Chem trails

zarathustra · 20-11-2007 8:50pm #1

If you don't believe the governments of the western world are involved in secretly spraying chemicals through the skies with the aim of affecting the populations immune systems then you should read this story

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=16038262

If you don't know what Chemtrails are then here are a few links you defo should read/watch, but you won't like what you find. If you don't believe them, then return to the first paragraph of this thread

http://educate-yourself.org/ct/

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/sylphandchemtrailindex.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xcf84CFEKQ

http://www.mercola.com/2005/may/7/barium_water.htm

http://educate-yourself.org/ct/ctpeanutbutterbariumsandwiches17apr02.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVc9GX5K_As&eurl=http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MIND/index.php?showtopic=35575

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/290343.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVZAChMUa0Y

Chemtrails are an Aerosol program run by the Office of Naval Intelligence controlled by British Intelligence (and those who control British SIS) and gets conducted in all countries within 'The Open Skies Treaty.' Notice the immune dysfunction, Respitory problems, Cancer, Thyroid problems going through the roof in those countries.

Mahatma coat · 21-11-2007 12:52am

Hmm, who'd a thunk the exhausts of airplanes give off toxic chemicals :rolleyes:

until someone can provide me with something reasonably plausible as to WHY,

I'm gonna list this one with the Lizzardmen,

whoa, thats who's flyin the planes.

BUT SERIOUSLY FLOKS if there is even a hint of truth to this I weep for humanity

zarathustra · 21-11-2007 1:08am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Hmm, who'd a thunk the exhausts of airplanes give off toxic chemicals :rolleyes:

until someone can provide me with something reasonably plausible as to WHY,

I'm gonna list this one with the Lizzardmen,

whoa, thats who's flyin the planes.

BUT SERIOUSLY FLOKS if there is even a hint of truth to this I weep for humanity

if you read up on it you will learn that it is very real, there is lots of evidence of it, it is well documented.....as for the why, you should read up on the David Rockefellar controlled medical mafia cartel, and the elite goal of global depopulation, and its got f*** all to do with lizards, just the maniacs who run the world. Do some research on it.

The normal exhaust from planes is refered to as Con-trails. When chemicals have been deliberately sprayed from a plane they are Chem-trails

zarathustra · 22-11-2007 12:04am

US military secretly bio-testing chemicals on the US public on Manhattan and San Francisco among other locations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrJcmdMfkwQ

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 22-11-2007 12:14am

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Military-Germs-US-Cities.htm

Another bacterium, Bacillus globigii, never shown to be harmful to people, was released in San Francisco, while still others were tested on unwitting residents in New York, Washington, D.C., and along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, among other places, according to Army reports released during the 1977 hearings.

In New York, military researchers in 1966 spread Bacillus subtilis variant Niger, also believed to be harmless, in the subway system by dropping lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto tracks in stations in midtown Manhattan. The bacteria were carried for miles throughout the subway system, leading Army officials to conclude in a January 1968 report: "Similar covert attacks with a pathogenic [disease-causing] agent during peak traffic periods could be expected to expose large numbers of people to infection and subsequent illness or death."

zarathustra · 22-11-2007 12:24am

Scientist and researcher, Rosie Bertell continues to provide damning evidence concerning the military, goverment, scientists, giant corporations, the Illuminati involvement in the world-wide sinister "Black Project" known as Chemtrails. International collusion, aerial pharmacopoeia are explored and all point to the New World Order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8NmzfjIkI0&eurl

zarathustra · 22-11-2007 12:34am

the ultimate war weapon HAARP, which can control weather, and even create earthquakes. A graphic display of the power of frequencies

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7504090818467251686&q=haarp&total=648&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

HAARP-Chemtrails

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6563630790789702173&q=haarp&total=648&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

cooperguy · 27-11-2007 9:44pm

I hate to break it to you OP but that first video had no evidence in it what so ever it just had pictures of the sky

meglome · 29-11-2007 4:51am

Seriously I should be in bed and I'm reading this ****e. This is not the place for talking sense. I give up.

Kernel · 29-11-2007 9:26pm

meglome wrote: »

Seriously I should be in bed and I'm reading this ****e. This is not the place for talking sense. I give up.

If you made a point perhaps someone could respond to it?

meglome · 30-11-2007 2:22am

Kernel wrote: »

If you made a point perhaps someone could respond to it?

Very true...

So we're saying the governments of the world are wrecking our immune systems and are then content to pay for the resulting large rise in the hospital admissions... :rolleyes:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 30-11-2007 2:23am

the american government wants to privatise the health industry even more.... it all ties together people

Owen · 30-11-2007 12:36pm

Got a warning for posting in this thread, so ... I'm sorry. I'm not really though, as some of the stuff in here would make baby Jebus cry, but I will promise to follow the charter from now on.

rc28 · 04-12-2007 9:59pm

Sorry but this is a really pathetic conspiracy theory.
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/contrails.html

casey212 · 07-12-2007 11:12am

rc28 wrote: »

Sorry but this is a really pathetic conspiracy theory.
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/contrails.html

"What we do with our hands, we deny with our mouths"

If people cannot use their own six senses to independently consider the situation, then what can I say, you are among the living dead.

kippy · 07-12-2007 11:21am

This "rescue" effort of neutralizing and transmuting the toxic elements in chemtrails was initiated in early 2002 with the introduction of a device called the "chembuster" which will transmute the atmospheric orgone energy envelope from one polarity ('DOR') which allow chemtrails to persist, to another orgone polarity ('OR') which will cause chemtrails to disperse. The proliferation of chembusters around the country led to another dramatic development in early 2004: legions of huge air elemental beings called "Sylphs" by ancient Greeks made their presence known by assuming cloud shapes that often look like wispy winged angels or animal forms (there are dozens of photos of Sylphs posted on the Sylph /Chemtrail page) who set about "cleaning up" the skies of chemtrail toxins by engulfing and transmuting chemtrail toxins into non-toxic substances.

Chemtrails eh?
This has to be one of the more "Out there" conspiracy theories I've seen.
I know this is the conspiracys forum but seriously, dont we have a "Fantasys" forum as well?
Kippy

humanji · 07-12-2007 11:23am

What if we use our six senses and realize that it's still a load of rubbish?

"The camel will fly south for Winter, but the emu took a boat"

casey212 · 07-12-2007 11:27am

humanji wrote: »

What if we use our six senses and realize that it's still a load of rubbish?

"The camel will fly south for Winter, but the emu took a boat"

O.k.

Ring the department of defence, ask them what is being sprayed in the sky. They will not deny anything, merely refuse to answer. The reason for this is legalistic.

humanji · 07-12-2007 11:43am

If nothing is being sprayed in the sky, they won't know what the hell you're talking about and just dismiss you. But you would take such a response as an admission of guilt.

The way you seem to take this is like if I asked were you a lizardman (sorry to keep bringing them up, but they've won a special place in my heart now

). You'd answer one of 3 main ways:

1) You'd admit it (whether you're joking or really are one), in which case I'd be happy that I'm right.

2) You'd deny it, in which case I'd say "Of course you'd deny it, that means you must be a lizardman"

3) You'd dismiss me as an idiot, to which I'd take it as a victory for me since you must be avoiding the question because you are a lizardman.

casey212 · 07-12-2007 11:49am

humanji wrote: »

If nothing is being sprayed in the sky, they won't know what the hell you're talking about and just dismiss you. But you would take such a response as an admission of guilt.

The way you seem to take this is like if I asked were you a lizardman (sorry to keep bringing them up, but they've won a special place in my heart now ). You'd answer one of 3 main ways:

1) You'd admit it (whether you're joking or really are one), in which case I'd be happy that I'm right.

2) You'd deny it, in which case I'd say "Of course you'd deny it, that means you must be a lizardman"

3) You'd dismiss me as an idiot, to which I'd take it as a victory for me since you must be avoiding the question because you are a lizardman.

You clearly have no understanding of admiralty law.

humanji · 07-12-2007 12:00pm

What? Do you honestly belive that dismissing something is proof of guilt? And what the hell has Admiralty law have to do with the sky? Are you just trolling now?

bonkey · 07-12-2007 12:06pm

casey212 wrote: »

If people cannot use their own six senses to independently consider the situation, then what can I say, you are among the living dead.

OK...I'll bite.

What's your sixth sense?

I would also point out that one cannot prove a negative. Its an argument you used on a Green Issues thread, so there's no question but that you understand its usage.

Thus, no-one can prove that chemtrails aren't real....just like they can't prove the invisible pink unicorn at the bottom of my garden isn't real. The correct behaviour is to treat chemtrails like the invisible pink unicorn and ask for evidence if its existence which can be meaningfully scrutinised.

Keeping an open mind on the subject means allowing that evidence may indicate its existence. It does not mean believing in it until evidence says otherwise. If you disagree, I've a lovely pet invisible pink unicorn to sell you.

Would you care to summarise what this evidence is?

humanji · 07-12-2007 12:08pm

How much do you want for this unicorn?

casey212 · 07-12-2007 12:10pm

humanji wrote: »

What? Do you honestly belive that dismissing something is proof of guilt? And what the hell has Admiralty law have to do with the sky? Are you just trolling now?

Admiralty law is the law of commerce.

As fo trolling, leave that to the idiots talking about their favourite football team/celebrity.

bonkey · 07-12-2007 12:14pm

casey212 wrote: »

Ring the department of defence, ask them what is being sprayed in the sky. They will not deny anything, merely refuse to answer. The reason for this is legalistic.

Consider the following analagy...

Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on your husband last January
Mrs. SmithNo
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last February
Mrs. SmithNo
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last March
Mrs. SmithNo
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last April
Mrs. SmithNo
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last May
Mrs. SmithNo comment. I refuse to answer the question

If a department makes the simple distinction between denying and refusing to comment that you are suggesting, then its simple to figure out what the truth is. It requires a secondary-school level of logic to beat such a system.

Consider, however, either of the two alternatives:

Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last January
Mrs. SmithNo comment. I refuse to answer the question
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last February
Mrs. SmithNo comment. I refuse to answer the question
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last March
Mrs. SmithNo comment. I refuse to answer the question
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last April
Mrs. SmithNo comment. I refuse to answer the question
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last May
Mrs. SmithNo comment. I refuse to answer the question

Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last January
Mrs. SmithNo
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last February
Mrs. SmithNo
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last March
Mrs. SmithNo
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last April
Mrs. SmithNo
Mr. Smith:Mrs. Smith, did you cheat on me last May
Mrs. SmithNo

Now...in each of those situations, can you tell in which months (if any) Mrs. Smith cheated?

You'll see the same in any legalistic situation. Smart people know that if its not something you are authorised to say, then the correct answer is "no comment", regardless of whether the allegation is true, false, or downright crazy.

So, that the DoD (in whatever country you've asked them) refused to deny your allegation, its because they're not entirely stupid....which doesn't really come as much of a surprise.

bonkey · 07-12-2007 12:16pm

casey212 wrote: »

Admiralty law is the law of commerce.

No, thats commercial law.

Admiralty law is effectively the same as maritime law, which is somewhat different to the Law of teh Sea.

casey212 · 07-12-2007 12:17pm

bonkey wrote: »

OK...I'll bite.

What's your sixth sense?

I would also point out that one cannot prove a negative. Its an argument you used on a Green Issues thread, so there's no question but that you understand its usage.

Thus, no-one can prove that chemtrails aren't real....just like they can't prove the invisible pink unicorn at the bottom of my garden isn't real. The correct behaviour is to treat chemtrails like the invisible pink unicorn and ask for evidence if its existence which can be meaningfully scrutinised.

Keeping an open mind on the subject means allowing that evidence may indicate its existence. It does not mean believing in it until evidence says otherwise. If you disagree, I've a lovely pet invisible pink unicorn to sell you.

Would you care to summarise what this evidence is?

The sixth sense is intuition. You want evidence, use you own eyes and your own memory of the past. As I have stated, my preference is for people to decide for themselves. I don't reference a lot because it is very easy to be labeled a radical.

casey212 · 07-12-2007 12:19pm

bonkey wrote: »

No, thats commercial law.

Admiralty law is effectively the same as maritime law, which is somewhat different to the Law of teh Sea.

Incorrect, commercial law is a derivative of admiralty law. Admiralty law is the only law available nowadays. If you know of a common law court, inform me.

humanji · 07-12-2007 12:36pm

No, commercial law and admiralty law are two very different things.

bonkey · 07-12-2007 12:41pm

casey212 wrote: »

Admiralty law is the only law available nowadays.

Given that admiralty law is a set of agreements between private companies, I think I begin to see where you're coming from with this.

You are obliquely suggesting that criminal law is actually a convenient smokescreen, and that in reality everything is run by Big Business, right?

casey212 · 07-12-2007 12:43pm

humanji wrote: »

No, commercial law and admiralty law are two very different things.

As you wish, however this lets get back to the main concern. The spraying of chemicals in the skies.

Look into the Enmod Treaty signed by ireland in 1978. And then refer to the open skies treay (both parts, commercial and military.)

bonkey · 07-12-2007 12:45pm

casey212 wrote: »

As I have stated, my preference is for people to decide for themselves.

Your preference is to call people zombies and the like if they disagree with you.

I don't reference a lot because it is very easy to be labeled a radical.

The flipside is that if you don't reference a lot, its very easy to be labelled a crank, and very hard to be labelled as credible.

Looks like you're in a lose-lose situation.

I'd also point out that given the name-calling that you've been using yourself, its hard to understad what your issue with being called a crank would be.

Indeed, its hard to have sympathy for your being labelled at all or to nuderstand your acersion to benig labelled. Labelling seems to be a methodology you heartily embrace...or is that only when you are the one dishing it out?

humanji · 07-12-2007 12:46pm

How do these prove that something is being sprayed in the sky?

casey212 · 07-12-2007 12:49pm

bonkey wrote: »

Given that admiralty law is a set of agreements between private companies, I think I begin to see where you're coming from with this.

You are obliquely suggesting that criminal law is actually a convenient smokescreen, and that in reality everything is run by Big Business, right?

Correct. I myself am a franchise of government, as are most others. This is signified by my acceptance of a social security card and registered birth certificate. Money and the debit/credit system is the basis of all law. In older times maybe even as late as magna carta, other forms of resolution were available, not now.

casey212 · 07-12-2007 12:53pm

bonkey wrote: »

Your preference is to call people zombies and the like if they disagree with you.

The flipside is that if you don't reference a lot, its very easy to be labelled a crank, and very hard to be labelled as credible.

Looks like you're in a lose-lose situation.

I'd also point out that given the name-calling that you've been using yourself, its hard to understad what your issue with being called a crank would be.

Indeed, its hard to have sympathy for your being labelled at all or to nuderstand your acersion to benig labelled. Labelling seems to be a methodology you heartily embrace...or is that only when you are the one dishing it out?

Call me whatever you wish. I do not care what your personal opinions of me are, just consider the points I am making. However I myself would not pigeon hole myself into any category, that limits the boundaries of a persons beliefs.

Fallen Seraph · 07-12-2007 12:56pm

casey212 wrote: »

O.k.

Ring the department of defence, ask them what is being sprayed in the sky. They will not deny anything, merely refuse to answer. The reason for this is legalistic.

Might I point out the elephant in the room and ask the question:

If they are basically poisoning the population of the western world already, why the hell would they care about lying over the phone?

casey212 · 07-12-2007 12:57pm

humanji wrote: »

How do these prove that something is being sprayed in the sky?

I cannot prove something when it is considered insane by the indoctrinated public. Yet if people would even just look for themselves, maybe the veil would be lifted.

bonkey · 07-12-2007 12:58pm

casey212 wrote: »

just consider the points I am making.

I have considered them

They have as much reliable evidence supporting them as the invisible pink unicorn at the bottom of my garden.

However I myself would not pigeon hole myself into any category, that limits the boundaries of a persons beliefs.

So you are interested in buying an invisible pink unicorn? Its going cheap.

Did I mention that it has an anti-chem-trail effect which extends 100m around it?

casey212 · 07-12-2007 1:02pm

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

Might I point out the elephant in the room and ask the question:

If they are basically poisoning the population of the western world already, why the hell would they care about lying over the phone?

Not just the western world, this is a world wide programme with the exception of china and switzerland.

Why would they admit to anything. This could lead to even one story in the mainstream media, then people would see for themselves.

casey212 · 07-12-2007 1:04pm

bonkey wrote: »

I have considered them

They have as much reliable evidence supporting them as the invisible pink unicorn at the bottom of my garden.

So you are interested in buying an invisible pink unicorn? Its going cheap.

Did I mention that it has an anti-chem-trail effect which extends 100m around it?

? I have not provided any evidence supporting my claim. Once again you are rejecting the subject outright.

Fallen Seraph · 07-12-2007 1:07pm

casey212 wrote: »

Not just the western world, this is a world wide programme with the exception of china and switzerland.

Why would they admit to anything. This could lead to even one story in the mainstream media, then people would see for themselves.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that they would/will admit to anything. I'm saying that them not denying their participation is not remotely indicative of their participation because the legal/moral magnitude of actively (rather than passively) denying their involvement in the issue pales in comparison to that of acutally having done the poisoning.

Why should they have any qualms about outright denying it?

To illustrate:

I have just murdered my family. A person walks up to me and asks: "Have you just murdered your family?". My internal response to this is not "It would be morally incorrect of me to lie. I won't outright deny this, and then I'll be in a much better legal situation"

kippy · 07-12-2007 1:09pm

casey212 wrote: »

Not just the western world, this is a world wide programme with the exception of china and switzerland.

Why would they admit to anything. This could lead to even one story in the mainstream media, then people would see for themselves.

With the exception of China and Switzerland? Why is this the case?
Are you aware that the instances(rates of infection) of the diseases that you alleage are caused by these "Chemtrails" are the same or similiar in these countries?
How do you manage to chemtrail france,italy and surrounding countries without spraying switzerland?
Who flies these planes, what size are they and where are they based?
What about the quote I made above, you've failed to address that (it has to be some of best fiction I've seen writen however)

Chemical trails are in the sky, airliners disperse exhause fumes, factories, houses etc all burn various items creating this and they may be disease causing however what you are allegeding(and indeed the numerous people who also seem to support this allegation) is not something I for one would have any chance of believing for a large number of practical reasons, some of which I have alluded to in this post.
Kippy

r3nu4l · 07-12-2007 1:18pm

casey212 wrote: »

Not just the western world, this is a world wide programme with the exception of china and switzerland.

So are you saying that China and Switzerland aren't participating in the spraying or that China and Switzerland are not being sprayed.

If the former, then why aren't they crowing about it to the world?
If the latter, well wind slipstreams will mean that there people are being poisoned anyway and so I would imagine their Governments would be ticked off about the increased healthcare bills and complaining about it.

Let me guess, they are not complaining because (a) they are being bought out, (b) they are under military thread, (c) They are the lizard people who orchestrate the whole thing, (d) some other nutty theory?

Which is it?

cooperguy · 07-12-2007 1:25pm

Maybe I missed something here but has anybody ever mentioned the advantage to the governments in spreading these chemtrails. Or do they just do it cause the people in charge get a kick out of poisoning people?

bonkey · 07-12-2007 1:25pm

kippy wrote: »

How do you manage to chemtrail france,italy and surrounding countries without spraying switzerland?

Thats a very good question.

I live in Switzerland, and I can guarantee that air-quality is a subject of much concern here. There are frequent newspaper articles about the fine-particle levels, the ozone levels, the CO2 levels....so if Switzerland isn't part of this conspiracy, then its amazing that there's never any word whatsoever about these pollutants / poisons over here.

After all, they're being dumped into the upper atmosphere where there are winds which can get up to hundreds of miles per hour, and from where it would take weeks for anything small enough to be sprayed to filter down.

Indeed, there aren't mathematical models nor computing power capable of modelling where this stuff falls....which would also then raise the question of what the hell its supposed to be about.

And whatever about some notion that Switzerland are too scared to open their mouth (but lets not forget that they refused the US access to their airspace during the invasion of Iraq - a good sign of how cowed they are), its another thing to suggest that the Chinese are keeping schtum for any similar reason.

? I have not provided any evidence supporting my claim.

exactly. You haven't provided any evidence.

Once again you are rejecting the subject outright

I'm saying I will reject it until such times as there is credible evidence supporting it. Thats not outright rejection. Its setting a standard of proof to meet before there is reason to believe in it. Its pretty-much what I'd expect you to do regarding my pink unicorn.

Arguably, in fact, I have more evidence. You say that chemtrails are basically some sort of chemical or biological agent. I'm saying that that invisible pink unicorns actually negate these agents. So if we check for the agents and find them...there's evidence to support hte chemtrails. If we don't find them (which we don't!), its evidence to suggest widespread occurrences of invisible pink unicorns.

I'm half-expecting the mods to jump in any time now and chastise me for using my pink unicorn to poke fun, but the reality is that I'm trying to show that if we are willing to accept as real possibilities without proof, then my invisible pink unicorn is as real as your chemtrails. If, on the other hand, we merely accept that its not impossible, but refuse to accept as true that which has no convincing evidence, then your chemtrails are as unreal as my invisible pink unicorn.

My invisible pink unicorn is a very serious case-study in critical thinking. Any argument which supports discarding of logic, evidence, the scientific method etc. to support a theory must be applicable to my pink-unicorn theory....and will continue to strengthen its case. If my theory is considered to be taking the piss, I'd suggest its only because it shows the absurdity of the arguments which I'm borrowing - an absurdity recognised by whoever thinks I'm just maknig **** up.

casey212 · 07-12-2007 1:37pm

cooperguy wrote: »

Maybe I missed something here but has anybody ever mentioned the advantage to the governments in spreading these chemtrails. Or do they just do it cause the people in charge get a kick out of poisoning people?

An uneducated, docile population can be ruled over easily. Also individual national governments are not involved.

kippy · 07-12-2007 1:41pm

casey212 wrote: »

An uneducated, docile population can be ruled over easily.

Indeed.
You are calling every single country outside of China and Switzerland uneducated and docile(since they are allegedly already being sprayed and have been sprayed for almost 10 years now)
I think, you'll most likely find that the majority of people outside of both these countries are not uneducated and docile.
Your lack of response to my earlier posts are a sign of your lack of real knowledge or believe in what you started this topic on.
Kippy

casey212 · 07-12-2007 1:41pm

kippy wrote: »

With the exception of China and Switzerland? Why is this the case?
Are you aware that the instances(rates of infection) of the diseases that you alleage are caused by these "Chemtrails" are the same or similiar in these countries?
How do you manage to chemtrail france,italy and surrounding countries without spraying switzerland?
Who flies these planes, what size are they and where are they based?
What about the quote I made above, you've failed to address that (it has to be some of best fiction I've seen writen however)

Chemical trails are in the sky, airliners disperse exhause fumes, factories, houses etc all burn various items creating this and they may be disease causing however what you are allegeding(and indeed the numerous people who also seem to support this allegation) is not something I for one would have any chance of believing for a large number of practical reasons, some of which I have alluded to in this post.
Kippy

How many wars have the swiss been involved with lately. Look at WW2, destruction all around, yet not one german soldier set foot on Switzerland.

r3nu4l · 07-12-2007 1:44pm

You still haven't answered my questions casey...what's the matter, don't have any reasonable answers?

kippy · 07-12-2007 1:44pm

casey212 wrote: »

How many wars have the swiss been involved with lately. Look at WW2, destruction all around, yet not one german soldier set foot on Switzerland.

I dont get the point here?
Are you saying that because soldiers and wars never made it into Switzerland means that air based chemicals will not fall on it either?
I think you'll find that both points are completely unrelated and as such invalid.
Kippy

casey212 · 07-12-2007 1:46pm

kippy wrote: »

Indeed.
You are calling every single country outside of China and Switzerland uneducated and docile(since they are allegedly already being sprayed and have been sprayed for almost 10 years now)
I think, you'll most likely find that the majority of people outside of both these countries are not uneducated and docile.
Your lack of response to my earlier posts are a sign of your lack of real knowledge or believe in what you started this topic on.
Kippy

?? You asked for the reason, I gave it. This does in no way automatically imply that I believe all people are uneducated and docile.

Chem trails

Comments