Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A serious question about chemtrails

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus
 

I know what nanotech is.
I know what chemistry is.

Do you know how to express a point you are trying to make?
I've expressed my point. My point is: in LAYMAN'S TERMS, we live in a nanotech world and you're still living in microtech knowledge. You might as well be playing Atari.




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by profundus
 

Oh. Thanks for explaining that.
Can you explain how you know about all this stuff, this ability to control the weather, if you close your mind to things that don't make sense to you? How can you learn anything new? What is your source of information? Do you just somehow "know" it?
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by profundus

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus
 

I know what nanotech is.
I know what chemistry is.

Do you know how to express a point you are trying to make?
I've expressed my point. My point is: in LAYMAN'S TERMS, we live in a nanotech world and you're still living in microtech knowledge. You might as well be playing Atari.


Phage and I live in a world that seems to be completely unable to comprehend the babble in your posts. You cant even make sense in your own posts, how on earth do you expect us to be able to do it?

Anyway, back to topic ... for "serious answers" about chemtrails, lets at least try to prove that they are what believers say they are. Then we can go from there.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus
 


Where did i say ANYTHING about "manipulating cells"?


We just covered that. You just quoted it yourself.

the smaller particles of life
The smallest particles of life are cells.

Molecules are not life.
Atoms are not life.
Subatomic particles are not life.

See, if you had said "the smaller particles of matter" it would have been different. You said "the smaller particles of life." That's what I meant about expressing yourself but maybe we should try to stick to "chemtrails" and all the evidence that they exist.
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Not very "bright" are you?

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
and you don't read very well. Again: i said SMALL-ER and NOT Small-est. I appreciate the english class, but perhaps you should READ a little DEEPER! Not Deep-est. DEEP-ER! Now i know why you can't understand the "chemtrailers". You can barely understand the difference between er and est.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by profundus
 


You can barely understand the difference between er and est.

No. You're wrong about that.
I know you said smaller. That's why I said smallest. It's the correct usage.
The comparative suffix "est" is used when talking about more than two things. The suffix "er" is used when talking about two things. So unless you were saying that there are only two particles of life, your grammar was incorrect.

Now can you provide evidence that "chemtrails" exist?
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus
 


You can barely understand the difference between er and est.

No. You're wrong about that.
I know you said smaller. That's why I said smallest. It's the correct usage.
The comparative suffix "est" is used when talking about more than two things. The suffix "er" is used when talking about two things. So unless you were saying that there are only two particles of life, your grammar was incorrect.

Now can you provide evidence that "chemtrails" exist?
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


He is unable, and unwilling when given the chance.

Of course, the ball isnt in our court for this one. We're not the people with anything to prove. profundus, grab some friends, grab some cash, get the proof, and prove us all wrong. it doesnt take a genius to figure that one out.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus
 

Oh. Thanks for explaining that.
Can you explain how you know about all this stuff, this ability to control the weather, if you close your mind to things that don't make sense to you? How can you learn anything new? What is your source of information? Do you just somehow "know" it?
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Controlling the weather, and how it's done....makes COMPLETE SENSE. Maybe not to someone like you, but i totally get how it works. Hurricane Sandy is a great example of weather modification.

A natural hurricane gets all of its boost from the negative pressure caused by the rising WARM AND WET air at the eye wall, and this negative boost originates at the surface of the ocean. So the winds in a natural hurricane are built from the surface of the water, all the way up the eye wall by air that is both WARM AND WET. A HAARP storm functions differently. Instead of having warm moist air rising from the surface of the ocean that is damp and therefore lightweight to begin with (a double rise potential) , a weather mod machine warms a column of air across a distance spanning from a few hundred feet off the surface of the water, to many miles in altitude. The combined negative pressure is built in a zone starting thousands of feet up and never quite reaching the surface of the water. If you only have the mechanic of a low central pressure, and that low central pressure lacks the assistance of light weight water vapor laden air originating at the ocean surface, the low millibar reading won't do as much as it would if it had the assistance of warm and moist air that is lighter than dry air contributing to the rise potential. And that is why Sandy is scraping along with wind speeds tenuously hovering between tropical storm and hurricane potential when it's pressure readings clearly mark it (at present) as a strong category 3.www.conspiracyplanet.com...



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by profundus
 


Maybe not to someone like you, but i totally get how it works. Hurricane Sandy is a great example of weather modification.
Actually that would be more an example of weather control, the term weather modification applies to cloud seeding.

But since you "get how it works" maybe you could calculate the amount of power necessary to do what is described in that nonsensical word soup article. Seems like that's a lot of air to warm up.

While you're at it, how about some evidence?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by profundus

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus
 

Oh. Thanks for explaining that.
Can you explain how you know about all this stuff, this ability to control the weather, if you close your mind to things that don't make sense to you? How can you learn anything new? What is your source of information? Do you just somehow "know" it?
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Controlling the weather, and how it's done....makes COMPLETE SENSE. Maybe not to someone like you, but i totally get how it works. Hurricane Sandy is a great example of weather modification.

A natural hurricane gets all of its boost from the negative pressure caused by the rising WARM AND WET air at the eye wall, and this negative boost originates at the surface of the ocean. So the winds in a natural hurricane are built from the surface of the water, all the way up the eye wall by air that is both WARM AND WET. A HAARP storm functions differently. Instead of having warm moist air rising from the surface of the ocean that is damp and therefore lightweight to begin with (a double rise potential) , a weather mod machine warms a column of air across a distance spanning from a few hundred feet off the surface of the water, to many miles in altitude. The combined negative pressure is built in a zone starting thousands of feet up and never quite reaching the surface of the water. If you only have the mechanic of a low central pressure, and that low central pressure lacks the assistance of light weight water vapor laden air originating at the ocean surface, the low millibar reading won't do as much as it would if it had the assistance of warm and moist air that is lighter than dry air contributing to the rise potential. And that is why Sandy is scraping along with wind speeds tenuously hovering between tropical storm and hurricane potential when it's pressure readings clearly mark it (at present) as a strong category 3.www.conspiracyplanet.com...


Now if you could explain to us exactly how HAARP is affecting the air temperature a few hundred feet off the ground, we'd appreciate it.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus
 


You can barely understand the difference between er and est.

No. You're wrong about that.
I know you said smaller. That's why I said smallest. It's the correct usage.
The comparative suffix "est" is used when talking about more than two things. The suffix "er" is used when talking about two things. So unless you were saying that there are only two particles of life, your grammar was incorrect.

Now can you provide evidence that "chemtrails" exist?
edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




He is unable, and unwilling when given the chance.

Of course, the ball isnt in our court for this one. We're not the people with anything to prove. profundus, grab some friends, grab some cash, get the proof, and prove us all wrong. it doesnt take a genius to figure that one out.
No....my grammar was CORRECT. If i wanted to say: the smallest particles of life; i would have said: the smallest particles of life. Small, smaller, smallest. Big, bigger, biggest. Now, go to your room, and use each one in a sentence.

You can't even comprehend a sentence and you want me to think you understand nanotechnology?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   


I don't want to put your brain in overload, causing it to heat up and burn out. So, this video will demonstrate those SMALLER particles in action.
Crazy things are happening in that SMALLER world; the world you don't have eyes to see.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus
 


Maybe not to someone like you, but i totally get how it works. Hurricane Sandy is a great example of weather modification.
Actually that would be more an example of weather control, the term weather modification applies to cloud seeding.

But since you "get how it works" maybe you could calculate the amount of power necessary to do what is described in that nonsensical word soup article. Seems like that's a lot of air to warm up.

While you're at it, how about some evidence?
I hate people that correct me, and don't know what they're talking about. So, let me REPEAT MYSELF, AGAIN...for those of you that may be lagging in your comprehension skills.


Hurricane Sandy is a great example of weather modification


Definition of MODIFICATION: 3 a : the making of a limited change in something; also : the result of such a change b : a change in an organism caused by environmental factors

How much energy did it take to break that glass???
Again, like i said earlier:

once you learn how to MANIPULATE those particles...



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by profundus

Hurricane Sandy is a great example of weather modification


How much are the alphabet agencies paying you to make these "conspiracies" look even stupider than usual?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by profundus
 


Um, congratulations? You've just linked two videos that are 100% irrelevant to the question that I asked. Bravo, I guess. You must be one of those that think HAARP can do anything it wants?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by profundus
PROVE your picture is from 1940.

Did you even go to the website and look at the photos? Almost all of the photos have a chain of custody down to when/where they were taken and who took them.



Originally posted by profundus
Your point is MUTE!

The word you're looking for is "moot".



Originally posted by profundus
Flight traffic stays relatively the same day to day, right? So then, why is it, where i live, they only come around at certain times?

The development and persistence of contrails (and clouds) depends on the temperature and humidity at contrail/cloud-forming altitudes. That's why you can have the exact same amount of air traffic every day of the week, but sometimes see a few/no contrails, and other days the sky is filled with them.



Originally posted by profundus
The effects that these "trails" have on the weather is UNDENIABLE.

Nobody is denying this fact. Plane engine manufacturers recognize that contrails are blocking out some of the sunlight. They are working on ways to reduce the production of contrails. But it won't happen overnight.



Originally posted by profundus
they CAN make it rain or not! They CAN make earthquakes. They CAN move hurricanes; and they HAVE DONE so!

And yet, there's no scientific proof to back up anything you've just said. Go figure.



Originally posted by profundus
Again, like i said, you can call them whatever fancy name you want, but they're not "normal" and certainly aren't natural.

Yet, you and everyone else have been shown websites such as Contrail Science that have photos as far back as the 1940's with long, persistent contrails. Which proves that they are normal and natural. It's not everyone else's fault that you choose to deny these facts that have been around since near the dawn of powered flight.

And because you and everyone else have been shown these facts, to still claim to this day that long, persistent contrails are "not normal or natural" is deliberately creating and perpetuating disinformation. Those who deliberately create disinformation are known as disinformation artists.



Originally posted by profundus
You DENY the very "science" you support. Science involves lots of TESTING; and testing requires real life scenarios and guinea pigs.

There's been no science at all to prove "chemtrails". None. If they really were "spraying" something in the air, it would be all over everything outside. Your house, car, bushes, grass, everything that sits outside under the sky would have whatever chemical they're "spraying" all over it.

If you really want to prove they're spraying something, get some swabs off of multiple objects outside and take those swabs to a lab. Just make sure to rule out the naturally occurring chemicals.

Or, take a cheap ride in a slow plane where a door can safely be opened and capture some of those contrails and have them tested in a lab. There are multiple ways to prove "chemtrails", but the "chemtrail" crowd won't take the most simplistic scientific measures to gain real, actual scientific proof. They just want everyone to take their word for it.



Originally posted by profundus
Closed mind? I'm being VERY OPEN.

Everyone here knows that's a dishonest statement. When you're shown photos from the 1940's that depict persistent contrails, along with who took the photo and where it was taken, and you start claiming photoshop and that there's no proof that the photo is real, then you are being the opposite of open-minded.



Originally posted by profundus
Hurricane Sandy is a great example of weather modification.
www.conspiracyplanet.com...

When you start quoting conspiracy websites as scientific fact, then it's time to tune your "facts" out.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
i don't know. but i do know that there are days when this happens on a large scale, as when i took the pic, and other days when it doesn't. do the airlines have 'slow days' ? serious question. if so, that might account for the often massive difference between the amount of trails (chem or con) that i see. if not, then why on some days are there virtually none?

The development and persistence of contrails (and clouds) depends on the temperature and humidity at contrail/cloud-forming altitudes. That's why you can have the exact same amount of air traffic every day of the week, but sometimes see a few/no contrails, and other days the sky is filled with them.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by robhines
Who gives a crap about how long normal trails stay in the sky?

Because that's one of the main cruxes of the "chemtrail" crowd. Persistent contrails = "chemtrails". Which would be 100% totally and completely false.



Originally posted by robhines
The issue isn't whether or not normal trails can stay around in the sky for ages too, it's whether or not some of them have substances in them from secret testing. And yes, in the future the truth will probably come out that many tests were tried with substances being sprayed from planes. Deal with it

Now, here's something you and other "chemtrailers" need to deal with: persistent contrails (and clouds) that are hovering in the sky won't harm you.

Any chemical that is being sprayed from planes to harm you will be heavier than water, and fall back down to earth. It would defeat the purpose of spraying anything from planes to harm you down below that would linger in the sky all day and not fall back down to earth.

That's why it's hilarious for someone such as myself to see "chemtrailers" claim that persistent contrails have harmful chemicals in them, when in fact those contrails are only frozen water molecules. Any harmful chemical would be heavier than water and already have started falling back down to earth, leaving just the frozen water in the sky in the form of clouds.

I don't know how it is everywhere else, but where I went to school, it was required to pass certain science classes to graduate. Those science classes consisted of physics, biology, and chemistry.

I believe that if everyone had been required to have the same education all across the board, we wouldn't be having ridiculous conversations such as these, because everyone would know that contrails are water molecules (the same as clouds), and that any chemical would not remain in those contrails because they would be heavier than water and fall back to earth leaving the contrail there anyway.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
When you start quoting conspiracy websites as scientific fact, then it's time to tune your "facts" out.


Wrong. It depends on what research is on said site. You surely know this so I don't know what angle you have here. Yes, that site might be mostly out, but just because it's a conspiracy site doesn't mean it's wrong. Otherwise, what about this site? Deals with conspiracy, so wrong, right? Maybe we should all leave?

Seriously.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
And don't start with "I said scientific fact." Articles, posts or threads on a conspiracy site could be mostly dealing with scientific research.





new topics




 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join