CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?

To be fair, I was the one that brought up zombies.  However, I just mentioned that the DoD has a zombie contingency plan, as an example of security groups who have planned for impossible events.  This does not mean the DoD believes that a zombie outbreak is imminent or even remotely possible.  The thing about the weather stuff, it's much more probable than zombies, and if I recall correctly work was being started to look into ways to control the weather.  This type of work could potentially be very dangerous and it makes sense that people would take it seriously enough to not allow weaponized weather much like weaponized diseases are not allowed.  The threat to civilian populations is too great.

"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".

Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain.  The official term for this process is "weather modification".  Pretty obvious name for it I guess.

"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".

Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain.  The official term for this process is "weather modification".  Pretty obvious name for it I guess.

To offer my conclusions to this thread:

1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:59:23 PM

"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".

Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain.  The official term for this process is "weather modification".  Pretty obvious name for it I guess.

To offer my conclusions to this thread:

1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.

5. and 6. don't in any way follow from 1-4. You go from saying the "chemtrail conspiracy is vague and undefined", and "some geoengineering may have already occurred", to "chemtrails are responsible for ongoing geoengineering"

Maybe you could take a step back and give reasons and evidence for contrails having added chemicals in them?

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 11:56:46 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:59:23 PM

"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".

Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain.  The official term for this process is "weather modification".  Pretty obvious name for it I guess.

To offer my conclusions to this thread:

1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.

5. and 6. don't in any way follow from 1-4. You go from saying the "chemtrail conspiracy is vague and undefined", and "some geoengineering may have already occurred", to "chemtrails are responsible for ongoing geoengineering"

Maybe you could take a step back and give reasons and evidence for contrails having added chemicals in them?

They are my conclusions. Others are welcome to draw their own.

Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:59:23 PM

"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".

Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain.  The official term for this process is "weather modification".  Pretty obvious name for it I guess.

To offer my conclusions to this thread:

1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.

Yes, all of the world's governments are conspiring against the citizens of the world to hit their own land with hurricane and earthquakes.
They love to spend all the money initially doing that, and then all the money emergency services cost, and all the money rebuilding the area costs...
With no gain.
Highly logical!

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 11:56:46 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:59:23 PM

"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".

Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain.  The official term for this process is "weather modification".  Pretty obvious name for it I guess.

To offer my conclusions to this thread:

1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.

Yes, all of the world's governments are conspiring against the citizens of the world to hit their own land with hurricane and earthquakes.
They love to spend all the money initially doing that, and then all the money emergency services cost, and all the money rebuilding the area costs...
With no gain.
Highly logical!

Who said they are only hitting their own lands?

You are really naive, aren't you? Governments are filled with kind, loving, honest people who just want you to be happy? And the military are also filled with the same kinds of saints? And scientists never conduct experiments where harm may come to some people?

You should leave your Mum's basement every once in a while.

Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.

You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.

Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?

No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 24, 2014, 12:17:06 PM

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 11:56:46 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:59:23 PM

"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".

Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain.  The official term for this process is "weather modification".  Pretty obvious name for it I guess.

To offer my conclusions to this thread:

1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.

5. and 6. don't in any way follow from 1-4. You go from saying the "chemtrail conspiracy is vague and undefined", and "some geoengineering may have already occurred", to "chemtrails are responsible for ongoing geoengineering"

Maybe you could take a step back and give reasons and evidence for contrails having added chemicals in them?

They are my conclusions. Others are welcome to draw their own.

Nobody can stop you from drawing conclusions that are illogical and make no sense, I guess.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 12:29:24 PM

Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.

You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.

Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?

No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.

LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 01:23:07 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 12:29:24 PM

Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.

You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.

Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?

No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.

LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?

Point out the logical error.

I've already told you about the Pentagon having a plan for zombies.  Besides, there is no need to sign an extra treaty as using these fictitious creatures as weapons would be equivalent to biological warfare, which is already prohibited.
Do you have any evidence which does show that weather had been controllable as far back as 77?

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 24, 2014, 01:28:07 PM

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 01:23:07 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 12:29:24 PM

Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.

You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.

Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?

No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.

LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?

Point out the logical error.

One problem I can see is affirming the consequent.

1. Chemtrails cause geoengineering
2. Geoengineering exists.
3. Therefore chemtrails exist.

However geoengineering doesn't necessarily involve chemtrails so your reasoning isn't valid.

It's like saying

1. Rain will cause the street to get wet.
2. The street is wet
3. Therefore it's raining

Streets can get wet from things like floods and overenthusiastic lawn sprinkling.

Also, you haven't even shown that chemtrails can cause geoengineering, because nobody has ever shown that chemtrails are anything other than just normal contrails.

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 01:33:06 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 24, 2014, 01:28:07 PM

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 01:23:07 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 12:29:24 PM

Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.

You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.

Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?

No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.

LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?

Point out the logical error.

One problem I can see is affirming the consequent.

1. Chemtrails cause geoengineering
2. Geoengineering exists.
3. Therefore chemtrails exist.

However geoengineering doesn't necessarily involve chemtrails so your reasoning isn't valid.

It's like saying

1. Rain will cause the street to get wet.
2. The street is wet
3. Therefore it's raining

Streets can get wet from things like floods and overenthusiastic lawn sprinkling.

Also, you haven't even shown that chemtrails can cause geoengineering, because nobody has ever shown that chemtrails are anything other than just normal contrails.

Rubbish.

1. Geoengineering exists.
2. Geoengineering is concerned, amongst other activities, with modifying the weather.
3. This is achieved through releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, some vapour trails are chemtrails.
5. Therefore, chemtrails exist.

Logical errors, my arse.

I've already told you about the Pentagon having a plan for zombies.  Besides, there is no need to sign an extra treaty as using these fictitious creatures as weapons would be equivalent to biological warfare, which is already prohibited.
Do you have any evidence which does show that weather had been controllable as far back as 77?

Name one international signed treaty involving a hypothetical scenario.

You already have... the treaty from 1977.

You already have... the treaty from 1977.

And what is your reasoning that this was hypothetical?

Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then.  You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm.  However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.

Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then.  You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm.  However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.

Based on what reasoning or evidence?

Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then.  You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm.  However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html

Except, "they" can. This is simple technology, too. I'm surprised you are so ignorant. The Govt has large tornado machines in secret bases across the world. This explains most freak tornado occurrences, like several that were documented in the mid-west. Next time you post, please do some research.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 02:29:08 PM

Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then.  You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm.  However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html

Except, "they" can. This is simple technology, too. I'm surprised you are so ignorant. The Govt has large tornado machines in secret bases across the world. This explains most freak tornado occurrences, like several that were documented in the mid-west. Next time you post, please do some research.

Tornadoes in the Midwest? What a crazy freak occurrence!

http://www.tornadochaser.net/tornalley.html

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 24, 2014, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 02:29:08 PM

Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then.  You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm.  However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html

Except, "they" can. This is simple technology, too. I'm surprised you are so ignorant. The Govt has large tornado machines in secret bases across the world. This explains most freak tornado occurrences, like several that were documented in the mid-west. Next time you post, please do some research.

Tornadoes in the Midwest? What a crazy freak occurrence!

http://www.tornadochaser.net/tornalley.html

and I suppose you believe these are all natural occurrences too, huh?   

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 24, 2014, 01:05:54 PM

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 11:56:46 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:59:23 PM

"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".

Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain.  The official term for this process is "weather modification".  Pretty obvious name for it I guess.

To offer my conclusions to this thread:

1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.

Yes, all of the world's governments are conspiring against the citizens of the world to hit their own land with hurricane and earthquakes.
They love to spend all the money initially doing that, and then all the money emergency services cost, and all the money rebuilding the area costs...
With no gain.
Highly logical!

Who said they are only hitting their own lands?

You are really naive, aren't you? Governments are filled with kind, loving, honest people who just want you to be happy? And the military are also filled with the same kinds of saints? And scientists never conduct experiments where harm may come to some people?

You should leave your Mum's basement every once in a while.

So there are just crazy weather wars all about the plane of the Earth, eh?
Interesting.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 24, 2014, 02:46:25 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on June 24, 2014, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 02:29:08 PM

Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then.  You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm.  However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html

Except, "they" can. This is simple technology, too. I'm surprised you are so ignorant. The Govt has large tornado machines in secret bases across the world. This explains most freak tornado occurrences, like several that were documented in the mid-west. Next time you post, please do some research.

Tornadoes in the Midwest? What a crazy freak occurrence!

http://www.tornadochaser.net/tornalley.html

and I suppose you believe these are all natural occurrences too, huh?   

Wait, so now you've adapted your theory to what legion has been saying?
Why no mention of the "geoengineering" anywhere prior to this?
Are they making LSD tornadoes?

Are they making LSD tornadoes?

I certainly hope so.

When the treaty was written up, manipulating weather seemed like a possibility. The treaty was drawn up for the same reasons as the ones governing the weaponisation of space, the colonisation of the moon and so on - because these things seemed imminent enough that they were worth laying the ground rules for.

Sure, you can seed clouds and dump iron in the ocean and see what happens, but there's no evidence of anyone doing much more than that.

Are they making LSD tornadoes?

Why not?  They have Sharknados...

You're assuming that I meant tornados were caused by chemtrails, when I never explicitly said that.  Tornados are caused by large wind machines, and of course by natural causes as well.

Its moronic to even suggest that chemtrails could cause something like a tornado to begin with. I thought you all were reasonably intelligent until you made that connection. Chems don't make tornados, period. Trails don't make them either. Maybe your misunderstanding about trails is what causes you to think that they could be made by exhaust? Perhaps you should do some research.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 02:29:08 PM

Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then.  You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm.  However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html

Except, "they" can. This is simple technology, too. I'm surprised you are so ignorant. The Govt has large tornado machines in secret bases across the world. This explains most freak tornado occurrences, like several that were documented in the mid-west. Next time you post, please do some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_engine
It's still in prototype and nothing larger than a 4 meter chamber has been created.  That is really a weaponized tornado 
It also requires a lot of machinery to cause it to happen, and though I didn't watch a video of it, I assume the cyclone forms from the ground up.  I don't know when the last time you saw a tornado was, but it generally forms from the clouds down, as a cloud wall and funnel cloud are signs of imminent danger of a tornado.
Also, since when is it abnormal for the Midwest to have tornadoes?  It has been labeled as tornado alley for decades, there is a reason Dorothy was carried away by a tornado in Kansas and not in Michigan.  Can you even post evidence for the "secret bases" containing tornado machines that can magically make tornadoes appear in varying locations each time?