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.

 

Success for the Chemtrail program?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by PLAYERONE01
 





The thing is, with this topic in particular as well as some others it is just a no go zone and you will get stonewalled, even if you had something solid to put forward the agenda will smother it.


What exactly is being stonewalled, and what is this agenda you think is smothering the chemtrail evidence that is being introduced?

You do understand if you have solid evidence to prove they are being sprayed it helps that you can back it up with something better than "Just Look Up", which btw is the official answer to evidence of chemtrails by the chemtrail believers.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

PlanetXisHERE
So you are saying that it is strange for a person to ask a hypothetical question? Such as......."If God did exist"......or........."if Aliens exist"..............or "If I won the lottery"..........

People deal in hypothetical situations everyday and the ability to have an interesting discussion about hypotheticals is not predicated by people's beliefs about them.

Your premise logically boils down to it is impossible to have a conversation about something unless the truth is known, and if that were the case people would not be able to discuss such things as history, science ...........kind of ridiculous thus what would be termed as a "fallacy".



Oh, so we are not saying chemtrails are real, just a "what if they were".

Sure, as long as that's clear, it's all good. No harm in speculating. It's when you start to talk as if you have no doubt they are real and then have nothing other than "look up man" to back that up, that your premise starts to fail.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Less than a century ago most homes were heated by fire. Most food was cooked over fire. Fire contains much more co2 than what is released in exhaust from any fuel used now used, gas, propane or jet fuel included. Since we no longer heat or cook with fire the co2 is actually less than it used to be. Cars have not closed the gap since most cars have catalitic converters that nuteralize exhaust fumes. The air is getting cleaner and we have trees to take care of what is left. The plants breath in co2 and respire oxygen.
The planet however has gone through many periods of heating and cooling and will continue to do so. The dinosaurs lived on a tropical planet. Early man lived in the ice age. Was it those dino cars exhaust or dino farts that caused the ice age that followed? Was it early man's cooking fires that turned it around so that it got warm again? And if so why did another ice age follow that warming trend? Chemtrails of the ancients. LOL.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

network dude

PlanetXisHERE
So you are saying that it is strange for a person to ask a hypothetical question? Such as......."If God did exist"......or........."if Aliens exist"..............or "If I won the lottery"..........

People deal in hypothetical situations everyday and the ability to have an interesting discussion about hypotheticals is not predicated by people's beliefs about them.

Your premise logically boils down to it is impossible to have a conversation about something unless the truth is known, and if that were the case people would not be able to discuss such things as history, science ...........kind of ridiculous thus what would be termed as a "fallacy".



Oh, so we are not saying chemtrails are real, just a "what if they were".

Sure, as long as that's clear, it's all good. No harm in speculating. It's when you start to talk as if you have no doubt they are real and then have nothing other than "look up man" to back that up, that your premise starts to fail.


I believe they do, just from my own observations, I know many think that if they did exist the government or media would tell them......but that is not the case. I also realize some on this site seem to believe chemtrails don't exist.

So my OP was an attempt to discuss weather/climate extremes that may or may not be related to chemtrails/contrails, and discuss the premise in the OP as either reality or a hypothetical depending on where you sat on the chemtrail/contrail fence, but leave the chemtral/contrail debate behind, for it has been discussed in thousands of threads/posts, amply, for any who wanted information on either side of the debate, and just discuss my premise that a ramp up in chemtrails has seen North America at least go from record heat to record cold in just 18 months.




edit on 4-1-2014 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


[Your premise logically boils down to it is impossible to have a conversation about something unless the truth is known, and if that were the case people would not be able to discuss such things as history, science ...........kind of ridiculous thus what would be termed as a "fallacy". ]

Except that the truth or at least most of the truth is known in history or science. Those are credible disciplines with years of knowledge behind them . Unless your wish is to discredit all of history and science. In which case... carry on dude.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


If you believe they do exist where does hypothetical come in?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I am challenging you here and now to explain why they would do this. No, don't try to attach proof that they are . Tell me in your own words why they would. If you can provide a logical reason why anyone would execute a plan to destroy the planet or its citizens then we can move on to your proof that they are doing it but first there has to be a reason. A logical reason.


FEEL FREE TO IGNORE THIS QUESTION . Oh that's right . You already have.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


[Your premise logically boils down to it is impossible to have a conversation about something unless the truth is known, and if that were the case people would not be able to discuss such things as history, science ...........kind of ridiculous thus what would be termed as a "fallacy". ]

Except that the truth or at least most of the truth is known in history or science. Those are credible disciplines with years of knowledge behind them . Unless your wish is to discredit all of history and science. In which case... carry on dude.


If you understood the axiom that history is written by the victors and also that many of the fundamental questions about humans, our existence, the Universe remain unanswered by science (not to mention thousand of smaller ones) you would realize the fallacy of the above statement

20 Big Unanswered Questions in Science



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I am not sure exactly what you are looking for with this statement because it seems to me to be saying "Don't answer unless you agree with me".



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


lol, that was one of the most confusing reply's I have ever received.
Let me put it this way, people today have come along way since the 1950's I think everyone here can agree on that.
So in the 1950's when the Government said they wanted to "spray some special stuff"around to cure you from some disease well because everyone was patriots they were all cool with that:



Things are different now though.
Is there motivation? to spray stuff in the sky, sure, just as there was motivation to test DDT on American civilians.
is there means? of course there is means come on its 2014 we can build drones the size of mosquito's.
suspicion? America has a suspected Black ops budget of $52.6 billion (Thank you Edward Snowden)
This is just one Government not taking into account other prominent powers in the world or prominent global elite company's.
All im saying is its plausible
www.economicpolicyjournal.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Here is the most interesting thing I find with this thread...

What would cause the Earth to warm up more?

This...



or say something such as this...






posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



So my OP was an attempt to discuss weather/climate extremes that may or may not be related to chemtrails/contrails, and discuss the premise in the OP as either reality or a hypothetical depending on where you sat on the chemtrail/contrail fence, but leave the chemtral/contrail debate behind, for it has been discussed in thousands of threads/posts, amply, for any who wanted information on either side of the debate, and just discuss my premise that a ramp up in chemtrails has seen North America at least go from record heat to record cold in just 18 months.


Once again you are back-pedaling so fast you're stripping your gears. You want to discuss the effects of "chemtrails" without discussing what they are or whether or not they even exist! Then you post data suggesting that mean global temperature has been increasing steadily since the 1940s (the invention of the jet engine) then suggest that the purpose of "chemtrails" is to cool the planet... and that its working!



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I am challenging you here and now to explain why they would do this. No, don't try to attach proof that they are . Tell me in your own words why they would. If you can provide a logical reason why anyone would execute a plan to destroy the planet or its citizens then we can move on to your proof that they are doing it but first there has to be a reason. A logical reason.


Please don't be offended if I didn't answer your question, if you take things personally it is just ego, and reactions the body has to mind generated emotions (as opposed to an externally derived one which may be more essential to your physical survival) are not healthy for the body.

Your question is answered in the OP, chemtrails are done to slow down global warming, but they weren't effective up to 2012 as evidenced by the warmest year on record, but the program seems to have ramped up over the last 2 years or so, and it is finally having the desired effect.

Do you want me to explain why an Ice Age would be bad for the Northern Hemisphere?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



So my OP was an attempt to discuss weather/climate extremes that may or may not be related to chemtrails/contrails, and discuss the premise in the OP as either reality or a hypothetical depending on where you sat on the chemtrail/contrail fence, but leave the chemtral/contrail debate behind, for it has been discussed in thousands of threads/posts, amply, for any who wanted information on either side of the debate, and just discuss my premise that a ramp up in chemtrails has seen North America at least go from record heat to record cold in just 18 months.


Once again you are back-pedaling so fast you're stripping your gears. You want to discuss the effects of "chemtrails" without discussing what they are or whether or not they even exist! Then you post data suggesting that mean global temperature has been increasing steadily since the 1940s (the invention of the jet engine) then suggest that the purpose of "chemtrails" is to cool the planet... and that its working!


As I pointed out to the other poster:



So you are saying that it is strange for a person to ask a hypothetical question? Such as......."If God did exist"......or........."if Aliens exist"..............or "If I won the lottery"..........

People deal in hypothetical situations everyday and the ability to have an interesting discussion about hypotheticals is not predicated by people's beliefs about them.

Your premise logically boils down to it is impossible to have a conversation about something unless the truth is known, and if that were the case people would not be able to discuss such things as history, science ...........kind of ridiculous thus what would be termed as a "fallacy".




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by PLAYERONE01
 





All im saying is its plausible


And you see nobody is saying it isn't plausible, but to say it has been happening for over a decade without a shred of evidence factual or scientific is where the problem arises.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Whoever said chemtrails are causing the earth to warm up? I think you are on the wrong thread........



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


If I understood???? Really ? You are calling my understanding into question? I graduated with a 3.9 grade average. My IQ is 125 which doesn't make me a genius but also doesn't make me stupid. History is not only written by the victors There are many sources other than governments who won the wars . And that little factoid you tried to throw in still doesn't answer the question of science. Or is that supplied by the victors as well?. Because Marie Curie sure wasn't a victor but she gave us a lot of science about radiation even though it killed her in doing so. Try to answer without insulting people. It does not add weight to your argument.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Ok the sand box is yours. Bye.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by AutumnWitch657
 





I am not sure exactly what you are looking for with this statement because it seems to me to be saying "Don't answer unless you agree with me".


I am not saying that is the intention of the OP, but that should not be a big surprise in a chemtrail thread.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join