Chemtrails are very real but this is not what concerns me the most, it is the fact that it can't be discussed, not even on an anon imageboard.
We live on world as a species that is able to alter the reality around us. We lie to our self and wake up every day in a manufactured hub.
Built by media, politics and our own consciousness.
it's actually not that hard to see, all the bots, shills and what not conspiracy cabals.
>oh look, kony2012 is trending on twitter
>oh look, big news, obama wants the world
>oh look Ipad is the best product
There is nothing that can be said to give the last push you need to think the last mile for yourself.
Surrounded by Media that is telling you how to think, oversprayed with chemtrails who maybe slowed down your thinking and as soon you try to reach out with your concern, a flood of shills, concern trolls and what not is holding your thought down!
CountilPro in action, left and right triggerd by a bot filtering the web through keywords.
A normal thinking person would never go the extra mile just to reply in a thread he doesn't care about. A normal person doesn't even know how the web works, he doesn't even know what this place is. Why would someone on /x/ if he doesn't care at all?
We live in a hub, manufactured by the millionairs, bankers or what ever the fuck you want it to call, who controlle the human species. We are just made to lazy by them to actually care.
You can go ahead and discuss chemtrails you want. The only thing that's going to stop is is people laughing at you for being a retard.
But that's just the logical consequences of being a retard.
>>17657123
next time, i will go ona harry potter event, just to call people there retarded. I know, i don't care about harry potter and i actually don't even know why i would go there just to say that.
>>17657134
I think the fans of Harry Potter, for the most part, understand he's a fictional character and don't actually believe he's real.
All we can do is wait for the great mass destruction and then we will be free and start over
>>17657114
>Chemtrails are very real but
this is why a discussion on chemtrails will never ever go well
you've ended it with your preconceived notion before it even started and then based your post's premise off the fact people don't like that, as though that's unusual or even noteworthy
doesn't help the very least informed tend to congregate to these discussions in the most prominent role,
shitposting
>>17657161
>free
when i look at human beings, i don't think they where made to be free.
>>17657147
Tell that to Tumblr
>>17657179
Which tumblr says that Harry Potter is a real human being?
and yet, it works.
>>17657123
>>17657163
While OP *may* very well take the chemtrail argument to crazy town, spraying chemicals out of planes for geoengineering (weather control) purposes isn't anything new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
>>17657205
Treaties were already made to prevent that from being used hostilely in any given context.
It also gives genuinely 0 credence to any use of chemtrails from private planes for purposes other than cloud seeding, so I'm unsure how it's relevant.
the world belongs to the brave and mad men.
>>17657114
Chemtrails are not real. Have a nice day, citizen!
>>17657223
"Chemtrails" is a vague definition. Most definitions I've heard of "chemtrails" are "spraying chemicals into the air". Cloud seeding would fall under that heading, hell contrails fall under that heading. Stating "there is no such thing" is just ridiculous without further defining what a "chemtrail" is.
As for treaties, we know they can never (and have never) been violated.
>>17657285
>Stating "there is no such thing"
I have not done this, but if I had, I would have been correct to.
>"Chemtrails" is a vague definition.
This conversation itself is directly and obviously related to the Chemtrail conspiracy theory, which purports that the chemtrails are unknown and harmful chemical agents. Often, this has little to do with weather control, but more "chemical warfare". This is not a vague definition as it relates specifically the "chemtrails" adherents of the conspiracy theory believe to exist, and under that definition, no evidence has been provided. 'Chemtrail' is generally used explicitly in this context.
>treaties can, and therefore are and will be violated
This is an excellent nonargument to counter the fact we stopped using chemical warfare against actual enemy countries and therefore would "maybe" be unlikely to use it against our own citizens.
Was there an actual point to that post I'm missing?
>>17657114
>most people don't care enough about things to learn about them
>most people trust the news too much
This has always been the case OP, it's not something new.
And chemtrails are physically impossible breh. Aeroplane's couldn't get a high enough concentration of anything into the air even if they were actively spraying it out of huge tanks.
>>17657332
>Implying the Chemtrail conspiracy theory is well defined
Wikipedia: (Speculation on the nature of chemtrails)
- solar radiation management
- psychological manipulation
- human population control
- weather modification
- biological or chemical warfare
Rationalwiki: (Speculation on the nature of chemtrails)
- sterilization for genocide or population control
- administration of drugs for mind-control or pacification
- suppression of human evolution
- to combat and control climate change
- to mask the appearance of Planet X/Nibiru
- to give Monsanto a global monopoly on genetically modified food by poisoning the environment so nothing but their seeds will grow.
I would hardly call that well defined. I swear, some people just love arguing for the hell of it.
>>17657123
>comes to /x/ to say this
Thanks for proving OP right, faggot.
>>17657414
boy, let's take a critical eye to this for just one moment and see which ones cause actual discussion and not "yeah sure there's evidence for it"
>psychological manipulation
>human population control
>biological or chemical warfare
>sterilization for genocide or population contro
>administration of drugs for mind-control or pacification
>suppression of human evolution
>to mask the appearance of Planet X/Nibiru
>to give Monsanto a global monopoly on genetically modified food by poisoning the environment so nothing but their seeds will grow
boy I sure wonder what all of these have in common that the remaining few don't
oh, they're unsubstantiated in entirety, cool
not to mention
>solar radiation management
is not feasible as well
surely I need to take the piss and point out that yes, all of these batshit insane conclusions on minimal (provided) evidence or assertions are technically "different" even if they mutually apply to all prior statements
>I swear, some people just love arguing for the hell of it.
I'm still waiting on that point you're trying to make, "arguing for the hell of it" seems to be the only one.
>>17657173
sup mello mike
>>17657548
If you're too stupid to see the point by now, despite it being pointed out to you multiple times, there is nothing left for me to say.
>>17657640
>I have conveyed no meaningful point and have no meaningful point to convey, so I quit! Clearly you're the idiot!
contemplate ethereal reawakening
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud
It bugs me when people claim some of nature's beauty is just chemicals.
Irregardless if it's true or not,
How do people deal with being that paranoid all of the time?
