Mainstream Scientist Exposes the Dangerous Reality of Chemtrails and Geoengineering

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

chemtrails

Over the past few years, the issue of geoengineering has been popularized. Mainstream media, academia, and government almost unanimously support the idea of geoengineering as a perceived solution to climate change while suppressing the evidence that it has actually been in use for some time without our consent.

On the other hand, there is a growing number of people who are slowly beginning to understand the reality surrounding chemtrail geoengineering, and opposition is slowly growing.

In a bold move against the establishment, Kate Marvel, a mainstream scientist who specializes in “climate change,” spoke out at a Ted Talk against the onset of climate engineering with chemtrails, also known as Solar Radiation Management or “SRM.”

“Problematic and Terrifying”

Firstly, computer theorist and founding partner of tech company Applied Invention, Danny Hillis, came on stage and proposed a number of geoengineering concepts which could theoretically, “turn down the temperature of the earth.” These included sending giant parasols into space, putting fizzy water into the ocean, and sending chalk into the atmosphere at a rate of 10 teragrams per year to reflect sunlight and in theory slow the effects of climate change.

Now enters Kate Marvel with the opening line, “Danny, you seem so nice, and I hope we can be friends, and you terrify me.”

“Geoengineering is like going to a doctor who says ‘You have a fever, I know exactly why you have a fever, and we’re not going to treat that. We’re going to give you ibuprofen, and also your nose is going to fall off.” – Kate Marvel

Marvel also noted that atmospheric spraying would not do anything to effect other environmental problems such as ocean acidification.

“Reducing the amount of sunlight we get is really problematic…it won’t do anything about [other climate effects like] ocean acidification” – Kate Marvel

Evidence Mounts Exposing The Dangers Of Cloud Seeding

GeoEngineering refers to technologies which are used with the intention of interfering with the earth’s atmosphere in order to alter temperatures and climate. Most of these technologies are still in theoretical stages, however a growing body of evidence suggests that some weather modification technologies such as aerosol spraying or “cloud seeding” have been in production for many decades. Almost no studies have been done which assess the effect that cloud seeding has on environmental safety or human health, which shows that the government has been using untested technologies on the population without our consent.

In 2016, CIA Director John O. Brennan spoke at a Council on Foreign Relations conference about the benefits of geoengineering. However, any mention of potential negative impacts as a result of cloud seeding was conveniently left out.

“Another example is the array of technologies, often referred to collectively as GeoEngineering, that could potentially help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, or “SAI;” a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat.” – John O. Brennan

Although we are all hearing from establishment figures like Brennan that climate engineering is a new technology which we all have the option to accept or decline before it is implemented, that is simply not the case. Evidence going as far back as the early 1920’s shows a push to develop the technology needed to control the weather and has been implemented in some form since at least the 1970’s. This information has been uncovered in various forms, one of those being patents which range from April 27th of 1920 to May of 2003 showing interest in the development of various forms of weather modification technologies. Documents have also been uncovered which show government involvement in SRM since 1947.

“The Federal Government has been involved for over 30 years in a number of aspects of weather modification, through activities of both the Congress and the executive branch. Since 1947, weather modification bills pertaining to research support, operations, policy studies, regulations, liabilities, activity reporting, establishment of panels and committees, and international concerns have been introduced in the Congress. There have been hearings on many of these proposed measures, and oversight hearings have also been conducted on pertinent ongoing programs.”

Climate Change Alarmism Opens The Door To Reactionary Solutions Such As SRM

The geoengineering debate can be summed up in three words: “Problem, Reaction, Solution.” First, the dire problem of Climate Change is presented by figures like Al Gore, then a reaction is generated from the public in the form of “Climate Can’t Wait!” slogans and public unrest, then the solution of GeoEngineering is presented which gives more power to the powerful and hurts the people in the form of environmental degradation and potential health implications which the document from earlier lists as:

1. Cloud seeding has been responsible for the great 5-year drought in the Northeast United States.
2. Isolated sections in the Northeast have experienced 18 years of drought due to cloud seeding.
3. Weather disturbances in the South Atlantic [sic] have been eliminated and has reduced [sic] the east coast’s rainfall by 30 percent – rain that is needed if agriculture is to be successful.
4. The average dairy farmer on the east coast, living in an area of cloud seeding, has averaged a net financial loss because of cloud seeding.
5. Crop production losses in Franklin County, Pa., alone have amounted to $50 Million.
6. When effects of seeding wear off, cloudbursts occur, causing floods, destroying crops, buildings, and drowning people as well as livestock.
7. Seeding has been responsible for the serious air pollution problems.
8. Mental retardation and insanity are traceable to cloud seeding chemicals.
9. Poisoning of all living matter is directly related to cloud seeding.
10. Emphysema is three times higher in areas of heavy cloud seeding.
11. Cancer is virulently out of proportion.
12. Financial losses to agriculture and related industries run into the billions.
13. Forest trees as well as cultivated orchards are dying from chemical reactions taking place in the air due to the addition of cloud seeding agents.

We often hear predictions surrounding climate change by so-called “experts” like Al Gore who claimed that the Arctic would become “ice-free” by 2013. Ironically, in 2016 a global warming expedition to the Arctic was forced to turn around due to record ice.

There are real solutions to environmental problems which don’t end up harming us or the environment further. It is time for people to stand up for themselves and reject dangerous and untested technologies like these.

Phillip Schneider is a student and a staff writer for Waking Times.

This article (Mainstream Scientist Exposes the Dangerous Reality of Chemtrails and Geoengineering) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Phillip Schneider and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Phillip Schneider of www.wakingtimes.com.

Waking Times is an independently owned and operated online magazine that seizes on the transformational power of information to trigger personal revolution and influence humanity’s evolution.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Roy Hobs

    Cognitive Dissonance = people looking up at the Checker Board Sky then looking back down at their phone as if what they just saw is totally normal.

    • Roy Hobs

      Cognitive Dissonance = watching WTC-7 fall at free fall speed.

      • Roy Hobs

        Cognitive Dissonance = taking the Auschwitz tour and thinking nothing of the comment the tour guide makes noting that the alleged gas chamber is a “reconstruction” by the Bolsheviks.

        • Ben

          Cognitive Dissonance = believing that the backwards head movement on the Zapruder Film indicates as shot from the rear. (i.e. Issac Newton forgot to use a minus sign; or physical laws were temporarily suspended.)

          • Roy Hobs

            Thanks for depressing me. Our people can’t even grasp the truth of JFK, which was 50 years ago and unbelievable obvious. How in the hell are they ever going to grasp the truth today?!!! Even when wtc-7 is just as obvious.
            I predict 100 years from now there will be “conferences” on 9-11. Never ever addressing the roll the Jews played.
            Sometimes I think we deserve what we are getting. Thousands of years of impressive achievement, discovery, creating………..and now — The Walmart American. Truly pathetic.
            How does one explain it???

          • Ben

            Truly pathetic. How does one explain it???

            So many people people aren’t moved by reason, they are moved by emotions. Whenever someones starts talking seriously about a few obvious truths, an online agent will creep in with his “woo stick” and start talking about Lizard People and flat-Earth.

            This is partly how they get away with it. The other part is that most people don’t realize what’s going on.

            Most Americans get their information from the television and feel smug about what they learn from it, as if they know more about 9/11 than the people who actually spend weeks reading through the evidence and science—because they know that everyone who thinks otherwise is mentally unstable. The television always gives that impression.

            The best thing that I can think of is simply saying things how they are in a rational tone. However, most people don’t even know enough about science to feel confident in judging for themselves what happened. The same goes for a few false biochemical paradigms that need to be corrected. So since people know that they can’t figure it out themselves, or don’t want to, they merely listen to the person with the highest credentials and the highest publicity. Authorities like Zdeněk Bažant and Louis Alvarez are all to eager to feed the public a stupid explanation, and it takes a bit of work to prove them wrong. Most people are unwilling to do much serious reading.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Oh Look Travis…..

            “I predict 100 years from now there will be “conferences” on 9-11. Never ever addressing the roll the Jews played. ”

            !! The JEEEEWWWWSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

          • Ben

            I see you’ve finally gone full-retard Al.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Sure buddy…it’s not the idiots screaming JEWS behind every rock bush and evil deed…it’s me for pointing it out.
            I see you have gone full on conspirotard.

          • Ben

            I never said anything about the Jews.

            Stop stalking me with your ridiculous BS.

    • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

      I have counted as many as 22 different, separate contrails in the sky at one time, pointed them out to others and most just shrug-meh. One morning at work I counted seventeen separate trails, all running East-West, and showed a coworker. He said it was “interesting”. I pointed out that there were definitely not that many flights originating from Detroit to Lansing, Grand Rapids or Chicago or vice versa, those being the most common East/West points of origin and destinations covering our area. Especially early on a Saturday morning. He shrugged and said-“Must be chemtrails” and went back inside. Like it was no big deal. Amazing.

      • Roy Hobs

        I’ve had similar encounters. Truly Orwellian. What will it take…..literally? I used to think living under an overpass eating Beanie Weanie would finally wake a person up. But, now I’m not so sure.
        We are living a real life episode of the Twilight Zone.

      • 667..neighbor of the beast

        Yeah…because they are caused by particular temperature conditions… when those are the conditions ..planes leave contrails.
        Not exactly complicated.

    • none

      This really picked up after Fucashima.
      Since the water being sprayed into the reactors, will then evaporate into the air.
      Then carried by the winds across the U.S.? Since President Obama wanted to get health care, with all of his other policys past. Wouldn’t this make sense?

      • Roy Hobs

        I’m not sure your point. Did ‘what’ pick up after Fukushima?
        Elaborate on your comment. Thanks.

      • That is a very long way for water vapor to stay intact with dissolved solids.

  • ZombieGirl

    D-E-P-O-P-U-L-A-T-I-O-N

  • gazoo3

    Apparently Orgonite eliminates chemtrails. Check this out. https://youtu.be/IBaqZ-RZMhQ

    • TrevorD

      Fascinating…thx for the link.

      • gazoo3

        10-4.

  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    First things I think of when chemtrails are brought up-birth rates, birth defects, autism, asthma, allergies, all kinds of cancer and honey bees who are supposedly dying off. Factor in particular wind borne contaminants like plant GMO’s and who knows what sort of trippy shit you end up with 250 miles later? Surely Russia and China, amongst others, are doing similar things-but possibly different-and, so we have to wonder what poisons they might be putting up there. Either way, our atmosphere has become a toxic mash of God only knows what.

  • Every chemtrail spraying is a direct assault on humanity. This global program has been denied time after time. I have pictures of the skies when I was a little boy-I don’t give a crap about their (fake) science-I only know what I see and how unhealthy it feels outside now. Its heavy, the UV is very intense on certain “milky sky” days and makes me feel very heavy. So many people I know are in constant illness with constant respiratory problems and mysterious infections. At this point, I don’t believe anything coming from a 3-letter organization!

    • No Bull Nonofit

      First time for nearly a decade above North Wales in UK we had clear skies with recognisable non milky hues of blue including cerealian and ultra marine and guess what? Great expanses of Europe are now having 40 degree centigrade heat wave called Lucifer! You couldn’t make it up.

  • clarioncaller

    Playing God is a hard game for the globalists to give up.

  • retiredOGC

    Out here in North Idaho the “smarmy” skies are all too common, along with multiple contrails. I tell my wife that they are messing with the weather and she just rolls her eyes. Cognitive dissonance.

  • The Tuna Fairy

    Question for the commenters: Anyone else noticed this?
    This morning it’s cold in the midwest, if it was winter they’d be calling it a polar vortex, I haven’t checked to see what they are saying today. I looked at Intellicast’s “current temperatures” map, and it’s showing a band of temps labeled 62 in my area. If I go to the “local” page, it’s saying 49 – 53, depending on which station you look at, and their main temperature they are saying is 53.
    Are their national maps skewing for “global warming!” temperatures?
    And is it just me, or did they shift the colors on the maps a couple years ago so that, say 80 degrees, is a redder color than it was? So if you glance at the map “wow, global warming!” ?
    I can’t prove it, but I think the colors have shifted, and I think the maps are tweaked, despite their own data.
    Can anyone tell me if I’m just wrong or right?

    Interesting if I’m correct….

    • SP_88

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/color-and-temperature-perception-is-everything/ Just found this. It seems to agree with your suspicion that the colors have been changed. In one of them, the orange starts at 50 degrees, meaning that almost all of the country will be red or orange during most of the year with the exception of the winter. It makes it look like the whole country is in the middle of a severe heatwave.

      • The Tuna Fairy

        Oh interesting!! Thank you!!
        Good to know it ain’t just me…

  • SP_88

    What gets me is all the articles and videos saying that chemtrails are just conspiracy theories and don’t really exist, or it’s just contrails. Contrails my ass, those are chemicals being dumped in the sky.
    How can I take these people seriously when they tell me something doesn’t exist after I just looked at the sky and saw it? Not to mention the fact that there are maps of where the planes fly and flight times, and they can be compared to the lines in the sky. And they absolutely do not jibe with the lines I can clearly see in the sky.
    Furthermore, contrails do not stay there for hours, like chemtrails do.
    We know that global warming and climate change are a massive hoax. And I’m sure that TPTB are also aware that it’s a hoax. And I can understand that they would tell us that there is global warming, and screw us out of money by using global warming as fear mongering to do it, but I can’t picture them actually doing something about a problem they fabricated. Unless it’s not being done because of global warming, but instead it’s to somehow kill us off.

    • 667..neighbor of the beast

      So all pilots are….” in on it “….too?
      Because if you talk to any pilot they will tell you that their planes leave contrails…that what people see in the sky are contrails… and exactly what and why where and when as far as conditions that cause the contrails.

      And of course there would have to be THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of planes rigged with this equipment… all those pilots and in flight techs “in on it”… the manufacturers of the equipment “in on it”… the folks who house the planes …that load the manufacture and fill the planes with the evil brew…”in on it”

      Along with meteorologists backing up why contrails WOULD linger and remain for extended periods of time. So…they are “in on it ” too?

      And…don’t those evil unnamed boogeymen “TPTB” also live in the same atmosphere as we do ?

      All the gov’ts of the world too don’t forget…”in on it”!

      Odd that with a global effort to orchestrate and undertake such a vast evil scheme… that has gone on for decades and decades …which logical would involve perhaps hundreds of thousands of players …

      Yet …Hmmmm. NO PROOF. Only conspiracy theorists yammering about it on conspirotard sites.

      Youtubers taking little snippets about cloud seeding or scientist theorizing about potential methods of combating climate change in open discussion forums and editing it to trick the stupid by saying ….”AHA! LOOK! They just admitted it!

      SP88…you seemed to me to be one of the DS regulars that still retained the ability to spot logical inconsistencies .

      • SP_88

        I have read enough articles and watched enough videos about it to believe that there is something to it. It’s not enough to say that absolutely yes, they are spraying chemtrails. But it’s also not enough to say that no, they definitely are not spraying chemtrails. I’m just not there yet.
        And honestly, I have other things going on in my life besides this. So it will probably be a while before I can say absolutely one way or the other.
        In the meantime, I would think it’s foolish to dismiss it just because someone called it a “conspiracy theory”.
        It seems that any time someone wants to discredit someone or something, all they have to do is say “conspiracy theory”, and suddenly everyone thinks it’s just a bunch of nut jobs who believe in it. But how many conspiracy theories turned out to be an actual conspiracy? Plenty. But before they were proven, a lot of people said it was just a bunch of nonsense, and only tinfoil hat nut jobs believed in these things.
        My point is that there may not be enough evidence to prove beyond all doubt that this is really going on, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think it should be further investigated. There is at least enough evidence to support that.

        • 667..neighbor of the beast

          Wait…. but what about all the logical inconsistencies I listed???????

          You didn’t address ONE THING!!

          This is exactly what I am talking about . It’s not about people dismissing it as a conspiracy theory..It’s about rational critical thought. A halfway reasonable child would see these questions… these glaring unlikelihoods.

          YOU JUST DID IT!

          I provide a list of BIG…GLARING…OBVIOUS… laundry list of logical inconsistencies and questions about chemtrails… and you completely ignore all of that and state…

          “There may not be enough evidence to prove beyond all doubt that this is really going on, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think it should be further investigated. There is at least enough evidence to support that.”

          WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HUGE GLARING REASONS I LISTED WHY IT WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO BE A FANTASY??????

          THIS is exactly why I am on here messing with conspirotards… they are blind to the haystacks as they fixate on a imaginary needle of proof someone puts on YouTube.

          • SP_88

            You said that there are approx 130k commercial pilots who would have to be in on it. But they are flying planes that leave contrails, not chemtrails. So they wouldn’t be in on anything.
            The only people who would be in on it would be the people making the chemtrails. And that could be done with a small operation set up in each area where it’s being done. Perhaps a dozen planes in an area. They could cover a wide area in a half a day.
            Anyway, I didn’t address your inconsistencies because my comment was more about where I am in understanding this as opposed to arguing with you about things that I’ve already thought about.
            I’ve thought about how TPTB have to breathe the same air as we do. I’ve thought about how it would be a massive operation overall to warehouse all these chemicals and ship it around to the various places where it will be put on the planes, and the equipment, etc, etc.
            I’ve even considered that these global warming people, who are so worried about burning fossil fuels and cars emissions and such, who are now flying these thousands of airplanes around, burning millions of gallons of jet fuel so they can reflect 0.01% of the sunlight back into space.
            It’s an entirely illogical idea that could never get the results they are after. And it certainly doesn’t make sense to fix the climate by poisoning the environment.
            But I didn’t rule it out based on just the logic of it because the government and the global warming people do not follow their own logic or any logic anyway.
            For instance, Al Gore flies around the country telling people to throw away their SUV’s and buy electric cars instead, but he is burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel doing it. Plus, he had his Nashville home outfitted with solar panels and other green energy things that can generate enough electricity to power 34 average size houses, yet he uses so much electricity that he still needs to draw a huge amount of energy from the grid. His swimming pool heater uses enough energy to heat about a dozen houses (I forget the exact number). The point is that he is a huge consumer of energy. And we are talking about a house that he is rarely ever in. It’s a huge waste of energy.
            Basically, it would be foolish to dismiss anything these people do simply because it isn’t logical to do it.
            Like I said, I am at a certain point where I can see it, but I haven’t put enough thought into it to say no, it’s definitely not really happening. I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why it would be illogical to do or impossible to do without anyone being able to get better evidence that it’s happening. But I have other things going on in my life, and right now I don’t want to spend a lot of time researching lines in the sky.
            I haven’t said you are wrong, and I haven’t attacked you for pointing out something that should be pointed out. You could very well be right. I’m just not ready to agree yet.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            What I am saying though, is that if you talk to any pilot, they will tell you that these things that people are looking at and calling chemtrails …are actually just contrails… and their own planes create them in the right conditions. It’s not even a matter of them “perpetrating” chemtrails…It’s a matter of them just being aware …just as you and I are aware …of the ridiculous claims people are making in their chemtrail conspiracy… and explaining the reality of what they know & see everyday.

            Which ….all you have to do is log into any pilot forum and read.
            Conspirotards all say they “Research” … but all they are really doing is seeking out interweb stupidity and YouTube nonsense that confirms their “evil boogeyman” fantasies.

            If you talk to any meteorologist they will explain that the things you see up in the sky are contrails caused by specific temperature conditions…and that they absolutely DO linger.And always have.

            Your “dozen planes” math doesn’t hold up if you see the amount of contrails in the sky and think about all the major cities and urban areas on the planet. It would be thousands and thousands of planes.

            I’m sorry…but you have to realize …. reading this stuff… the twisted idiot logic that has to be employed…the critical thought and questions that have to be avoided.. is laughable to someone who isn’t desperate to create boogeymen.

            Conspirotards are SO deep into their delusions on this that if you stop them mid conspiracy and point any of this out or say “hey…it’s just planes”…THAT is regarded as “naive” or “un -awakened”

            My son reads this stuff on our tablet when I leave it around and rebukes me because he equates my comments with teasing retarded people…

          • SP_88

            “Teasing retarded people”, that had me laughing. I get what you’re saying. The reason I’m not there yet is because I haven’t put any real effort into figuring it out.
            And when I said that I read about it, it was just casual reading. It’s not like I set out to find evidence of chemtrails so I could argue in favor of them on the internet. I could care less if there is or isn’t chemtrails, although I would be happier if there wasn’t chemicals being dumped into the atmosphere.
            But sometimes I get ahead of myself, and I don’t think about things like this, mostly because it’s not something I really worry about or care about. I don’t lose sleep at night because of the government’s agenda to spray the sky.
            But as I’ve had this discussion with you, it does seem like it would take a massive secret industry to make chemtrails.
            My “dozens of planes” theory was just for a particular area, not the entire operation.
            Obviously the sky has lines from planes, wether it’s contrails or chemtrails or whatever. And there aren’t thousands of planes at any one airport. So obviously it’s possible to put lines in the sky in a particular area with the number of planes at any given airport. Obviously, overall, there are thousands of airplanes at all the airports and in the sky.
            But, as I have thought about this, and without reading anything else about it, it does seem impossible to have entire fleets of airplanes dedicated to spraying chemtrails all over the country, plus the necessary infrastructure to support them, the warehouses to keep the chemicals, the trucks to ship the chemicals, the planes equipped with the necessary apparatus to spray the chemtrails, and secret airports for these planes to take off and land without anyone noticing, and anything else I haven’t thought of, all without any hard evidence, pictures, people who work there, anything.
            If such an operation was going on, there would have to be something to show for it besides the occasional hint from some public official.
            It’s just not something I ever bothered to think about. But I have to agree, having now considered everything, that it’s not a real thing. I only entertained the idea before because I never bothered to put it all together. And I usually do my homework before I put my foot in my mouth. But not this time. Oh well. I’m only human, I can’t be right all the time.
            I will still probably read about it though.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            I have to say …you may be the first person I’ve ever engaged with on the subject who stopped…. looked at the logic… considered and re evaluated their “position”. My hat is completely off to you.

            Again…the point that I know I keep bringing up here..but that I think is ,for me, the most convincing… is the pilots. Pilots will all tell you that the things chemtrail conspiracy nuts all point to and create their boogeyman stories about…are just contrails. They know because THEIR planes create them…they fly among them … they know and understand the conditions and causes of them.

            So whatever boogeyman conspiracy one would subscribe to you would have to include the delusion that ALL PILOTS would have to be in on it …and lying about it.

          • SP_88

            As kfunk937 said, and I’ll paraphrase, as the number of people required to carry out a conspiracy increases, the likelihood of that happening tanks. People really suck at keeping secrets.
            And what he said is congruent with the idea that all of the pilots would have to be in on it.
            But even without the pilots, the number of other people who would have to be in on it is still a lot. And given the lack of any real evidence, all those people would either have to be extremely good at keeping the secret, or it’s not really happening.
            Had I bothered to consider this, I would not have believed this theory to begin with.
            Ben, commented above about the idea that some of these conspiracy theories are intentionally ridiculous, to help discredit the actual conspiracy theories.
            Things like the flat earth and reptilian aliens exist only to lend credence to the idea that a conspiracy theory is something that only nut jobs believe in, despite the fact that there are many conspiracies that are no longer a theory.
            Hence forth, I will put more effort into determining which conspiracies are logically plausible, and which ones aren’t.

          • David Schultz

            Not conspiracy. Not a secret. It is just Naphtha, Benzene, Toluene, Di-ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and Isopropal Alcohol that is used to keep jet engines sparkling clean on the inside 😉

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            There should also be the consideration of risk/reward for the imagined perpetrators of the evil scheme.

            If you apply the above critical thought to many of these conspirotard favorites…consider the insanely high probability of exposure …being found out… and combine that with what the reward would be if the scheme worked …you will usually arrive at a one conclusion.

            It’s a stupid…there would be many easier ways without risking everything if discovered.

            Ie… Sandy Hook, ( all the other “false flag” shooting events) ,9/11, Bill Gates eugenics plots …to name a few

          • SP_88

            Yeah, that makes sense too. Someone should make a list of things that a conspiracy theory has to have to be considered plausible. And perhaps they already have.
            It would make it easier to sift through the nonsense to get to the truth.
            Sandy Hook was one of the conspiracy theories I had considered for a while before I went through all the facts and determined that it was not a plausible theory. I never bothered with any of the other mass shooting conspiracies because they just didn’t sound reasonable from the beginning.
            But Bill Gates is definitely out to get us with his diabolical plot to exterminate the human race. No, not really. 🙂
            I do however still cling to the idea that 9/11 is more than what the official story says it is. There are a lot of theories surrounding the people who were allegedly involved, but that’s for someone else to figure out. I never really did much reading about that aspect of it. My interest revolves around the buildings themselves. I just can’t get over how they fell. It looks so much like a building demolition, the way they fell straight down into their own footprint. And building 7, which wasn’t even hit by a plane, fell the same way. And none of the official explanations make any real sense. They just don’t seem to be plausible explanations for how that could happen. Some of their explanations may explain part of it, but then the other aspects of it contradict the official story. So I can’t help but think that there’s more to it.
            And like I said, I don’t know about the other parts of the theory regarding who was involved or why or what they had to gain, but the physics of it is where I’m focused.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            If you go to the 9/11 museum… which I would highly recommend …they take one little room and debunk the conspiracy theories.It’s worth seeing. .Building 7 is thoroughly explained …they show the fires …they show how the south face breach by the tower collapse & the core of the building was progressively devastated by the fire . If there were sprinklers there would have been no collapse…but the unchecked fire grew and grew taking out critical key supports.

          • Ben

            It’s worth seeing. .Building 7 is thoroughly explained …

            Not by a corny museum it’s not.

            …they show the fires …they show how the south face breach by the tower collapse & the core of the building was progressively devastated by the fire .

            How do they show this? A stupid animation? This does not accurately reflect reality.

            If there were sprinklers there would have been no collapse…but the unchecked fire grew and grew taking out critical key supports.

            No it didn’t. Fires don’t cause steel buildings to collapse. This would have been unprecedented. Take a look at a few notable skyscraper fires of the past where they were completely gutted by fire yet easily remained standing. The Mandarin Hotel even re-used it’s steel structure after it was completely consumed by fire.
            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/2/9/1234201284213/Mandarin-Oriental-hotel-f-001.jpg?w=1200&h=630&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&bm=normal&ba=bottom%2Cleft&blend64=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWRzLmd1aW0uY28udWsvMjAxNi8wNS8yNS9vdmVybGF5LWxvZ28tMTIwMC05MF9vcHQucG5n&s=ed1b94c896db601a08f464fd2d02bcb3

            Well just like every other conspiracy from Flat Earth ….

            The Flat Earth? This is an obvious joke. Stop associating your weapons-grade stupid with serious events. Make sure to talk about your imaginary “Lizard People” next time.

            THE JEEEEEWWWWS!!!!!

            Wow. So you’ve gone full-retard. Nice job Al.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            You may not have noticed Travis… but that “THE JEEEWWWSSS ” part is pretty spot on around Daily Sheeple.

            “How do they show this? A stupid animation? This does not accurately reflect reality.”

            No moron they build a quarter scale building and destroy it every 45 minutes…next show is in 20…stick around.


            Fires don’t cause steel buildings to collapse. This would have been unprecedented. Take a look at a few notable skyscraper fires of the past where they were completely gutted by fire yet easily remained standing. ”

            Right …because every steel building is designed and constructed identically… so if 2 – or 3 others didn’t suffer progressive collapse obviously it’s impossible …nice logic.

          • Ben

            It is nice logic.

            But you’re sill trying to lobotomize the internet with the idea that only Building #7 was constructed shabbily enough to drop like a brick shithouse from a relatively small office fire.

            Sure Al. We believe you (not).

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            7 hrs of uncontrolled fire .When the building came down the Firefighters monitoring it reported it was “completely involved” in fire …all floors.

          • Ben

            “Completely involved”? This is is merely a flesh wound compared to the fires which have gutted entire buildings.

            Even if this fire were to (impossible) weaken a beam to the point of failure, you cannot possible explain how this came down at free-fall acceleration for about 2.1 seconds.

            Symmetrically.

            But hey, we all can see that you’re either completely stupid, brainwashed, or get paid for your propaganda efforts. I wouldn’t expect an serious explanation from you.

            You’ll probably just say something about “Lizard People”.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Funny though …Stanford,MIT, NIST studied it…the timing …the structure…the fire… all understand how it happened …. They called it at the time before it went down… I’m sure all of that just fuels your beliefs though.

          • Ben

            They called it at the time before it went down…

            Who did?

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            As I say NYFD. Sent out a warning at 2pm that they had detected a bulge in a beam and that there was a significant chance of collapse …3 1/2 hrs later it did.

          • Ben

            You could remove multiple beams and it would remain standing. You have to realize that the only was to get free-fall acceleration is the sever all of the columns nearly simultaneously.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Odd that you can… from your perch at home … so absolutely and conclusively rule out what so many structural engineers, forensic investigators ,architects….etc… all seem to think is completely plausible.
            What are your credentials in structural engineering again? And when was it you were allowed to access all the forensic and structural info on the collapse???

          • Ben

            … so absolutely and conclusively rule out what so many structural engineers, forensic investigators ,architects….etc… all seem to think is completely plausible.

            The don’t “all think it’s plausible”. Quite a few structural engineers know how implausible this is: http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

            These are only the few thousand who have enough balls to sign the petition. You might think for every every one signatory, there are ten other engineers who have the same impressions but haven’t signed the petition.

            Not a popularity contest. Even if it was, you can’t speak for the engineers who don’t say anything about this publicly, either way.

            But none of this matters as much as the hard physics itself, which indicate that it had to have been a controlled demolition.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Strawman …(skeevy)…. I did not say ALL think it’s plausible .. I SAID so many structural engineers, forensic investigators ,architects..WHO …all see it as completely plausible .

            Those that performed and consulted
            in the investigations … ASCE…NIST…who were privy to the forensics and design data….they all agree not only was it plausible …but that is how it happened .
            I understand you have an MS in Structural Engineering from U of Tube.. so your opinion is right up there though.

          • Ben

            Appeal to authority? Why not then read articles from the structural engineers who will tell you that it’s impossible?

            Two people can play that stupid game Al.

            Why don’t you read some physics and get back to me: https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1/intro_physics_1.pdf

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            You were already playing the stupid game… you don’t share any physics….you just repeat parroted memes from truther sites . Because you have no knowledge of or access to the forensics ..AND you have no knowledge of structural engineering. You are a smart guy … I have had blithering morons who didn’t comprehend the words they were typing make all the same arguments

          • Ben

            The physics are obvious. The only object that can fall at free-fall acceleration on this planet are objects with nothing under them; objects with no support. This can be understood using Newton’s Third Law if you desire.

            You can agree.

            It then follows that there was nothing supporting the building. All columns must have been severed nearly simultaneously.

            Concerning the other two towers: Bazant’s crushdown differential (equation) is elegant but it’s fundamentally wrong and fails to adequately describe the event in question even when proper values of mass and cross section are used (something that wasn’t done in his original paper.)

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            How did all those professional engineers and architect s and even demolition experts all watch the same event and miss what YOU … a U of Tube graduate spotted so plainly? Huh..
            Ok Buddy….

          • Ben

            Like I said, the didn’t “miss it”.

            Why are you still pretending that all architects and engineer believe the “official” explanation despite being shown otherwise?

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            A) I’m not pretending shit Travis…last thing I would pretend is to have the knowledge and insight into this disaster because I saw some Youtube and read some truther memes…. and wanted to sound as though I was in any way credible because I rattled off some buzzwords.

            I’m talking about the American Society of Civil Engineers investigation, and NIST report
            http://news.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html
            https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

          • Ben

            The NIST report explains everything up to the failure of one single beam.

            Global collapse is never explained. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Perhaps you should read it . pg 53.

          • Ben

            They end that section with an apology for not being able to explain it.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            BS

          • Ben

            Look at NIST’s computer animation next to the real footage:

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Lol…In your conspirotard video…the area of the building they are trying to say doesn’t match the simulation is obscured by other buildings!
            FAIL!

          • Ben

            No. The NIST simulation is the real fail. Do you seriously think that the removal of just one beam out of 47 can cause a massive domino effect leading to a free-fall acceleration for 2.1 seconds?

            I suppose people like you are just professional and/or chronic morons.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            There has to be one beam that fails first moron. As much as you would like to portray it as one beam failing nothing else and the building collapses… that is just you idiotically misrepresenting what the investigations revealed….grasping.

            Keep searching Youtube though….as these things get debunked discredited …they make new conspirotard videos almost weekly…. although these WTC ones are getting pretty stale.

          • Ben

            Wrong. The investigations revealed that it was a controlled demolition and that NIST is portraying a unicorn.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Dance Conspirotard….dance.

          • Ben

            Keep spinning your propeller hat, clown.

            Harrit, Niels H. “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009, doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007.”

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Niels Harrit and Steven Jones, along with several coauthors, published the “peer-reviewed” paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (Harrit 2009). This article does not make the case for thermite use on 9/11. The paper examined “distinctive red/gray chips” found in WTC dust (unfortunately, with no chain of custody for the dust), and these were claimed to be thermitic because of their composition (iron oxides and pure aluminum) and other chemical properties. However, the presence of rust and aluminum does not prove the use of thermite, because iron oxide and aluminum are found in many common items that existed in the towers. Furthermore, the authors admit that their “differential scanning calorimeter” measurements of the supposed thermitic material showed results at about 450 degrees C below the temperature at which normal thermite reacts (Fana 2006). Finally, the scan of the red side of the “thermitic material” of Harrit/Jones is a dead-on match to material Jones himself identified as “WTC Steel Primer Paint” in his Hard Evidence Down Under Tour in November of 2009 (“Sunstealer” 2011).
            Harrit’s article describes the red portion of the chips as “unreacted thermitic material.” But while thermite may be slow, it does not stop its reaction once it has begun. Because thermite supplies its own oxygen (via iron oxides), it can even burn underwater. Suggesting that the samples show partially reacted thermite is preposterous. Claiming that thermite would explain molten pools of steel weeks and months after the attack is equally preposterous.
            The article’s publication process was so politicized and bizarre that the editor-in-chief of the Bentham journal that featured Jones’s article, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned in protest (Hoffman 2009).
            Thermitic demolition should have created copious pools of melted steel at Ground Zero, but nothing remotely like this was ever found. Truthers say iron microspheres found in the rubble indicate thermite; since hot fires and spot-welding do produce very tiny spheres of iron, though, these “microspheres” are not unexpected. Pictures of cranes holding red-hot materials in the rubble are said to show molten steel. Had this been the case, however, the crane rigs would have immediately seized up (Blanchard 2006). No reports of “molten steel” in the tower basements have ever been credibly verified (Roberts 2008). Some Truthers claim that a few pieces of sulfidized “eutectic” steel found in the towers proves thermate (thermite with sulfur) usage, but this occurred because sulfur, released from burned drywall, corroded the steel as it stewed in the pile for weeks (Roberts 2008).

          • Ben

            Sure. Did you actually take a look at the XEDS spectra?

            Why don’t you have a look at tell my why it cannot possible be iron oxide paint?

            And then try to explain the thermitic response. Keep in mind that you need reduced aluminum for the thermite reaction and the oxidized aluminum in kaolin will not work the slightest.

          • SP_88

            Yes, the Jews do seem to be the most popular demons these days. Every other comment is blaming the Jews for everything that’s going on these days.
            I will have to see where the museum is. I’m not that far from ground zero. Maybe a two or three hour drive. It sounds like something I could spend the day on, get something to eat, walk around, etc. I haven’t been there since before 9/11. I’m sure everything looks very different now.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Very well done.

          • kfunk937

            The problem—well, one of the problems—with any big conspiracy theory is that as the number of those required to successfully carry it out increases, the probabilty of that happening tanks. Humans really suck at keeping secrets. Graphically, I’m guessing that it would illustrate a negative exponential correlation, because the initial relationship implodes under the weight of its numbers.

            Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. ~ Benjamin Franklin*

            Adding my doffed hat to 666’s.

            *Unfortunately this quote lends itself to being misunderstood by conspiracy theorists. I still like it in its original, not meant to be taken literally, sense.

          • FallsAngel

            LOL, I read a murder mystery by that title once. I do keep that in mind when I’m dealing with sensitive information.

          • Ben

            Graphically, I’m guessing that it would illustrate a negative exponential correlation…

            Or an inverse exponential correlation? You can’t have negative people or negative probabilities. Look at the graph of y=1/(x²) and the graph of y=(−x²).

            The term “conspiracy theorist” was created by the CIA to counter the criticism of the Warren Report. This is documented, and can be seen by reading the CIA memo 1035-960 “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report”.

            Anyone half-conscious can see from watching the Zapruder Film that JFK was shot from the front. Modern polls indicate that most Americans believe in this particular “conspiracy”, and even the House [of Representatives] Select Committee on Assassinations ruled the JFK Assassination as a “probably conspiracy”. From the final report:

            Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
            The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

            https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

            However, most textbooks make no mention of this. And the “official explanation” defies the laws of physics and is not even “official” (it runs contrary to congressional findings). Who then is really the “nutjob” in this case? The “official explanation” believers, or the “conspiracy” believers?

            You shouldn’t have to feel like a nutjob for believing in obvious physical truths (that would make us about as “crazy” as the US House of Representatives). Physical law trumps what the media says, who often untruthfully push the agenda of powerful agencies and corporations. It would be safe to say that 9/11 was a “probably conspiracy”, based on undeniable physical and chemical (Harrit, 2009) proof.

            But if you speak-out against the version of reality a powerful agency is perpetuating, you just might be attacked (Kennedy’ed?), discredited (Wakefielded?), or both. The Western World is simply run (largely) by middle-aged assholes who don’t play fairly.

            But there have always been certain mock “conspiracies” planted to make challenging viewpoints look ridiculous. Like the flat-Earth movement, the chemtrails idea could be one of these. The job of people like Alex Jones and David Icke is to take a certain group of people—who are the most dangerous to the status quo—and partially lobotomize them with tales of lizard people, and “Illuminati” symbology and ritual to frighten them into submission and to make them look ridiculous.

            Also, it turns most people off. Nobody can seriously investigate what happened on 9/11 without being confronted with the “mini-nuke” theories of Jim Fetzer, the “space beam” theories of Judy Wood, and the “no-plane” theories of unknown provinance. Likewise, anyone person investigating the Apollo moon landings will be confronted and likely turned-off by flat-Earth disinformation.

            This is mostly why such things exist. People are dumb, but they aren’t that dumb . It takes a concerted effort to convince people of lizard people, no curvature, and mini-nukes (Which defies the physical explanation of critical mass. No nuclear explosion can be “mini”, and the smallest would would take-up a whole city block. Yet, there are some people who even deny the very existence of nuclear bombs (no comment on that)).

            This is not a profound idea, as such behaviour has a corollary in interpersonal relationships. I think we all can remember a time when another individual tried to discredit us, or made us look unduly foolish for political (power) reasons. Organizations consist of people.

            It’s the only thing that makes sense. Some so-called “conspiracies” are obviously true, while others are disinformation. The goal is simply to determine which is which based on logic, scientific evidence, and physical law.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            “The term “conspiracy theorist” was created by the CIA to counter “…blah…blah…blah.

            How about somebody put 2 words together … using language to describe or convey a thought…. and years later all the little paranoid Pygmalions felt tagged by it …so they gave it a boogeyman backstory.

          • kfunk937

            He used all those word when his defence would have been stronger with two: gas lighting. Which is a real thing (particularly in domestic violence) but doesn’t apply to CTs popular among fringers, such as 9/11 troofers.

            NYT took a whack at CTs a while back (although there’s much more to the mindset): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html .

          • Ben

            Isn’t gaslighting one word?

            He used all those words when his defence [sic]…

            My defence? Are you likening me to a defendant?

            I’m pretty sure that the Warren Commission and NIST are on the defense. They are the ones promoting false versions of events. This can be proven with physical science.

            I realize that many female’s brains are not wired for math and physics, so I don’t blame you. But this is the obvious truth. Even Bertrand Russel wasn’t afraid to call shenanigans on the Warren Commission for their insultingly-obvious bullshιt.

          • kfunk937

            Why yes, yes it is. Now edited.

          • Ben

            I wan’t trying to be sexist. There are many good female physicists, like double-Nobelist Marie Curie and…um…Carl Sagan—It’s just that they usually take different classes in school, that’s all.

            For some reason females tend to be biologists and males like to be physicists. Males really like shooting rockets (a Freudian wish fulfillment complex), making bombs, and bombarding particles with other particles.

          • kfunk937

            Travis:

            I wasn’t trying to be sexist.

            And yet, you succeeded. Did you mean, rather, that you don’t want to be perceived as sexist? If so, that ship has sailed.

          • Ben

            Just being intentionally sexist, for fun!

            But some people are serious. You should look up what Bobby Fischer said about female chess players (if you dare!).

          • Ben

            𝑵𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒛𝒂𝒘𝒂, 𝑺., 𝒆𝒕 𝒂𝒍. “𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒏 𝒔𝒚𝒏𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏.” 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑵𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑨𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔 94.10 (1997): 5308-5313.

            Averaging over the different brain areas, the rate of serotonin synthesis is 52% greater in male than in female subjects. This is one of the largest differences between the brains of males and females that is not related to hormone binding sites. The reason for this difference is not clear at this time.

            Not a big deal. Anyone can just take a bit more tryptophan if they want to be in that hyperexited and agitated serotonin state characteristic of Doc Brown or Professor Fink. I think this could help to explain the difference in life-spans between males and females. Besides iron, this is the only serious non-hormone difference that I can think of.

            Serotonin raises blood pressure, and free iron causes lipid peroxidation.

            ATD [acute tryptophan depletion] did not have a statistically significant […] effect on mood ratings overall, though one of seven female subjects (but none of the male subjects) showed signs of distress, low mood, and a crying spell by the end of the second scan.

          • Ben

            kfunk937: Travis:

            I wasn’t trying to be sexist.

            Oh, my god—Oh. My. God.[hands violently shake; mouse cursor looks like frantic bumblebee or random particle exhibiting Brownian motion under 400× Carl Zeiss objective lens]

            Ahemm…[calms-down]…she put the word “sex―” right next to my name.

          • Ben

            It entered the lexicon from the CIA.

            I’m sorry that you’re too stupid or lazy to read the memo. I pity you.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            ” It’s Orwellian to turn the truth into a pathology, but this is what many people try to do…..”

            It’s what we conspire to do….OOOOooooooo!

            Lighten up Francis…..

            “The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as “the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event”. It cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example”

            But wait ! ….I thought those 2 words were first created & put together by a cabal of evil CIA etymologists… to dissuade citizens from becoming “awakerer” ?

            They must be planting it in the lexicon with chemtrails!

          • Ben

            But wait ! ….I thought those 2 words were first created & put together by a cabal of evil CIA etymologists in the ’60s…

            It was, moron.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5cd3c22caffca5a99828cba9bee3021ee9996a7f1cdff4cec097c9aa13c190d7.png

            Read the memo kiddo.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            BFD….I read the memo… it’s USED in the Memo …how do you jump to it was “Created” or “introduced” by the evil boogeymen at the CIA ?

            It’s not as though they stop and define it in the memo … they use it as anyone with a grasp of English would, when defining a conspiracy or a theorist .

            I have to laugh at the way you always throw in “everybody knows this” or “it’s like common knowledge” or “it’s undeniable “…. for something you choose to buy into.

            FAIL

            Not surprised that a CT enthusiast who believes Youtube moon hoax stupidity would buy into the boogeyman CIA “creating ” terms

            http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_always_already_wrong

          • Ben

            Not surprised that a CT enthusiast …

            I’m not a conspiracy “theorist”. My position is that science and logic are paramount, and supercede the “authority” of the media.

            <…who believes Youtube moon hoax…

            For one, intelligent people have been pointing out inconsistencies in the Apollo landings long before YouTube.

            And I don’t “believe a hoax”. I have read enough information on this to know that it simply didn’t happen. The videos were obviously filmed on Earth. In the footage, there is evidence of:

            • Sound transmission through purported vacuum.
            • Polydirectional shadows proving additional lighting.
            • Evidence of wind.
            • No sound delay through 450,000 miles of space during radio communication.
            • Cheap plaster-of-Paris fake moon with tiny “craters” that are obviously air bubbles.
            • And much, much more.

            The United States was caught handing-out fraudulent moon rocks: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Deny…Deny…Deny….

            Oh Wow! Really? Intelligent folks………wow.

            Ok Buddy..

          • Ben

            Wow. You just went full-gradeschool.

            It’s called science, and you’re a science-denier. All you can do is spin your propeller hat and go “Woo!”.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            You exhibit the raging conspirotard’s willingness to be blind to all the massive logical impediments …and cling to these little subjective and oft debunked “proofs”.. which support your little conspiracy.

            If it weren’t the most tedious and boring of the CTs I’d engage on it …but honestly I have no interest…so cheers.

            I’d never group Moonies with FlatEarthers … or conflate the beliefs in any way. (Other than their (FE)idiotic Van Allan belt stuff)…but IMO , like so many other conspirotard beliefs…they are both born of the same need.

          • Ben

            How do pointing out obvious facts become “conspirotard beliefs”?

            Is Bertrand Russel a “conspirotard”? How about Dr. Niels Harrit?

            The photographic evidence speaks for itself, and so does the rocket calculations. You can prove with mathematics that this rocket was incapable of getting to the moon and back.

            Why don’t you look-up the Gibbs free energy of the rocket fuel, multiply that by the fuel volume, and use calculus to sum the total amount of energy required to get to the moon?

            Then compare these two energies.

            Millions of people know that the Apollo missions were faked, but stooges like you try to make this socially-unacceptable. Have fun creating little gradeschool quips to distract people from rational thought. Hopefully the next little idiocity that you craft will have The Loch Ness Monster and Hitler thrown-in. If you can’t make any sense, than at least you can be funny.

            You should really look at @Reality022’s special brand of stupid. Although similar, he does it better than you do.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Ok Buddy.

          • Ben

            Ok Buddy…..sure.

            I’m glad that you finally agree.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            See ….. .you can convince yourself of anything

          • Ben

            …says the guy who automatically believes anything on FOX News.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Fox News??

            Fox is like conspirotard kindergarten….then comes Glen Beck… then Infowars… where everyone buys into the same dumb shit you believe.. ( just to discredit you of course… by dumphuk association)

            Oh boy …you’ve really honed in on me.

          • Ben

            No Mr. Neighbor of the Queef, I believe in reality. Not the mind-numbingly stupid explanations that you’re peddling. You’re type invokes Alvarez’s Jet Effect to explain-away conservation of momentum, and defends the official NIST Rube-Goldbergian explanation.

            This so-called astronauts are obviously suspended by wires. I can’t wait to hear how stupidly you’ll try to explain this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqi5ckFr1Ow

            But I wouldn’t you to know anything about physics anyhow. Unfortunately, the Apollo landings might actually seem believable to someone as stupid as you.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            You peddled that live if stupidity on me a while back…w or e names ago “Ben”… you can so sit see the other astronaut grabbing and lifting.

          • Ben

            Uh huh. Sure moron. Nobody can watch that video and believe your stupid explanation.

            Proof positive that you are a paid denier.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast
          • Jonathan is bored.

            Thanks for the laugh. Conspiracy videos always crack me up. It’s all about how much effort your lot is putting in to seeing things they want to see.

          • Ben

            Conspiracy videos always crack me up.

            Um, that video was produced by NASA.

            Were you thinking about the audio?

          • Jonathan is bored.

            Um….NASA wrote all those title cards claiming there were strings pulling people up? No? Then the video is produced by conspiracy dorks. 🙂 It contains NASA footage if that’s what you are struggling to express but those are different things. 🙂

          • Ben

            The original video was produced by NASA. It’s just punctuated with a few frames of another person’s text, and music in the background.

            Turn the volume down and jump to the video. You are looking at a film sequence that NASA claimed to have been shot on The Moon.

            But the wires are obvious.

            I think you need to read this first before you can adequately comprehend what you’re watching: AN INTRODUCTION TO PHYSICS

            You’re making yourself yourself look like a fool for denying the obvious.

          • Jonathan is bored.

            There is (claimed) NASA footage in the video. Just as I said. However the video is produced by cranks. Again just like I said.

            But the wires are obvious.

            Rallying cry of flat earthers everywhere. 🙂

          • Ben

            Obvious wires are obvious.

            And don’t forget about the litany of other proofs.

          • Jonathan is bored.

            Obvious wires are obvious.

            Appeal to obviousness is still a logical flaw, appealing to some other evidence somewhere in the universe is also one too. 🙂

          • Ben

            A logical flaw? Not in this case it’s not.

            What do you need, a physical kinematic analysis of the astronauts motions? This is hardly worth doing since it’s self-evident that they are using wires to suspend themselves.

            The obvious fakery is obvious.

          • Jonathan is bored.

            A logical flaw? Not in this case it’s not.

            Actually yes it’s a logical flaw, appeal to obviousness does not force the conclusion. So your argument is invalid.

            I think that’s four exchanges now? Thanks! Evidence suggests that you can’t be convinced. 🙂

          • Ben

            Now why would I want to be convinced of an obvious lie?

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            Stopped at 1:26 the astronaut is clearly pulling himself up …

          • Jonathan is bored.

            Seemed that way to me to. Which is why this seems to be more about CTers seeing what they want to see.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            @1:26 pause the video and you can clearly see the fallen astronaut is grabbing his fellow astronaut and pulling himself up …

            Precisely what the Conspiracy video claims is NOT happening …Right there …plain as day.Even easier if you big screen it.

            What’s really sad …is that this is the best they have.

            Travis you so badly wish to believe …or at least have others believe you believe… you will deny this I am sure…

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            @1:26 pause the video and you can clearly see the fallen astronaut is grabbing his fellow astronaut and pulling himself up …

            Precisely what the Conspiracy video claims is NOT happening …Right there …plain as day.Even easier if you big screen it.

            Travis you so badly wish to believe …or at least have others believe you believe… you will deny this I am sure…

          • Ben

            The other astronaut is clearly not using enough force. He’s not even bending his knees. Besides, you can clearly see the other astronot’s feet float in an instance before that.

            Don’t you see it Al? So obvious Al.

          • 667..neighbor of the beast

            BS…It’s not there…give us a time.

          • Jonathan is bored.

            How do obvious facts become “conspirotard beliefs”?

            Perhaps they were “conspirotard beliefs” to begin with. A good litmus would be that you try and troll with them. 🙂

            So you believe that the LRO is also a fake? 🙂

          • Ben

            I know the footage has so many irregularities that it can best be explained as having been filmed on Earth.

          • Jonathan is bored.

            Again, it’s all about how hard you are straining to see what you want to see…you might want to unclench for a bit. 🙂

          • Ben

            Again, it’s all about how hard you are straining to see what you want to see…

            No. If I could see what I wanted to see, I would decide to confabulate perceptions a bit more more spectacular than this.

          • Jonathan is bored.

            I’m not talking about you personally. Your goal is to troll. Nothing more. 🙂

          • Ben

            Depends on your definition of “troll”.

            There’s always a subset of online commentators who deny obvious facts for ostensibly political reasons. You could show them a picture of an orange, and they would tell you that it’s an apple.

            Real people don’t behave this way. Who are you? and do you get paid to do this?

          • Jonathan is bored.

            Depends on your definition of “troll”.

            Classical definition where you are here primarily to hook someone into arguing with you about something that I’d give some odds that you don’t even believe in.

            deny obvious facts

            Again, an appeal to some arbitrary definition of obvious . 🙂

            You could show them a picture of an orange, and they would tell you that it’s an apple.

            False analogy.

            Real people don’t behave this way.

            Agreed, people very rarely say that a picture of an orange is a picture of an apple but it’s still a false analogy.

            Who are you?

            Exactly what I claim to be a IT Security person who knows some math.

            and do you get paid to do this?

            Nope, except in the enjoyment I get out of watching your gymnastics.

          • Ben

            There’s evidence of sound transmission through 50 feet of NASA-purported vacuum to the camera’s microphone.

            Will you agree that this is impossible?

          • Jonathan is bored.

            So now you realize you can’t make the “it’s obvious” argument. Well that’s almost like you’re learning something. However I’d wager that what you’re trying to do is just shunt to another lame talking point. But I’m feeling generous today so give yourself a cookie.

            As I said earlier….your four exchanges are up. 🙂 Perhaps you should have started with an actual rational argument rather than “it’s obvious…it’s just SO obvious…it’s obviously obvious man…you’re so dumb for not seeing the obviously obvious nature of these obvious facts” LOL

          • Ben

            Don’t put quotes around that. I didn’t say that.

            You’re the idiot who thinks that sound can travel through a vacuum.

          • JGC

            You’re almost correct, Ben.

            Yes, the lunar footage was produced by a film crew experienced with special effects, but NASA wanted to find the best-suited producer/director for the job so they hired Stanley Kubrick on the basis of his stunning work in 2001: a Space Odyssey.

            And Kubrick, being the perfectionist he was, insisted on filming on location.

          • Ben

            That does seem plausible. You might want Kubrick for another reason too: He would have been the person most qualified to call-out a forgery.

            Channel 5: “One small step for man. One giant leap…”
            Kubrick: “Whah? That’s a bloody MODEL!! Those craters are plaster-of-Paris air bubbles. I…I…I could’a done a better job in my sleep!!! [Kubrick then yanks hair and has a minor stroke]”

  • I didn’t hear what you heard, but maybe it is geoengineeringwatch.org ?

  • It is seldom that any chemtrails can be seen here.