posted 09-28-2002 01:10 PM            

You people are saying that the government is spending billions of dollars, maintaining 1000s of aircraft, on 1000s of missions (daily) filled with millions of gallons of a chemical (daily), spraying from 15 to 30,000 feet agl, with no apparent affect except to make the sky kinda overcast?

What would the cost be on this program. I mean think about it....billions? It would be a larger operation than the gulf war....every day, day in and day out. And to what end? If they're spraying to make people sick, it's surely ineffective. I don't see many people who are chronically sick....and west Nile or small pox delivered by birds or in an office building would be cheaper and more efficient to that end, donchya think? Wouldn’t cost the government a thing. We could just wait for Al-Queda, Sadam or Castro to deliver that to the population for us.

So if it's a vaccine....that stuff takes time and money to manufacture even in small quantities, and is best administered by a shot....not with millions of gallons from 30,000 feet! (fer god sake)!

If it is an aerial radiation shield...then from what? The sun? Seems like we've had drought in this country for much of the last year. It can't be a very effective shield. What about a shield from aerial nuclear explosions? Couldn't be that because certainly they wouldn't want to be spraying the stuff EVERY day....only on days with high threat. Wouldn’t want to just waste the stuff.

And which section of congress is appropriating this money? It sure hasn’t been debated on C-span. Could the Democrats and Republicans be in on it…..with out protests from the greens? Could it be a black budget project? Well it would cost billions of dollars leaving nothing left for anything for the anti-gravity projects, wouldn‘t it. Hardly an efficient use of a limited resource (like money)....to accomplish absolutely nothing apparently....except make the sky kinda overcast (when the natural conditions were ripe for overcast anyway).

Oh hey, here's a novel concept....maybe they're just contrails? Maybe ice crystals are a fine solar radiation shield all by themselves…and they’re free to boot!

posted 09-28-2002 02:01 PM            

quote:

---

filled with millions of gallons of a chemical (daily), spraying from 15 to 30,000 feet agl, with no apparent affect except to make the sky kinda overcast

---

No apparent 'affect' eh? ROFL. You can read, can't you? Well read the majority of threads in this forum, give it a try. You'll find that your generalizations are completely presumptuous and inaccurate. Which most of us already know. I hear your repeated personal attacks and antagonization but it's nothing worth 'listening' to. Perhaps we should return to 'attempting' to discuss the facts, not your delusional perception and general sycophancy.

Have you heard the term 'electrojet' ??
Have you heard the term 'synthetic' ??
Have you heard the term 'ionisphere' ??
Have you heard the term 'exploitation' ??
Have you heard the term 'diffraction' ??
Have you heard the term 'diffusion' ??
Have you heard the term 'resonance' ??
Have you heard the term 'conductivity' ??

posted 09-28-2002 02:50 PM            

quote:

---

I live off of pension, severance, and benefits, not my parents.

---

I sincerely doubt it…But it doesn’t matter to me really….Just so long as your parents get their computer back when you're done.

quote:

---

Such a shallow assumption creates a lucid understanding of your maturity level.

---

That’s ironic. I’ve had some very lucid understandings about your maturity level as well, hence my assumption. WOW, that‘s soooo cool dude….we’re like on the same wavelength or something!!

quote:

---

quote:

filled with millions of gallons of a chemical (daily), spraying from 15 to 30,000 feet agl, with no apparent affect except to make the sky kinda overcast

No apparent 'affect' eh? ROFL. You can read, can't you?

---

No I can’t read…..maybe you can help me out. What affects? Be specific because I‘m really slow.

quote:

---

Well read the majority of threads in this forum, give it a try.

---

Maybe you can summarize it in a nutshell here, where the nutty stuff belongs….

quote:

---

You'll find that your generalizations are completely presumptuous and inaccurate.

---

Oh really?…how so? Be specific. You advanced guys are going to have to type slower for us slow learners, but I’d swear I didn’t see where you demonstrated my generalizations to be “completely presumptuous” and “inaccurate.” All these dumb pilots and NASA weather scientists here obviously are far beneath your tremendous knowledge base and could learn a thing or two. So what’s holding you back? Bring us all up to speed. Let’s see your brilliant counter points.

quote:

---

Perhaps we should return to 'attempting' to discuss the facts, not your delusional perception and general sychophancy.

---

Maybe you should at least get a spell checker if you’re gonna use ten dollar words like sycophancy. It’s a tough choice…Should I discuss the facts, or “general sycophancy“. And if I knew what it meant, I might take offense. But, I’ll take “general sycophancy” used in a sentence for 1000 bucks anyway, Alex…..

quote:

---

Have you heard the term 'electrojet' ??
Have you heard the term 'synthetic' ??
Have you heard the term 'ionisphere' ??
Have you heard the term 'exploitation' ??
Have you heard the term 'diffraction' ??
Have you heard the term 'diffusion' ??
Have you heard the term 'resonance' ??
Have you heard the term 'conductivity' ??
or need I clarify on all this as well?

---

No, but if you hum a few bars maybe it’ll come to me.

Those ARE indeed terms, no question about it. Hey, this game is fun…I got one; Ever heard of the term irrelevant nonsense? That’s a term too. But let’s hear your theory. I want to see how wonderful it is, and be awestruck by it‘s beauty. Heck, I’m just curious to see if you can combine all those new fangled words into one theory, and then explain to me how the government can afford to spray millions of gallons each day, with no apparent affect greater than that achieved with normal contrails. Let’s see how your wonderful theory addresses my commentary above.

posted 09-28-2002 02:59 PM            

It is all too clear who is being 'objective' here, and it's not you, bub.

And I do work, for the benefit of truth. I may not get paid for the work I do, per se, but it is my own aspiration. Regarding finances it's really not an issue. Sure I could find a ho-hum job in our 'cracked up' system, but I don't need the money nor the waste of time. To make it easy for you to understand, I don't have a job because at this point and time I don't need a job.

As far as Taco Bells is concerned I only go there occassionally and you will never catch me eating anything besides nachos, beans, cheese or tortilla. Their beef and chicken is about as low grade as it gets, bub. That's industry for ya.

and this:

Have you heard the term 'electrojet' ??
Have you heard the term 'synthetic' ??
Have you heard the term 'ionisphere' ??
Have you heard the term 'exploitation' ??
Have you heard the term 'diffraction' ??
Have you heard the term 'diffusion' ??
Have you heard the term 'resonance' ??
Have you heard the term 'conductivity' ??

needs to be considered in accordance with the theory of 'relativity'. How deep. ROFL

Additionally I know how to spell sycophancy but I type the words psych, phys, phil, socio, .... all day.. it's easy to throw in an unnecessary h char. BTW my reference to your sycophancy, specifically, is exemplory of your general calumniation against any type of conception or information that presents the idea 'chemtrails' could simply be part of a covert military operation

quote:

---

Once an individual capitolizes, intellectualy, on a 'typo'; It becomes clear that this individual has nothing valid or sincere to contribute

---

posted 09-28-2002 05:17 PM            

quote:

---

BTW my reference to your sycophancy, specifically, is exemplory of your general calumniation against any type of conception or information that presents the idea 'chemtrails' could simply be part of a covert military operation

---

You know, English is a beautiful language....but what you're doing to it is just plain ugly. (Misspelled exemplary too and used it awkwardly and incorrectly in the sentence given that it means blameless, guiltless, inculpable, innocent, irreprehensible, pure, righteous, unblamable, virtuous ). Have you considered the concept of actually using words that make sense in a sentence? In other words have you considered the concept of using words to actually communicate meaning rather than demonstrate how pretentious you can appear?

Let's try something simple first....

Two questions;

Should be easy for you.

How much do you think this chemtrail operation would cost?

How big do you think this operation is (ie. How many aircraft? How many gallons sprayed)?

Note that these are not false statements. In fact, they are not statements at all. They are simple questions, forcing you to do something that you might find uncomfortable and difficult, deluded as you are in your calumniations…They might force you to actually think (painful as that might seem to you).

posted 09-28-2002 05:29 PM            

btw I never claimed or implied I was perfect. Even I actually misspell words. I can admit that. Woo hoo. I'm a human.!! (jumps up and down)
Again your redundant ad hominem only illustrates your flamboyant idiocy.
And yes, english truly is an excellent language.

posted 09-28-2002 05:43 PM            

Thank you for your reply of 9/28/02.

You wrote:

.....well, while yes, 24,000 may be the highest for inbound aircraft to the airport, but there may be aircraft at those altitudes or higher that are just enroute to somewhere else that are holding.....

Do I understand correctly that, in addition to inbound, intending-to-land air traffic near a specific airport, there may ALSO be traffic enroute to another location that is "holding" in the same area?

In other words, there may be commercial traffic that is pausing, so to speak, its pre-determined flight plan, on order, for whatever reason, from ATC to "hold" over a given location?

Please note that I'm interested in commercial traffic only for purposes of this discussion - i.e. commercial passenger airliners.

posted 09-28-2002 07:36 PM            

How much do you think this chemtrail operation would cost?

How big do you think this operation is (ie. How many aircraft? How many gallons sprayed)?

Here was your answer;

quote:

---

It's not a matter of 'IF' they have the budget because we 'ALL' know 'THEY' do. the 'FED'. ever heard of it?

---

Notice that I did not ask IF they had the budget. I asked "how much do you think this chemtrail operation would cost?"

You fail to comprehend a simple question, didn't even attempt to answer the second, yet you label it as "ad hominem" and accuse me of flamboyant idiocy. I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but generally those with such severe comprehension problems and such deep misunderstandings of the meanings of words would be considered idiotic themselves.

quote:

---

btw I never claimed or implied I was perfect.

---

I never implied you were even rational.

quote:

---

Again your redundant ad hominem only illustrates your flamboyant idiocy.
And yes, english truly is an excellent language.

---

If we look to the dictionary, we find that the phrase "ad hominem" has two forms, an adjective and an adverb….. yet you use it here incorrectly as neither an adjective or an adverb in a nonsensical way. To demonstrate why it is nonsensical, we must first examine the meaning of "ad hominem":

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Note here that if the word was used in reference to my two questions, which were;

How much do you think this chemtrail operation would cost?

How big do you think this operation is (ie. How many aircraft? How many gallons sprayed)?

It was used incorrectly.

As anyone can see these two questions are in no way "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect." In fact they are attempting to engage in an intellectual or factual response (which you once again seem to be incapable of).

And secondly, these two questions are not "marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made". These questions are neither an attack on character nor are they an answer to contentions made. They are questions.

So in conclusion, anyone can plainly see here that you continue to use words in complete disregard for their actual meanings without grammatical correctness in a sentence….yet you accuse me of idiocy for merely asking questions that you seem incapable of answering yourself?

Let's review….

1. You do not seem to understand the meaning of pretentious words that you use and apply incorrectly in a sentence, while often misspelling same.

2. You accuse people of idiocy for merely asking questions that you don't seem to be able to answer.

3…You accuse people of engaging in ad hominem attacks when it is you who uses words like "flamboyant idiocy" (an ad hominem attack in and of itself), while at the same time it is you who cannot answer simple questions and use words correctly.

Interesting how those who engage in actual "flamboyant idiocy" are so quick to falsely accuse others of it.

Anyone else want to give these questions a shot? A/T doesn't seem to be able to demonstrate a capacity for rational or even intelligent thought.

posted 09-28-2002 07:47 PM            

quote:

---

Meteorologist Mish Michaels: "The day after the attack, Dr. Minnis and his colleages at NASA studied satellite images that captured a few isolated contrails that were left military aircraft deployed to protect our airspace. According to their study, those contrails spread out, forming cirrus-like clouds that lasted an average of seven hours."

Dr. Minnis: "They covered an area, at their peak, an area the size of Massachusetts. This is just from ten aircraft."

---

posted 09-28-2002 08:06 PM            

If Chemtrail activists knew everything about what may be going on in our skys..they wouldn't be asking questions like they are now. You can't expect them to have hard data of a possible conspiracy if the proof is being intentionally covered up. It would be pretty stupid of a "debunker" to expect as much.

posted 09-28-2002 08:20 PM            

quote:

---

DIV STYLE="filter: glow(Color=#3A3A3A,Strength=50); width=450";font color="yellow"

---

ROFL. copy. paste. Nicely done. You must be a pilot too, eh? bwuhahahah And I thought Seeker was lame, but in light of you he seems somewhat diplomatic.

I haven't given you permission to hyperlink from my host. That IS a warning.

ºººclarification:

yodabreath had to edit his post numerous time because he embedded Image files hosted on my server in his html code, without given authorization for doing so. He then edited his post so it didn't look so stupid as I easily deterred his antagonization. heh. peace.

ººYodabreath has now pictured his idols in his stolen code. I can tell you right now that this poor soul has got major issues. I wouldn't be suprised if he weren't at FT.Bragg. But he's not too far from there, none the less, and stupid for linking from my host. ROFL.

btw yoda thats not me in the picture (hiroshima,wtc). just some random guy in a heavy coat. rofl. it's a hoax. ROFL. get it?

posted 09-28-2002 10:21 PM            

Asking specifically about rules/procedures for commercial airliners only is pretty much a moot point, since private biz jets and military aircraft all follow the same procedures.

"Do I understand correctly that, in addition to inbound, intending-to-land air traffic near a specific airport, there may ALSO be traffic enroute to another location that is 'holding' in the same area?

In other words, there may be commercial traffic that is pausing, so to speak, its pre-determined flight plan, on order, for whatever reason, from ATC to 'hold' over a given location?"

Yes, it's quite common for traffic to pass over a major city enroute to other destinations. And the term holding is a technically correct term...you need not put in in quotations.

There are two basic reasons why an aircraft will hold....because ATC tells them to, or because the crew requests to hold. ATC-directed holding isn't extremely common anymore, not with 99% of the United States covered by radar. I've held involuntarily less than half a dozen times.

However, it's quite common for a crew on a training flight to request to hold, for practice. Every training flight we do, we're required to practice holding, among other things.

As for passing over major cities enroute to other locations, it happens daily. For example, I flew from Montgomery AL to Holloman AFB in NM, and we flew directly over several major cities enroute: Jackson MS, Shreveport LA, Dallas/Ft Worth TX.

When I flew to Bangor ME, I flew over Atlanta, Washington/Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston. I think I've flown over most major cities in the US at various altitudes.

Other cities, you'll see aircraft that aren't at cruising altitudes but not landing at that city because they are headed somewhere else nearby.

For example, you living in Boston would probably see traffic headed to Portland ME or even New York/Philly flying overhead at lower altitudes of 10,000 to 20,000 feet, as they are in the descent (or climbing out from those places).

Essentially, again, you can't really try to be like Alpha-Theta saying that *ONLY* X traffic is flying over your house, because you've got A,B,C,D,E,F and so on flying over your house too, and they are all headed to different places, at different altitudes, on different flight plans, and are even different types of traffic (airline FAR 121 traffic, commercial for-hire FAR 135 traffic, private biz jets FAR 91 traffic, military traffic, etc).

posted 09-28-2002 11:00 PM            

Now, hypothetically, if at least one of the mentally challenged organizations exist such as Illuminati, or some kind of a TPTB, then could it be possible that funding such an operation would not be a problem.

We already know that the Masons and Templar exist and the Templar are or were basically the ones wrapped up in the financial institutions, so why couldn't there be someone else higher up on the food chain? - If some of these organizations have been around as long as they claim they have then could it not be possible that they had accumulated a substantial amount of wealth? - I'm certain that it would be enough to finance any type of operation.

As for what is being sprayed, it could be a wide variety of chemicals, toxins, viruses, metals, etc. The words "mycoplasma" and "mycoplasmosis" keep popping up and I really don't know what to make of it yet.

Why would they spray if such an operation existed? - For a wide variety of reasons. - It could be anything from fixing the hole in the ozone, (which is now shrinking in size according to some souces), trying to work out a new defensive system, protection from solar flares, and perhaps even more sinister applications. It could be a multi-purpose operation for all we know.

posted 09-29-2002 12:30 AM            

Now if we take into consideration that one of the heavy tanker transport aircraft can hold perhaps, - (I wish I could remember the the load capacitities of some of these jets), but let's say 100 tons. If we mix 100 tons of whatever it is with the moisture already present in the atmosphere and it has a mix ratio of like a tiny amount of product per so much moisture. - A little bit would seem to go a lot. - Don't we have some kind of bio-hazardous stuff so deadly that 1 drop could wipe out a whole bunch of people anyway? - Not sure what it is, but think it's a biological.

Well anyway, hypothetically, if the stuff is a heavily concentrated mixture and taking into consideration, the range of the aircraft involved, not many jets would actually be needed for such an operation.

If you've got 100 jets, with a range of 5,000 to 7,000 miles, with 4 flying in formation, with enough product to cover so many square miles once it's reached its maximim mix ratio, then it is plausible that such a thing could be done at a reasonable cost with a limited amount of resources.