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.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by smurfy
Then why does Keith talk about administering aluminium particles in the stratosphere by the use of aircraft? or are you going to say Keith has not mentioned that? That's all that matters here now, so has he said that or not?
Yes or No....I'll answer for him and you the answer is a resounding Yes.
Yes he talks about it - he proposed doing it, and yes it would be business for him.
That's still not the same as doing it, and if he did do it would it look like contrails???
Lots of people are talking about the possibility of solar radiation management by "spraying stuff" into the atmosphere at various heights - sulphur or aluminium in the stratosphere, salt water droplets at a lower level are quite well known proposals.
the fact that people are thinking up ideas does not justify making up stories saying they are actually doing it!
Originally posted by smurfy
What story is that? who is making it up?
Originally posted by smurfy
He is a plausible crook, you have been misled, and you mislead. You have already stated that aircraft would not be used, and he in fact proposes aircraft. See the HARDtalk interview, it speaks volumes
Originally posted by stars15k
Originally posted by smurfy
He is a plausible crook, you have been misled, and you mislead. You have already stated that aircraft would not be used, and he in fact proposes aircraft. See the HARDtalk interview, it speaks volumes
Where have I stated planes would not be used?
The planes today would not be used, because they don't fly in the stratosphere. There are few planes today that do. Also the planes today would not be equipped to do anything like what he is talking about.
There are many other plan to geo-engineering, and planes are one of them...but just one.
But you consider research as an admission of doing anything so I don't trust your comprehension about anything anyway.
Please explain how I mislead. I presented facts and quotes about the video posted. If you think it is misleading because I understand research is thinking not doing, the only person misleading are the people who claim and think otherwise.
Keith says putting "aerosols in the stratosphere", where he says "you could use aircraft" and "The doing is easy"
"and the real geo-engineering experts say there is no geo-engineering being done, especially not using planes, then no matter how much people continue to believe otherwise, it still makes "chemtrails" poo."
That's in total contrast to what Keith is saying, so he must not be a real geo-engineer then? you can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
LoL the irony of a "geoengineer" claiming he doesn't know what "chemtrails" are in a video where he debunks them.
No what's really ironic is the fact that not one of the so called chemtrail experts can tell you what they are or what they are supposedly being sprayed for.
As for the "personal attack", you have been a member here for three years and start a thread were you are calling a large portion of the members here uneducated idiots (whether true or not). This places increased pressure on you and your intellect.
The fact that after three years you can't figure out how to embed a video speaks strongly of your intelligence when you complain about no one going out and doing their own research when you can't be bothered to learn to copy and paste.
Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
No what's really ironic is the fact that not one of the so called chemtrail experts can tell you what they are or what they are supposedly being sprayed for.
How ironic it is that people are debunking things and then saying they don't even know what they just debunked . . . . ( what the f . . .)
The act of debunking would require knowledge of what people think something is and what is actually happening and presenting the results of a scientific study.
Originally posted by omega man
What do you make of these links?truththeory.com... and-chemtrails-connection/globalresearch.ca...
The known uses of HAARP are: weather modification, power beaming, earth tomography (mapping of our planet’s interior), Star Wars-type defense capabilities, enhanced communications, communication disruptions and mind control.
2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release.
The Pentagon document constitutes a convenient cover-up. Not a word is mentioned about its main weather warfare program: The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy.
Learn to read, or read more slowly so you comprehend what you are replying to.
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Learn to read, or read more slowly so you comprehend what you are replying to.
Tell you what instead of commenting on how people reply back, try showing us some of the scientific evidence that proves chemtrails exist.
You see for this conspiracy to actually be real you need scientific evidence which has yet to be produced, can you do that or are you going to complain about the OP some more.
BTW the OP is a she....
Learn to read as she addressed the fact she didn't get it to embed, as that does happen from time to time. When your here long enough you will understand that.
My response was a 'shame shame' on the OP for calling others idiots and lazy for not researching things when they can't even figure out how to embed a video (after three years as a member) and were too lazy to look up how.
You are making yourself look extremely foolish now.
Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Learn to read, or read more slowly so you comprehend what you are replying to.
This guy did not do any tests . . . so your entire example is . . . . bunk!
FYI Debunking does indeed require science otherwise no one would give a F what this guy thinks. Your whole post reeks of self righteousness.