What should I believe about contrails?

reply to post by flice


Are you saying the worlds skyways are criss crossed on a daily basis with a spray of zinc cadmium sulphide?

What effect does it have at 30,000ft? Why spray that high when all the experiments were at low level?

Zinc cadmium sulfide was used as it could be easily detected.

en.wikipedia.org...

Since no ZnCdS has ever been detected in contrails then o, I don't think that's what it is at all, why do you think it's not just contrails?

reply to post by flice

You should all look up zinc cadmium sulfide..... It has been proven with FOIA that the army and airforce conducted test on several us cities in the 50s. Some by sprayers on buildings others by planes...

And that proves chemtrails exist today?

Btw here is something about those tests...

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by flice

So... Does it still go on today?

So because something was done in the past and during a time when we were scared crapless of the Russians it proves they are doing some type of spraying now?

And what exactly would they be spraying for now, as we aren't scared crapless of the Russians today?

reply to post by waynos


Explain to me your logic of why all chemtrails are by default contrails simply because they are a scientific phenomena that actually occurs.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Arguing with assumptions and strawman stances? I thought that was a dishonest debate tactic?

Yes, there are patents that exist for spraying chemicals from planes, and is currently used to put out forest fires; what stops that same patent from being abused and used to experiment on the American public via chemical warfare?

Uses of Chemical Warfare by the US

I mean it's not exactly a far-fetched theory is it? If you need proof of lines in the sky to be chemicals to know that they are poisoning us, I think you may have a disorder called 'cognitive dissonance'.

To say that the government doesn't or can't do these things is just very naive.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I will, in full, but you were going to explain something first. Remember, you offered an explanation, not just more questions.

Yes, there are patents that exist for spraying chemicals from planes, and is currently used to put out forest fires; what stops that same patent from being abused and used to experiment on the American public via chemical warfare?

In what respect does aerial firefighting resemble contrails? That is a huge stretch given that the load of the firefighter is spent within seconds, but you somehow think they can maintain that flow for hundreds of miles?

VeritasAequitas
Arguing with assumptions and strawman stances? I thought that was a dishonest debate tactic?

You did the same thing....

VeritasAequitas
Explain to me your logic of why all chemtrails are by default contrails...

Your comment assumes that chemtrails are a given and all are expected to believe this premise.

AugustusMasonicus

VeritasAequitas
Arguing with assumptions and strawman stances? I thought that was a dishonest debate tactic?

You did the same thing....

VeritasAequitas
Explain to me your logic of why all chemtrails are by default contrails...

Your comment assumes that chemtrails are a given and all are expected to believe this premise.

That is not even the same thing.... I'm sorry but I don't need somebody to shove evidence under my nose that lines in the sky are really chemicals being sprayed, to know that in fact we are subjected to chemical warfare on a daily basis...

Aspartame, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Sodium Fluoride, Maltodextrin; need I go on?

Also you ignored the meat of my comment in favor of arguing semantics; The Tyler would be so proud of you...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Aspartame, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Sodium Fluoride, Maltodextrin; need I go on?

Yes, please do because none of those are evidence chemtrails exist.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Very true, but they are evidence of chemical warfare, which is why it is naive to say that because contrails are legitimate; therefore all "chemtrails" must be contrails is a very faulty syllogism.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Explain to me your logic of why all chemtrails are by default contrails simply because they are a scientific phenomena that actually occurs.

Let's do one better and explain to me your logic as to why those lines in the sky are chemtrails and not contrails?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Very true, but they are evidence of chemical warfare, which is why it is naive to say that because contrails are legitimate; therefore all "chemtrails" must be contrails is a very faulty syllogism.

And is it not a fallacy to say something exists without having evidence to prove they exist?

I can tell you a pink elephant just took a crap on your car, so wouldn't you want evidence that happened or are you the type that just takes one's word for it?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


I thought I've already explained this?

We have evidence that the United States government is corrupt.

We have patents that allow for dispersal of chemical from planes.

We have a legitimate scientific phenomena called contrails, however that does not necessitate proof that the United States government would not use their own patents for diabolical means...

Personally, I think this whole debate of contrails vs chemtrails is quite stupid, and I stand by my earlier point : If you can't see or understand that we are being poisoned with chemicals by a government in league with multinational corporations who generate profit (in excess of billions) off of our disease and sickness, then you are just naive, and very much suffering from cognitive dissonance... This truth does not need to be proven by lines in the sky or not.

VeritasAequitas
That is not even the same thing....

It is exactly the same thing. Your statement begs the question on an assumption you feel we should already take from you at face value, that these chemtrails already exist. it would appear that you agree as you have since edited your post to remove the comment.

I'm sorry but I don't need somebody to shove evidence under my nose that lines in the sky are really chemicals being sprayed, to know that in fact we are subjected to chemical warfare on a daily basis...

I do as I do not buy the premise.

Aspartame, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Sodium Fluoride, Maltodextrin; need I go on?

Sure, then you can explain why the rationale for these being dispersed at high altitude. What are they making up there with this stuff, an atmospheric diet Pepsi?

Also you ignored the meat of my comment in favor of arguing semantics...

To me the remainder of your post had no merits.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

And is it not a fallacy to say something exists without having evidence to prove they exist?

Yet it's not a fallacy to assert that they can't possibly exist because contrails do; yeah okay bud.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Sure, then you can explain why the rationale for these being dispersed at high altitude. What are they making up there with this stuff, an atmospheric diet Pepsi?

Yeah because this is completely not a strawman argument..... Are you being willfully obtuse and purposely misunderstanding my statements? In no way did I infer that they are spreading High Fructose Corn Syrup, or Aspartame, in the sky from airplanes...

If they can poison us and bombard us with chemicals on the ground; why not the sky? Is that not a valid association or question to ask, or are you against free thinking?

Also I didn't edit my post to 'remove' anything; merely add to it.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Yet it's not a fallacy to assert that they can't possibly exist because contrails do; yeah okay bud.

And you will not find one debunker that says that they can't possibly exist, but you will find them saying that there is no evidence that they are being sprayed right now there is a difference.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Absence of evidence is not evidence of it's absence; you'd do well to remember that. Sometimes a little critical thinking and intuition goes a long way in the 'absence of evidence'.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

We have a legitimate scientific phenomena called contrails, however that does not necessitate proof that the United States government would not use their own patents for diabolical means...

And it in no way proves they are.

A patent doesn't prove something is actually being used.

www.oddee.com...

VeritasAequitas
Yeah because this is completely not a strawman argument..... Are you being willfully obtuse and purposely misunderstanding my statements? In no way did I infer that they are spreading High Fructose Corn Syrup, or Aspartame, in the sky from airplanes...

Then you need to work on being specific in your posts instead of meandering from the atmosphere to the food chain without being clear in your commentary. I am not the only poster that misinterpreted your comment.

If they can poison us and bombard us with chemicals on the ground; why not the sky? Is that not a valid association or question to ask, or are you against free thinking?

No, that is argument from incredulity and an appeal to probability (at best) and are both logical fallacies. Just because you think the government and corporations are poisoning you does not mean that they are or that others agree. You have not offered evidence of any type, only your personal opinion.

Also I didn't edit my post to 'remove' anything; merely add to it.

You removed the sentence I quoted which proved that you were using a logical fallacy while claiming this type of argument was dishonest and attributing the behavior to another poster.