretting about previously have flown over just the same, leaving exactly the same trail behind them. That comes from nothing but ignorance, which we are supposed to endeavour to deny on this site.

People have every right to be concerned, but while they chase the fantasy of a deliberate targerted spraying operation that isn't actually happening, they are ignoring the far more insidious possibility of unchecked and incidental damage and increasing the possibility that they may one day succumb to a threat they allowed to happen. Isn't that the ultimate irony?
edit on 28-11-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Then do you have any evidence as such of the case of chemtrail v. contrails? Without the use of documentation.

(Will only take personal witness or the such)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


It's sad that everyone is the target.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Then do you have any evidence as such of the case of chemtrail v. contrails? Without the use of documentation.

(Will only take personal witness or the such)


Welll when I was a kid in the 1960's and New Zealand National Airways Corporation (NAC) introduced Boeing 737-200's in 1968, I was 9 years old and living in Christchurch.

I clearly recall seeing contrails formed from flights between Wellington and Dunedin - they are about 200 miles north (well) or south (dun) of Chch. The contrails were especially noteable becaue the WERE new - the Vickers Viscounts being replaced by the 737's made few contrails, if any.

These contrails would sometimes span from horizon to horizon, and still be there when the a/c flew back the other way more than an hour later. (I don't recall timing it - but turn-arounds were leisurely in those days, plus the a/c had to fly 400 miles to get back to overhead - so an hour seems quite reasonable)

Then in 1976 I became an apprentice aircraft mechanic for NAC. I worked on those same Boeing 737's that had been introduced in 1968, and some of their replacements before taking voluntary redundancy in 1982 (NAC had been merged into Air New Zealand in 1978, and the "downsizing" was in progress after that and the Mt Erebus accident of 1979).

I worked on the aircraft, their engines, and specifically, for some time after finishing my apprenticeship, on their fuel systems.

There was nothing on, in or around them that was in any way consistant with the chemtrail myth.

since then I have worked for various organisations (airlines, maintenance companies, national aviation authority) as a mechanic maintenance planner, a quality assurance engineer/auditor, and as an aviation safety analyst. And I have still never encountered anything in or related to aviation (or anything else) that allows that the chemtrail myth might even possibly be true.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Very impressive background story.

I take that back on you on being a disinfo agent, your someone that works up close to aviation field.

All I can do is throw my hands up and say, "Sorry, I can't change your views or actions on this." Not really worth it. But thanks for at least chipping in.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Very impressive background story.



It's not really - it is a pretty normal sort of career path for a lot of people in aviation.

the fact that you think it is impressive shows that you simply do not know much about teh aviation industry. There' no particular reason why you should know a lot about it - like most industries people outside it have little reason to know much of the detailed operation of it.

but when you (or others) start telling people like me how chemtails are real, and how they are in fuel, or in tanks on board aircraft, or anything else, the first thing we do is compare that to our own experience, and it does not take long to dismiss those ideas as fantasy.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I was complementing you, where is the offence?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


What offence?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


Just so you know, most of the ones here who debunk chemtrails have an aviation background.
And regardless of what anyone says, nobody can say with 100% certainty that chemtrails don't exist. What we keep saying and being ignored while saying, is that nobody can look at a fluffy line in the sky and claim to know it's a chemtrail simply by looking at it. We all know contrails exist, we all know they can last for minutes or hours, or anywhere in between.

Those of us who have worked in avionics, have seen many different types of planes and have worked in conditions that should there be anything to the chemtrail theory being a widespread, everyday operation, we would have seen some sort of evidence of it.

To see someone post a picture of a contrail and claim with no hesitation "that's a chemtrail, I know it!" makes no sense whatsoever.

As we have said many times, all that needs to be done to prove/disprove this whole thing is to get an air sample of what you think is a chemtrail and have it tested. Yes it's expensive to do, but there seem to be enough believers out there that $5 from everyone should cover it.
edit on 4-12-2012 by network dude because: bad spler



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


This, in which your doing the offence.




the fact that you think it is impressive shows that you simply do not know much about teh aviation industry. There' no particular reason why you should know a lot about it - like most industries people outside it have little reason to know much of the detailed operation of it.

but when you (or others) start telling people like me how chemtails are real, and how they are in fuel, or in tanks on board aircraft, or anything else, the first thing we do is compare that to our own experience, and it does not take long to dismiss those ideas as fantasy.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


well sorry if you took offence at something in there - I don't know what it would be - it is, IMO, a factual statement of the situation and was intended as nothing more than that.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I meant how does it offend you that I've complemented you?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomCommander
 


I wasn't offended




  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join