Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #548819 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-28 12:42 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-01-29 17:34 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-01-28 12:42 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-01-28 11:17 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 03:59 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-29 10:05 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:25 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:36 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:45 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:33 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-30 10:08 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 08:38 -0800
Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:23 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-30 20:01 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 00:03 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-31 09:25 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 02:40 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:27 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-31 19:13 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:05 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:30 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:22 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-01 18:35 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:44 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 12:19 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:32 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 03:25 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 05:02 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-01 18:39 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 03:31 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-02 19:01 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 21:30 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 03:45 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 04:32 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 18:45 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:59 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-03 15:17 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:17 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 03:22 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-04 12:39 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-02-03 20:23 +0000
Re: Why Chemtrails? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 14:56 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 18:50 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 14:43 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 03:29 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 15:54 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-02 17:26 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 00:01 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-02-03 00:41 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 04:33 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 04:28 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 13:35 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 01:31 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 03:43 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 10:49 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:30 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 23:59 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 23:16 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 02:43 -0500
Re: Why Chemtrails? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 08:35 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 13:37 -0800
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 21:30 -0600
Re: Why Chemtrails? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:31 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:16 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 18:13 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:04 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 20:57 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:35 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:34 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-29 23:53 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:01 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 18:05 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 18:10 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 18:22 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 03:29 -0500
Re: There's no cure, just consequences. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 12:28 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 03:24 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-30 08:59 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 05:22 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-30 14:27 +0000
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 08:56 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 03:15 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 05:26 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 08:57 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-30 10:04 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 15:32 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 03:13 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 05:25 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 08:57 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-31 09:38 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 07:08 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:45 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 12:28 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:41 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:46 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 12:20 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:32 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-31 23:09 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:32 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-29 12:27 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:20 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:35 -0600
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2016-01-30 10:06 -0500
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:25 -0800
Re: Why we know that Chemtrails have been around for 40+ years "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 17:34 -0600
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 18:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <k3l4oc-c5s.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #549666 |
benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/31/2016 02:13 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Tony Dragon >>> I'm sure you are right, but it was the evidence that made you believe in >>> 'chemtrails' that I was interested in. >>> ------------- >>> >>> Hey Tony. After BJ provides the evidence for chemtrails, would you ask him why he believes in esp and ghosts as well? >>> >>> Thanks in advance >> >> I get "chemtrails" off my prop tips on a humid day. >> >> Does this mean some nefarious organization has hidden an evil device >> inside my solid aluminum propeller? > > Only if the "solid" prop is hollow with chemicals pumped down the center Someone needs a trip to Arizona to refresh their sense of Yuma. The propeller is indeed solid aluminum and I do get "chemtrails" off the tips on humid days. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 10:44 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <0gesabpsblfsd5qp7qsifur831qr61stvr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #549476 |
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:03:27 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> As I am not a 'shill' & have not worked for a government for at least 30
>> years why do you ignore my request(s)?
>
>Not directly working for a government doesn't mean you are not a shill.
>It's all about spinning facts and discrediting evidence. Why a person
You've not offered any evidence. There is no way for Tony, or
anyone else, to spin or discredit evidence that has never been
presented.
>does this can be for a wide variety of reasons. In fact government make
>an effort NOT to have their employees shill on the internet or elsewhere
>because when they have done this they got caught and there was an uproar.
>
So then you lied. Again.
Got it.
FYI: The whole "shill" title is a joke. No, it's not knee
slapping funny, but I would hope you would understand it's not
intended to be taken seriously.
>I know, I know, you never heard of that happening.
I can't comment on what Tony may or may not have heard, but I've
*heard* that various government employees have been caught doing
things on-line that they should not while "on the clock."
But you make it clear above that your claim was and is a lie, so
it's not all that relevant.
>And why don't I
>provide you with chapter and verse of the "evidence" so you can debunk it?
>
If your claim is true, you will provide evidence that anyone with
an interest may verify. If you're lying, you'll offer only avoidance,
if you offer anything at all.
>Sorry. I"m not looking for converts.
You're lying. You want people to come to your way of thinking
regarding contrails. This is why you posted the claim that they have
been analyzed and found to not be water vapors.
You didn't think ahead and realize that Tony and I would
challenge your claim. Now you have to face the reality that your lie
has been exposed.
>I'm not preaching gospel. If you
>want evidence it's out there. It's not hard to find. Pretending you need
>help to find it is just not going to work.
>
So you lied. Got it.
>You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>shortcomings, however.
I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
has.
Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
found to be insane.
And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 12:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <dmrry.228116$qz7.108452@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #549537 |
On 01/31/2016 11:44 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:03:27 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> As I am not a 'shill' & have not worked for a government for at least 30
>>> years why do you ignore my request(s)?
>>
>> Not directly working for a government doesn't mean you are not a shill.
>> It's all about spinning facts and discrediting evidence. Why a person
>
> You've not offered any evidence. There is no way for Tony, or
> anyone else, to spin or discredit evidence that has never been
> presented.
>
>> does this can be for a wide variety of reasons. In fact government make
>> an effort NOT to have their employees shill on the internet or elsewhere
>> because when they have done this they got caught and there was an uproar.
>>
>
> So then you lied. Again.
> Got it.
> FYI: The whole "shill" title is a joke. No, it's not knee
> slapping funny, but I would hope you would understand it's not
> intended to be taken seriously.
>
>> I know, I know, you never heard of that happening.
>
> I can't comment on what Tony may or may not have heard, but I've
> *heard* that various government employees have been caught doing
> things on-line that they should not while "on the clock."
> But you make it clear above that your claim was and is a lie, so
> it's not all that relevant.
>
>> And why don't I
>> provide you with chapter and verse of the "evidence" so you can debunk it?
>>
>
> If your claim is true, you will provide evidence that anyone with
> an interest may verify. If you're lying, you'll offer only avoidance,
> if you offer anything at all.
>
>> Sorry. I"m not looking for converts.
>
> You're lying. You want people to come to your way of thinking
> regarding contrails. This is why you posted the claim that they have
> been analyzed and found to not be water vapors.
> You didn't think ahead and realize that Tony and I would
> challenge your claim. Now you have to face the reality that your lie
> has been exposed.
>
>> I'm not preaching gospel. If you
>> want evidence it's out there. It's not hard to find. Pretending you need
>> help to find it is just not going to work.
>>
>
> So you lied. Got it.
>
>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>> shortcomings, however.
>
> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
> has.
> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
> found to be insane.
> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>
Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 13:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <oaosab1aro87jt9nrogmc7m36ts981218r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #549543 |
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:19:05 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 01/31/2016 11:44 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:03:27 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> As I am not a 'shill' & have not worked for a government for at least 30
>>>> years why do you ignore my request(s)?
>>>
>>> Not directly working for a government doesn't mean you are not a shill.
>>> It's all about spinning facts and discrediting evidence. Why a person
>>
>> You've not offered any evidence. There is no way for Tony, or
>> anyone else, to spin or discredit evidence that has never been
>> presented.
>>
>>> does this can be for a wide variety of reasons. In fact government make
>>> an effort NOT to have their employees shill on the internet or elsewhere
>>> because when they have done this they got caught and there was an uproar.
>>>
>>
>> So then you lied. Again.
>> Got it.
>> FYI: The whole "shill" title is a joke. No, it's not knee
>> slapping funny, but I would hope you would understand it's not
>> intended to be taken seriously.
>>
>>> I know, I know, you never heard of that happening.
>>
>> I can't comment on what Tony may or may not have heard, but I've
>> *heard* that various government employees have been caught doing
>> things on-line that they should not while "on the clock."
>> But you make it clear above that your claim was and is a lie, so
>> it's not all that relevant.
>>
>>> And why don't I
>>> provide you with chapter and verse of the "evidence" so you can debunk it?
>>>
>>
>> If your claim is true, you will provide evidence that anyone with
>> an interest may verify. If you're lying, you'll offer only avoidance,
>> if you offer anything at all.
>>
>>> Sorry. I"m not looking for converts.
>>
>> You're lying. You want people to come to your way of thinking
>> regarding contrails. This is why you posted the claim that they have
>> been analyzed and found to not be water vapors.
>> You didn't think ahead and realize that Tony and I would
>> challenge your claim. Now you have to face the reality that your lie
>> has been exposed.
>>
>>> I'm not preaching gospel. If you
>>> want evidence it's out there. It's not hard to find. Pretending you need
>>> help to find it is just not going to work.
>>>
>>
>> So you lied. Got it.
>>
>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>> shortcomings, however.
>>
>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>> has.
>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>> found to be insane.
>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>
>Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 03:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <TDEry.205678$qo3.138851@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #549564 |
On 01/31/2016 02:32 PM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 12:19:05 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/31/2016 11:44 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 00:03:27 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> As I am not a 'shill' & have not worked for a government for at least 30
>>>>> years why do you ignore my request(s)?
>>>>
>>>> Not directly working for a government doesn't mean you are not a shill.
>>>> It's all about spinning facts and discrediting evidence. Why a person
>>>
>>> You've not offered any evidence. There is no way for Tony, or
>>> anyone else, to spin or discredit evidence that has never been
>>> presented.
>>>
>>>> does this can be for a wide variety of reasons. In fact government make
>>>> an effort NOT to have their employees shill on the internet or elsewhere
>>>> because when they have done this they got caught and there was an uproar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So then you lied. Again.
>>> Got it.
>>> FYI: The whole "shill" title is a joke. No, it's not knee
>>> slapping funny, but I would hope you would understand it's not
>>> intended to be taken seriously.
>>>
>>>> I know, I know, you never heard of that happening.
>>>
>>> I can't comment on what Tony may or may not have heard, but I've
>>> *heard* that various government employees have been caught doing
>>> things on-line that they should not while "on the clock."
>>> But you make it clear above that your claim was and is a lie, so
>>> it's not all that relevant.
>>>
>>>> And why don't I
>>>> provide you with chapter and verse of the "evidence" so you can debunk it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If your claim is true, you will provide evidence that anyone with
>>> an interest may verify. If you're lying, you'll offer only avoidance,
>>> if you offer anything at all.
>>>
>>>> Sorry. I"m not looking for converts.
>>>
>>> You're lying. You want people to come to your way of thinking
>>> regarding contrails. This is why you posted the claim that they have
>>> been analyzed and found to not be water vapors.
>>> You didn't think ahead and realize that Tony and I would
>>> challenge your claim. Now you have to face the reality that your lie
>>> has been exposed.
>>>
>>>> I'm not preaching gospel. If you
>>>> want evidence it's out there. It's not hard to find. Pretending you need
>>>> help to find it is just not going to work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you lied. Got it.
>>>
>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>
>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>> has.
>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>> found to be insane.
>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>
>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>
> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
the right truth.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 05:02 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <vpeuab9rgrs2uvrqdja1tlv6hag8ogotfo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #549667 |
On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>
>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>> has.
>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>> found to be insane.
>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>
>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>
>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>the right truth.
HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
water vapors.
You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable
evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-01 18:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <nbl4oc-c5s.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #549674 |
In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > >>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a >>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your >>>>>> shortcomings, however. >>>>> >>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This >>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to >>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one >>>>> has. >>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, >>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been >>>>> found to be insane. >>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is >>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. >>>>> >>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. >>> >>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. >>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. >> >>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only >>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" >>the right truth. > > HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. > The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the > truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be > water vapors. Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel combustion products. > You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable > evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't. Verifiable with binoculars. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 03:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <ppt0bblbeamo6hutpb98q440onqgl7tqc8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #549749 |
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>>>> has.
>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>>>> found to be insane.
>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>>>
>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>>>the right truth.
>>
>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
>> water vapors.
>
>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel
>combustion products.
>
I await the evidence of the analysis for this.
In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will
constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage.
>> You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable
>> evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't.
>
>Verifiable with binoculars.
How would the use of binoculars prove contrails are actually
chemtrails? Sure, anyone using them would be able to see the contrails
more easily, but that's all.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 19:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <91b7oc-0n7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #549898 |
In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a >>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your >>>>>>>> shortcomings, however. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This >>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to >>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one >>>>>>> has. >>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, >>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been >>>>>>> found to be insane. >>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is >>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. >>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. >>>> >>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only >>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" >>>>the right truth. >>> >>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. >>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the >>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be >>> water vapors. >> >>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel >>combustion products. >> > > I await the evidence of the analysis for this. > In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will > constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage. Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products. I stated no percentage of content. Obviously water vapor is the major constituent as water vapor is also a major constituent of jet fuel combustion products. >>> You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable >>> evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't. >> >>Verifiable with binoculars. > > How would the use of binoculars prove contrails are actually > chemtrails? Sure, anyone using them would be able to see the contrails > more easily, but that's all. It becomes obvious where the trails are coming from, i.e. the engines. It is also obvious in air to air photographs. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 21:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <g0t2bbto5fhefuom1781edved02g6uma8q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #549992 |
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>>>>>> has.
>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>>>>>> found to be insane.
>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>>>>>
>>>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>>>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>>>>>the right truth.
>>>>
>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
>>>> water vapors.
>>>
>>>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel
>>>combustion products.
>>
>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this.
>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will
>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage.
>
>Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products.
>
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Or do you mean exhaust fumes? If so, my claim remains the same,
except that it will be exhaust rather than fuel.
BTW, I notice you didn't offer evidence of the analysis for your
claim.
>I stated no percentage of content.
>
I didn't claim you did.
>Obviously water vapor is the major constituent as water vapor is also
>a major constituent of jet fuel combustion products.
>
Water vapor is the bulk of contrails. Anything else will
constitute a very small percentage of the total. If it equals 5%, I
would be amazed.
>>>> You are, of course, still free to provide valid, verifiable
>>>> evidence for your claim. But you won't. You have none, so you can't.
>>>
>>>Verifiable with binoculars.
>>
>> How would the use of binoculars prove contrails are actually
>> chemtrails? Sure, anyone using them would be able to see the contrails
>> more easily, but that's all.
>
>It becomes obvious where the trails are coming from, i.e. the engines.
>
>It is also obvious in air to air photographs.
That doesn't answer the question I asked.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 03:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <um98oc-0qa.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #550109 |
In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a >>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your >>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This >>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to >>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one >>>>>>>>> has. >>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, >>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been >>>>>>>>> found to be insane. >>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is >>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. >>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. >>>>>> >>>>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only >>>>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" >>>>>>the right truth. >>>>> >>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. >>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the >>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be >>>>> water vapors. >>>> >>>>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel >>>>combustion products. >>> >>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this. >>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will >>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage. >> >>Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products. >> > > Six of one, half dozen of the other. Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things. > Or do you mean exhaust fumes? If so, my claim remains the same, > except that it will be exhaust rather than fuel. > BTW, I notice you didn't offer evidence of the analysis for your > claim. > >>I stated no percentage of content. >> > > I didn't claim you did. > >>Obviously water vapor is the major constituent as water vapor is also >>a major constituent of jet fuel combustion products. >> > > Water vapor is the bulk of contrails. Anything else will > constitute a very small percentage of the total. If it equals 5%, I > would be amazed. Read the sentence I wrote just above yours until comprehension sets in. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 04:32 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <vpl3bbhi7d78v3j9kf15hk5n5q2u2e8ur5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #550124 |
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>>>>>>>> has.
>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane.
>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>>>>>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>>>>>>>the right truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
>>>>>> water vapors.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel
>>>>>combustion products.
>>>>
>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this.
>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will
>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage.
>>>
>>>Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products.
>>
>> Six of one, half dozen of the other.
>
>Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are
>water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things.
>
Sigh.
My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very
small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails
chemtrails.
>> Or do you mean exhaust fumes? If so, my claim remains the same,
>> except that it will be exhaust rather than fuel.
>> BTW, I notice you didn't offer evidence of the analysis for your
>> claim.
>>
>>>I stated no percentage of content.
>>
>> I didn't claim you did.
>>
>>>Obviously water vapor is the major constituent as water vapor is also
>>>a major constituent of jet fuel combustion products.
>>
>> Water vapor is the bulk of contrails. Anything else will
>> constitute a very small percentage of the total. If it equals 5%, I
>> would be amazed.
>
>Read the sentence I wrote just above yours until comprehension sets in.
I clearly comprehend. That I would be surprised if anything other
than water composed 5% of the total doesn't mean I do not.
I'm still waiting for the analysis you use to support your
initial claim.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 18:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <7gu9oc-7rg.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #550175 |
In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a >>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your >>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This >>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to >>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one >>>>>>>>>>> has. >>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, >>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been >>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane. >>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is >>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. >>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only >>>>>>>>thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" >>>>>>>>the right truth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. >>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the >>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be >>>>>>> water vapors. >>>>>> >>>>>>Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel >>>>>>combustion products. >>>>> >>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this. >>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will >>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage. >>>> >>>>Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products. >>> >>> Six of one, half dozen of the other. >> >>Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are >>water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things. >> > > Sigh. > My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very > small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails > chemtrails. That water vapor is the major constituent of contrails is blazingly obvious to anyone that actually knows anything about them. Chemtrails is a kook term. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 14:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <E_ssy.302238$Eo2.203864@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #550269 |
On 02/03/2016 01:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>>>>>>>>>> has.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>>>>>>>>> thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>>>>>>>>> the right truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
>>>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
>>>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
>>>>>>>> water vapors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel
>>>>>>> combustion products.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this.
>>>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will
>>>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products.
>>>>
>>>> Six of one, half dozen of the other.
>>>
>>> Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are
>>> water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things.
>>>
>>
>> Sigh.
>> My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very
>> small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails
>> chemtrails.
>
> That water vapor is the major constituent of contrails is blazingly obvious
> to anyone that actually knows anything about them.
>
> Chemtrails is a kook term.
>
Used by the kooky people who have actually measured them.
DO NOT look into ANY "forbidden subject" or we all will call you a
"kook". Got it?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 15:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311c2a79980855a898c4cb@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #550288 |
In article <E_ssy.302238$Eo2.203864@fx19.iad>, none@gmail.com says... > > On 02/03/2016 01:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > >>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your > >>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This > >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to > >>>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one > >>>>>>>>>>>> has. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, > >>>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been > >>>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane. > >>>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is > >>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. > >>>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only > >>>>>>>>> thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" > >>>>>>>>> the right truth. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. > >>>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the > >>>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be > >>>>>>>> water vapors. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel > >>>>>>> combustion products. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this. > >>>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will > >>>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage. > >>>>> > >>>>> Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products. > >>>> > >>>> Six of one, half dozen of the other. > >>> > >>> Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are > >>> water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things. > >>> > >> > >> Sigh. > >> My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very > >> small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails > >> chemtrails. > > > > That water vapor is the major constituent of contrails is blazingly obvious > > to anyone that actually knows anything about them. > > > > Chemtrails is a kook term. > > > Used by the kooky people who have actually measured them. > > DO NOT look into ANY "forbidden subject" or we all will call you a > "kook". Got it? We call you a kOOk because you are a kOOk. It's that simple, nothing sinister about it. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 20:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <LExsy.214223$Jt4.47416@fx22.iad> |
| In reply to | #550303 |
On 02/03/2016 03:17 PM, BDK wrote:
> In article <E_ssy.302238$Eo2.203864@fx19.iad>, none@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On 02/03/2016 01:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only
>>>>>>>>>>> thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe"
>>>>>>>>>>> the right truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation.
>>>>>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the
>>>>>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be
>>>>>>>>>> water vapors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel
>>>>>>>>> combustion products.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this.
>>>>>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will
>>>>>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Six of one, half dozen of the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are
>>>>> water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sigh.
>>>> My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very
>>>> small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails
>>>> chemtrails.
>>>
>>> That water vapor is the major constituent of contrails is blazingly obvious
>>> to anyone that actually knows anything about them.
>>>
>>> Chemtrails is a kook term.
>>>
>> Used by the kooky people who have actually measured them.
>>
>> DO NOT look into ANY "forbidden subject" or we all will call you a
>> "kook". Got it?
>
> We call you a kOOk because you are a kOOk. It's that simple, nothing
> sinister about it.
Sure anonymous voice on the Internet? Why shouldn't everyone trust
whatever they say is true? Your Psychiatric credentials please!
Don't have any? Why am I not surprised.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 03:22 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <b456bbp5sj7kco2042h7a143pg1edfijng@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #550383 |
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 20:17:31 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>>> Sigh.
>>>>> My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very
>>>>> small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails
>>>>> chemtrails.
>>>>
>>>> That water vapor is the major constituent of contrails is blazingly obvious
>>>> to anyone that actually knows anything about them.
>>>>
>>>> Chemtrails is a kook term.
>>>>
>>> Used by the kooky people who have actually measured them.
>>>
>>> DO NOT look into ANY "forbidden subject" or we all will call you a
>>> "kook". Got it?
>>
>> We call you a kOOk because you are a kOOk. It's that simple, nothing
>> sinister about it.
>
>Sure anonymous voice on the Internet? Why shouldn't everyone trust
>whatever they say is true?
It appears no one is trusting what you say is true.
>Your Psychiatric credentials please!
>
One does not need a degree to see you're mentally ill.
>Don't have any? Why am I not surprised.
You're the one who makes claims without any evidence to support
it. When asked to provide valid, verifiable evidence, you admit your
claim was a lie.
Yours is not the behavior of the mentally sound.
--
Shill #3.
Strategic Writer, Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-04 12:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311d56f6226a730c98c4d4@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #550383 |
In article <LExsy.214223$Jt4.47416@fx22.iad>, none@gmail.com says... > > On 02/03/2016 03:17 PM, BDK wrote: > > In article <E_ssy.302238$Eo2.203864@fx19.iad>, none@gmail.com says... > >> > >> On 02/03/2016 01:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. > >>>>>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only > >>>>>>>>>>> thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" > >>>>>>>>>>> the right truth. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. > >>>>>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the > >>>>>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be > >>>>>>>>>> water vapors. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel > >>>>>>>>> combustion products. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this. > >>>>>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will > >>>>>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Six of one, half dozen of the other. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are > >>>>> water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sigh. > >>>> My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very > >>>> small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails > >>>> chemtrails. > >>> > >>> That water vapor is the major constituent of contrails is blazingly obvious > >>> to anyone that actually knows anything about them. > >>> > >>> Chemtrails is a kook term. > >>> > >> Used by the kooky people who have actually measured them. > >> > >> DO NOT look into ANY "forbidden subject" or we all will call you a > >> "kook". Got it? > > > > We call you a kOOk because you are a kOOk. It's that simple, nothing > > sinister about it. > > Sure anonymous voice on the Internet? Why shouldn't everyone trust > whatever they say is true? Your Psychiatric credentials please! > > Don't have any? Why am I not surprised. You don't need to be a shrink to see your kOOkiness. If you weren't one, you would post legitimate proof of your claims, and not dance away, as almost all you kOOks do. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 20:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <o64aoc-reh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #550288 |
In sci.physics benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/03/2016 01:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 03:45:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:01:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:39:19 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In sci.physics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 03:25:23 -0500, benj <none@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct, that you've been quite mild and have not called me a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kook or suggested I was insane. Others have made up for your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shortcomings, however. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've not seen anyone claim you've been adjudged insane. This >>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't to say no one has, of course. However, given that lying comes to >>>>>>>>>>>>> you as naturally as breathing, I'm willing to take the position no one >>>>>>>>>>>>> has. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your posts are consistent with someone who has a mental illness, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but this doesn't mean you've had a sanity hearing, let alone been >>>>>>>>>>>>> found to be insane. >>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's possible your paranoia about "Strategic Writers" is >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than an act you play out on Usenet. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yawn! Babbling nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is unfortunate that you see the truth as babbling nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>> It's not surprising, but it is unfortunate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HVAC has already told us that "truth" is anything he says and the only >>>>>>>>>> thing that is important is what you believe! I'm sure you both "believe" >>>>>>>>>> the right truth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HVAC isn't a part of this conversation. >>>>>>>>> The truth is the truth. It's not a matter of belief. And the >>>>>>>>> truth is, you lied about contrails being analyzed and found to not be >>>>>>>>> water vapors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, most contrails contain a significant amount of jet fuel >>>>>>>> combustion products. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I await the evidence of the analysis for this. >>>>>>> In reality, any jet fuel contained within a contrail will >>>>>>> constitute a tiny fraction of a percentage. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not jet fuel, jet fuel combustion products. >>>>> >>>>> Six of one, half dozen of the other. >>>> >>>> Nope, jet fuel is a heavy hydrocarbon, jet fuel combustion products are >>>> water vapor, COx, and NOx, and a few trace things. >>>> >>> >>> Sigh. >>> My point is that anything other than water vapor will make a very >>> small percentage of the total. Certainly not enough to call contrails >>> chemtrails. >> >> That water vapor is the major constituent of contrails is blazingly obvious >> to anyone that actually knows anything about them. >> >> Chemtrails is a kook term. >> > Used by the kooky people who have actually measured them. > > DO NOT look into ANY "forbidden subject" or we all will call you a > "kook". Got it? Yeah, you have no references. FYI, many decades ago I was involved in putting instruments in airplanes to measure air. Want to guess what they found in contrails? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 14:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Why Chemtrails? |
| Message-ID | <d8b5d448-9f84-4163-a8ad-8f8dfbeaa8d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #550313 |
chemtrails are the latter-day Roswell junq d'espace > FYI, many decades ago I was involved in putting instruments in airplanes > to measure air. > > Want to guess what they found in contrails? > > > -- > Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web