Chemtrails, Geo-engineering And HAARP

markwilson wrote:You claim I "write huge posts but not with actual information." Did you read the avgas safety data sheet? Does it address chemicals? Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion, shill?

So for you posting general information about chemicals proofs chemtrails? Why lower yourself to throwing words like shill. I expected more from you tbh. I thought you were like a honest researcher or someone that spend time on explaining yourself but that really shows your true colors. I will withdraw from this discussion, not to upset you more. That is not my intention.

vincey84 wrote:

markwilson wrote:You claim I "write huge posts but not with actual information." Did you read the avgas safety data sheet? Does it address chemicals? Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion, shill?

So for you posting general information about chemicals proofs chemtrails? Why lower yourself to throwing words like shill. I expected more from you tbh. I thought you were like a honest researcher or someone that spend time on explaining yourself but that really shows your true colors. I will withdraw from this discussion, not to upset you more. That is not my intention.

The questions were:

1. "Did you read the avgas safety data sheet?"
What is your answer?

2. "Does it address chemicals?"
What is your answer?

3. "Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion?"
What is your answer?

Realearth wrote:

vincey84 wrote:

markwilson wrote:You claim I "write huge posts but not with actual information." Did you read the avgas safety data sheet? Does it address chemicals? Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion, shill?

So for you posting general information about chemicals proofs chemtrails? Why lower yourself to throwing words like shill. I expected more from you tbh. I thought you were like a honest researcher or someone that spend time on explaining yourself but that really shows your true colors. I will withdraw from this discussion, not to upset you more. That is not my intention.

The questions were:

1. "Did you read the avgas safety data sheet?"
What is your answer?

2. "Does it address chemicals?"
What is your answer?

3. "Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion?"
What is your answer?

I have looked at the make up of jetfuel before. It is public information. How is this related to: spraying harmful chemicals or weather modification. What is the link?

vincey84 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

vincey84 wrote:

markwilson wrote:You claim I "write huge posts but not with actual information." Did you read the avgas safety data sheet? Does it address chemicals? Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion, shill?

So for you posting general information about chemicals proofs chemtrails? Why lower yourself to throwing words like shill. I expected more from you tbh. I thought you were like a honest researcher or someone that spend time on explaining yourself but that really shows your true colors. I will withdraw from this discussion, not to upset you more. That is not my intention.

The questions were:

1. "Did you read the avgas safety data sheet?"
What is your answer?

2. "Does it address chemicals?"
What is your answer?

3. "Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion?"
What is your answer?

I have looked at the make up of jetfuel before. It is public information. How is this related to: spraying harmful chemicals or weather modification. What is the link?

Do you wish not to directly answer the questions put to you?

The questions were:

1. "Did you read the avgas safety data sheet?"
What is your answer?

2. "Does it address chemicals?"
What is your answer?

3. "Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion?"
What is your answer?

vincey84 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

vincey84 wrote:

markwilson wrote:You claim I "write huge posts but not with actual information." Did you read the avgas safety data sheet? Does it address chemicals? Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion, shill?

So for you posting general information about chemicals proofs chemtrails? Why lower yourself to throwing words like shill. I expected more from you tbh. I thought you were like a honest researcher or someone that spend time on explaining yourself but that really shows your true colors. I will withdraw from this discussion, not to upset you more. That is not my intention.

The questions were:

1. "Did you read the avgas safety data sheet?"
What is your answer?

2. "Does it address chemicals?"
What is your answer?

3. "Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion?"
What is your answer?

I have looked at the make up of jetfuel before. It is public information. How is this related to: spraying harmful chemicals or weather modification. What is the link?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

Realearth wrote:

vincey84 wrote:

Realearth wrote:

vincey84 wrote:

markwilson wrote:You claim I "write huge posts but not with actual information." Did you read the avgas safety data sheet? Does it address chemicals? Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion, shill?

So for you posting general information about chemicals proofs chemtrails? Why lower yourself to throwing words like shill. I expected more from you tbh. I thought you were like a honest researcher or someone that spend time on explaining yourself but that really shows your true colors. I will withdraw from this discussion, not to upset you more. That is not my intention.

The questions were:

1. "Did you read the avgas safety data sheet?"
What is your answer?

2. "Does it address chemicals?"
What is your answer?

3. "Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion?"
What is your answer?

I have looked at the make up of jetfuel before. It is public information. How is this related to: spraying harmful chemicals or weather modification. What is the link?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

They are ridiculous questions steering to some kind of trap that you set to discredit me. You also believe i am a shill that i have alternative motive? If you don't believe that there is no reason to ask me these silly almost rhetorical questions. Look the believe is that people deliberately are poisoning our skies. Do you believe that there are chemicals that have been put in that are on that list that are put in for the reason to poison our skies?

[quote="vincey84"][quote="Realearth"][quote="vincey84"]

Realearth wrote:

vincey84 wrote:

markwilson wrote:You claim I "write huge posts but not with actual information." Did you read the avgas safety data sheet? Does it address chemicals? Is that reference "actual information" germane to the discussion, shill?

They are ridiculous questions steering to some kind of trap that you set to discredit me. You also believe i am a shill that i have alternative motive? If you don't believe that there is no reason to ask me these silly almost rhetorical questions. Look the believe is that people deliberately are poisoning our skies. Do you believe that there are chemicals that have been put in that are on that list that are put in for the reason to poison our skies?

I withdraw the questions Mark presented to you.
Those looking for traps will find them.

POSTED BY ERIC DUBAY.

Do you fellows see it? I posted this same video in this thread, the thing that has these fellows in a hissy fit, without even being aware that Eric had posted it over at that other thread. I just discovered it in my research having not read the other thread.

Serendipity, baby, serendipity!

Comments welcomed.

Let me help some people out when it comes to proof, if you can't replicate or prove it yourself how does it benefit you or others by beLIEving in it? Show me at least 1 experiment anyone can do proving these white streaks are somehow bad for us and the environment
Furthermore some basic thinking like if they spray this bad crap how are the ones in on the conspiracy gonna NOT be affected? If we are affected negatively why aren't other animals and the environment similarly affected? Why drop poison from the sky when they can put it in our food and water?

ENERGY was used to destroy the Twin Towers, turning them to dust in 10, 11 seconds. 9/11 Dr Judy Wood at New Horizons Where Did The Towers Go? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriN1j7zSnw

The energy weapon used that day is still hidden technology, is it not? Before replying, the rubble pile of the 47-story WTC7 towered over the rubble piles left by the two 110-story Twin Towers, as Judy Wood discusses above. Referencing the speed of destruction, read in her book (as I did, introduction, which alone made the $40 purchase worth it), or listen to the above video her explanation of the speed of a billiard ball dropping from 110 floors high.

Or see, A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory
The Billiard Ball Example (BBE)
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

Cover story for lack of solid debris on sight after destruction: "We were able to move 120 dump trucks out of the city last night, which will give you a sense of the work that was done overnight.” --Rudy Giuliani, speaking of the evening, same day, destruction occurred (how tough, how plausible, logistically, would it be to get 120 dump trucks into New York City, from, say, noon that same day, once he first picked up his phone, to then securing transport, contractual agreements, etc., to then have 120 trucks arrive that night, with the required heavy moving equipment to load those trucks?) Just something to ponder. As a side note, Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) had a clean-up contract.

"Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) appeared to be a key player in the expedient removal and recycling of the steel. CDI was retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc, one of the site's four cleanup management contractors." https://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html

See, 9/11 Suspects: Rudy Giuliani https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-rudy-giuliani/

Videos broadcast to brainwash people to believe something happened, that didn't, show only CGI airplanes flying into the Twin Towers. One must trust his own eyes. There is absolutely no doubt that what was shown on 9/11, on all televisions, was CGI creation airplanes. Harley guy was then brought out to read his practiced script. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxQ2-DcZuR4

The point being? Who controls/manipulates the energy weaponized against us? This post is absolutely appropriate to this thread, imo.

Is the discussion under this thread, in part, dealing with such destructive energy?

In what I have seen of explanations thermite was seen and used in combination with controlled explosives that made the tower come down with such precision. Possibly for the planes they used some projection technology. So yes it is justified to think that at least for a part this is a direct attack on the people. On the other hand it is important not to let 1 fear/belief control/influence other beliefs and theories. That is my main concern that once you begin thinking in a certain way, there is just no stopping it. I understand there is more schemes probably but to me its is extremely important to see these things first without connection to each other. So not first linking all these different things and then starting to explain them, but looking at events separately.

markwilson wrote:
what was shown on 9/11

This TOPIC is not about 911; the open question to you is: Where are the Chemicals?

Schpankme wrote:

markwilson wrote:
what was shown on 9/11

This TOPIC is not about 911; the open question to you is: Where are the Chemicals?

H224 -- Flammable liquids -- Category 1
H304 -- Aspiration Hazard -- Category 1
H315 -- Skin corrosion/irritation -- Category 2
H336 -- Specific target organ toxicity (single exposure) -- Category 3
H350 -- Carcinogenicity -- Category 1
BH360f  -- Reproductive toxicity -- Category 1A
H411 -- Hazardous to the aquatic environment, chronic toxicity -- Category 2

http://www.aviation-fuel.com/pdfs/MSDS_for_AvGas_100LL_from_P66_dated_3-04-13.pdf

markwilson wrote:
MSDS_for_AvGas_100LL

JET ENGINES do not burn "AvGas_100LL"; but your Petrol cars and trucks burns something very similar.

Again, here you are Fear Mongering with heaping piles of nonsense.

Following is from https://tinyurl.com/wgznyme

Subject: CFTC Requests Public Input on Possible Regulation of "Event Contracts"

Page 4,

"The total weather-modification process would be a real-time loop of continuous, appropriate, measured interventions, and feedback capable of producing the desired weather behavior.

"The essential ingredient of the weather-modification system is the set of intervention techniques used to modify the weather. The number of specific intervention methodologies is limited only by the imagination, but with few exceptions they involve infusing either energy or chemicals into the meteorological process in the right way, at the right place and time. The intervention could be designed to modify the weather in a number of ways, such as influencing clouds and precipitation, storm intensity, climate, space, or fog."

Page 5,

"This method is based on injection of liquid hydrocarbon fuel into the afterburner's combustion gases [this explains why contrails have now become chemtrails]."

"If clouds were seeded (using chemical nuclei similar to those used today or perhaps a more effective agent discovered through continued research) before their downwind arrival to a desired location...."

"Smart materials based on nanotechnology are currently being developed...."

Page 6,

"including injection of chemical vapors...."

Page 7,

"Nanotechnology also offers possibilities for creating simulated weather. A cloud, or several clouds, of microscopic computer particles, all communicating with each other and with a larger control system could provide tremendous capability. Interconnected...the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic." [EDIT: READ THAT AGAIN]

"One major advantage....it makes what are otherwise the results of deliberate actions appear to be the consequences of natural weather phenomena."

markwilson wrote:
weather-modification

injection of liquid hydrocarbon fuel into the afterburner's explains why contrails have now become chemtrails"

Commercial Jet Airliner Engines (Turbofan) do not use Afterburners; Military jets use afterburners.

WHERE ARE THE CHEMICALS?

[quote="Russian Blue Cat"]Let me help some people out when it comes to proof, if you can't replicate or prove it yourself how does it benefit you or others by beLIEving in it? Show me at least 1 experiment anyone can do proving these white streaks are somehow bad for us and the environment
quote]

Stress is harmful to the human body.
Looking at these strange ominous chemtrails, sometimes covering most of the sky, is stressful to many.
One can replicate this stress.
There's your proof....

Realearth wrote:
Looking at these strange ominous chemtrails
sometimes covering most of the sky
is stressful to many

Show me the Chemicals.

Schpankme wrote:

Realearth wrote:
Looking at these strange ominous chemtrails
sometimes covering most of the sky
is stressful to many

Show me the Chemicals.

Not required to show you anything.

Realearth wrote:
Chemtrails
Not required to show you anything.

Stop fear mongering or is that the game with you and markwilson?

Schpankme wrote:

Realearth wrote:
Chemtrails
Not required to show you anything.

Stop fear mongering or is that the game with you and markwilson?

Fear mongering is not my game.
Are you speaking with authority?
I do not believe in the "Authority Principle"
Peace

Schpankme wrote:

markwilson wrote:
MSDS_for_AvGas_100LL

JET ENGINES do not burn "AvGas_100LL"; but your Petrol cars and trucks burns something very similar.

Again, here you are Fear Mongering with heaping piles of nonsense.

Do you misunderstand that "AvGas" is aviation gas?

"Avgas 100LL is one of four grades of avgas and is used primarily as fuel for piston-powered craft due to its low flashpoint." http://www.aviation-fuel.com/

Were we only talking "JET ENGINES"? Did the old piston-powered propeller driven bombers you posted a picture of have jet engines? Do you wish to acknowledge that that picture contained bombers that were not of the jet engine variety? I'm open to correction on this if I'm wrong.

Why is it you can interchange piston-powered with jet powered? Isn't that what you're doing?

"The more "traditional" class of propeller-driven aircraft are those powered by piston engines, which include nearly all aircraft from the Wright brothers up through World War II." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_propeller-driven_aircraft

Finally, is it your contention that "JET ENGINES" Avgas has no hazardous chemicals added? http://www.cpchem.com/msds/100000014588_SDS_US_EN.PDF

H226: Flammable liquid and vapor.
H304: May be fatal if swallowed and enters airways.
H315: Causes skin irritation.
H336: May cause drowsiness or dizziness.
H351: Suspected of causing cancer.
H372: Causes damage to organs (Eyes, Blood) through prolonged or repeated exposure.

Have we established that when an airplane flies, it has chemicals? You asked for "chemicals." Are you satisfied now that ALL airplanes in the air have chemical additives resulting in hazmat safety data sheets?

markwilson wrote:
"AvGas" is aviation gas
we established that when an airplane flies, it has chemicals

Do you think your double-talk and pontificating nonsense shows proof of Chemicals coming from JET ENGINES?

Schpankme wrote:

markwilson wrote:
"AvGas" is aviation gas
we established that when an airplane flies, it has chemicals

Do you think your double-talk and pontificating nonsense shows proof of Chemicals coming from JET ENGINES?

Ad hominem remarks are of no value in this research forum.

Realearth wrote:

Schpankme wrote:

markwilson wrote:
"AvGas" is aviation gas
we established that when an airplane flies, it has chemicals

Do you think your double-talk and pontificating nonsense shows proof of Chemicals coming from JET ENGINES?

Ad hominem remarks are of no value in this research forum.

Hit the nail on the head.