Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Says Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped

reply to post by TETRA.X

1.6 million?
Hell that's nothing. Santa Claus gets 45 million.

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by firepilot

 

Unfortunately 1.6 million websites search results is not enough for you.
Lies? Spreading disinfo?
That's all a matter of perspective.
I know what MY truth is.

Ahh, now we see. Its not so much about right/wrong, facts or lies, its about perspective and "my truth". In your perspective, Ted is actually right and Ft Sill actually can have chemplanes, and there must be some secret fleet at the publlc airport in Lincoln..

So in your truth, did Ft Sill build a bigger runway? Did the Lincoln airport make some invisible shield so no one can see these secret unmarked airplanes?

Oh, I just typed in "Unicorns" into google, and I got 12,700,000 hits. I guess Unicorns are real too, even more real than chemtrails apparently

reply to post by firepilot


I will let you have the last word. I will have the last laugh. How's that?

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by firepilot

 

I will let you have the last word. I will have the last laugh. How's that?

Ahhhh, we can see that none of the details and facts nor the falsehoods spread by the chemtrail promoters matter in the slightest. No, you will not get the last laugh. The Insane Cloud Posse has been claiming since 1999 that anyday now, they will have their proof and smoking gun evidence, and we will all see how they are right.

Maybe if facts and science began to matter more, instead of feelings, perspectives, emotions, and fear, some of you would see how you have been bamboozled by the chemtrail cult leaders. But until then, you all will follow the cult leaders, and unquestioningly beleive what they say.

Ironic, that none of you question what the chemtrail cult leaders say, but then the chemmies call everyone else sheep

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by firepilot

 

Unfortunately 1.6 million websites search results is not enough for you.

See my sig

You get 2 million results for a serch of "Flying Spaghetti Monster".....

Lies? Spreading disinfo?

Yes - I am sure they are - all 1.6 milloin of them.

That's all a matter of perspective.

No it's not - it is a matter of FACT.

I know what MY truth is.

Yes - how sad for you that yuo choose to live with a world where the sky is poisonous - but you're a big boy or girl now and yuo are entitled to inflict paranoia on yourself - I am doiggn my best to stop you infecting others

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Are we still talking about the topic or I am I just allowing you (and forum moderators) allowing you to take jabs at me?

It shows how desperate your attempts at debunking chemtrails are, that you feel the need to belittle anyone who posts about chemtrails.

Just so that we are clear, you should bring a little more evidence into your posts. I've already been there done that for the past 13 years of my life, when you never even heard about chemtrails.

Chemtrails are a definition given to aerial spraying agents. It is the SAME mechanism as cloud seeding. The only thing that differentiates cloud seeding with chemtrails, is the different metallic particles that are used. Cloud seeding more or less in the 1960s used silver particles.

Now what part are you debating? The fact that cloud seeding techniques don't exist or that different metals (ALuminum and Barium) in cloud seeding applications don't exist?

There really is no point to your rebuttal or your bad treatment of others on ATS.

Just for fun, here is a company that specializes in weather modification applications. If you click through it, you will find all the products, services and clients they have. Different airplanes, technology to test the cloud seeding agents, ..etc.

To say that chemtrails don't exist is the same thing as saying cloud seeding doesn't exist. Kind of dumb.

Also, somewhere on that site, it will give you all the locations where cloud seeding has taken place and the duration.

So when it comes down to it, you're here on the boards attacking people because of the DIFFERENCE in metallic particles being used? I'm sorry, you are very bad at your disinfo campaign and the way you treat others on this board.

Here is the link for you (and thanks again for waisting my energy and time because you are too lazy to research)

www.weathermodification.com...

This will be my last correspondence with you.

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Are we still talking about the topic or I am I just allowing you (and forum moderators) allowing you to take jabs at me?

It shows how desperate your attempts at debunking chemtrails are, that you feel the need to belittle anyone who posts about chemtrails.

Just so that we are clear, you should bring a little more evidence into your posts. I've already been there done that for the past 13 years of my life, when you never even heard about chemtrails.

Chemtrails are a definition given to aerial spraying agents. It is the SAME mechanism as cloud seeding. The only thing that differentiates cloud seeding with chemtrails, is the different metallic particles that are used. Cloud seeding more or less in the 1960s used silver particles.

Now what part are you debating? The fact that cloud seeding techniques don't exist or that different metals (ALuminum and Barium) in cloud seeding applications don't exist?

There really is no point to your rebuttal or your bad treatment of others on ATS.

Just for fun, here is a company that specializes in weather modification applications. If you click through it, you will find all the products, services and clients they have. Different airplanes, technology to test the cloud seeding agents, ..etc.

To say that chemtrails don't exist is the same thing as saying cloud seeding doesn't exist. Kind of dumb.

Also, somewhere on that site, it will give you all the locations where cloud seeding has taken place and the duration.

So when it comes down to it, you're here on the boards attacking people because of the DIFFERENCE in metallic particles being used? I'm sorry, you are very bad at your disinfo campaign and the way you treat others on this board.

Here is the link for you (and thanks again for waisting my energy and time because you are too lazy to research)

www.weathermodification.com...

This will be my last correspondence with you.

Not this garbage again...

No, small twin engine piston planes, releasing silver iodide into rain/snow storms is nothing about what chemtrails is about. That does not leave visible trails, they can not go high enough in the contrailing altitudes, nor can they carry much, nor are they that fast. Cloud seeding airplanes do not do seeding in blue skies, hence it is cloud seeding, not blue sky seeding.

You really are entirely clueless yet again, when it comes to your conspiracy, and cloud seeding. Do you ever actually have knowledge about what you are talking about? Or is this yet another case of you living in your own make believe reality, where small twin engine planes that weight about as much as a car if not less, are somehow making huge trails, at altitudes that they can not normally even get to.

You are just reaching, grasping and trying to redefine what chemtrails are, when your evidence is lacking.

BTW, that company is based in Fargo. Didnt Ted, ,who you believe, say it was out of Ft Sill and Lincoln Nebraska? Did he not say it was unmarked secret bomberlike airplanes?

Can you explain how a Cessna 340 or Piper Seneca, is in reality a secret bomber like airplane?
Can you explain how silver iodide works?

reply to post by firepilot


Actually, it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about. If you want to know about the real science behind contrail science, here is a good sight for you with animation. If you do accept scientific theory, then you would know that a lot of the trails we have been seeing over the past decade are breaking all the rules of the laws of contrail formation.

This will be my last correspondence with you as well.

profhorn.aos.wisc.edu...
Actual site: profhorn.aos.wisc.edu...

reply to post by TETRA.X

Hey, that's pretty cool.
How does it show contrails are breaking the rules?

reply to post by Phage


And Judas has 116,000,000 search results.

reply to post by Phage


I don't have all my research with me here, but I used this credible NASA site to chart days of contrail formation vs. chemtrails. On days where contrail formation should NOT have been occurring, I had a ton of persistent or lingering contrails over my area. Also, just to note, I saw both contrails and chemtrails simultaneously. (That kind of breaks the rules of contrail science.)

I have 3 big boxes and 2 backup HD of research. These are just some I found on the fly.

My job is not to convince you, that's your own issues.

Here is the link: www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

This will be my last correspondence with you as well.

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Are we still talking about the topic or I am I just allowing you (and forum moderators) allowing you to take jabs at me?

Well I directly quoted your message, so if you think that was going OT then the answer lies in your hands....

Chemtrails are a definition given to aerial spraying agents. It is the SAME mechanism as cloud seeding. The only thing that differentiates cloud seeding with chemtrails, is the different metallic particles that are used. Cloud seeding more or less in the 1960s used silver particles.

cloud seeding started in the 1940's, and uses silver iodide mainly, but also salt, CO2 (dry ice) and other materials - en.wikipedia.org...

Now what part are you debating? The fact that cloud seeding techniques don't exist or that different metals (ALuminum and Barium) in cloud seeding applications don't exist?

Firstly - cloud seeding is not included in the most comon definition of "chemtrails", which specifically EXCLUDES common and well known "chemical spraying" such as it, agricultural sprays, airshow visibility trails and the like - the chemtrails meme involves SECRET operations - none of htse are secret, so they are not "chemtrails".

Secondly, there is no evidence for aluminium or barium being sprayed by aircraft at all.

Just for fun, here is a company that specializes in weather modification applications. If you click through it, you will find all the products, services and clients they have. Different airplanes, technology to test the cloud seeding agents, ..etc.

Yes we've seen it all before..

To say that chemtrails don't exist is the same thing as saying cloud seeding doesn't exist. Kind of dumb.

As above, cloud seeding, by definition, is not chemtrails, because chemtrails are a secret programme, cloud seeding is not. So it is not "kinda dumb" to say that cloud seeding is not evidence for chemtrails at all - it is vbasic logic.

And well done for the gratuitous insult that you are happy to berate me for

So when it comes down to it, you're here on the boards attacking people because of the DIFFERENCE in metallic particles being used?

No - because ther are NO metallic particles being used in chemtrails, since chemtrails do not exist.

Here is the link for you (and thanks again for waisting my energy and time because you are too lazy to research)

www.weathermodification.com...

As I said - the company is well known - and nice ad hominem again in the same post where you berate me for doing so!

I am not surprised that you can accuse me of not having done research when you don't even understand what chemtrails are, or the history and materials used in cloud seeding.

Such a fundamental lack of understanding makes me question what you ahve been doing in your self-proclaimed 13 years of research "since before you (ie I) heard of chemtrails" (which is true) - it jsut goes to show that a long period of bad or no research provides less actual understanding than a short period examining actual facts.

This will be my last correspondence with you.

Pleased to hear it...but I don't believe it...sooner of later you won't be able to resist the temptation to defend your cult

reply to post by TETRA.X


Do you have air samples to differentiate 'contrails' and 'chemtrails'? Can you explain how you use these sites you link to in determining your outcome?

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by firepilot

 

Actually, it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about. If you want to know about the real science behind contrail science, here is a good sight for you with animation. If you do accept scientific theory, then you would know that a lot of the trails we have been seeing over the past decade are breaking all the rules of the laws of contrail formation.

This will be my last correspondence with you as well.

profhorn.aos.wisc.edu...
Actual site: profhorn.aos.wisc.edu...

Really?? Then find a single statement I made that is incorrect.

No, they do not break the rules of contrail formation. if you think those websites prove chemtrails, then why dont you email that department or professors, and get their opinion.

Its you who claims others do not know what they are talking about, when its you that didnt. But hey just for giggles, tell me what I do not know about cloud seeding. I dare you

reply to post by ziggyproductions05


Please read my previous posts. There are over 7,000 web search results for lab analysis conducted by different people.

I personally do not have air samples, no.

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by ziggyproductions05

 

Please read my previous posts. There are over 7,000 web search results for lab analysis conducted by different people.

I personally do not have air samples, no.

None of them have sampled a contrail. None of them have conducted any samples that involve aviation, and no, there are not 7000 samples that have been conducted either. Chemmies tend to repost each others "Results", even when it was a fictitious lab report anyways.

Would you be willing to look at a chemtrailer who supposedly proved chemtrails on his webpage and look at it to see if it is remotely possible?

Originally posted by TETRA.X
reply to post by ziggyproductions05

 

Please read my previous posts. There are over 7,000 web search results for lab analysis conducted by different people.

So not samples of contrails then.

Various air, soil and "water" samples published on the 'net have mostly been shown to be of no concern whatsoever, showing results in normal ranges - despite often being trumpeted as "proof of chemtrails".

Any that have high results have not shown any actually connection to anything being sprayed at 30,000 feet.

I've seen no attempts made to establish such a connection either - apparently it is sufficient that someone says a result is high for it to be accepted in the chemtrail cult as having come from something that no-one has been shown exists in the first place!

reply to post by TETRA.X


Could you refer me to your favorite study about chemtrails?? I was also curious to know, how did you use those websites in your last couple of posts in determining the outcome of your data? Do any of the sites you use include the variables of the different types of materials used in normal cloud seeding vs possible chemtrail cloud seeding as you say? How exactly do you use the graphs and animations from the sites you linked?

reply to post by ziggyproductions05


WOW!!! Talk about harassment on chemtrail threads! No wonder members flag and run!!!!

reply to post by Seti_Starr


Could you point out where and how I have harassed anyone? Ive only asked questions. If you have a suggestion or answer to my questions feel free to help out.