It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So Maybe There ARE Chemtrails...

page: 33
72
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by Afterthought
With all due respect to you and your friends, I think

you





should seriously seek some help.


Your reading comprehension is bad. I tried not to offend the entire chemtrail crowd and tried not to suggest they all needed help. But this one poster who seems to think the whole world is a conspiracy and against him/her would suggest that they could use a little time away from conspiracies at the very least.

Now, if you took my earlier advice to MYOFB none of this would have been necessary. If you think I should be banned, press the alert button. The mods know what to do.
I guess the: "with all due respect to you AND YOUR FRIENDS" negates the: "i think you should seriously seek help" part, huh?

It's those LITTLE comments that a person says, that makes all the difference in a debate. Next time, leave out the words "AND YOUR FRIENDS"; so the "entire chemtrail crowd" doesn't get so offended. I take no offense in your insults. It let's me know your head is not in the game! It let's me know, you're losing!

BTW: I don't have "friends" on ATS. I'd like to think of them as: LIKE-MINDED people.




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MysterX
 


It has been explained to you, that people realise contrails, even persistent contrails exist and have been and continue to be seen normally in our skies in addition to the phenomena of chemtrails.
So it isn't persistence and spreading. I'll ask again then, what is the difference?


why not surprise us and actually do that and add a little depth to some of your replies for a change?
I provide depth as required. It should be pointed out that a lot of verbiage does not equate with depth.
Why not tell me what distinguishes a "chemtrail" from a contrail? How can you visually tell the difference?

edit on 2/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I'll refer you to my earlier response, where i have already gone into considerable depth in answer to those questions, as have many others when explaining the differences between the two to you and others here, many times during posts centered on this topic.

You are deliberately ignoring what i am writing, even evidenced within the first quote you pasted above...which again is trolling and is strong evidence of the futility of repeating the same statements to you, as you continue to willfully ignore and attempt to subvert my replies. You know what that's called by now i imagine?

If you really cannot remember the multitude of often repeated and detailed explanations of the differences between normal jet contrails and phenomena termed chemtrails, i suggest you get your finger out, and either go back over your own conversations about this topic or do some legwork and search the considerable information published for yourself...there's pretty pictures and everthing out there in the internet world you know.

And verbiage or not, one line posts, as you know both do not contribute much if anything to a debate, and because of that are ruled a violation of ATS T&C...have you forgotten so soon?

And since Kandinsky has his post deletion pen out on my post, perhaps he could address the violations i mention in yours...for the sake of at least appearing impartial of course.


edit on 28-2-2013 by MysterX because: added comment



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX

I'll refer you to my earlier response, where i have already gone into considerable depth in answer to those questions, as have many others when explaining the differences between the two to you and others here, many times during posts centered on this topic.


this thread is already over 30 pages long - if you made a good point then it would be useful to refer back to it for people to reference it easily.

not being able to find something is not the same as ignoring it.

However that said - I looked at your posts in this thread using the "Posts in thread" function - there aren't many - 5 or 6. I couldn't see anythign in any of them that I recognised as how to distinguish a contrail from a chemtrail.

comper that with this video whowing Michael J Murphy clearly stating that you cannot do so without analysing eth content - MJM is, of course, the creater of the 2 WITWATS videos, so is probably THE chemtail guru of the last year or 2:



Obviously you think he is wrong?


edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


I'll refer you to my earlier response, where i have already gone into considerable depth in answer to those questions,

Please tell me where you have described the difference.
MysterX



And verbiage or not, one line posts, as you know both do not contribute much if anything to a debate, and because of that are ruled a violation of ATS T&C
Perhaps your concept of what a contribution is varies from that of the moderators.
edit on 2/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Afterthought
 


The fuel is pulled randomly and tested by each facility that uses it. (providing they are big enough) and random samples are pulled and sent off to the lab for more in depth testing on a regular basis.

Can you say what the fuel testing you mention is done for?


To ensure that the fuel meets the published standards - which you can read for yourself - Def Std 91-91 Rev 7

It is a legal requirement that aircraft use only materials that conform to the manufacturers specifications and approved modifications - this includes fuel. If you can find evidence that fuel does not meet this specification then you may have evidence that a crime is being commited.

more often than not tho fuel is contaminated by poor procedures - failure to properly clean or purge storage tanks, failure of components such as pumps or pipes, etc. Also water ingress is a significant problem.
edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe? The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.

I'm surprised people have this much faith, in corrupt man and his corrupt legislation, that benefits no one but him and his buddies. These people don't PLAY BY THE RULES. The RULES are for US. Do you understand that??? Can you GRASP THAT REALITY?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by profundus

You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe?


So you say - but why should I believe you?

I have worked in aviation all my life - as a mechanic doing those fuel tests and working on the fuel system. Also as a quality assurance engineer responsible for checking that an airline maintenance department follows those specifications. I have also worked for a national ergulator who writes and enforces those laws (not the FAA)

I have not seen any piece of evidence, ever, to support your contention. Not while I was working in any of those organisations, nor now from you or any other believer in chemtrails - not from people who make $50k videos, nor from backyard efforts on Youtube. Not from Carnicom, nor from Griffith.

Even some chemtrail activists are beginning to eralise there is no evidence - Rosalind Peterson was another high profile guru - but now she says there is no evidence for chemtrails - she is off on other projects to protect the planet:




The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.

I'm surprised people have this much faith, in corrupt man and his corrupt legislation, that benefits no one but him and his buddies. These people don't PLAY BY THE RULES. The RULES are for US. Do you understand that??? Can you GRASP THAT REALITY?


I understand that you look like you are ranting.

I have no reason to believe your assertion - you provide no evidence to support it other than paranoia, and it is directly contrary to almost 40 years of my experience in commercial aviation.

If you want to convince me I have been a part of a criminal conspiracy you need to do a lot better than just shouting at me.
edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 

No. You shouldn't be telling anyone they need to seek mental help.
I'm alerting your post. People like you will never learn. You aren't capable of debating and must resort to disgusting tactics such as alluding to someone being mentally ill. I wish I could say I feel bad for you, but I don't. People like yourself are a dime a dozen. No offense.

Like I stated earlier, the true sickos are the ones who want to geo-engineer this planet and you aren't even able to see this as a perversion of thought and a crime against humanity. You disturb me on many levels. You owe the person an apology for your immature and uncalled for personal attack. Like your "friends" stood up for you after that comment, I'll stand up for the one you attacked because I felt grouped in with it. Yes, you offended me even though your sarcastically added "no offense" to the end of your pathetic post.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestorm
 

Please gather the weather data for the area in which you live over the past twenty years. Look at the number of sunny or partly cloudy days. Average them out and see if the number remains relatively consistent...I betcha a dollar to a donut it does..



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 

Hehe ok, so maybe it's not THAT easy, but these days, it might be easier than it looks.

C5? Nice, those are beast! I used to work at the local airport and I got to see a C-130J Hercules on two seperate occasions! I think it's the same body style as the C5, either way it was a monster to lay eyes on! It's even more amazing to watch that behemoth of a plane take off. I wouldn't want that thing coming down in my neighborhood.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by profundus

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Afterthought
 


The fuel is pulled randomly and tested by each facility that uses it. (providing they are big enough) and random samples are pulled and sent off to the lab for more in depth testing on a regular basis.

Can you say what the fuel testing you mention is done for?


To ensure that the fuel meets the published standards - which you can read for yourself - Def Std 91-91 Rev 7

It is a legal requirement that aircraft use only materials that conform to the manufacturers specifications and approved modifications - this includes fuel. If you can find evidence that fuel does not meet this specification then you may have evidence that a crime is being commited.

more often than not tho fuel is contaminated by poor procedures - failure to properly clean or purge storage tanks, failure of components such as pumps or pipes, etc. Also water ingress is a significant problem.
edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe? The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.

I'm surprised people have this much faith, in corrupt man and his corrupt legislation, that benefits no one but him and his buddies. These people don't PLAY BY THE RULES. The RULES are for US. Do you understand that??? Can you GRASP THAT REALITY?


If nobody other than that group is privvy to the "real" specs, how do you happen to know all about them?

You started this part of the discussion by asking why the chemicals could not be added to fuel. I responded and gave you reasons why it would not be a feasable way to go about it, and others have chimed in and backed up that information. If you have any sort of information and evidence that this actually DOES happen, by all means, throw it at us! My eyes and ears are ready to take it all in and go over every tiny bit of what you provide. It would be wrong of me to dismiss the information without at least looking at it.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jensouth31
 


Could be you have lost your green thumb...as far as the apples are concerned, try this...when you see the tree blossoming, take a cuetip and pollinate each blossom by hand...guarantee you will get apples...your post does nothing in regard to chemtrail support...



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


People are regularly threatening violence to aircraft

This is new to me. As long as I've been reading and participating in these threads, I've never stated any such thing nor seen this proposed by anyone.
If this happens, then the mods need to do their job by blocking the post and banning the member.


you clearly didn't follow the link - which is no surprise - I find that chemmie believers only occasinally look at stuff that challenges their faith in the hoax - being confronted with evidene that you are wrong and are pushing disinfo is, of course, very upsetting for them.

Here's a hint - there is more to discussion of the the chemtrail hoax than ATS.


Crying...


Crying?? You were the one whining about how unfair it is that people point out that you post nonsense and why shouldn't you be allowed to do post whatever you want without being harrased by having it pointed out that it is nonsense!!



... about this as a means of defending why this shouldn't be discussed is a sad attempt. Try again.


I didn't say it was a reason there should be no discussion, so no, I will not try again.

and thanks for yet again showing how chemmies twist the truth.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by profundus

You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe?


So you say - but why should I believe you?

I have worked in aviation all my life - as a mechanic doing those fuel tests and working on the fuel system. Also as a quality assurance engineer responsible for checking that an airline maintenance department follows those specifications. I have also worked for a national ergulator who writes and enforces those laws (not the FAA)

I have not seen any piece of evidence, ever, to support your contention. Not while I was working in any of those organisations, nor now from you or any other believer in chemtrails - not from people who make $50k videos, nor from backyard efforts on Youtube. Not from Carnicom, nor from Griffith.

Even some chemtrail activists are beginning to eralise there is no evidence - Rosalind Peterson was another high profile guru - but now she says there is no evidence for chemtrails - she is off on other projects to protect the planet:




The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.

I'm surprised people have this much faith, in corrupt man and his corrupt legislation, that benefits no one but him and his buddies. These people don't PLAY BY THE RULES. The RULES are for US. Do you understand that??? Can you GRASP THAT REALITY?


I understand that you look like you are ranting.

I have no reason to believe your assertion - you provide no evidence to support it other than paranoia, and it is directly contrary to almost 40 years of my experience in commercial aviation.

If you want to convince me I have been a part of a criminal conspiracy you need to do a lot better than just shouting at me.
edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
Sorry peeps, still not buying your "theory". Just because this lady confesses something she believed in, to now be false means NOTHING. How many times have people been disgraced for standing up? When you stand up against the system that put you in that position, you BETTER BE PREPARED to give your life, for your cause.

Again, you're still not understanding WHO'S RUNNING THE SHOW. Whistleblowers don't stand a chance! a $50,000 dollar a year salary, is what they feed their dog.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by smurfy
 


to test for containment, make sure all the levels of ingredients are within tolerant levels, and to check for moister. The engines are very finely tuned and while driving you car and finding out you have water in the gas might suck a little, I promise you, in a plane it would suck a lot.


Do you mean contaminants? water and fungal growth etc, Yes I know about that, the fuel needs to perform properly and that is what they are mostly looking for, that the fuel's performance is satisfactory. They don't look for stuff that they don't know about.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by profundus

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Afterthought
 


The fuel is pulled randomly and tested by each facility that uses it. (providing they are big enough) and random samples are pulled and sent off to the lab for more in depth testing on a regular basis.

Can you say what the fuel testing you mention is done for?


To ensure that the fuel meets the published standards - which you can read for yourself - Def Std 91-91 Rev 7

It is a legal requirement that aircraft use only materials that conform to the manufacturers specifications and approved modifications - this includes fuel. If you can find evidence that fuel does not meet this specification then you may have evidence that a crime is being commited.

more often than not tho fuel is contaminated by poor procedures - failure to properly clean or purge storage tanks, failure of components such as pumps or pipes, etc. Also water ingress is a significant problem.
edit on 28-2-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
You only know about the, ON THE SURFACE activity, that goes on with these "rules and regulations". Those 'documents' are what they feed US! There's another set of specs, none of us are privy too. Why is that so hard to believe? The oil companies are owned by the same group that owns the gas stations, electric companies, clothing companies, record labels, movie studios, tv stations, newspapers, supercenters, sports teams, etc, etc... If they don't "own them" i'm sure they're "down with them" in some way, shape, or form. They're all intertwined.

I'm surprised people have this much faith, in corrupt man and his corrupt legislation, that benefits no one but him and his buddies. These people don't PLAY BY THE RULES. The RULES are for US. Do you understand that??? Can you GRASP THAT REALITY?


If nobody other than that group is privvy to the "real" specs, how do you happen to know all about them?

You started this part of the discussion by asking why the chemicals could not be added to fuel. I responded and gave you reasons why it would not be a feasable way to go about it, and others have chimed in and backed up that information. If you have any sort of information and evidence that this actually DOES happen, by all means, throw it at us! My eyes and ears are ready to take it all in and go over every tiny bit of what you provide. It would be wrong of me to dismiss the information without at least looking at it.
I'm not the one believing things are being run: BY THE BOOK, you are! And, again, like i said: I'm not the one building nuclear power plants, next to an ocean. I'm not the one building nuclear weapons that could destroy us all. Now am i??? That's all the evidence a person needs to know that lunatics are running amuck on our planet! They don't care if we die during their experiments, now do they???



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I have been around the block a few times on ATS and I have never been witness to such a heated discussion as this one and I mean never. In the Geo engineering threads, perhaps I missed a couple but not many as this issue is of interest to me.

This may be off topic but I feel a strong need to post my opinion and only an opinion it is.

I think what kicked off the ugliness I have read here is the fact that a long standing "gold content" poster whom up to this point in time was very anti chemtrail.

Are we witnessing a battle over swinging one member left or right?

I believe we are and the result is a nasty nasty bit of work where decent posts are ignored and name calling is getting out of hand.

I recognize about 90 % of the posters on this thread and yesterday and today I am seeing total disregard for the T&C and a lack of niceties in general.

The OP's post is almost lost in a fog now.

Regards Iwinder


edit on 28-2-2013 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MysterX
 


I'll refer you to my earlier response, where i have already gone into considerable depth in answer to those questions,

Please tell me where you have described the difference.
MysterX



And verbiage or not, one line posts, as you know both do not contribute much if anything to a debate, and because of that are ruled a violation of ATS T&C
Perhaps your concept of what a contribution is varies from that of the moderators.
edit on 2/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I'm loathe to aid you in derailing this thread, or insult the OP any further (apologies OP), but regarding first point, again, i have explained myself in depth on that issue, to do so yet again would be a violation of the T&C.

As for your last 'point', i'll simply refer you to the site owners and what they have to say about the one line or very short posts issue you mention.. HERE

And if that's not enough for you, here's a quote from one of the owners himself:




We've seen a recent rash of new one-line responses to posts that add nothing to the flow of discussion.

One Line or less Responses or "me too" atta-boy comments contribute nothing to the discussion. These include rows of smilies, "you're wrong", or other similar short responses.


I hope that's clear enough for you, if not perhaps you should refamiliarize yourself with the T&C and written directions of the site owners?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Anyone buying into this "geoengineering fight" is being set up.

This is just one more vain, worthless, time-killer to keep you asleep from the real Adversary.

The one true, living God has this all covered:

Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Get right with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ of Nazareth TODAY.

The time is at hand.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


Amen, and amen.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by profundus
Sorry peeps, still not buying your "theory".


I don't have a "theory" - you do.

What I have is knowledge that you have not provided any evidence to support your theory - this post of yours is a classic case - you use angry words, make vague assertions ....and completely fail to provide any evidence to support them.


Just because this lady confesses something she believed in, to now be false means NOTHING. How many times have people been disgraced for standing up? When you stand up against the system that put you in that position, you BETTER BE PREPARED to give your life, for your cause.


She wasn't disgraced for standing up. she investigated chemtrails and found no evidence they exist - she still investigates ecological concerns.


Again, you're still not understanding WHO'S RUNNING THE SHOW. Whistleblowers don't stand a chance! a $50,000 dollar a year salary, is what they feed their dog.


Again you are ranting and providing no evidence of anything.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by profundus
 





The equipment is located on my face, separated by a nose. What i describe is what i SEE...in the skies. My location is rather unique tho'. Not many planes traveling around these parts....until they decide we need some rain. I haven't seen a plane in the sky, since it poured sleet, the other day. Imagine that! Sleet in Baja California.


So, if Baja, California ever experienced snow or sleet PRIOR to the advent of commercial flight, what would you say to that?



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join