… there is so much wrong with this statement, even simply from the “research” only standpoint that you are taking, there’s no way you don’t see this no?
“Yeah so that thing conspiracy theories are claiming is happening, it’s not happening, but here’s an example where it did happen, and they didn’t tell us, but it’s just research, well more so a live experiment at that point, but still totally not happening and certainly not wide scale!”
“Are they conducting experiments? Yup. Are the hiding it to keep naysayers from knowing? Yup. Have they ever done this before, on a larger scale, or even just many times before which would result in large scale useage anyways? NOPE U STUPID QHEM-TARDS!”
I honestly don’t even care anymore about the chemtrail thing here, but just for the sake of obiding by your rules set out, I’ll lay it out one last time.
CHEMTRAILS - Is it a verified Q Research topic?
YUUP!
Did Q mention General Flynn 59 seperate times? YUP!
Did General Flynn Tweet out “FAIR WARNING” with a link to an Anon video which, in the first few seconds shows us a commercial style jet liner leaving a white trail of smoke
With the narrator explicitly stating “The NANOTECH is in everything…. Manipulated by 5G…. THEY SPRAY IT IN THE AIR!” …. YIP!
So by standards of this board, does this not mean something Flynn states can and should be debated researched and discussed?
Honestly I give no cares about the rule anymore like I said, never allow another chemtrail thread again for all I care.
It’s the attacking, insulting, degrading language used against the ones that do, and then you state as a FACT it can’t and isn’t happening. As the media does what they always do and mocks us with it right in your face with a sly wink “Yeah but we aren’t doing it! It’s just research!”
This doesn’t leave me feeling insulted or degraded though, it just leaves me with a feeling of something being “off”. To see such a nonchalant and insulting attitude to those of us on the board who have followed the topic passionately, before Q even, and consider it one of the TOP priorities for restoring any semblance of normalcy in this matrix.
This isn't about geoengineering. The point of me stickying this was to try and get someone to even define what they think is happening here.
those of us on the board who have followed the topic passionately
AWESOME, OK, I have someone. Let's FG.
First, can we even define what chemtrails even is? Who's doing it? Random Bill Gates projects with specialized planes with no passengers on board? We need someone to explain exactly the program results in six chemtrails over the houses of 200+ chemtards / day on five continents. I'm being dead serious. Explain this.
This is literally the "chemtrails" theory. Am I wrong? So why can't anyone explain this? I'm assured that the trails start and stop? If so, explain the mechanism that accomplishes this on commercial aircraft?
I worked at in airline for almost five years. Explain the logistics of this. A 737 lands in Calgary and goes directly to the gate. I'm an airport nerd, I'm sitting there for HOURS before my flight (it's not uncommon for me to sit for three or four hours just enjoying the activity). The aircraft ONLY gets refuelled, no other "below wing" activities happen other than a ground check and baggage being loaded. Where's the chemicals coming from all the time? Off the plane goes to Vancouver, and, along the way, it's making what you guys call "chemtrails". OK, FINE... How?
You say the poison is in the fuel. It's aluminum. Do you guys even know how jet engines work? Holy cow, aluminum in the fuel is not new. It makes aluminum oxide. Aluminum oxide is biologically non-toxic and inert. That's your poison? It's not highly reactive and doesn't easily decompose to release or otherwise bond with ambient harmful substances. That's chemistry talking. Basic research. Why am I getting looked at like I have two fucking heads, here?
Occam's Razor—which, BTW, isn't "the simplest explanation is true" it states that the explanation with the fewest UNSUPPORTED assumptions is true.
We don't need "people spotting" the differences in the skies. We need people learning how the new jet engines work and how incredibly more efficient they burn fuel. We need a reproduceable and rigorous scientific method to prove this and as usually that's nobody but me is saying this
… there is so much wrong with this statement, even simply from the “research” only standpoint that you are taking, there’s no way you don’t see this no?
“Yeah so that thing conspiracy theories are claiming is happening, it’s not happening, but here’s an example where it did happen, and they didn’t tell us, but it’s just research, well more so a live experiment at that point, but still totally not happening and certainly not wide scale!”
“Are they conducting experiments? Yup. Are the hiding it to keep naysayers from knowing? Yup. Have they ever done this before, on a larger scale, or even just many times before which would result in large scale useage anyways? NOPE U STUPID QHEM-TARDS!”
I honestly don’t even care anymore about the chemtrail thing here, but just for the sake of obiding by your rules set out, I’ll lay it out one last time.
CHEMTRAILS - Is it a verified Q Research topic?
YUUP!
Did Q mention General Flynn 59 seperate times? YUP!
Did General Flynn Tweet out “FAIR WARNING” with a link to an Anon video which, in the first few seconds shows us a commercial style jet liner leaving a white trail of smoke
With the narrator explicitly stating “The NANOTECH is in everything…. Manipulated by 5G…. THEY SPRAY IT IN THE AIR!” …. YIP!
https://greatawakening.win/p/16an0knRg7/gen-flynn--fair-warning---anythi/c/
So by standards of this board, does this not mean something Flynn states can and should be debated researched and discussed?
Honestly I give no cares about the rule anymore like I said, never allow another chemtrail thread again for all I care.
It’s the attacking, insulting, degrading language used against the ones that do, and then you state as a FACT it can’t and isn’t happening. As the media does what they always do and mocks us with it right in your face with a sly wink “Yeah but we aren’t doing it! It’s just research!”
This doesn’t leave me feeling insulted or degraded though, it just leaves me with a feeling of something being “off”. To see such a nonchalant and insulting attitude to those of us on the board who have followed the topic passionately, before Q even, and consider it one of the TOP priorities for restoring any semblance of normalcy in this matrix.
QHEM-TARDS UNITE!
Plz don’t ban me Mr. Sir.. /end rant
Thank you. You said it better than I ever could.
This isn't about geoengineering. The point of me stickying this was to try and get someone to even define what they think is happening here.
AWESOME, OK, I have someone. Let's FG.
First, can we even define what chemtrails even is? Who's doing it? Random Bill Gates projects with specialized planes with no passengers on board? We need someone to explain exactly the program results in six chemtrails over the houses of 200+ chemtards / day on five continents. I'm being dead serious. Explain this.
This is literally the "chemtrails" theory. Am I wrong? So why can't anyone explain this? I'm assured that the trails start and stop? If so, explain the mechanism that accomplishes this on commercial aircraft?
I worked at in airline for almost five years. Explain the logistics of this. A 737 lands in Calgary and goes directly to the gate. I'm an airport nerd, I'm sitting there for HOURS before my flight (it's not uncommon for me to sit for three or four hours just enjoying the activity). The aircraft ONLY gets refuelled, no other "below wing" activities happen other than a ground check and baggage being loaded. Where's the chemicals coming from all the time? Off the plane goes to Vancouver, and, along the way, it's making what you guys call "chemtrails". OK, FINE... How?
You say the poison is in the fuel. It's aluminum. Do you guys even know how jet engines work? Holy cow, aluminum in the fuel is not new. It makes aluminum oxide. Aluminum oxide is biologically non-toxic and inert. That's your poison? It's not highly reactive and doesn't easily decompose to release or otherwise bond with ambient harmful substances. That's chemistry talking. Basic research. Why am I getting looked at like I have two fucking heads, here?
Occam's Razor—which, BTW, isn't "the simplest explanation is true" it states that the explanation with the fewest UNSUPPORTED assumptions is true.
We don't need "people spotting" the differences in the skies. We need people learning how the new jet engines work and how incredibly more efficient they burn fuel. We need a reproduceable and rigorous scientific method to prove this and as usually that's nobody but me is saying this