Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dude, you're missing the point entirely.

Most of the people on this site are well-versed re. the documentation of http://contrailscience.com etc.

I doubt OP's delivery impressed anyone (except possibly you)...it was attempting to refute "chemtrails,"
but on a much, much lower level than this sites participants are accustomed to.

I'm glad you agree with refutation of "chemtrails"...I do too. But if you refuse to look at the context of the particular poster,
then you refuse to understand why people react to him as they do. If you choose not to understand,
I'm totally fine with that...though you might want to think twice about being so damned loud about what you don't know.

Glad we've established it's more about 'SpaceCowboys' credibility than his content.

Actually, his content has been linked to numerous times, it's on his own forum. It's a little more in depth than the OP (he kept the OP very generalized) and is worth a read if you get the chance. Maybe it will make more sense to you there.
 
Glad we've established it's more about 'SpaceCowboys' credibility than his content.

Actually, his content has been linked to numerous times, it's on his own forum. It's a little more in depth than the OP (he kept the OP very generalized) and is worth a read if you get the chance. Maybe it will make more sense to you there.
he copied and pasted it from his own Op on p4t, he provided the link. I'm not really understanding what youre getting at. if he wanted to be more specific on anything here he had plenty of oppurtunities, he was just more focused on his feud with weedwhacker over past issues.

personally I'm not sure 'credibility' is correct wording. to me its his argumentative style and lack of focus on the topic that resulted in our 'response'.
 
And this isn't even a 'debate' ; the guy is backing up the idea that chemtrails are bunk. Why such hostility towards him?
It is simply history, SpaceCowboy has been involved with significant and sometimes heated discussions regarding specifically 911 issues. There is caution used when this happens, you see it as hostility. Never-the-less, we need to get back on topic. It is true SpaceCowboy seems to be supporting the idea that chemtrails are illogical; however, his approach is peculiar. Some here do not think that even if chemtrails were a reality they would result in the type of scenarios proposed by SpaceCowboy. They appear to be extreme.
 
Actually, his content has been linked to numerous times, it's on his own forum.

I fear it may be as a disingenuous attempt to attract more traffic to his site. You see, although the "chem"trail topic may appear to put P4T on the side of rational thinking, and thus garner some credibility. The other content at the site....not so much.
 
Glad we've established it's more about 'SpaceCowboys' credibility than his content.

Actually, his content has been linked to numerous times, it's on his own forum. It's a little more in depth than the OP (he kept the OP very generalized) and is worth a read if you get the chance. Maybe it will make more sense to you there.
Actually, if you read my post, I made clear that the OP was on a lower level than this community is accustomed to.

The OP's credibility problem is a secondary issue...and entirely of his own making.

Thus your claim "...we've established it's more about 'SpaceCowboys' credibility than his content" is entirely false, if you're including me.
Please do not try to straw man me, or I will not interact with you.
 
Actually, if you read my post, I made clear that the OP was on a lower level than this community is accustomed to
Wow, you sure know how to be condescending. A 'lower level?' Perhaps a layman like myself doesn't deserve to read your more intelligent posts. I think we can add each other to our ignore lists. No hard feelings though, really.
 
It is simply history, SpaceCowboy has been involved with significant and sometimes heated discussions regarding specifically 911 issues. There is caution used when this happens, you see it as hostility. Never-the-less, we need to get back on topic. It is true SpaceCowboy seems to be supporting the idea that chemtrails are illogical; however, his approach is peculiar. Some here do not think that even if chemtrails were a reality they would result in the type of scenarios proposed by SpaceCowboy. They appear to be extreme.
I understand the peculiarity some folks here see.

Maybe each point in his OP should be broken down to see if there is any truth behind them?
 
I fear it may be as a disingenuous attempt to attract more traffic to his site. You see, although the "chem"trail topic may appear to put P4T on the side of rational thinking, and thus garner some credibility. The other content at the site....not so much.
But that's irrelevant really. either his OP is bunk, has bunk in it or it is 100% correct.
 
either his OP is bunk, has bunk in it or it is 100% correct.

Yeah, I see what you mean...thing is, the intent is on the correct side so kudos and 'A' for effort. But the hyperbole was just absurd, and diminished the message.

There is no easy "bunk/no-bunk" gauge, other than a full dissection of each point and a discussion, and it just isn't really worth the time spent.
 
Yeah, I see what you mean...thing is, the intent is on the correct side so kudos and 'A' for effort. But the hyperbole was just absurd, and diminished the message.

There is no easy "bunk/no-bunk" gauge, other than a full dissection of each point and a discussion, and it just isn't really worth the time spent.
unfortunately I agree. I'm afraid to bring anything else up or well have 2 pages of digression from cowboy. ; ( I cant imagine anyway to get through the WHOLE list.
 
unfortunately I agree. I'm afraid to bring anything else up or well have 2 pages of digression from cowboy. ; ( I cant imagine anyway to get through the WHOLE list.
I think the answers are buried in this Thread. On page Three Posted byTWCobra and is a very good response that answers it all to me.

Bottom line, the OP establishes why Chemtrails cannot be true.

Does anyone here disagree with the OP? And if so... why?

Rob, this forum has an entire sub-forum debunking "chemtrails".

The greatest proof of the non-existence of chemtrails lies more with the logistics than anything else. The meme says that aluminium oxide, barium and strontium are the main chemicals supposedly sprayed. However there is even disagreement on that. Aluminium oxide isn't even toxic. It does however have a hardness value 1 less than diamonds so any aircraft flying through a cloud of it is going to be heavily abraded.

Chemmies say it is in the fuel... that is ludicrous. But the real killer is the weight. The heaviest load current liftable by any aircraft is around 140 tonnes in a 747-8 freighter. A persisent contrail lasting for 10 minutes or so is going to contain tens of thousands of tonnes of ice. A cloud of aluminum oxide, as optically dense as a contrail, is going to weigh 3 to 4 times as much.

Explaining this to non-technical people is the problem. It doesn't compute with them.

What you have written in the OP may happen if flying directly behind an aircraft spraying a dense cloud of toxic chemicals, but that is not really the meme.
Content from External Source
 
The OP is obvious bunk to many people here ("visibility to zero", "passengers dead", etc), but not to everyone, and certainly to the broader conspiracy community. So it's impolite to criticize people who might think it sounds reasonable.

So unless you are addressing the actual points Rob made (and I think that's been done adequately). Please don't post. It should be sufficient to demonstrate his point are wrong. This is not a witch hunt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top