Manufacturing Industry - The REAL Chem Trail

reply to post by Zepherian


Unless you have spectrometers for eyes, your observations are intrinsically flawed, as there is no way you can know what you saw. You might think you know, but that is not the same as knowing. Not even close. Why you think your perception is anything other than anecdotal, vague guesswork is beyond me. That's simply not how science works.

I'm not saying your eyewitness account is shabby - but that all eyewitness accounts which claim that a chemical substance is some other chemical substance are shabby. Stop taking this so personally.

You are simply not making sense. You are leaping to conclusions for no apparent reason other than paranoia.

reply to post by dave420


Then why should I trust the scientists reading the spectrometers? I mean, they are just fallible human beings like me, they probably have no idea what they are reading...

Sorry, but I think thou does protest too much.

i myself will ignore dave from now on;

this guy doesn't have a clue:

he turns any debate into personal matters , if not personal attacks (get the ball you small player)

he's calling for science everytime but he doesn't have a clue about what is science

he believes his rationalism is absolute, not even conscious that what is calling rationalism has been implanted into him by his socio-demographical conditions, which are (do we need science to prove that ?) totally relative; never will be absolute.

he underestimates others and overestimated himself although it is hard to find any real scientific background in his writing, it seems all collected from... yeah TV

i shall add how sorry i feel for him that he won't be able to even understand that his beliefs would be irrational to billions of souls. just like any belief conditioned by a social system.

stay asleep if it suits you man (but try at least to dream a little if you can, otherwise you are a full loss for humanity)

REPLY TO THE OTHER GUY talking about condensation (what kind of science is that ?):

how the hell do you explain those grids observable only in the west ? and that condensation process occuring only in the western skies ? why it was not observable in the 70's, 80's ?

anyway to conclude i saw only one post in the thread that really learn us something and it is the one about NATO.

it does explain many many things... many thanks to its author.

finally, apart from russia for sure, i think spain has also admitted versing chemicals in the sky for weather control (to be verified for spain)

What happened to this thread? I thought that we were discussing the manufacturing industry and, once again, we are talking about airplane condensation trails.

reply to post by Zepherian


Crikey. Please, for the love of your sanity, try to understand the scientific method. It takes multiple readings, preferably by multiple scientists and instruments, to corroborate something as happening.

There really is no getting through to you.

reply to post by ::.mika.::


If someone wants to learn, they must be 100% rational. Otherwise you don't know if you are learning. If you want to wander through life treating it like some sort of comic book, never knowing what is real and what isn't - be my guest. Just keep out of the science forum, that's all. Go to the paranormal studies forum instead - they love making stuff up without evidence. Which is what you and all other chemtrailers are doing. It's pathetic.

I'm not being personal - I'm simply trying to point out how the beliefs of some, which are expressed in the form of facts, are far from factual. If that strikes a nerve, then that is not my problem, nor my fault, but an issue rooted in the believer.

I can't help it if you are willing to believe what you want regardless of what evidence suggests.

It really is pathetic. Don't they teach objective study in schools any more?

reply to post by pteridine


Just a mention of chemtrails, and any explanation of what they most definitely are not, is enough to bring out the believers and get them riled up into a perpetual state of "oh my god NATO/NWO/Reptilians are trying to kill us!!!111!", even when no evidence at all suggests that's the case. There is no talking to people who are willing to believe in something so vehemently without the slightest shred of proof. For them it is a religion.

reply to post by ::.mika.::


My fellow member,

There are NO laws on weather modification in North America whatsoever.

Also, NATO planes do not have to be marked except on the tail and only then with their country's coat of arms. The marking is on a vertical portion and thus cannot be seen from below, this might account for unidentified planes spraying imaginary heavy metal particulate on us.

This is part of a defense system, it is for your own good

When you see chemtrails, You are actually witnessing the deployment of one of the primary components of a Lidar defense system.

This is a part of the NATO Aerosolized Defense Grid. This grid utilizes Lidar and high powered radar in order to detect and eliminate threats. HAARP is used to 'move' by attraction the heavy metal particulate that has been deployed into the atmosphere, extending it's efficiency by slowing their rate of descent.

The dispersed particulate acts as a medium in which airborne objects are more readily detectable (even a stealth aircraft will end up coated in this radar reflective metal or creation a noticeable disturbance and thus will lose it's primary means of defense...stealth). Threats can then be more easily destroyed/disabled by the offensive capabilities inherent within the system.

As it is a defense system, and an expensive one at that, the operations occur over the areas most vulnerable to soviet attack - the ones populated by Humans and their vital industry.

It really is for our own good, we should be grateful.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Canadianduder]

Originally posted by pteridine
What happened to this thread? I thought that we were discussing the manufacturing industry and, once again, we are talking about airplane condensation trails.

Now, were I conspiracy minded, I'd be wondering why this thread has been derailed

But maybe it's just easier to believe aircraft are poisoning the skies rather than the factories in the next town?

Spot the 'chemtrail':-



(actually, all you can see is water vapour and ice crystals, but I know which of the two I think are most likely to be mixed with chemicals that may affect air quality at ground level )

reply to post by Essan


Thanks for bringing us back on topic Essan, thanks for the pic also, seems so obvious really once you think about it.

Maybe these large pollution creating companies are assisting with the belief of chemtrails, or at least enjoying that the attention isn't directed at them

reply to post by Canadianduder


HAARP is too weak and localised to do what you are suggesting.

NEXT!


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 4-12-2008 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by dave420


"HAARP is too weak and localised to do what you are suggesting."

You have yet to provide any substantive evidence and thus have yet to make a rebuttal - one-liner flamefests are not rebuttals...


HAARP was given as an example of the kind of system that is mentioned - as most people know what it is and are familiar with its capabilities. You neglect to mention that it was only an example and omitted entirely the other components of the NATO Aerosolized Defense Grid.

If a system such as as HAARP could extend the deployment time of a given ordinance by only 10 percent, it would be well worth it. However, HAARP is not a component of the NATO Aerosolized Defense Grid. More effective systems exist, and you have omitted those in your one-line strawman argument.

You argument is a Strawman one - don't you know this only detracts from any valid arguments you may eventually make...

It has been clearly stated that HAARP-like systems exist not solely to extend the deployment period of the Aerosolized Ordinance, but actually exist to enhance the capabilities of LIDAR defense and detection system - for reasons stated.

I notice you omitted this. In any case, I would not have expected a real rebuttal from you

"NEXT!"


[edit on 4-12-2008 by Canadianduder]

reply to post by Canadianduder


The abilities of HAARP are well-known. You are the one making extraordinary claims (that HAARP is anything other than what it states it is), so it is up to YOU to produce evidence to support your claims. I am merely stating the current, known position that HAARP is only involved in ionospheric research, limited to the tiny patch of ionosphere located directly above the facility.

reply to post by Canadianduder


As well as being off topic, the "NATO Aerosolized Defense Grid" appears to be entirely fictional - didn't Truthtellist invent it? I'm unaware of any reference to it outside of ATS.

And since this imaginary grid is comprises of aircraft contrails, and HAARP only affects the ionosphere (on a miniscule scale compared with what the Sun does every day), I fail to see any possible connection.

reply to post by Canadianduder


if it is for our own good, then i'm glad i'm not living in the west anymore !

otherwise, the place where i have observed these grids regularly is indeed a geo-strategical place with also a couple of big corporations head office in the area + it is very rich. so it would fit in your picture.

reply to post by ::.mika.::


What would fit the picture even more is the fact that air-travel is ridiculously common in most places of the world.

Get a grip! Deny ignorance! It's not as easy as making stuff up and getting all scared, but it's the only route to knowledge.

reply to post by dave420


Prove that air travel is more common on most parts of the world. You have no proof and you are not an expert. Just because you see more planes in the sky dosen't mean there is more air travel. Planes could simply be travelling closer together in clumps. Also, it's a big planet, we could have more planes overall but clustered in less flight paths. You could have less planes flying more hours.

Prove your assertions in a logical manner. Use science. Use logic. You can't rely on just your experience to make a statement like that. No, you need to corroborate with ATC'ers everywhere and make a dossier. You need to bring up production numbers. You need to see how many airframes were dismantled. You need to compare average flight times.

You have no scientific proof. So I don't believe you. Na na na naaa na.

*Gives the disinfo dude a wedgy*

reply to post by Zepherian


Well, just looking at 2007 figures I see that:

Source

...831 million passengers flew internationally and 1,249 million flew within their own country of residence. This represents an 11% growth in international traffic and an 8% growth in domestic traffic relative to 2006.

If more people are flying one assumes there must be more aircraft carrying them

Then there is This News Release which states that:-

The world's airlines are scheduled to operate 2% more flights for May 2008 compared with the same month last year. According to the latest statistics from OAG (Official Airline Guide), the world's authority on flight information, this represents an additional 40,000 flights, which is half as many additional flights as last month's year-on-year figures. Capacity for May is up by 3%, representing an additional 10.1 million seats compared with the same month last year. A month ago the year-on-year rise in capacity was 5%.

40,000 more flights in May 2008 than in May 2007. And that's a low figure!




[edit on 5-12-2008 by Essan]

reply to post by Essan


I see that that one flew right over your head. And I bet you added it to the increase in air traffic!

Reg: I-RONY airframe type: Boeing Debunkliner.

Happy plane spotting!

reply to post by Zepherian


Well there's a typical tactic. You tell someone to prove what they say, it gets proven, and you insult them. I guess that's what passes for debate now.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yes, that would be the exact intention I was satirizing a couple of posts above.

In most of the thread, as you probably know, I have been the one hounded by the proof crowd, not the other way round.

But hey, I always thought you guys were one trick poneys, this last few posts has just proven it to me.

Hey terribly sorry that those of us that have spent a good part of our lives working on planes and know what the hell we're talking about ask you for proof. "I know what I'm seeing" doesn't constitute proof of any sort. I have YET to see a chemtrail believer give ANY kind of proof that they're real. Everything that they point to has another explanation.