Jet pilots fear 'chemtrail' attacks , page 2

reply to post by smurfy

---

I think the point is that it's best not to encourage them.

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by smurfy

---

I think the point is that it's best not to encourage them.

Who does that? everybody, somebody? This is a discussion forum, I see nobody here actively encouraging people to go out and shoot at the tin birdies, and I'm sure such a post will be deleted anyway. If a nutball takes something out of a discussion, there's nothing you can do about it, unless you mean, shsss don't talk about the dreaded 'chemtrails' or perhaps relegate the 'chemtrail' subject to the jokes and pranks forum.

It stands to reason to not encourage wrongdoing.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by smurfy

---

I think the point is that it's best not to encourage them.

Who does that? everybody, somebody? This is a discussion forum, I see nobody here actively encouraging people to go out and shoot at the tin birdies, and I'm sure such a post will be deleted anyway. If a nutball takes something out of a discussion, there's nothing you can do about it, unless you mean, shsss don't talk about the dreaded 'chemtrails' or perhaps relegate the 'chemtrail' subject to the jokes and pranks forum.

It stands to reason to not encourage wrongdoing.

No, I mean not to encourage people to believe in something once it's been exposed as a hoax or a mistake, like the "persistent trails = chemtrails" misconception.

All the evidence indicates that what people are saying are just contrails, seeing as they look just like them. Now maybe it's still reasonable to suspect that the government might still be spraying us with something in an undetectable manners. But to point at every plane that leaves a persistent trail and say "that's a chemtrail, they are spraying toxins on us", is very irresponsible.

And even though nobody here is advocating violence, there are plenty of people doing it elsewhere. Particularly YouTube and Facebook.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by smurfy

---

I think the point is that it's best not to encourage them.

Who does that? everybody, somebody? This is a discussion forum, I see nobody here actively encouraging people to go out and shoot at the tin birdies, and I'm sure such a post will be deleted anyway. If a nutball takes something out of a discussion, there's nothing you can do about it, unless you mean, shsss don't talk about the dreaded 'chemtrails' or perhaps relegate the 'chemtrail' subject to the jokes and pranks forum.

It stands to reason to not encourage wrongdoing.

No, I mean not to encourage people to believe in something once it's been exposed as a hoax or a mistake, like the "persistent trails = chemtrails" misconception.

All the evidence indicates that what people are saying are just contrails, seeing as they look just like them. Now maybe it's still reasonable to suspect that the government might still be spraying us with something in an undetectable manners. But to point at every plane that leaves a persistent trail and say "that's a chemtrail, they are spraying toxins on us", is very irresponsible.

And even though nobody here is advocating violence, there are plenty of people doing it elsewhere. Particularly YouTube and Facebook.

edit on 2-11-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

Now you see, the very rationale you use is really that all the evidence points at nothing discernable either way, as you acknowledged in your Michael. J. Murphy thread, the theme reiterated here, ("seeing as they look like them") not that they are just contrails, unless there is something extraneous source other than the engines being used, excepting a recorded fuel dump, and the reasons therefore.

"But to point at every plane that leaves a persistent trail and say "that's a chemtrail"

Well, there may be more Sibriel's out there, but there is no getting away from the fact that every contrail is a 'Chemtrail' and by 'de facto' not yet completely understood,

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by smurfy

---

I think the point is that it's best not to encourage them.

Who does that? everybody, somebody? This is a discussion forum, I see nobody here actively encouraging people to go out and shoot at the tin birdies, and I'm sure such a post will be deleted anyway. If a nutball takes something out of a discussion, there's nothing you can do about it, unless you mean, shsss don't talk about the dreaded 'chemtrails' or perhaps relegate the 'chemtrail' subject to the jokes and pranks forum.

It stands to reason to not encourage wrongdoing.

No, I mean not to encourage people to believe in something once it's been exposed as a hoax or a mistake, like the "persistent trails = chemtrails" misconception.

All the evidence indicates that what people are saying are just contrails, seeing as they look just like them. Now maybe it's still reasonable to suspect that the government might still be spraying us with something in an undetectable manners. But to point at every plane that leaves a persistent trail and say "that's a chemtrail, they are spraying toxins on us", is very irresponsible.

And even though nobody here is advocating violence, there are plenty of people doing it elsewhere. Particularly YouTube and Facebook.

edit on 2-11-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

Wer'e near on the same ground, but I still offer the same premise, something of which I have been rabbiting on about in many posts, you just cannot tell what is a contrail or what might be considered a chemtrail (sic)
What is true though is that there are serious patents, ad nauseum that would use a jet, or other stuff as a method of delivery of substances, for whatever reason. That's a much bigger question than is being offered in this thread.

Originally posted by badgerprints
I don't really believe in chemtrails but the dirt is that they are done from commercial flights more often than not.

SO

IF chemtrails on commercial flights were a reality, the pilots would not likely be in control of the spray apparatus.
Big secret chemical conspiracies don't need a pilot to press the big red chemtrail button while in flight.
It would be based on altimeter readings, gps or remote triggering so why attack the pilots?

Unless of course your a MM (military moron) spraying highly Toxic, Banned Chemicals on the Gulf of Mexico's BP fiasco...




I know it's not CT in the classic since but they are spraying Toxic, Banned Chemicals so thus leaving a chem trail... You give them way to much credit, I would bet there is precisely a big red button/lever that is labeled "spray on".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General thoughts:

Naahh they would never spay Anything Toxic out of planes. What would give you that idea?
Since when does the US Military work for BP?

This thread seems like an exercise in smoke out the. Radical, Terrorist, Militant. Meaning you reply saying that they should be shot down and the alphabet crew will be landing black-hawks on your front lawn in hours of it's posting. Might want to watch what you say guys...

Disclaimer: I don't possess the means and I do NOT condone nor would I shot down ANY airliners/planes/hang gliders/paper airplanes. Despite the fact that my government has knowingly participated in this horrible type of conduct in the past. Need References?

Thanks
Gokill

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Or indeed in any sense, unless you are changing the definition of a chemtrail to suit yourself, since....

Might want to reread next quote...... I know it's hard to get especially for you but I will try to say it slowly this time... They are spraying Toxic, Banned Chemicals so thus leaving Chem-Trails....

but they are spraying Toxic, Banned Chemicals so thus leaving a chem trail...

it is not a "banned chemical" at all.

Seems the White house and the UK would disagree....

The extensive use of dispersants to break up oil gushing from BP's Deepwater Horizon raised concerns early on as to what long-term damage the toxic chemicals might be doing to the Gulf's aquatic life. That prompted the Environmental Protection Agency on May 26 to direct BP to stop using the chemicals on the water surface.

But Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said Saturday that the chemicals continued to be used extensively with Coast Guard approval, often at a rate of 6,000 to 10,000 gallons a day. A request was made and approved on June 13 to spread as much as 36,000 gallons of dispersant, according to data obtained by Markey's Energy and Environment subcommittee.

The EPA directive "has become more of a meaningless paperwork exercise than an attempt ... to eliminate surface application of chemical dispersants," Markey wrote in a letter sent Friday to retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man on the spill.

In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K.

Also not secret, not at high altitude, not coming from the engines, the purpose was well known (even if you don't believe it), the "trails" don't hang around for more than a few minutes, not done by airliners.

Toxic - sure - so is your car exhaust. Care to argue that that is a chemtrail too?

Go suck on your tail pipe then... Lets see how you feel
Don't you have anything better to do then argue over the definition of the word chemtrail?

Weak gaul even for you

Since the dispersant needed to be sprayed - would you rather the oil hung around for a bit longer?

That 1 military squadron, with 4 MASS spray systems (IIRC) also sprays for insects

Yeah if it hung around on top of the water it is easier to CLEAN UP instead of using something MORE TOXIC then the oil to HIDE it from CLEAN UP.. You don't really know much about it do you.....

After watching the documentary The Big Fix, it is hard to conclude that things are so rosy down in the Gulf. In fact, the bottom line message from this well-documented film, produced and directed by Josh Tickell and Rebecca Harrell-Tickell, is that the BP oil spill in the Gulf never went away and the oil is still spilling. And to top it off, the chemical dispersant, Corexit, which is still being used to clean up the oil, is an extremely toxic substance.

The film reports that Corexit is wreaking havoc on the health of the people and marine life in the Gulf. When you watch how the the Gulf residents captured in

The Big Fix have been affected by Corexit and the spill, beware, it is both heart wrenching and frightening. When you see Gulf residents driven to tears by this environmental tragedy, you want to cry with them. Rebecca, herself, was seriously sickened by Corexit during their filming in the Gulf.

Yeah gaul we get it... You think referencing spraying for insects hundreds of times is going to make it any more non-toxic or morally right?... Still is not cool.. We never got to VOTE FOR IT or AGAINST IT... THEY JUST DO IT!!!!! Just goes to show that Military has no problem spraying us with chems.. wake up......

The chemtrail theory is that "something" is still being sprayed now, every day, from CIVILIAN aircraft.

Who said that? Last time I checked NO ONE came forward to EXCLUDE the military morons...

Care to actually address that rather than posting disinfo??

You make me laugh....

Nice try gaul, did you forget you are the one paid to spread disinfo? not me buddy

Anyway, back on topic: Don't shoot the pilots they are probably threaten into secrecy anyways..

reply to post by GoKill

---

You make me laugh.... Nice try gaul, did you forget you are the one paid to spread disinfo? not me buddy Anyway, back on topic: Don't shoot the pilots they are probably threaten into secrecy anyways..

You must make your self laugh with such paranoid drivel.

Are you able to answer the question according to your logic what a chemtrail is do you release a chemtrail every time you pass wind or every time you exhale?

Car exhaust is a chemtrail is it not?

Originally posted by GoKill

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Or indeed in any sense, unless you are changing the definition of a chemtrail to suit yourself, since....

Might want to reread next quote...... I know it's hard to get especially for you but I will try to say it slowly this time... They are spraying Toxic, Banned Chemicals so thus leaving Chem-Trails....

Bzzzttt...see below
Theywere spraying co-rexit over the oil spill - which is certainly toxic....but not banned.

Chemtails are suposedly secret, aprayed from airliners at high altitude and last for hours....co-rexit was not secret, was not sprayed from airlinersw, did not last for hours.

Periodically chemmies like to try to expand the definition of chemtrails to include stuff like this - and hten jsut like you they like to show that this "proves" that all chemtrails exist.

but they are spraying Toxic, Banned Chemicals so thus leaving a chem trail...

it is not a "banned chemical" at all.

Seems the White house and the UK would disagree....

The extensive use of dispersants to break up oil gushing from BP's Deepwater Horizon raised concerns early on as to what long-term damage the toxic chemicals might be doing to the Gulf's aquatic life. That prompted the Environmental Protection Agency on May 26 to direct BP to stop using the chemicals on the water surface.

Yes - on the water surface....not elsewhere...hence they were continuing to use it in other formats BECAUSE THEY WERE ALOWED to - that's sort of like "NOT" banned.....

From the EPA site including that May 26 directive:

EPA advised continuing to allow BP to apply dispersant undersea because it appeared to be having a positive effect on the oil at the source of the leak and thus far has had no significant ecological impact

In Gulf Spill, BP Using Dispersants Banned in U.K.

Nope again..... try finding better sources next time:

INACCURACY: COREXIT is banned in the United Kingdom.

FACT: Corexit is approved in over 30 countries and we are unaware of a single country that has “banned” Corexit. The UK does not allow the use of Corexit for rocky shoreline application because it results in snails and other crustaceans not sticking to rocks. Corexit was not designed for rocky coast application and is only applied in the United States at least 3 miles off shore. However, Corexit 9500 did pass the UK test for off-shore use (what it was designed for) and existing stock use is allowed for that intended application with notification to appropriate authorities.

- horses mouth

from this 1.5mb pdf of contingency plans published by the British Marine Manasgment organisation you will also find that several standing approvals exist - some of which exclude corexit, most of which do not.

Toxic - sure - so is your car exhaust. Care to argue that that is a chemtrail too?

Go suck on your tail pipe then... Lets see how you feel

I just pointed out it is toxic - why are you posting this stupid stuff??

Don't you have anything better to do then argue over the definition of the word chemtrail?

you are the one who wanted to change the definition - not my fault your disinfo is obvious!

Since the dispersant needed to be sprayed - would you rather the oil hung around for a bit longer?

That 1 military squadron, with 4 MASS spray systems (IIRC) also sprays for insects

Yeah if it hung around on top of the water it is easier to CLEAN UP instead of using something MORE TOXIC then the oil to HIDE it from CLEAN UP.. You don't really know much about it do you.....

as above - it was also approved for use under the water.....

Yeah gaul we get it... You think referencing spraying for insects hundreds of times is going to make it any more non-toxic or morally right?... Still is not cool.. We never got to VOTE FOR IT or AGAINST IT... THEY JUST DO IT!!!!! Just goes to show that Military has no problem spraying...

Of course they don't - when there is an obvious reason for it - just like I do for flies and weeds.

Your sources don't add up, and this is all still relevant to commercial pilots receiving death threats - you getting hysterical about 4 C130's spraying co-rexit over the Gulf is just another gish gallop trying to change the subject away from something you know you have no evidence for.

NOAA Doc Strong Evidence They Are and Have Been Spraying Us
  Posted 15 days ago with 36 member flags

Chemtrail Programs Only Cost Us $5 Billion a Year
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags

1980 NBC News Clip on "Contrails" That Can Change the Weather.global warming?
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags

Cost analysis of aerosol solar radiation management published
  Posted 11 days ago with 6 member flags

Want to see how your food, air, and water is becoming contaminated? Dont get angry, be more aware an
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

How do elites escape chemtrails?
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags

ChemTrails over Michigan
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags

Geo-engineering (Chemtrails) and Bible Prophecy
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: