Using the "L" word with regards to chemtrails.

Since it’s impossible to get anywhere discussing how contrails are just contrails I think using a new tool to explore why chemtrails are actually contrails is in order.

This tool is logic.

If chemtrails are real, they have a purpose. The purpose is not yet known, but it’s widely speculated.

1. It’s for SRM (geo-engineering) to block out the sun.

Logic- if that was true, then for this to have any lasting effect, it would need to be done all day, every day, in every part of the sky. As it is now, you only see persistent contrails in certain areas based on where they are most likely to form. If you see blue skies anywhere, that in itself, disproves this theory.

2. It’s for population control. (they are trying to kill us all)

Logic- a simple search proves that we are living longer than ever before and almost every year, the longevity increases.

3. It’s there to make us sick. (I can taste the air just after they spray)

Logic- if this were true, and the purpose was to make people sick, then EVERYONE in the affected area would be sick. EVERYONE. You would see the emergency rooms filling up and new crews would be searching for answers. People wouldn’t let this kind of thing slide.


If pilots were knowingly spraying something harmful out of planes, they and their families would not just walk around breathing the same air we serfs do. (bonus logic)

If pilots were knowingly spraying something harmful out of planes, they and their families would not just walk around breathing the same air we serfs do. (bonus logic)

Unless they knew doing so would prevent something worse

The Lesser of Two Evils

I'm just messing

Logic 1 is questionable how do you know how much is needed to have an effect?
2 well true... in some places, also less children per mother too soo who knows
3 how do you know what makes sick the reptilians

bye

originally posted by: network dude
Since it’s impossible to get anywhere discussing how contrails are just contrails I think using a new tool to explore why chemtrails are actually contrails is in order.

This tool is logic.

If chemtrails are real, they have a purpose. The purpose is not yet known, but it’s widely speculated.

1. It’s for SRM (geo-engineering) to block out the sun.

Logic- if that was true, then for this to have any lasting effect, it would need to be done all day, every day, in every part of the sky. As it is now, you only see persistent contrails in certain areas based on where they are most likely to form. If you see blue skies anywhere, that in itself, disproves this theory.

2. It’s for population control. (they are trying to kill us all)

Logic- a simple search proves that we are living longer than ever before and almost every year, the longevity increases.

3. It’s there to make us sick. (I can taste the air just after they spray)

Logic- if this were true, and the purpose was to make people sick, then EVERYONE in the affected area would be sick. EVERYONE. You would see the emergency rooms filling up and new crews would be searching for answers. People wouldn’t let this kind of thing slide.


If pilots were knowingly spraying something harmful out of planes, they and their families would not just walk around breathing the same air we serfs do. (bonus logic)

The pilots spraying can't exist because if they did they would know what they are spraying is harmful and alert everyone.

It's also not at all possible drones or just simply evil people are doing this.

We can't spray the air because any chemicals we spray couldn't have a cure.

You and I are logical people.

My mind has been so conditioned with the "using the X Word" That I came here looking for Ligger.

That's bad.

Sorry, very off topic

originally posted by: Indigent
3 how do you know what makes sick the reptilians

bye

Simple, I asked the Queen of England. Since she is the leader of the reptilians, I decided to go right to the top. She assured me that the reptilians were all in fine health and had no part in the global "chemtrail" meme.

a reply to: Indigent

Logic 1 is questionable how do you know how much is needed to have an effect?

SRM is mimicking volcanic eruptions.

Massive eruptions to be specific.

Massive enough that a measurable change in temperature was recorded.

For SRM to actually be viable, it would have to at least match the sulphur dioxide output of a massive volcanic eruption.

ETA: When Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991 it spewed out 17 million tonnes of SO2 into the atmosphere, the cloud blocked the sunlight enough that global temperatures dropped 0.5°C.

originally posted by: n00bUK
My mind has been so conditioned with the "using the X Word" That I came here looking for Ligger.

That's bad.

Sorry, very off topic

I am not sure you can say that.

a reply to: network dude

when people were planing to stop global warming back in the day they say blocking 1% of solar power was enough

All the methods are designed to block about 1 per cent of the Sun's rays, enough to protect at least one million square kilometres of the Earth and significantly cool the planet.

theguardian

So again how much is the minimum to have an effect, logic have to be supported by facts otherwise is just speculation, last time i tried to see the logic on this chemtrail stuff i asked what was being dispersed and it was just deflected.


Zealots from both sides it seems, anyways op logic is flawed for example in 2 a simple search also yields this



that's the USA births per 1000 population

I'm not defending in anyway the chemtrail conspiracy but the logic of op is deeply flawed



Total fertility rate

a reply to: Indigent

Your graph is flawed too..

You need to take into infant mortality rates..



Due to such a high mortality rate, more babies are conceived.

a reply to: AlphaHawk

the graph is solid, what that means is something as simple as

It’s for population control.

Is extremely complex and several variables needs to be pondered in order to achieve a true conclusion, so saying something is logic based on one parameter of many is just a mistake.

That is my point anyways
______

Also you should have shown your statistics achieved a plateau in the 80s and mine dint, why cut the graph if you want the truth?

a reply to: Indigent


I didn't cut it off, it just doesn't fit the page.

Right click and open image in new tab to see it, but it doesn't plateau.

But you're right on the complexity, that's why I posted the infant mortality graph, because fertility on its own means nothing...more babies were being born because more were dying, this can be seen with BOTH graphs... Why ignore infant mortality if you want the truth?

I myself don't believe in chemtrails but still, I believe they are trying to cool down earth or certain parts by flying extra flights and in doing so producing a layer which contains out of contrails.

We know that North America cooled down after 9/11. Also you'll find this Study"Contrails Reduce Daily Temperature Range" which deals with the same issue. Unfortunately I can't find a register button and I guess you'll have to pay.

As I said, I don't believe they are spraying chemicals but it would make sense. Now that our ozone layer is ruined, why not use an artificial one?


Greetz,
Dan

a reply to: AlphaHawk

Yeah you are right im sorry my bad is not cut off, this is another good statistic to ponder

populationpyramid.net...

check the shape between 1970 and 2005

a reply to: Indigent

In chart 1 please note that the drop in birth rates occurred when women got the pill and abortions were no longer illegal. See the big drop around 1969? I don't believe you didn't already know that and just put up that chart to be an antagonist. Note the jump upward between 1939 and 1949. Those are the baby boomers years right after WWII. You can even see where births dropped during the war years early in the century during WWI and again in the 40s during WWII.
In chart 2 you see the same results. The under developed nations just took longer to embrace the birth control trend.
What these charts really show is that if women hadn't taken that particular bull by the horns we would be at 10 billion or more instead of the 7 we have now. Your chart actually shows the results of the woman's movement on world population not the result of chemtrails.
Who's logic is flawed again?

a reply to: Indigent

flowingdata.com...

a plethora of data

Life expetancy has skyrocketed in the last 100 years.

Flawed? doubt it.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Who's logic is flawed again?

op as there is clearly a population control, render his logic untrue regardless of the cause.

its so hard to see the logic in the op is not correct?

point 1. its for geoengeniering

op logic: have to cover the entire atmosphere
fault: no minimum point considered to achieve what exact change?

Point 2. its for population control.

OP logic: we live longer.
Fault: we still die and the dead has to be replaced by the living, are we achieving replacing rates, surpassing it or below replacement? below replacement in some countries therefore it is doubtful the population is not controlled

point 3 its there for makes us sick

Logic: are you fool
fault: nothing if you are human

Bonus logic: pilots are human too and have families
Fault: unless point 3 there is no way to know if there is really chemtrails not know why they are for to say the gain is less than the loss, if there is gain to them and pilots know them one can argue they don't make them public for the greater good.


No posting BS to be contrary at all, just making a true logic analysis of what is presented and in reality i find it flawed

a reply to: Danowski

If we use that dreaded "L" word with your ideas, it would seem that contrails cause warming. An undesired affect. We want more cooling. So reducing the contrails would be the way to produce a cooler planet. Unfortunately, the contrails are unavoidable at this time given the current situations.

(I will add IMHO so nobody gets any sand in their nether regions. Indigent)

a reply to: Indigent

I will ask you this question.

On average, are people living longer today than they did in 1950?

a reply to: network dude

Of course, but there is required 2 people to make 1, if 1 mother have 1 children them in the next generation there will be less available parents to maintain the same ratio, to replace parents each mother needs 2 children in order to maintain the same population, regardless of how much you live, unless you simply wont die, (them its irrelevant no replacement needed), but as long as we die no matter how much we live each couple needs to make 2 to maintain the population, this is also more complex as older population cannot have kids, so saying that now we can replace all that are living may be true, even we may growth more, but at some point if the population keeps getting older, there will be a collapse in the numbers.

If the old people don't have 2 kids when they are young, could they have them when they are old? an older population with 1 kid in average will eventually reduce their number no matter how much they live. Is it so hard?


In short and older population is just a bubble that will burst eventually

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Danowski

If we use that dreaded "L" word with your ideas, it would seem that contrails cause warming. An undesired affect. We want more cooling. So reducing the contrails would be the way to produce a cooler planet. Unfortunately, the contrails are unavoidable at this time given the current situations.

(I will add IMHO so nobody gets any sand in their nether regions. Indigent)

We're on the same side here, in my opinion earth should cool down by not having aircrafts in our air. But the data says something different So either it's wrong, or you can't judge it by such a short term study.


What's your opinion on those three days after the attack where North America cooled down a little bit?