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....
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
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
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.
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.
edit on 20-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)