You didn't answer my question about becoming a whistleblower - and I address it to any pernicious debunkers out there too.
I'm just a man Andrew and all I try to discuss is information that is put in front of me here or that I dig up on the web. Unfortunately I don't see any evidence for chem-trails and I can't even work out a motive for releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. Perhaps you can help me with the motive Andrew. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
So you are saying that you recognise the skies we have now with those you witnessed in 1976 ?
Erm * in a word.
Mark what's the motive for releasing chemicals into the atmosphere? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
So you are saying that you recognise the skies we have now with those you witnessed in 1976 ?
Erm * in a word.
Mark what's the motive for releasing chemicals into the atmosphere?
I haven't read much on Chemtrails so I am certainly no expert on it but I'd hazard a simple guess from a simple mind such as mine that it would be similar to the reason people give for GM foods?
You didn't answer my question about becoming a whistleblower - and I address it to any pernicious debunkers out there too.
I'm just a man Andrew and all I try to discuss is information that is put in front of me here or that I dig up on the web. Unfortunately I don't see any evidence for chem-trails and I can't even work out a motive for releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. Perhaps you can help me with the motive Andrew.
Right Patrick - you're just a man then. Fair enough. Now, a casual observer would observe your apparent campaign against me - which seems to have been largely unsuccessful, as far I can tell. Nevertheless I always try to be helpful to people.
Do I know what the true motive is? No. Does that make the phenomenon unreal? Of course it doesn't, as I am sure we would both agree about the CD of the WTC.
Once again, there are 2 possible logical conclusions about you:
1) You deny evidence which doesn't suit your world view.
2) You are a man on a mission on this message board - seemingly less interested in your own - where I do not "pollute the waters".
We're running out of options - and the sooner you realise this, the better.
You didn't answer my question about becoming a whistleblower - and I address it to any pernicious debunkers out there too.
I'm just a man Andrew and all I try to discuss is information that is put in front of me here or that I dig up on the web. Unfortunately I don't see any evidence for chem-trails and I can't even work out a motive for releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. Perhaps you can help me with the motive Andrew.
Right Patrick - you're just a man then. Fair enough. Now, a casual observer would observe your apparent campaign against me - which seems to have been largely unsuccessful, as far I can tell. Nevertheless I always try to be helpful to people.
Do I know what the true motive is? No. Does that make the phenomenon unreal? Of course it doesn't, as I am sure we would both agree about the CD of the WTC.
Once again, there are 2 possible logical conclusions about you:
1) You deny evidence which doesn't suit your world view.
2) You are a man on a mission on this message board - seemingly less interested in your own - where I do not "pollute the waters".
We're running out of options - and the sooner you realise this, the better.
Wake up.
Andrew I'm not alone in being concerned about the direction you're taking this forum. The only reason I comment on your threads more than others is because you are a/the administrator of this forum. My main concern is your siding with Woods/Reynolds/Fetzer against Jones this to me is very suspicious and makes your motives as an administrator here questionable.
I can concede that some of Jones “evidence based” conclusions may be slightly off the mark but they are at least scientifically testable. Woods Beam Weapon Theory goes outside of normal science and is therefore more difficult to test. Woods theory also lacks any credible evidence and seems to rely heavily on speculative outcomes i.e. not testable science. If woods theory was taken on board by the truth movement the movements theory would be unacceptable to most as it would be unprovable. I think the unprovable aspect of Woods theory is why the theory was born in an attempt to discredit slow and eventually destroy the 911 Truth Movement.
So Woods is trying to say that her Beam Weapon Theory is more provable than thermite!!
Also where did Woods get this Idea of Nano-particles from? I think it may have something to do with residual particles from un-ignited nano-thermite and therefore the need to give a reason for, or to explain, the existence of very fine (nano) particles that where found in dust samples from ground zero.
Here's a few extracts from Woods recent interview:
I've also been threatened by Ian Neal with a ban for trolling!! He also mentioned that it was a final warning. I don't recall even receiving the first one! Oh so I'm a troll because I find Andrews take on 911 rather bizarre! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
You didn't answer my question about becoming a whistleblower - and I address it to any pernicious debunkers out there too.
I'm just a man Andrew and all I try to discuss is information that is put in front of me here or that I dig up on the web. Unfortunately I don't see any evidence for chem-trails and I can't even work out a motive for releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. Perhaps you can help me with the motive Andrew.
making people ill? weather modifaction? to reflect back rays to slow down global warming? and this is why we need to question it because if it is a reason it will leave us all vunrable and unable to do a thing about it, culling ?
bombard us with viruses and other stuff so our immune systems are weakened enough making us vunrable, with bird flu around i tend to freak out with that scenerio and get back into my comfort bubble and dismiss it as a possibility and go for the global warming reasons.
IIRC there are numerous disclosed trials of materials released at high altitude as a means to reflect sunlight.
The phenomenon of reflective materials in the air reducing ground temperature is very real and has been observed in global temperature reductions after large volcano eruptions. I think St. Helens caused something like a 5% dip in global temperature because of the massive quantities of sulphur it pushed into the upper atmosphere.
Like it or not, this may well be a viable way to limit global warming (while also being obscenely counterproductive, but what do the PTB do that isn't?) _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
IIRC there are numerous disclosed trials of materials released at high altitude as a means to reflect sunlight.
The phenomenon of reflective materials in the air reducing ground temperature is very real and has been observed in global temperature reductions after large volcano eruptions. I think St. Helens caused something like a 5% dip in global temperature because of the massive quantities of sulphur it pushed into the upper atmosphere.
Like it or not, this may well be a viable way to limit global warming (while also being obscenely counterproductive, but what do the PTB do that isn't?)
Strangely enough St Helen's explosion released enough carbon gases to equal the whole of the releases since the start of the Industrial Revolution
The Earth's biosphere dealt with the problem
The trailing has nothing to do with controlling global warming and everything to do with setting up a global plasma field, working in concert with the mobile mast network, in setting up a global energy imprisonment, whereby the majority populace of the earth fail to realise their vibrational potential, whilst the occult controllers manage to conceal themselves and resist their exposure _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
IIRC there are numerous disclosed trials of materials released at high altitude as a means to reflect sunlight.
The phenomenon of reflective materials in the air reducing ground temperature is very real and has been observed in global temperature reductions after large volcano eruptions. I think St. Helens caused something like a 5% dip in global temperature because of the massive quantities of sulphur it pushed into the upper atmosphere.
Like it or not, this may well be a viable way to limit global warming (while also being obscenely counterproductive, but what do the PTB do that isn't?)
Strangely enough St Helen's explosion released enough carbon gases to equal the whole of the releases since the start of the Industrial Revolution
The Earth's biosphere dealt with the problem
The trailing has nothing to do with controlling global warming and everything to do with setting up a global plasma field, working in concert with the mobile mast network, in setting up a global energy imprisonment, whereby the majority populace of the earth fail to realise their vibrational potential, whilst the occult controllers manage to conceal themselves and resist their exposure
Been there, done that, and i'm back to the Global Warming theory, but I do find this theory worth the research thats being done.
I do sometimes wonder if I gain a little credibility round here (with the nut jobs at least ) by reminding you folks right out on the fringe with Heinrich, Greer, the Montauk Project and such that I have been there and 'know my *' in regards to these realms of thought (Christ, I helped build a tesla coil and ZPM!).
I get the feeling that if you present a moderate opinion, people assume you haven't been right down the rabbit hole. Well I have, and the majority of it I consider to be fascinating bs. Thus I am returned to moderately conspiratorial equilibrium. STFU Ignats.
Rant over. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
So you returned to your rest position having learned nothing?
Good on you
Thats not what I said and I don't know why I deserved such a negative response. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
I conclude that the chemtrails are being carefully propagated into the atmosphere to cause problems with brain chemistry in human beings.
If that is the case, that would lead me to wonder -
a/why? I mean, if you want people 'dumbed down', then a well functioning propaganda system serves the same purpose adequately whilst leaving people with the necessary and desired cognitive ability to e.g. develop exiting new weaponry, devise persuasive advertising campaigns for superfluous products etc - to do the often complex tasks our masters desire of us. So, what is the actual desired end result of any interference in brain chemistry?
b/why this method? spraying stuff through the air is fairly arbitrary and would effect anyone within a given radius, be subject to the randomising effect of the wind, how long particular people spend outside etc. Even 'important' people would be affected. If you sincerely wished to inflict damage on the sly, wouldn't a more selective method such as vaccines be more controllable, predictable and thus effective?
Personally, I remain to be convinced about chemtrails, but the significant amounts of exhaust jets dump into the atmosphere as standard is unhealthy enough in itself. I would, however, have questioned what another chemtrails thread has to do with 911 issues, but won't as I don't want to be aggravating people on two threads in two days. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
I would, however, have questioned what another chemtrails thread has to do with 911 issues, but won't as I don't want to be aggravating people on two threads in two days.
Yet you are obviously quite happy to post about Coke Zero, 24, etc etc.
Mr Brown questions the validity of 9/11 potentially unrelated posts yet he too is quite happy posting about Board Games, Politics, Noam Chomsky, Letter Bombs, Bird Flu, Cash for Honours, etc etc
Are there some topics that you guys think are off topic but ok for you to post about and others that you think are off topic and should really really really be off topic ? _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
Just a thought. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
I would, however, have questioned what another chemtrails thread has to do with 911 issues, but won't as I don't want to be aggravating people on two threads in two days.
Yet you are obviously quite happy to post about Coke Zero, 24, etc etc.
Mr Brown questions the validity of 9/11 potentially unrelated posts yet he too is quite happy posting about Board Games, Politics, Noam Chomsky, Letter Bombs, Bird Flu, Cash for Honours, etc etc
Are there some topics that you guys think are off topic but ok for you to post about and others that you think are off topic and should really really really be off topic ?
Anything they claim to be not part of 9/11.
They choose what is and what is not.
Its a game. They judge a whole forum by a single poster and they label parts of a poster says with a whole outlook.
An honest debater would agree to disagree on whatever someone said. They seem to link any issue with what it has to do with 9/11...
Mind you, I do think that Coke Zero does have huge potential for damaging the 9/11 Truth Movement. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Yet you are obviously quite happy to post about Coke Zero, 24, etc etc.
Mr Brown questions the validity of 9/11 potentially unrelated posts yet he too is quite happy posting about Board Games, Politics, Noam Chomsky, Letter Bombs, Bird Flu, Cash for Honours, etc etc
Are there some topics that you guys think are off topic but ok for you to post about and others that you think are off topic and should really really really be off topic ?
Quote:
Anything they claim to be not part of 9/11.
They choose what is and what is not.
Its a game. They judge a whole forum by a single poster and they label parts of a poster says with a whole outlook.
An honest debater would agree to disagree on whatever someone said. They seem to link any issue with what it has to do with 9/11...
Guilty as charged - I do post on off topic threads. In fact, if you look in the suggestions section, you'll find that some time ago I suggested an off topic section be added to the forum which, IIRC was after a lengthy 'lizards' thread I posted on which I found interesting but found myself wondering if this was the right place to be going on about 'lizards'.
You will notice on this thread I added a smile to my comment on this thread; this was to indicate I wasn't being entirely serious. If I was that bothered, I would have been more explicit.
You will also notice I'm not the first to suggest this forum appears to veer all over the place; the fact I may be guilty of this myself doesn't detract from whether or not this is a valid observation. As it is, it has already been explicitly stated it is to be reformatted due in part to such issues, so I fail to see how this is simply about what I think.
In fact, to his credit, Patrick Brown made a very sensible effort to start a more focused forum specifically to collect evidence. I hold my hands up to being one of many that have failed to engage in this, but the fact it hasn't taken off may demonstrate we have started to veer off into discussing other topics. How relevant they are is contingent on your POV. Mine may be different to yours.
I don't recall saying I couldn't agree to disagree with you conspiritor. On a 911 forum, it's not entirely surprising that some linkage with 911 may be an issue, even if I may be somewhat hypocritical about it. If you think I'm off track, please feel free to pick me up on it. After all, if I started a thread on how much I dislike capitalism, it may raise a few eyebrows. I'm sorry if I offended you; the blunt fact is holocaust denial winds me up - that's my opinion - based on that article, not you specifically. If you feel I zeroed in on one part of it unfairly, then perhaps I did, but it was a part I found to be significant. On that, we may well have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
You seem very keen to shut down this debate and I wondered why, given that you are quite happy to post "off topic" about other issues on this board.
You want to shut down the chemtrails thread too ?
Given that you seem to be an advocate for selective censorship, I was curious about your views on censorship ?
If you read what I have written, you will find that in no instance have I called for censorship. In fact, I have never done so on this forum. Ever.
In one instance I suggested if this forum entertained discussions on holocaust denial I would likely not have joined; this means I would be absent rather than calling for censorship.
Secondly, to suggest this is not the place to discuss it is an opinion - should I have wished it censored I would have contacted the mods and requested it - with clear grounds within forum guidelines. As I said before I neither did this nor intended to. This is because I reserve the right to express my opinion without attempting to censor.
If you look around, you will find several instances of various people calling for threads to be closed, people to be banned, so-and-so is a 'shill' etc, so it strikes me as curious as to why you are so sensitive about my expressing an opinion that includes none of these things. Stating an opinion is not a call for anything to be 'shut down'. If I thought a thread should be 'shut down' I would unequivocally say so. Am I to take it you wish me to censor my opinions?
Mind you, it does strike me as odd that it appears to escape people that the holocaust issue (regardless of what I think or whether it is 'right' or 'just') is particularly sensitive and one that has the potential to bestow massive discredit upon the truth movement if it is seen as a tenet of its members just as it appears to be gaining a fair amount of attention.
Not to mention its potential to attract fascists.
This forum is public and is (AFAIK) the central hub of trutherism in this country.
I found myself rather taken aback at how large the issue's apparent fanbase is and clear lack of counter dialogue; if it is indeed a big topic in trutherism, please advise me and I will simply leave as this is obviously not the forum for me and I do not wish to, I repeat, censor what others wish to discuss.
Quote:
here's also this to consider of course, in case you missed it.
PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses - Page 72 wrote:
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
Yes, that is genuinely interesting if disturbing stuff.
Quote:
Doncha just get tired of these narrow minded sorts who keep repeating....what has this got to do with 9/11? It all ties in.
Well you've been here a week, you don't know me, know nothing about me and are in a poor position to judge whether I'm particularly 'narrow minded'.
I challenge you to evidence where I 'keep repeating' what various issues have to do with 911.
Making snap judgements on the basis of a couple of posts is, ironically, a rather narrow minded attitude. Though I can't judge how open minded you are as a person because I don't know you. Mind you, I notice on another thread you apparently worked out who all the 'shills' are within five minutes, so I'm wondering if you possess some kind of ESP.
If 'it all ties in', you may wish to expand further; you may find to your surprise I may be interested to hear your ideas. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: Mention
holocaust denial three times or often enough and create the ideal climate.
Mention whether a topic has a relation with 9/11 often enough and create the ideal climate.
Instead of arguing what you disagree with whatever point people are making you ask whether what they are saying is appropriate enough.
Pray do tell me how you became the moral guardian and standardbearer of what others consider to be appropriate and not appropriate.
Your whole approach is subjective. What you dont like on a personal level you question. Fine if you had points to contest with what is being said. But you dont. An impartional observer can see that clearly.
Just for information, London Mick's a fine fella as I've interacted with him over a period of few weeks, we always seem to be seeing eye to eye over a number of things. Dogsmilk is a fine fella - I've met him personally a couple of times and am always impressed with his thoughtfulness and articulation. Of course my opinion can be disregarded as much as any other
Off-topicness is hardly relevant on a single or few issue forum such as this. There's only so much you can argue about or inform on the particular issue(s) in question. All the other materially associated issues are bound to be introduced by enthusiasts for the whole web of weaving spiders
Mark is a brilliantly clear leader, but I worry (well I don't but let that stand) that he spends far too much time tapping away here to the extent that I've only observed other employed people doing. Not a hint of that with Mark, but I hope he rests up sometime _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
[quote="Dogsmilk"]spraying stuff through the air is fairly arbitrary and would effect anyone within a given radius, be subject to the randomising effect of the wind, how long particular people spend outside etc. Even 'important' people would be affected. If you sincerely wished to inflict damage on the sly, wouldn't a more selective method such as vaccines be more controllable, predictable and thus effective?[quote]
Depends if there is a vaccine/antidote for whatever they may or may not be coating our mornings with.
I remain agnostic on chemtrails - I have seen them for sure, but cannot say whether they are a recent phenomenon or simply a by-product of jet airlines that are now being 'looked for' as opposed to taken for granted. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
holocaust denial three times or often enough and create the ideal climate.
Mention whether a topic has a relation with 9/11 often enough and create the ideal climate.
I'm sorry; I don't understand that.
Quote:
Instead of arguing what you disagree with whatever point people are making you ask whether what they are saying is appropriate enough.
Pray do tell me how you became the moral guardian and standardbearer of what others consider to be appropriate and not appropriate.
Did I? I don't recall appointing myself as a 'moral guardian'. If I have an opinion on what's being talked about on here I don't see why I shouldn't say so. If you disagree with me, nobody is forcing you to take any notice.
I did make the point that the discussion of such an issue would be regarded in pretty stark terms by others; that has nothing to do with me or what I think, it's just pretty obvious (to me). The article in question itself made great play of the general antipathy attached to discussion of the subject matter in question and it's the article you posted in the first place. That's not my doing and I already stated it matters not whether it is regarded as 'right' or 'just'.
If you think my assertion is wrong,you may simply reject and ignore it or else provide a counter argument. On a basic level, however, that particular argument is primarily observant of the way things are as opposed to specifically moral.
Quote:
our whole approach is subjective. What you dont like on a personal level you question.
Yes that's true. And it applies to people in general. Are you telling me you're privy (as a subjective being) to an objective standpoint or that you never question things you don't like? I don't like the current erosion of civil liberties because in my little world it's unjustified and based on bunk; as a subjective viewpoint based on a set of personal beliefs about the world is that standpoint therefore invalid? Similarly, my current belief system does evoke a reaction that includes a personal response with the matter in hand. Is that really so anomalous?
Quote:
Fine if you had points to contest with what is being said. But you dont. An impartional observer can see that clearly.
I do. However, since I made clear it wasn't a discussion I wished to engage in, it would make little sense to then go on to have said discussion.
In fact, I'm kind of kicking myself I'm responding on this subject yet again in any sense.
Looking back on the single line comment I made yesterday that sparked this, I really am getting curious as to why this is such an enormous issue for you. As I previously pointed out, there are several instances of others requesting threads to be locked etc, something I have patently not done. I took issue with an article you posted. Even if I were questioning your post on grounds of 'appropriateness', that hardly constitutes the kind of pointed attack that is fairly routine around here these days. Do you really care so wholeheartedly about what I consider to be appropriate? If you think it is appropriate then ignore me and talk about it anyway. It's that easy. Plenty of people have asserted NPT is 'damaging the movement', but it doesn't stop it being discussed by those who subscribe to it.
As noted in my previous post, I have been accused of advocating censorship without actually having made any comment advocating censorship whatsoever and I have been accused of being 'narrow minded' by someone who doesn't have a clue about me. However, though I regard myself as having been subject to, respectively, inaccurate and ill-informed judgements, I really don't intend to make a big deal out of it nor will I be anything other than civil to the respective posters if they extend the same courtesy to me. You can keep leveling aggrieved posts at me if you like, but it's not going to get either of us anywhere.
So, er, are we going to try to reach some resolution on this, or are we going for another round? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 1158 Location: South Essex
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:10 am Post subject:
I've been around for 48 years now,and I've not seen a phenonmenon like these trails that linger and dispence material for hours,ending in milky skies followed by grey skies.
So not doubt from me this has only been happening in the last 5 years or so,my guess would be solar ray deflection.To what purpose I don't know,what I do know is this aint a natural occurance.
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:22 am Post subject:
Newspeak International wrote:
I've been around for 48 years now,and I've not seen a phenonmenon like these trails that linger and dispence material for hours,ending in milky skies followed by grey skies.
So not doubt from me this has only been happening in the last 5 years or so,my guess would be solar ray deflection.To what purpose I don't know,what I do know is this aint a natural occurance.
They began around 1990 big time and seemed to peak circa 2000.
It was Edward Teller who put forward the idea of chucking out metals to ease global warming - this was just a proposal that according to him [when questioned by Linda Moulton Howe] never got put into action.
On top of this - I don't think it has much to do with some sort of environmental shield - that's what they've told anyone who comes a bit too close [inlcuding all UN/NATO countries who allow the flights - which is virtually all of them]. There is a fair bit of evidence for this which can be found when you spend a bit of time looking into it, including the fact that heavy spray periods don't correlate with increased solar flare activity.
--
Anyway - i forgot to post these... if you followed this thread from the start you'll have got the gist that it was a kind of one off HEAVY spray day. Now for those still in cloud [Heheheh!] cuckoo land like Patrick Black 'n' White, here's another layer of evidence.
Satellite pics of day in question - you just need to discern basic bits of cloud cover from articficial trails.
Here's a comparison shot from the day BEFORE Andrew took his vid and many others took pics: [these are massive so open them locally]
IIRC there are numerous disclosed trials of materials released at high altitude as a means to reflect sunlight.
The phenomenon of reflective materials in the air reducing ground temperature is very real and has been observed in global temperature reductions after large volcano eruptions. I think St. Helens caused something like a 5% dip in global temperature because of the massive quantities of sulphur it pushed into the upper atmosphere.
Like it or not, this may well be a viable way to limit global warming (while also being obscenely counterproductive, but what do the PTB do that isn't?)
Chemtraıls are laıd only over populated areas as far as I can gather. Also there are claıms they contaın pathogens. The elıte make no secret of wantıng to reduce global populatıon by 90%. Apart from thıs I no nothıng..
Except most countrıes are open to ıt now under the 'open skıes' treaty. Hmmm... I wonder ıf Swıtzerland or Lıchensteın or Israel have 'open skıes'.. I know pretty much all of Europe are sıgned up. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
) by reminding you folks right out on the fringe with Heinrich, Greer, the Montauk Project and such that I have been there and 'know my *' in regards to these realms of thought (Christ, I helped build a tesla coil and ZPM!).
