This is why we "debunk" chemtrails.

reply to post by mrthumpy

Oh, we're making generalizations now.
Well, in that case, I've seen a couple of articles stating that pilots were arrested for preparing to fly commercial airplanes after visiting airport bars.
So, according to your logic, I'm supposed to assume that all pilots do this.

See how that works?

reply to post by Afterthought


Who's generalising? It only takes one lunatic to bring down a plane. Are you saying we should just ignore the possibility of someone killing hundreds of people over a ridiculous hoax because most chemtrail believers are merely ignorant and not dangerous?

reply to post by mrthumpy


Don't be coy. You are most certainly generalizing all chemical aerosol believers just because ONE of these men was crazy enough to attempt an assassination.
To prove you aren't generalizing, locate 2 to 3 more articles documenting that chemical aerosol believers have also tried to kill or have succeeded in killing one or more government officials.
I have a feeling that more pilots have flown drunk than chemical aerosol believers have attempted murder.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus

Despite any testing proof from what floats down from these things onto the ground, vegetation, housing or people....despite the Government Accounting Office's own records showing massive amount of military chaff being purchased and used every single fricking year, and despite the Department of Naval Research's own studies which show that military chaff, upon degredation, is harmful to humans and animals, we must just accept that these are normal chemtrails and go about our happy, carefree lives. Don't listen to the weather casters which have to explain that radar returns on doppler aren't rain, but massive amounts of chaff.

Got any sources on these records or studies? I'd be interested to see how contrails=chaff drops.

And your weather caster...is that the guy from weatherwars who thinks the sun shines out of Bearden's nether regions? Or are there some legitimate ones?

reply to post by Afterthought


Just because they haven't doesn't mean there isn't plenty who would like to commit murder. There's even one delightful lady pointing lasers at cockpits and building rockets to fire at aircraft.

metabunk.org...

reply to post by mrthumpy


Yea, but what's a few aircraft and a few hundred dead passengers?

After all, we are talking about the integrity of the chemtrail theory now.

Geez. Talk about mental instability.
This conversation is reminding of those who believe that all pro-lifers are going to murder doctors who perform abortions.
Find a new hobby, folks. No matter how much you want to believe that chemical aerosol believers are dangerous and crazy doesn't make it so. Taking an extremist stance doesn't help anyone and makes YOU look crazy.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by mrthumpy

 

Yea, but what's a few aircraft and a few hundred dead passengers?

After all, we are talking about the integrity of the chemtrail theory now.

Plus just think how brightly it'll burn with all that aluminium oxide on board.

reply to post by Afterthought


No, it makes the one or two extremists look stupid. How many of them would it take to cause a disaster?

Take some time to think about your answer.

reply to post by Afterthought

This conversation is reminding of those who believe that all pro-lifers are going to murder doctors who perform abortions.

Not all, but more than you may think...

reply to post by Afterthought


Science is extremist only in that it holds truth and facts as the final word, and "Research" is the watchcry.
Especially Gravity.
It's the law.

And "chemtrail" lore does not hold up to critical thinking and the laws of gravity.
When you have theories ignoring gravity.....you are a "chemtrail" believer.

Chemtrails are real!!

Water vapor and C02 are chemicals after all.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Afterthought

 

This conversation is reminding of those who believe that all pro-lifers are going to murder doctors who perform abortions.

Not all, but more than you may think...

And your point is... ?
So, this thread is basicly designed to demonize all those who believe that our government may be using chemical aerosols to modify the weather?
But, this isn't a thread made by and for extremists.
Up is down and down is up, right?

And just to help those of you see what's actually going on...
Allow me to introduce you to the Global Cooling Project:
www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...

When done on a large scale, this will increase soil moisture, plant growth, cloud cover and rainfall.

Those involved with this project believe that increased cloud cover is a good thing. So, who's to say that contrails aren't being modified on purpose so that they hang around longer?
People really shouldn't be so quick to dismiss things that may be going on and simply aren't reported in the MSM.
Where is the project's focus?
www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...

Areas where social, economic and political considerations make this a win-win-win-win option

The current shortlist of likely countries is:

Chad, Senegal, Mali, Guinea, Nigeria, Niger
Madagascar, Indonesia and surroundings
Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, Zambia
USA (eg Florida), Brazil, India, Australia

Who here has heard of this project?
What are these scientists NOT willing to try to "buy time" as they say on the site?
Who do they need to convince that they know best?

Discussions with local inhabitants will need to respect their right to refuse the project or have their needs taken account of both in the project design and in its implementation.

In each continent, at least one in-country partnership will need to be created. The latter will consist of local communities, concerned NGOs, government organisations, etc.

Will they truly listen to the local inhabitants? Those involved with fracking have proven they don't give a rat's arse what the locals have to say, so why should we believe that these people are stating truth?
Am I going to try to kill these scientists because I don't agree with their project and ideas? Of coarse not.
But, I'm not going to invite them for Christmas dinner either and I certainly wouldn't think they aren't willing to try anything to make their ideas work or make it seem as though their project is a success. They are obviously getting a lot of money to do this and I can't imagine that they would want to pay it back should their project prove to be a failure or mess up the environment further.

reply to post by Afterthought

And your point is... ?

My point was that not all are going to kill a doctor, but more than you know would do it...

reply to post by Afterthought

From your source:

In dry regions that have a short rainy season, rainwater harvesting helps increase soil moisture. Increases in soil moisture bring increased growth of plants and trees. This increases cloud formation.

www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...

What is rainwater harvesting?
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) involves lots of medium, small and micro-scale community level projects to catch and hold rainwater in the soil during rainy periods. There are broadly speaking 5 types of RWH:
Rooftop RWH - mainly for domestic use.
In situ RWH - where there is little slope and run-off of water.
Runoff RWH - where there is slopes and run-off (illustrated below)
Sub-surface dams - for sandy soils
Large catchment water harvesting - includes floodwater diversion

There is nothing about "spraying" to increase cloud cover in your source. Nothing even about cloud seeding. Never mind the fact that persistent contrails do not produce precipitation which reaches the surface and, in fact, have a net warming effect on climate. Your source has nothing to do with "chemtrails".

reply to post by Phage

If you'd read my post carefully, you'd see I stated that I wouldn't put it past them to do what's necessary to increase the success of their project due to the immense amount of money they're most likely receiving.
Reading the website, they're actually pretty vague about the tactics they're considering. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how far they're actually willing to go.
Who's to say that they won't use questionable tactics in countries where the people don't have much of a voice and the media isn't apt to report on the project's methodologies?
Right now, scientists are involved in human-animal gene splicing, so I wouldn't put anything past them at this point. Considering the genetic engineering going on, spraying the atmosphere with chemical aerosols to increase cloud cover is mere child's play. I really don't put anything past scientists at this point. It seems like anything is game.

reply to post by Afterthought

Allow me to introduce you to the Global Cooling Project:

And I have to ask how this relates to chemtrails....

This will involve detailed work looking at:

•Areas where rainwater harvesting will produce greatest impact on cloud formation
•Areas where rainwater harvesting can be carried out on a large scale
•Areas where social, economic and political considerations make this a win-win-win-win option

www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...

Looks like they are into cloud seeding and rainfall catching, sorry can't see the relation of this to chemtrails....

reply to post by Afterthought

Reading the website, they're actually pretty vague about the tactics they're considering. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how far they're actually willing to go.

Actually, it's quite well described.
www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...

What is rainwater harvesting?
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) involves lots of medium, small and micro-scale community level projects to catch and hold rainwater in the soil during rainy periods. There are broadly speaking 5 types of RWH:
Rooftop RWH - mainly for domestic use.
In situ RWH - where there is little slope and run-off of water.
Runoff RWH - where there is slopes and run-off (illustrated below)
Sub-surface dams - for sandy soils
Large catchment water harvesting - includes floodwater diversion

Considering the genetic engineering going on, spraying the atmosphere with chemical aerosols to increase cloud cover is mere child's play.

Awesome non-sequitur there but aerosols don't really do much to increase cloud cover. Plenty of wind blown dust in the desert, not much cloud cover.

Originally posted by Afterthought
so I wouldn't put anything past them at this point.

Yet you speak as if there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it IS happening right now all day, every day?

Nobody doubts that they could do it, that they are thinking about all sorts of things, but to say that they are doing it, well, bring something other than what you have brought. It ain't enough.

Your attitude is what's wrong with most of the chemtrail crowd. They lack evidence and they severely lack communication skills.

So which is it, they are doing it, or they might be doing it?

Strange how they're not being very specific about Plan C.
www.theglobalcoolingproject.com...

Time for "Plan C"

On Friday 2 January 2009 The Independent published an article titled: "Climate scientists: it's time for 'Plan B'". The article reports a poll of international scientists, who believe that our failure to cut CO2 emissions now means that we will instead need to adopt "Plan B": geoengineering solutions.

The Land-Atmosphere and Resilience Initiative (LARI) proposes a third way, an alternative to radical geoengineering, which can be implemented much sooner. In fact, it already is being implemented, for perfectly good eco-restoration and community well-being reasons.

What exactly is "radical geoengineering"? Sure doesn't sound as though they're talking about RWH.

Regarding radical geoengineering:
www.wired.com...

Scientists have come up with extreme -- some might say crazy -- schemes to counteract global warming. This year saw the most radical geo-engineering ideas yet: man-made volcanoes, orbiting mirror fleets and ocean re-engineering to cool the planet and absorb carbon dioxide.

Scientists are willing to create man-made volcanoes, but I'm supposed to believe they aren't willing to spray the atmosphere with contrails that are manipulated to hang in the atmosphere longer. Yeah. OK.