Chemtrail Debunkers....

reply to post by Essan


Welllllllll............

And I suppose toilet waste discarded by in flight aircraft ....

Let's not toss the baby out with the bath water, eh?

Of course....you wrote "aircraft" which, I hope, was intentional. Because that is a HUGE category of airborne vehicles. In aviation, after "category" comes class...I.E., airplane, sailplane, lighter-than-air, etc. Within each "class" is a further sub-definition of type, I.E., "Airplane Single Engine Land" (ASEL)...and so on.

IF you are referring to the potential of "toilet waste" being discarded in flight....well, in real terms, whether or not a toilet is even installed, Human beings can still eliminate bodily wastes without need of a technological device....say, from the basket of a hot air balloon. (Insert your own mental image here....that way, not against the T & C's).

BUT....if we are talking specifically about modern commercial passenger airliners? Then the only "toilet waste" that is designed to be disgorged overboard, inflight, is the so-called "grey water" from the lavatory (and galley) sinks, basins and drains. The effluent, and additions to, the actual flush "toilets" themselves (johns, loos, crappers...) are contained in holding tanks that can only be accessed to be emptied from servicing panels by ground crews.

(Of course, on very rare occasions, those systems have been known to develop smallish leaks....but, naturally then the water from the waste will freeze and accumulate, until large enough to all off and eventually be found by some hapless, unlucky homeowner after it crashes through the roof into the middle of their living room.....) But, that is extremely rare with most modern systems...

Yeah, but it's still a chemtrail

reply to post by Essan

In any case, you are in direct conflict with almost everyone else who believes in chemtrails and specifically define them as what the rest of us refer to as persistent contrails.

Mat has gone so far out on a limb so many times that he has created his own separate niche in which he alone feels comfortable. He can take all of his snippets, videos and mis-understood articles and wrap himself comfortably up in them by expanding his "definition" until it no longer defines anything.

You're right, though; we might as well add cars, powerplants, smokestacks, forest fires and volcanoes. Each of these will fit one or another or another or another or another of his "chemtrail" definitions.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Isn't that a bit personal and insulting?
I happen to think the referenced ATS member has brought a lot of useful information to us, and we should be grateful.

reply to post by Stewie
Mat answered my request that he state his hypothesis on "chemtrails" by posting: "Geoengineering."

He and others here have agreed that "geoengineering" is the stratospheric injection of sulfur compounds to mitigate the effects of man-made global warming.

He further limited this to non-passenger jet aircraft applying the compounds.

Since then, he has veered to rockets and satellites, de-population, barium and aluminum in the soil, and persistent contrails as part of his "hypothesis." He's thrown in videos and cut & paste snippets and other of his posts elsewhere.

He no longer has a hypothesis, but a security blanket. A quilt, actually; stitched together with bits and pieces of the results of key-word searches that lead him to articles and reports and videos that mention one or more of his keywords.

It has been shown that he either doesn't read these or understand them, or that he misrepresents what they actually present. He then "qualifies" his posts by adding his opinions, beliefs, and suspicions of how they could be relevant.

This is not a personal attack. It is an observation of what has transpired in no fewer than 5 threads, many in which he repeats the same posts without elaboration or discussion of their relevance.

My reply was not name-calling, belittling or insulting (which he finds no problem with doing himself). It was a description of his pattern and an opinion of why it is occurring.

I appreciate your concern, but the majority of Mat's posts do not even qualify as a "discussion" or "theory." The few times he elaborates it is often to make something up or to insult those who point out what he is doing.

Read through his posts. See whether they add to any "discussions."

Thanks for your thoughts.

jw

Well, I think both sides likely have good points. I sure hope it's just contrails (even thoguh evidence seems to say not or its both) because there's enough pollution going around as it is..

Originally posted by Three
Well, I think both sides likely have good points. I sure hope it's just contrails (even thoguh evidence seems to say not or its both) because there's enough pollution going around as it is..

Well you are right, there is enough pollution out there, but its almost entirely from ground level sources, especially transportation, industry and power generation.

However, the chemtrailers do not care so much about that, because they only seem to notice their "symptom" of pollution, after they see a distant contrail. None of them have actually bothered to sample a parcle of ground level air for pollution, because if they did, they would not be finding pollution from ground level aircraft.

The kook at "Arizona Skywatch" did on a rather misguided, ignorant and confused manner, try to sample ground level air, but running an air filter for an extended time. But the guy has no idea what it means, and confused percentage of the dust sample for various minerals, trying to compare that to amounts in an air sample, and came away trying to claim with the results that the air in phoenix is around 10% metal.

reply to post by firepilot

Well you are right, there is enough pollution out there, but its almost entirely from ground level sources, especially transportation, industry and power generation. However, the chemtrailers do not care so much about that,

I care about that. Pollution is pollution. Point is that everybody knows that those things pollute. A 4-wheeler off road vehicle is 5 times worse than a car but people still want their toys. Point is that "chemtrailers" want to bring to light something that is hidden and actively pushed down. Nobody hides the fact that cars and industry pollute. Oh wait, what about Karen Silkwood or Erin Brockovich? You guys always use that as an argument but it is hollow for the reasons I just stated.

reply to post by firepilot

I am a "chemtrailer", and I don't like "pollution".
I think it is bad!!!!!

I think that all of you NON chemtrailers are perpetuating ignorance, but I am speaking from an intellectual jail cell, so I can't tell you what I really think.

Nothing personal of course.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by firepilot

 

I am a "chemtrailer", and I don't like "pollution".
I think it is bad!!!!!

I'm a chemtrail debunker, and I think pollution is bad too.

I think that all of you NON chemtrailers are perpetuating ignorance, but I am speaking from an intellectual jail cell, so I can't tell you what I really think.

I'm pretty sure you just did

But since there's no evidence for chemtrails I'd love to know how you define ignorance!!

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by firepilot

 

Well you are right, there is enough pollution out there, but its almost entirely from ground level sources, especially transportation, industry and power generation. However, the chemtrailers do not care so much about that,

I care about that. Pollution is pollution. Point is that everybody knows that those things pollute. A 4-wheeler off road vehicle is 5 times worse than a car but people still want their toys. Point is that "chemtrailers" want to bring to light something that is hidden and actively pushed down.

So why don't thy provide some concrete evidence that it's happening?

why dont' they go out and get the samples?

Why is all the "evidence" so easily shown to be baseless, or bad science??

Nobody hides the fact that cars and industry pollute. Oh wait, what about Karen Silkwood or Erin Brockovich? You guys always use that as an argument but it is hollow for the reasons I just stated.

Nope - debunkers are well aware, forexample, that aircraft are polluting EVEN WHEN YOU CANNOT SEE THEIR CONTRAILS.

Only a small proportion of flights actually generate any sort of trails - whether you think they are contrails or chemtrails.

But EVERY AIRCRAFT si still burning hydrocarbons - whethe hte trails are visible or not.

If chemtailers were REALLY concerned about the problems of pollution they'd be noting that the IPCC reporton aviation effects says that aircraft pollution is 2-4 times as bad as the same amount of ground-level pollution.

But they (chemtrailers) don't seem to think that's important - perhaps because it comes from the IPCC, and that's part of Agenda 21, or the NWO, or something.......so therefore must be hiding something from them??

Dunno.....but I find the failure of chemtrailers to be worried about the very real problem of aviation pollution while trying to convince us of something there is no evidence for at all is very strange.

reply to post by Stewie

I think that all of you NON chemtrailers are perpetuating ignorance,

That would include about 90% of the population, and growing, since the "globalist de-population" theory for "chemtrails" has pretty much been shown to be nothing but fearmongering.

I would have to guess that the majority of the population are NOT ignorant, so that puts that shoe pretty much on another foot.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by firepilot

 

Well you are right, there is enough pollution out there, but its almost entirely from ground level sources, especially transportation, industry and power generation. However, the chemtrailers do not care so much about that,

I care about that. Pollution is pollution. Point is that everybody knows that those things pollute. A 4-wheeler off road vehicle is 5 times worse than a car but people still want their toys. Point is that "chemtrailers" want to bring to light something that is hidden and actively pushed down. Nobody hides the fact that cars and industry pollute. Oh wait, what about Karen Silkwood or Erin Brockovich? You guys always use that as an argument but it is hollow for the reasons I just stated.

And what does Silkwood or Brockovich have to do with aviation? NOTHING.

If all of you think aviation is killing all of you, then investigate it all you want. How many of you do anything besides type back and forth to each other on internet conspiracy message boards though?

How about tell us somenthing you will do about chemtrails and eliminating aviation, that does not involve your computer and typing on a message board.

Nobody hides that cars pollute, but how often is that brought up when chemtrailers think they have symptoms of pollution? Never, because they see a distant contrail and blame it on that. If anyone is minimizing pollution from known ground sources, it is the "Insane Cloud Posse", aka Chemtrailers, because they never talk about car pollution, or anything at ground level, when they have their "symptoms" that only see to happen, except for immediately upon seeing a jet engine contrail.
Blame them first

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

If chemtailers were REALLY concerned about the problems of pollution they'd be noting that the IPCC report on aviation effects says that aircraft pollution is 2-4 times as bad as the same amount of ground-level pollution.

But they (chemtrailers) don't seem to think that's important ... .

Dunno.....but I find the failure of chemtrailers to be worried about the very real problem of aviation pollution while trying to convince us of something there is no evidence for at all is very strange.

It's not just the IPCC or globalists, either. American universities, and public-private consortia are documenting the real dangers of ordinary jet exhaust:

Aviation makes a significant contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing. ... An important but poorly understood component of this forcing is caused by ‘contrail cirrus’—a type of cloud that consist of young line-shaped contrails and the older irregularly shaped contrails that arise from them. ... We show that the radiative forcing associated with contrail cirrus as a whole is about nine times larger than that from line-shaped contrails alone.

www.nature.com...

Dangerous Contrails
Some people have welcomed such an admission that the real boogeyman is right in front of us, and that we can face him down.

Others, chose to dismiss the truth and to continue to look for the "real" boogeyman of their faith, against whom we are helpless.

It would seem that the "chemtrail" faithful will ignore a real, present, proven threat that doesn't fit their "boogeyman" scenario, but would rather persist in the belief that an unprovable boogeyman is the greater threat.

I do not understand why people are so eager to ignore obvious threats in favor of ephemeral ones, but that is human nature.

If you do not believe you ever can win, it is best to argue that the game is unwinnable, no?

reply to post by jdub297

I totally agree that normal contrails could be a potential problem. I don't know if it is a huge cause of global warming, or if it could be a factor in global cooling, or...whatever -- but obviously the expansion of the passenger airline industry has contributed to more overcast and cloudy days. This is at least a potential problem for agriculture.

However, I don't believe for a second that this is a "conspiracy". I don't see the proliferation of vapor contrails that spread into cirrus clouds as an intentional action whose sole purpose is to cause cloudy days. It is obviously a by-product of air travel, but that's all it is -- an incidental and unfortunate side effect of increased passenger air traffic.

My take on this differs greatly from the "chemtrail" viewpoint. I may agree with them that the trails coming from planes could be causing a level of harm, but I disagree with them that the trails are caused by secretly and intentionally pumping chemicals into the sky for nefarious purposes.

Normal vapor contrails could potentially be a problem. Perhaps all of the "chemtrail believers" should begin to concentrate their energies to that potential issue rather than concentrating their energy on the scientifically baseless claims made by the people selling the chemtrail hoax.

Originally posted by jdub297
...I do not understand why people are so eager to ignore obvious threats in favor of ephemeral ones, but that is human nature...

It seems to be a characteristic of the internet culture to believe the "cool conspiracy theory" over the mundane explanation for a phenomenon, even when the mundane explanation seems to be overwhelmingly better supported by real evidence.

I suppose it has something to do with the cool conspiracy explanation as being more "sexy and exciting" than the humdrum mundane explanation (for example, it's hard for the average-looking but successful and stable person to compete with the sexy and emotionally wild person).

Plus, I think it has something do do with the nature of younger people to act more contrarian. They may feel more intellectually superior if they intentionally and consistently disagree with a certain viewpoint simply because it is the majority viewpoint. Contrarians HATE holding ideals that are held by the "masses".

They are like "posers/hipsters" in that respect.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Your observation makes perfect sense. Therefore, you must be discredited.

Have you ever noticed that "chemtrails" are really just airborne versions of what is actually happening in our navigable waters; i.e., oceans, seas, rivers and lakes.

The ships and vessels traversing our oceans spew all nature of dangerous and deadly things into the water, much of which just accumulates over time. Both the Pacific and Atlantic gyres have become island of crud that kill wildlife, interfere with traffic and alter the composition of the waters themselves.

Marine vessels OPENLY spew tons of trash and poison in direct violation of maritime and internatiuonal laws and regulations. These are real, measured and documented threats that are PRESENTLY a greater danger than any theoretical "chemtrail" pollution. No one even agrees on what "chemtrails" are or are doing. Yey, we can show clearly the mess our waterways have become and continue to be.

Just think of "chemtrails" inverted, and you can see the real threats.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Your observation makes perfect sense. Therefore, you must be discredited.

Have you ever noticed that "chemtrails" are really just airborne versions of what is actually happening in our navigable waters; i.e., oceans, seas, rivers and lakes.

Looks up "ship trails" some time......

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


>begin<

so, yesterday the contrails were way over denver. governent shut down... nothing today,on Sunday.

Yesterday: dirty

sorry about melt down I had. I will just post. not read idiot bot post. really, that gy is english as in great british, or just a butt, I mean, governent computer.

bite me.

Originally posted by zipcode80013
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

>begin<

so, yesterday the contrails were way over denver. governent shut down... nothing today,on Sunday.

Yesterday: dirty

sorry about melt down I had. I will just post. not read idiot bot post. really, that gy is english as in great british, or just a butt, I mean, governent computer.

bite me.

There was no government shutdown.

Even if there was, do you really think the secret chemtrail pilots would all need to go home? I work (indirectly, as a consultant) with a government agency, and I was told they (the agency I work with) had contingency money to operate past any potential shutdown. I would think the super-secret black-ops chemtrail sprayers would have the contingency funds somewhere to also keep going.