Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chemtrails?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Eryiedes

mrthumpy

I think I gave a calm and reasoned reply to the OP. Can you point out what was wrong with it?


You can be pretty sure I wasn't refering to you then.

-Amitaba-


OK but you clearly don't agree with my answer to the OP. Can you point out where I went wrong please?




posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

mrthumpy

OK but you clearly don't agree with my answer to the OP. Can you point out where I went wrong please?


It's not my place to establish right or wrong for anyone but myself.
I'm sorry that was most certainly not the answer you hoped to recieve, but it's the only answer I can give.

-Amitaba-



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Eryiedes

mrthumpy

OK but you clearly don't agree with my answer to the OP. Can you point out where I went wrong please?


It's not my place to establish right or wrong for anyone but myself.
I'm sorry that was most certainly not the answer you hoped to recieve, but it's the only answer I can give.

-Amitaba-


So what bit of it seems wrong to you then?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


I'm sorry but you are still asking the same question that I am no more capable of answering than I was one post ago as nothing has changed in that time.
That said I am not a photo-analyst or geoengineering expert and all I can give is an acertion based on what I have seen and experienced...which is no more or less than you or anyone else here.

-Amitaba-



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


edit on 8-10-2013 by waynos because: Why bother with an obvious timewaster



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Thank you, everyone, for your links on both sides of the coin. I'm still trying to go through everything, but keep posting and I'll get around to checking it all out. I'm sure it's going to be a while lol

One thing, though. Soylent Green is People, you keep saying you hate seeing people mislead and that you want to show people the truth and science behind contrails, and that's great, forgive me if I missed something but I haven't seen you post anything on the topic that I can check out.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienBuddha
 



What troubles me some...TPTB say this is weather modification technique ...but wait I say, " doesn't the weather form over the oceans ...why do you only spray them over populated areas of land...???"

"How are we supposed to know 'what is in that stuff' you're spraying?'"

Trust us, they say...we can't tell you...but it's a good thing...

"But my testing indicates it is Aluminum and barium and strontium and a bunch of stuff I can't identify"

Not to worry, they say .



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by leftydave
 


TPTB say this is weather modification technique
What PTB? I've never heard it said, except by the "chemtrail" crowd, that contrails are a weather modification technique.


"But my testing indicates it is Aluminum and barium and strontium and a bunch of stuff I can't identify"
You mean stuff you find in dirt? Or did you actually test one of those "chemtrails"?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

mrthumpy

Eryiedes


What you CAN tell so far from the responces is that those who don't believe in them are pretty rabid in their stance and don't think anyone should think otherwise.
Meanwhile those who seem to purport their existance seem to prefer you decide for yourself.
Pretty telling, no?

-Amitaba-


I think I gave a calm and reasoned reply to the OP. Can you point out what was wrong with it?


You said they aren't chemtrails.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by leftydave
 


TPTB say this is weather modification technique
What PTB?


this PTB of course - sheesh - don't you know anything??





posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

leftydave
reply to post by AlienBuddha
 


What troubles me some...TPTB say this is weather modification technique ...but wait I say, " doesn't the weather form over the oceans ...why do you only spray them over populated areas of land...???"

"How are we supposed to know 'what is in that stuff' you're spraying?'"

Trust us, they say...we can't tell you...but it's a good thing...


I can't attest to most of it but the notion of dumping 20 megatons of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere in aerosol form alone has to be one of the most recklessly ignorant actions undertaken by mankind in a long while.
I disagree completely with the transhumanist notion of geoengineering, trying to save us from from that unicorn we call AGW. I wouldn't even wipe my butt with that last U.N. climate report. It has more holes in it than a screen door.
Just because we CAN do a thing doesn't imply that we SHOULD.
Gates is definitely up to something with all the weather modification projects he's financing and the Monsanto "drought-resistant" trangenics that he's hedged his bets with just comes across to me like the cherry on the sundae of guilt.
Sounds like more Cloward-Piven in the offing to me.
Bill's track record alone is enough for me to doubt anything he claims based on principal alone. The fact that he wants it SO badly indicates to me there's no possible way what he proposes will be good for anything but his bank account and the transhumanist/crypto-eugenics agenda.
This nutjob even has a formula he's pulled out of his sphincter to dictate just how many people HIS world should have on it.
No matter HOW you slice it...THAT'S pretty scary.

-Amitaba-
edit on 8-10-2013 by Eryiedes because: Typo



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Should my question have been which PTB?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Eryiedes

I can't attest to most of it but the notion of dumping 20 megatons of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere in aerosol form alone has to be one of the most recklessly ignorant actions undertaken by mankind in a long while.


since it is a proposal and has not actually been undertaken I guess you don't actually have to worry about that sentence any more.


I disagree completely with the transhumanist notion of geoengineering, trying to save us from from that unicorn we call AGW. I wouldn't even wipe my butt with that last U.N. climate report. It has more holes in it than a screen door.
Just because we CAN do a thing doesn't imply that we SHOULD.


Lots of people agree.

Even people who "are" "geoengineers" largely agree that dumping sulphur in the atmosphere is, at best, fraught with problems.


Gates is definitely up to something with all the weather modification projects he's financing and the Monsanto "drought-resistant" trangenics that he's hedged his bets with just comes across to me like the cherry on the sundae of guilt.


Gates likes to make it rain in places here it doesn't. Monsanto like to make money from GMO seed - as well as thousands of other products for which there is undoubted and demonstrated demand. Or do you think there is no use for "drought resistant seed", and no wish to have rain in places where crops find it difficult to grow due lack of water??



Sounds like more Cloward-Piven in the offing to me.


Since Cloward-Piven was all about welfare in the USA it is difficult for me to see how you connect it with cloud seeding and drought resistant seed.


Bill's track record alone is enough for me to doubt anything he claims based on principal alone. The fact that he wants it SO badly indicates to me there's no possible way what he proposes will be good for anything but his bank account and the transhumanist/crypto-eugenics agenda.


given that he has given away the vast majority of his money why do you think he is in the least bit concerned about his bank account, and why do you oppose his trying to improve living standards for the poorest people on earth??


This nutjob even has a formula he's pulled out of his sphincter to dictate just how many people HIS world should have on it.
No matter HOW you slice it...THAT'S pretty scary.


It is scarey to me that so many people in (currently) the richest country on earth believe such hate and jealousy based drivel, and get so angry about it.

edit on 8-10-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   



since it is a proposal and has not actually been undertaken I guess you don't actually have to worry about that sentence any more.


Just as you have no proof that they're not already doing it.



Gates likes to make it rain in places here it doesn't. Monsanto like to make money from GMO seed - as well as thousands of other products for which there is undoubted and demonstrated demand. Or do you think there is no use for "drought resistant seed", and no wish to have rain in places where crops find it difficult to grow due lack of water??


I have serious reservations about anything which smacks of GMO/trangenics and for good reason.




Since Cloward-Piven was all about welfare in the USA it is difficult for me to see how you connect it with cloud seeding and drought resistant seed.


He corners the market on weather manipulation and then patents his drought-resistant seeds so anyone suffering from it MUST pay him or starve. How is that NOT Cloward-Piven?


given that he has given away the vast majority of his money why do you think he is in the least bit concerned about his bank account, and why do you oppose his trying to improve living standards for the poorest people on earth??


Given away? You mean hidden away in trusts, foundations and charities don't you?


It is scarey to me that so many people in (currently) the richest country on earth believe such hate and jealousy based drivel, and get so angry about it.


That's as ridiculous as suggesting I am jealous of the man who is trying to put a bullet in the back of my skull. I simply don't trust the man nor anyone who would blow his trumpet for him.

-Amitaba-
edit on 8-10-2013 by Eryiedes because: Typo



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Eryiedes
I can't attest to most of it but the notion of dumping 20 megatons of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere in aerosol form alone has to be one of the most recklessly ignorant actions undertaken by mankind in a long while.


Now, I'm going to do something really weird here, and inject a little logic into the thread at this point (oh my god, I said the L word!).

You mention 20 megatons of sulfuric acid. Now since you specifically said sulfuric acid, that immediately rules out it being in the fuel system, as that would totally destroy the engines in no time, as well as causing significant damage to the fuel system itself.

A 747-400, the largest commercial plane in use in large numbers (the A380 is bigger, but isn't out there in anywhere near the numbers as the 747), has a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of between 875,000 and 910,000 pounds, depending on the version.

That includes a base weight of 394,100 pounds for the straight -400, 406,900 pounds for the -400ER, 364,000 pounds for the -400F, and 362,400 pounds for the -400ERF.

Add to that fuel weight, 389,538 pounds (roughly) for the -400, 433,194 pounds (roughly) for the -400ER, and 389,538 pounds (roughly) for the -400F/ERF.

The -400F and -400ERF have a maximum payload of 248,300 pounds and 248,600 pounds respectively. It would be less for the -400 and -400ER, because they have to add passenger and cargo weight.

Now you are talking about dumpng 20 megatons of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. That's roughly 20 million tons.

Now using 248,000 pounds as our maximum payload of sulfuric acid (which is unrealistic, because you'd have to have containers, and piping, and other modifications that would reduce the payload, but I'm being generous here), that would mean you would have to have 161, 291 flights if you used nothing but 747-400s, and there are only roughly 694 of them that were built (not counting hull losses). That means each and every 747 would have to fly 233 flights (if all 694 were still flying), carrying nothing but sulfuric acid to dump into the atmosphere.

And if you spread it out over other aircraft, then you have to have MORE of them, because obviously the smaller aircraft have lighter MTOWs.

* My math might be off, because math was never my strong suit, but it should get the point across that the scope of this conspiracy is insane.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Zaphod58

Now, I'm going to do something really weird here, and inject a little logic into the thread at this point (oh my god, I said the L word!).

You mention 20 megatons of sulfuric acid. Now since you specifically said sulfuric acid, that immediately rules out it being in the fuel system, as that would totally destroy the engines in no time, as well as causing significant damage to the fuel system itself.

A 747-400, the largest commercial plane in use in large numbers (the A380 is bigger, but isn't out there in anywhere near the numbers as the 747), has a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of between 875,000 and 910,000 pounds, depending on the version.

That includes a base weight of 394,100 pounds for the straight -400, 406,900 pounds for the -400ER, 364,000 pounds for the -400F, and 362,400 pounds for the -400ERF.

Add to that fuel weight, 389,538 pounds (roughly) for the -400, 433,194 pounds (roughly) for the -400ER, and 389,538 pounds (roughly) for the -400F/ERF.

The -400F and -400ERF have a maximum payload of 248,300 pounds and 248,600 pounds respectively. It would be less for the -400 and -400ER, because they have to add passenger and cargo weight.

Now you are talking about dumpng 20 megatons of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. That's roughly 20 million tons.

Now using 248,000 pounds as our maximum payload of sulfuric acid (which is unrealistic, because you'd have to have containers, and piping, and other modifications that would reduce the payload, but I'm being generous here), that would mean you would have to have 161, 291 flights if you used nothing but 747-400s, and there are only roughly 694 of them that were built (not counting hull losses). That means each and every 747 would have to fly 233 flights (if all 694 were still flying), carrying nothing but sulfuric acid to dump into the atmosphere.

And if you spread it out over other aircraft, then you have to have MORE of them, because obviously the smaller aircraft have lighter MTOWs.

* My math might be off, because math was never my strong suit, but it should get the point across that the scope of this conspiracy is insane.


If you watched the links I posted at all, you'd have noticed that Bill plans to use airships for dispersal and not aircraft at all...but you keep on working on that logic sir!
The photos are quite startling.

-Amitaba-



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


And if you bother to follow chemtrail threads (holy crap, including this one!), they're already happening, and we're already being sprayed, using aircraft that are in the sky (as you yourself pointed out repeatedly in this thread). So which is it, they're GOING to do them, or they ARE doing them? Because if they ARE spraying us, then the logic holds up just fine, and you have an insanely huge conspiracy that is somehow amazingly air tight. If they're GOING to be spraying us, then how can you already have chemtrails happening, if they're not spraying us yet?
edit on 10/8/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


And if you bother to follow chemtrail threads (holy crap, including this one!), they're already happening, and we're already being sprayed, using aircraft that are in the sky (as you yourself pointed out repeatedly in this thread). So which is it, they're GOING to do them, or they ARE doing them? Because if they ARE spraying us, then the logic holds up just fine, and you have an insanely huge conspiracy that is somehow amazingly air tight. If they're GOING to be spraying us, then how can you already have chemtrails happening, if they're not spraying us yet?
edit on 10/8/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


When did I say anything about aircraft?

-Amitaba-



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


So you've seen airships flying around, but no one else has? How is that possible, because they'd have to be huge to carry that kind of weight, but no one has seen them?



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


So you've seen airships flying around, but no one else has? How is that possible, because they'd have to be huge to carry that kind of weight, but no one has seen them?


And I said that when exactly?
(And in the video clips there are photos of them and they ARE huge.)

-Amitaba-
edit on 8-10-2013 by Eryiedes because: Added Comment






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join