Bravo! Keep up the good work ^^
but seriously, chemtrails??
> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:12:19 -0500
> From: bob allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof of
> globalwarming
> To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PR
well said, joe. this is the imo tragic depth we have reached. not that this precludes the possibility of diabolical plans, however. the big wankers that run things are inflicting diabolical plans on us all the time (the existing status quo is itself a diabolical plan if there ever was one).
r
Even if it were true the chances of it being very slim, you have to
consider how it could be accomplished. One would have to have access
to jet fuel supplies which are controlled and regularly tested. Not
easy. But supposing that as a given, now you have to add your
chemicals at some point do
Michael Redler wrote:
Right-on Todd.
There have been REAL discussions on the disposal radioactive
waste in any number of consumer products, in trace amounts.
The most recent example of this I have heard about is a proposal to add
nuclear waste in small amounts to the sm
so I'm a skeptic. you can believe in the boogie man if you wish. And a
comment for future
reference. I find it mildly disconcerting the you plant my name in the subject
line. I know that I
am trying to talk about chemtrails and your trying to talk about me, but let's
please keep the
discour
--- bob allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem I have with the whole chem trail story
> is that the are simple plausible explanations for
> the observations: water vapor from jet exhaust and
> correlations between events which are not causal.
If it were a matter of one airplane traveli
Nice song and dance Bob,
But distraction doesn't let you off the hook for your primary statement
or its implications.
So indeed, let us get back to your derision. Your statement sir:
> sorry for my sarcasm, but I will save my worrying over
> reality, and leave the really paranoid speculation
Dearest Todd, once again you've strayed from my original rejoinder to the the
chemtrail post, and
gone off on a tangent involving "plausible denial" or some such. Let's get
back to my derision:
a few links to chemtrails sites via google:
featuring ufos
http://www.rense.com/general53/lum.htm
a
Actually Bob,
We both know that what was written was far from irrelevant in light of
your heavily "nuanced" statement that those who tend to think of the
possible (or at least the "chemtrail" possibility) are essentially paranoid.
What I pointed out was the fact that on numerous occassions what
Michael Redler wrote:
> Right-on Todd.
In Bob Allen's defense, the whole "chemtrail" theory is based on a
LOT of conjecture and anecdotal evidence. It seems to fall into the
same category as "vapor carburetors" and "free energy." In other
words, verifiable data to back up the claim ei
Todd, other than everything you wrote was irrelevant to my writing, I
agree with you whole-heartedly. My comments were directed at fears of
"chemtrails" , which I stand by as paranoia until I see a lot more
proof. Show me some evidence that the observed chemtrails are something
other than the
Right-on Todd.
There have been REAL discussions on the disposal radioactive waste in any number of consumer products, in trace amounts.
The most "convenient" method of disposal so far has been in the production of depleted uranium munitions which are both horribly destructive on the battlefie
U., let's see Bob,
Paranoia is it?
You seem to forget at minimum thirty years of using thousand of US
citizens as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing. That
nasty little "paranoid" conspiracy theory unraveled in the early 90's.
http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V1N1McCally.html
Y
13 matches
Mail list logo
