I'm surprised this story came out!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ncz_nate, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #21
    Bullshit by the smell of it.

    wow, some anecdotal unsupported evidence to address a rebuttal from someone with an agenda. must be true then! :rolleyes:
     
    stOx, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  2. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #22
    Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know we were going by facts. In that case, what level of supported evidence does this statement hold.. "Only a negligible amount would actually reach the ground."


    Go figure.
     
    ncz_nate, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  3. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #23
    Common sense. You have some don't you? if you want to contaminate people with chemicals the worst way to do it is to disperse the chemicals in a vapour at 30,000 feet.

    You aren't going to use a lack of common sense as a defence are you?
     
    stOx, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  4. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #24
    Speaking of common sense, have you heard of the saying, "What goes up must come down??"
     
    ncz_nate, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  5. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #25
    LOL is that your supporting scientific evidence? An old cliche saying?
     
    stOx, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  6. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #26
    No we weren't talking about supporting scientific evidence, you changed to the subject of common sense, in which that statement was.

    Following along?
     
    ncz_nate, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  7. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #27
    So the extent of your common sense is an old cliche saying?

    Is that a part of the formula?
    CT = (y*6/N(what goes up must come down)) x (p/N2)
     
    stOx, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  8. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #28
    You wake up on the wrong side of the bed again Stox :D
     
    bogart, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  9. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #29
    Yes I will consider that common sense, in comparison to your statement, which is not even an "old cliche saying". Nor has it been said before other than from "stOx". You've been the first to make that statement, so maybe common sense isn't so common after all?

    ----

    lol @ bogart's post.
     
    ncz_nate, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  10. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #30
    So you think that dispersing chemicals at 30,000 is an effective way of contaminating people on the ground? Either you do or you don't, You are yet to make it clear what your position is on this.
     
    stOx, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  11. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #31
    Judging by the overall health of the world I would say yes. And let's see, air is something everyone must breathe, it is the one thing that has a 100% dependency by all inhabitants of the earth, so manipulating it in a way that would make you ill or die might just be a very effective approach. I don't make the rules for how to depopulate the earth, so don't ask me what is the most effective way.
     
    ncz_nate, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  12. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #32
    Now gravity is a cliche? :rolleyes:
     
    guerilla, Feb 14, 2008 IP
  13. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #33
    So do you think that if the government wanted to contaminate people with chemicals they would disperse them from planes at 30,000 feet? it's a simple question. Do you think that they would do that?

    we don't even have to highlight the fact that you don't have a single shred of evidence, All we have to do is highlight how little sense your claims make.

    To anyone who hasn't got a tin foil hat on these things are obviously contrails. Natural condensation from exhaust fumes.
     
    stOx, Feb 15, 2008 IP
  14. gauharjk

    gauharjk Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    135
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #34
    What does it look like?
    [​IMG]

    Where are these fumes coming from? The Engine? I don't think so...
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Look at the sky.. What do you see?
    [​IMG]
     
    gauharjk, Feb 15, 2008 IP
  15. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #35
    I see clouds and contrails, and a Boeing E-6 TACAMO dumping fuel.

    the Boeing E-6 TACAMO has it's fuel vents located inboard because the wing tips are full of instrument. See, The Boeing E-6 is an airborne command and control station packed full of communications equipment for use in case of a nuclear war. Hardly a suitable aircraft for these "chemtrail" operations.

    Do some research.
     
    stOx, Feb 15, 2008 IP
  16. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #36
    ..I'm pretty sure you're the only one here who thinks that is an off the wall theory. As far as evidence, I see it in the sky every day. I have eyeballs, I can see the fake clouds in the sky.
     
    ncz_nate, Feb 15, 2008 IP
  17. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #37
    lol listen to what you are saying... You are afraid of "fake clouds".
     
    stOx, Feb 15, 2008 IP
  18. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #38
    You're the one afraid. You fear what you don't know and you have proved your outright ignorance on this subject. So if anyone were to be afraid, it would be you. I am aware, I am educated - to the point where I won't be led like sheep to the slaughter like your kind.

    On the subject of contrails. Did you know contrails dissipate within 15 seconds to a minute? You probably didn't. But now you do. I have seen contrails, you can probably see contrails, they are separate from chemtrails. So why are there different types of trails then? Ones that last days and ones that only last a couple of seconds? Hmm?

    Also, tell me yes or no if the following pictures are "contrails"..

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    If you "did your research", you would know contrails don't spread out like that to form artificial clouds.
     
    ncz_nate, Feb 15, 2008 IP
  19. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #39
    Read up on cirrus clouds.

    Must be nice to have the intellectual dishonesty to pull random lies straight out of your arse and claim they are facts, Evidently without even doing the smallest amount of research on the subject other than believing everything you read on conspiracy sites.

    Contrails form when water vapor and particles from jet engine exhaust enter the atmosphere. If the atmospheric temperature is cool enough, and the humidity high enough, the exhaust forms ice crystals that create the contrail. Contrails generally last one to two hours, but can last as long as six
    source

    Sometimes contrails will actually take on the characteristics of a natural cirrus cloud and no longer look like contrails after only a half hour or so. Persistent contrails can exist long after the airplane that made them has left the area. They can last for a few minutes or longer than a day.
    source

    Worse is when the contrails last for hours. Then they degrade into something you can hardly distinguish from natural cirrus clouds.
    source

    Need anymore?
     
    stOx, Feb 15, 2008 IP
  20. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #40
    I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find "scientists" who say 15 seconds to a minute. But as most say, they dissipate "very quickly". Apparently altitude and weather conditions influence it? Why don't you look for yourself, go look outside when you and look at some jets that fly above your house, you will notice some of their trails disappear just as soon as they were left, and others stay.. for the entire day or until they float into another neighborhood.


    Cirrus clouds.. what a joke of an argument. Tell me, why do cirrus clouds have a strong greenhouse effect? I didn't know clouds did that? Hmm, learn something every day! Also, go find what NASA has to say about cirrus clouds.




    http://watchthesky.org/chems/chemdata.htm
     
    ncz_nate, Feb 15, 2008 IP