In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 8. Contrails Are NOT Their Only Concern

Although they keep trying, debunkers of conspiracy theory do not have the authority to declare what anyone labelled a "chemtrailer" can or cannot be concerned about. A select group of debunkers fabricate what are supposed to be the concern of all the people who are labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists," i.e., that the chemical constituents of a persistent contrail are toxic, when in fact what these people are actually concerned about is any activity that involves spraying chemical elements into the air for any reason whether this spraying is manifested by a persistent contrail or not, PARTICULARY in cases where the activity is not being disclosed to the public. Note that this is inconsistent with much of the goals of debunkers who keep diverting attention back to small talk about what is a contrail, what is a persistent contrail, why does it turn into a human-made cirrus cloud, etc. Similarly, note that some of the information about "chemtrail conspiracy theory" as presented by Wikipedia and the mainstream news is also inconsistent with what people who are quickly labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" actually care about (In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory: Part 2.). To illustrate what more accurately depicts their concerns:



Source (download can be slow at times): StopSprayingCalifornia

Above, I have circled in red "warfare testing, Aluminum coated fiberglass particulates (chaff), and jet fuel emissions."

The validity of SOME of the content being presented at the web page above is questionable. However, the point is you see that a group representing themselves under the motto: "Stop Spraying California" wants to see an end to ALL "Biological & Chemicals Agents" being sprayed onto US citizens from the sky, and this may include their concerns about persistent contrails, which may or may not be justifiable given the information they present specifically on persistent contrails, but they clearly have many more concerns than this. What debunkers want to do, after quoting what may be erroneous information about "chemtrails" on websites like this one, is in various ways to make the following non-sequitur logical fallacy in general:

Claim: A California group of "chemtrailers" doesn't know what is a persistent contrail
Evidence: Content from their website about persistent contrails that is either false or based on speculation
Conclusion: The California group has no valid concerns about chemical agents being sprayed into the sky

More specifically in this case, and I know I will have to refer back to this as the typical debunking rhetoric begins to place everyone suspected of being a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist" into a faceless box of freaks, the following non-sequitur argument is also not valid given the evidence illustrated above:

Claim: Chemtrail conspiracy theorists have concerns about jet aircraft activity and the persistent contrails that fill the sky
Evidence: Photos and videos of persistent contrails posted by those who are suspected of being "chemtrailers"
Conclusion: Aluminum coated fiberglass (chaff) has nothing to do with chemtrail conspiracy theory

Hence, to discuss something like the hazards of deploying clouds of aluminum or the spraying of any kind into the sky within the context of "chemtrail conspiracy theory" is quite appropriate. You see above an illustration of the concerns of the people labelled "chemtrailers," and their concern in this case has nothing to do with persistent contrails and everything to do with something intentionally released into the air that is UNLIKE the sources of pollution that come from the ground (e.g., car exhaust, power plant emissions, chemical refineries, etc.).

At the same time they claim that someone in my position is "moving the goal post" on chemtrail conspiracy theory, the truth is that debunkers have for many years been ignoring ALL the many concerns of the people being labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists," and this includes things like pollution caused by aluminum coated fiberglass or any chemical element deployed in the sky whether manifested by a contrail or not.

So, once again, evidence has been presented that everything about "chemtrail conspiracy theory" is not simply a "hoax," as Wikipedia and other sources declare, UNLESS you establish that the only concern of chemtrail conspiracy theorists is that a persistent contrail is a toxic cloud. Given a contrail does contain particulate pollution (soot) and even greenhouse gases (sulfur dioxide), it does qualify as a type of "chemtrail" (see link below) but the harmful effect of contrails in the sky are only one portion of their concerns. Although they certainly want to, debunkers have not established that this concern is paramount; only that it exists and can be refuted over and over again with claims about what is a "normal" effect of jet aircraft, but the "normal" part of their argument is based on no great fact and is actually no better than an opinion (See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 6. Contrail vs Chemtrail ). In fact, as they continue their small talk that focuses on contrails, they encourage others to ignore how important it is that certain substances sprayed into the sky without the public's awareness or consent can potentially harm the public and the environment-- a potentially disastrous approach given the kinds of activities being proposed for geoengineering in the near future.

a reply to: Petros312

That's not evidence, it's speculation. And you started off with haste towards debunkers, yet the question will always be asked, where's the proof? Why does that organization use their money to fly a plane and get some proof? If there was proof surely everyone would rally together and stop it.




I think this is just a game and it always has been. There are no intentions of trying to gather proof, or they've already tried with nothing after but empty hands and empty pockets.


Twenty plus years and still no proof on something that should easily be proven with the severity of accusations thrown.





Tell me who wins the game BTW.

a reply to: Petros312

I liked #4 when you said:

But what does that have to do with the fact that a normal contrail is composed of H2O and ash..., my answer is: nothing. That's the point! Focusing on "facts" like these don't address the concern most chemtrailers have about clouds of some kind being deployed into the atmosphere, which should never be confounded with some nervous freak looking up, observing a contrail, and blurting out, I know they're spraying something to kill us!

Because that's exactly what I think. Now, what is it you want to get across? You don't believe in chemtrails, yet you have a bug up your behind about something, and to be honest, you use way to many words when you post, so I start to loos interest and look for something shiny.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Petros312
I start to loos interest and look for something shiny.

Here, have this...you've earned it.

Alright number 8, and nothing new.

What are we to expect in number 9?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If what you mean by "new" is that this is yet another piece of information in a continuing examination of how unfairly the people who are labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" are being treated by debunkers, then I agree it's not exactly "new."

But if what you mean is that debunkers are aware that when people are labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" it can be for reasons that have nothing to do with persistent contrails in the sky, then I disagree. There are people who think the only concern of "chemtrailers" is persistent contrails, and they assume they are all "believers" for this reason alone, and they speak with undeserved privilege about how the focus of all people who are called chemtrail conspiracy theorists SHOULD be about how contrails as a "normal" phenomenon and that's all there is to it. That known as reductionism. They have something to learn here, but I do anticipate lots of denial.

Hence, to discuss something like the hazards of deploying clouds of aluminum or the spraying of any kind into the sky within the context of "chemtrail conspiracy theory" is quite appropriate. You see above an illustration of the concerns of the people labelled "chemtrailers," and their concern in this case has nothing to do with persistent contrails and everything to do with something intentionally released into the air that is UNLIKE the sources of pollution that come from the ground (e.g., car exhaust, power plant emissions, chemical refineries, etc.).

Why insist on calling it a chemtrail though? It's called chaff, so why not call it that? If you want to discuss the dangers of chaff, I think you'll fare better if you just call it that, instead of calling it a chemtrail.

See the problem is that while 'chemtrail' may technically be a correct term, it has been hijacked by a bunch of fruitloops who don't understand certain atmospheric phenomenae and very little of aviation.So whenever you use the term 'chemtrail' you're opening this whole pandora's box of madness, and good luck to you if you still want to be taken seriously.

And the chemtrail believers have brought that upon themselves with all the idiocy that we've seen come and go from their quarters. You keep blaming the 'debunkers' for that, but I think they just pointed out the sillyness of their ideas and the lack of comprehension of related fields that has been demonstrated (IE Debunking). I'm sure you're familiar with the many examples, but if not feel free to browse this forum.

You gotta admit he's right tho - I mean let's face it - has anyone ever met a chemmie who wasn't a believer in pretty much every other CT you've ever heard of...and a few you haven't??

So yeah - chemmies are NOT just concerned about chemtrails - they're concerned about all sorts of fantasies!

a reply to: Petros312

If what you mean by "new" is that this is yet another piece of information in a continuing examination of how unfairly the people who are labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" are being treated by debunkers, then I agree it's not exactly "new."

What I mean by new is the fact your making up threads about information that has been discussed many times before and had you actually took the time to look through the threads in this forum you would see that.

That known as reductionism. They have something to learn here, but I do anticipate lots of denial.

No it's called the truth backed by science...something chemtrail conspiracy theorists refuse to understand...Actual science.

a reply to: Petros312

Another great thread my friend.

The attention this topic gets is phenomenal, and the repeated attempts to censor all debate it telling.

Keep up the good work.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Petros312

Another great thread my friend.

The attention this topic gets is phenomenal, and the repeated attempts to censor all debate it telling.

Keep up the good work.

If you want to see censorship of chemtrail debates in action, try and post anything remotely critical of the 'chemtrail theory' on the following sites, and see what happens:

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

www.facebook.com...

www.facebook.com...

www.facebook.com...

www.facebook.com...

www.davidicke.com...

etc.

In contrast, on this site both sides are allowed to have their say. Incidentally that's also true for metabunk.

Chemtrail believers like criticism of their ideas about as much as scientologists like Xenu. They've made safe-havens where they can be sure to not read anything critical. It's all very culty indeed

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Petros312

Another great thread my friend.

The attention this topic gets is phenomenal, and the repeated attempts to censor all debate it telling.

Keep up the good work.

So you agree with Petros that we shouldn't be allowed to debate this subject?

So we have reached number 8. And still absolutely NOTHING of any substance has been said. What we have is more fluff, more lies, more opinions being passed of as fact....then the usual suspects come in and paste their standard ATS replies "another great post".....how is this a great post?


I'm sorry petro but i cannot take you seriously if you lie in your opening paragraph.

The debunkers case is crystal clear. Unlike you guys. Get your house in order before attacking ours. Figure out what it is you guys are scared about and let us know. Because what you are saying here is not what the countless chemmies who have posted here have said.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
...chemmies are NOT just concerned about chemtrails - they're concerned about all sorts of fantasies!

--Now see, that only suggests that debunkers are fully in denial about what is being sprayed in the sky, particularly if it is known that aluminum coated fiberglass is being dumped with no concern for the consequences.

originally posted by: network dude
So you agree with Petros that we shouldn't be allowed to debate this subject?

--Who do you think you're fooling? Your idea of "debate" below:

originally posted by: network dude
You don't believe in chemtrails, yet you have a bug up your behind about something, and to be honest, you use way to many words when you post, so I start to loos interest and look for something shiny.

If you're so keen on "debating," and not simply sabotaging threads with anti-chemtrailer banter and distortions of the truth, why don't you start with where specifically I said "we shouldn't be allowed to debate this subject."

I'll wait for the evidence that properly comes in the form of a quote.

--Now see, that only suggests that debunkers are fully in denial about what is being sprayed in the sky, particularly if it is known that aluminum coated fiberglass is being dumped with no concern for the consequences.

You'll be hard pressed to point out a single 'debunker' who denies the existence of chaff. It's all fine with me to debate the particiulars of chaff, but I see no point in trying to turn 'chaff' into 'chemtrails', like you seem to be suggesting. If anything, it looks like a desparate attempt by a chemtrail apologist to lend some credibility to the idea of 'chemtrails'.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
...chemmies are NOT just concerned about chemtrails - they're concerned about all sorts of fantasies!

--Now see, that only suggests that debunkers are fully in denial about what is being sprayed in the sky, particularly if it is known that aluminum coated fiberglass is being dumped with no concern for the consequences.

do you want to talk about chaff? Cool, what is your opinion on it's effect on the ecology vs. it's effect on protecting our jets from destruction?

originally posted by: network dude
So you agree with Petros that we shouldn't be allowed to debate this subject?

--Who do you think you're fooling? Your idea of "debate" below:

originally posted by: network dude
You don't believe in chemtrails, yet you have a bug up your behind about something, and to be honest, you use way to many words when you post, so I start to loos interest and look for something shiny.

If you're so keen on "debating," and not simply sabotaging threads with anti-chemtrailer banter and distortions of the truth, why don't you start with where specifically I said "we shouldn't be allowed to debate this subject."

I'll wait for the evidence that properly comes in the form of a quote.





I really am too lazy for this, but imagine I linked each one of your 8 threads to a letter in the sentence here :
"It's obvieous that the Chemtrail community is afraid of debate."

It's OK, I don't believe in chemtrails either.

originally posted by: payt69
... I see no point in trying to turn 'chaff' into 'chemtrails', like you seem to be suggesting.

I am not the one "suggesting" anything. I merely found the evidence that supports the people who are being labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists are concerned about more than persistent contrails, that they are indeed concerned about any "chemical trail" that may or may not be in the sky, and that these concerns include aluminum coated fiberglass that has been and still is deployed in the sky as chaff by the US Air Force without any regulations in place for the dispersal of these clouds. Debunkers must now deny this is the case because your job of "debunking" a concern of these people who get labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists just got harder.

a reply to: network dude
I am still waiting for you to support this claim you made above:

originally posted by: network dude
So you agree with Petros that we shouldn't be allowed to debate this subject?

And support this claim that I said debunkers "shouldn't be allowed to debate this subject" with the proper evidence which should come in a quote. --And if you fail to do it again (as you just did) ignoring the obvious challenge, then it's further evidence that you are a liar.

a reply to: Petros312

Read this very slowly.

YOU made 8 threads whining about how poor the chemtrail believers have been treated. 8 threads. Are you with me here?

In each of those threads, you have tried to silence all debate against chemtrails by labeling all the debunkers with your extremely wordy posts. we get it. We understand that you feel bad that these individuals who will not listen to logic or reason are treated like.......well......treated like someone who will not listen to reason or logic.

If you said anything at all of substance, this might be fun, but as of right now, you bore the crap out of me. Please speak to others, not me. I will return the favor.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: payt69
... I see no point in trying to turn 'chaff' into 'chemtrails', like you seem to be suggesting.

I am not the one "suggesting" anything. I merely found the evidence that supports the people who are being labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists are concerned about more than persistent contrails, that they are indeed concerned about any "chemical trail" that may or may not be in the sky, and that these concerns include aluminum coated fiberglass that has been and still is deployed in the sky as chaff by the US Air Force without any regulations in place for the dispersal of these clouds. Debunkers must now deny this is the case because your job of "debunking" a concern of these people who get labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists just got harder.

If people are concerned about pollution or chaff, that's fine with me. Those things exist, and if you're concerned about them, that makes you a concerned citizen, or an environmentalist maybe. There are people concerned about the industries that cause the other 98% of all pollution too. Does that make them chemtrail conspiracy theorists too? After all, those industries are spewing chemicals in the air as well, and a whole lot more.

I still don't see why you want to drag those concerns into the chemtrail area though. Chemtrail activists won't like it because they think chemtrails are something other than a byproduct of aviation, and real environmental activists don't want anything to do with chemmies, since any environmentalist worth their salt will realize that the whole chemtrail thing is a big hoax.