Flat earth or globe
08 April 2016, 10:47 AM
#424
Scooby Regular
this is an interesting little article - it happens to be on the "Chemtrail" conspiracy, but in the context of the article (and this thread) it could be any daft theory that defies simple logic and physics
https://www.ncscooper.com/area-chemt...by-math-thugs/
“These two guys kept asking me for proof,” said an indignant and self-righteous Ms. McAlister in an interview at her Rhode Island Street home. “So I said, ‘well just look at the picture. It’s all there.’ But that wasn’t enough, so I shared a bunch of YouTube videos and a dozen links from geoengineeringwatch.org. That didn’t work, so I just started calling everyone a thug.”
sound familiar!!!
the comments are also v interesting - Russ Tanner is a prime mover of the "chemtrail" theory, and he simply comes over as both evasive and clueless
https://www.ncscooper.com/area-chemt...by-math-thugs/
“These two guys kept asking me for proof,” said an indignant and self-righteous Ms. McAlister in an interview at her Rhode Island Street home. “So I said, ‘well just look at the picture. It’s all there.’ But that wasn’t enough, so I shared a bunch of YouTube videos and a dozen links from geoengineeringwatch.org. That didn’t work, so I just started calling everyone a thug.”
sound familiar!!!
the comments are also v interesting - Russ Tanner is a prime mover of the "chemtrail" theory, and he simply comes over as both evasive and clueless
08 April 2016, 12:13 PM
#426
Scooby Regular
08 April 2016, 12:15 PM
#427
Scooby Senior
08 April 2016, 12:22 PM
#428
Scooby Regular
Prrof that F1 cars are fitted with small gas canisters filled with a sinister substance. Theorists believe the gas causes anyone who inhales it to immediately purchase Sky TV and start praying to a small effigy of Bernie
Last edited by EddScott; 08 April 2016 at 12:23 PM.
08 April 2016, 12:27 PM
#429
this is an interesting little article - it happens to be on the "Chemtrail" conspiracy, but in the context of the article (and this thread) it could be any daft theory that defies simple logic and physics
https://www.ncscooper.com/area-chemt...by-math-thugs/
“These two guys kept asking me for proof,” said an
indignant and self-righteous Ms. McAlister in an interview at her Rhode Island Street home. “So I said, ‘well just look at the picture. It’s all there.’ But that wasn’t enough, so I shared a bunch of YouTube videos and a dozen links from geoengineeringwatch.org. they then resorted to name calling and ridicule , so I just started calling them tossers.”
sound familiar!!!
now it does
the comments are also v interesting - Russ Tanner is a prime mover of the "chemtrail" theory, and he simply comes over as both evasive and clueless
https://www.ncscooper.com/area-chemt...by-math-thugs/
“These two guys kept asking me for proof,” said an
indignant and self-righteous Ms. McAlister in an interview at her Rhode Island Street home. “So I said, ‘well just look at the picture. It’s all there.’ But that wasn’t enough, so I shared a bunch of YouTube videos and a dozen links from geoengineeringwatch.org. they then resorted to name calling and ridicule , so I just started calling them tossers.”
sound familiar!!!
now it does
the comments are also v interesting - Russ Tanner is a prime mover of the "chemtrail" theory, and he simply comes over as both evasive and clueless
08 April 2016, 01:15 PM
#431
Scooby Senior
08 April 2016, 01:32 PM
#432
Scooby Regular
08 April 2016, 02:55 PM
#433
Scooby Regular
08 April 2016, 03:07 PM
#434
Scooby Regular
Okay , so what answers have I given to what questions ? and proof of what ? What did I say that needs proof ? And what do I want you to find the answer to?
Your comment about me paints a picture of somebody that thinks they know the truth and that the truth is far fetched and based on facts I have given no proof of .
What I've actually been doing is trying to have a conversation about a couple of the unusual circumstances ,
I could have a conversation about the no plane theory , would that mean I believe it to be a fact ?
I could have the discussion on the side of the no planers but it would really only be playing devils advocate , unfortunately the conversation would end with ridicule and people claiming that I believe it to be true
Your comment about me paints a picture of somebody that thinks they know the truth and that the truth is far fetched and based on facts I have given no proof of .
What I've actually been doing is trying to have a conversation about a couple of the unusual circumstances ,
I could have a conversation about the no plane theory , would that mean I believe it to be a fact ?
I could have the discussion on the side of the no planers but it would really only be playing devils advocate , unfortunately the conversation would end with ridicule and people claiming that I believe it to be true
I've had better 'discussions', with the CIA via my fillings. At least they told me who assassinated JFK. Jeez!
08 April 2016, 04:28 PM
#435
Scooby Regular
You cant be googling correctly
9/11: Caught on Tape: WTC Building 7 Damaged by Debris from Twin Towers Collapse (Updated) (WTC 7) - YouTube
9/11: Caught on Tape: WTC Building 7 Damaged by Debris from Twin Towers Collapse (Updated) (WTC 7) - YouTube
and you can clearly see the east penthouse that collapses through the building - about 4 secs before the outer walls fall down
the missing 4 sec from all the reality denier videos
08 April 2016, 04:47 PM
#436
Indeed ,good video .
I know you'll hate this but no flames visable and you can see a lot of Windows through that smoke and around the other corner ,
It would be interesting to know how many hours or minutes before collapse that was filmed.
Thinking out loud and open to suggestions or facts if anyone has them , the building was on fire from top to bottom , is that believed by all , and if so how does it explain no fires or smoke seen from the other side in the collapse video , I understood the fires were only on lower floors below the 20th I think , where the sprinkler system wasn't working , above that it wasn't fed by the mains but massive tanks on top floor , it also bothers me that the helicopters weren't around to film the collapse , I understand maybe it was to dandgerous
At this point I'm now taking the position of devils advocate
I know you'll hate this but no flames visable and you can see a lot of Windows through that smoke and around the other corner ,
It would be interesting to know how many hours or minutes before collapse that was filmed.
Thinking out loud and open to suggestions or facts if anyone has them , the building was on fire from top to bottom , is that believed by all , and if so how does it explain no fires or smoke seen from the other side in the collapse video , I understood the fires were only on lower floors below the 20th I think , where the sprinkler system wasn't working , above that it wasn't fed by the mains but massive tanks on top floor , it also bothers me that the helicopters weren't around to film the collapse , I understand maybe it was to dandgerous
At this point I'm now taking the position of devils advocate
08 April 2016, 04:49 PM
#437
Fantastic. Nope, I never inferred that in any sense. You're doing what you have been doing with everything, seeing things that are not there. Good work, detective Gary.
I've had better 'discussions', with the CIA via my fillings. At least they told me who assassinated JFK. Jeez!
I've had better 'discussions', with the CIA via my fillings. At least they told me who assassinated JFK. Jeez!
14 April 2016, 12:53 PM
#442
Scooby Regular
lol, this problem is most believers won't read past the headline and the first paragraph
although if they do they maybe swayed by some of the sciency stuff
"So what’s in chemtrails?
Some Carbon Monoxide and heavy doses of Dihydrogen Monoxide. That’s right, folks. Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. You read right, that’s twice as much hydrogen as oxygen being sprayed on the unsuspecting masses below. It doesn’t get any more sinister than that."
indeed - exhaust gasses and simple water
although if they do they maybe swayed by some of the sciency stuff
"So what’s in chemtrails?
Some Carbon Monoxide and heavy doses of Dihydrogen Monoxide. That’s right, folks. Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. You read right, that’s twice as much hydrogen as oxygen being sprayed on the unsuspecting masses below. It doesn’t get any more sinister than that."
indeed - exhaust gasses and simple water
14 April 2016, 01:30 PM
#443
The whole argument and proof of there argument relies on seeing contrails when the weather dictates they can't be formed , I'm no genius but it would make sense to only spray chemtrails when the weather dictates contrails would be visable ,
Now assuming the alleged people that perform chemtrails are clever I think they would have worked this out ,
So assuming they wouldn't spray chemicals when they would be easy to identify how can there ever be evidence of them
Now assuming the alleged people that perform chemtrails are clever I think they would have worked this out ,
So assuming they wouldn't spray chemicals when they would be easy to identify how can there ever be evidence of them
14 April 2016, 03:28 PM
#444
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
I flew from RAF Brize Norton to RAF Mount Pleasant in the Falklands, it took 18 hours and we had to stop at a base on Ascension to refuel.
I couldn't understand why it took so long considering it was downhill all the way but now I know the earth is flat it makes perfect sense
14 April 2016, 06:17 PM
#446
Scooby Regular
I flew from RAF Brize Norton to RAF Mount Pleasant in the Falklands, it took 18 hours and we had to stop at a base on Ascension to refuel.
I couldn't understand why it took so long considering it was downhill all the way but now I know the earth is flat it makes perfect sense
I couldn't understand why it took so long considering it was downhill all the way but now I know the earth is flat it makes perfect sense
Big respect to you as well by the way
14 April 2016, 06:19 PM
#447
Scooby Regular
The whole argument and proof of there argument relies on seeing contrails when the weather dictates they can't be formed , I'm no genius but it would make sense to only spray chemtrails when the weather dictates contrails would be visable ,
Now assuming the alleged people that perform chemtrails are clever I think they would have worked this out ,
So assuming they wouldn't spray chemicals when they would be easy to identify how can there ever be evidence of them
Now assuming the alleged people that perform chemtrails are clever I think they would have worked this out ,
So assuming they wouldn't spray chemicals when they would be easy to identify how can there ever be evidence of them
15 April 2016, 09:48 PM
#449
Scooby Regular
Well, maybe it's because your writing is difficult to decipher but you were talking about evidence of contrails/chemtrails etc. etc. and the sprayers would probably be smart enough to only spray chemtrails that there would be no evidence of, right? So the over-riding factor in all of that is that, evidence or not, it would be pointless to spray 6 miles up, making your point itself moot.
