Gov't shutdown and Chemtrails link???

Aloysius the Gaul

Mikeultra

You showed that Public law 105-85 Sec 1078 was repealed and replaced with 50 USC 1520a. Thanks for pointing that out. Did you you know that both of them are identical?
Public Law 105-85 Sec 1078
files.abovetopsecret.com...
50 USC 1520a
www.law.cornell.edu...

As Phage has pointed out - you are wrong.

both on the wording being the same, and on the NY Subway tests being a test of biological or chemical agents on human beings.

Again.
The wording is identical on both.
www.law.cornell.edu...
files.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Mikeultra

There was no testing of a biological or chemical agent on anyone in New York.
The effects of PFCs were not being tested, airflow patterns were being tested.
The law applies to the powers of the Secretary of Defense. The city of New York is not under the command of the Secretary of Defense.
The law does not apply to the testing in New York.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Still waiting for that proof that chemtrails are real. You've done a great job putting the cart before the horse, and pushing the cart really hard, but you've got a hell of a hill to climb and it would help a lot to have a horse.

Phage
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

There was no testing of a biological or chemical agent on anyone in New York.
The effects of PFCs were not being tested, airflow patterns were being tested.
The law applies to the powers of the Secretary of Defense. The city of New York is not under the command of the Secretary of Defense.
The law does not apply to the testing in New York.

I gave the air flow testing as an example that testing will be done without informed consent, just like chemical and biological testing by the feds is, regardless whether it's written on some paper in 50 USC 1520a.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

Still waiting for that proof that chemtrails are real. You've done a great job putting the cart before the horse, and pushing the cart really hard, but you've got a hell of a hill to climb and it would help a lot to have a horse.

Tell me what you know about it then.

reply to post by Mikeultra


I know that there is zero evidence that they are real, other than lies, misquotes, and people that don't know a 707 from a C-5, or how a plane flies, or anything else about them. Or about how weather works.

reply to post by Mikeultra

I gave the air flow testing as an example that testing will be done without informed consent

What does that have to do with evidence that "chemtrails" exist? Why did you even bring it up?
I mean, there were plenty of public announcements about the subway testing...

just like chemical and biological testing by the feds is

Do you have evidence of testing of chemicals and biological agents without consent? Sort of like your "chemtrail" evidence?

Phage
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

I gave the air flow testing as an example that testing will be done without informed consent

What does that have to do with evidence that "chemtrails" exist? Why did you even bring it up?
I mean, there were plenty of public announcements about the subway testing...

edit on 10/14/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Somebody was pointing out section C. Informed Consent in 50 USC 1520a like that proves that chemical or biological testing couldn't be done without the public's informed consent. That is not be realistic.

reply to post by Mikeultra

No. You brought the law up:

Hello,
I found something much, much, better for you to fret about. Forget about that You-tube video I just posted. Direct all your attention to:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you mistakenly claimed that it does not require consent.

reply to post by Phage


No, I have no evidence of that. It is interesting though that NYC wants to know how the air flows throughout the system. Being it was ground zero on 911.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Uh, probably because years ago someone released Sarin in subway tunnels in Japan. And in London they bombed subway tunnels. Not everywhere has subways, but don't you think that maybe the places that have them should maybe know what would happen if gas was released into the tunnels?

Phage
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

No. You brought the law up:

Hello,
I found something much, much, better for you to fret about. Forget about that You-tube video I just posted. Direct all your attention to:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you mistakenly claimed that it does not require consent.

edit on 10/14/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Because it's a public law. Public knowledge. The public could have knowledge if they were to read it. But who does that? So the government reverts back to implied consent because of the public's silence or lack of objection. "The law is published, the public should have read it, we're good to go!" ...the researchers.

reply to post by Mikeultra

The law requires that informed consent be obtained. The law does not say "If we don't tell them about it too bad for them because they didn't protest." If someone is subjected to such testing without consent, they would have full legal recourse.

I still don't understand your point or how it is smoking gun evidence that there are "chemtrails". Go sue the government with all your evidence of "chemtrails" if you think you have a case for illegal testing.

I still don't understand your point in your "finding" of the law (which, btw, has been discussed many times).

reply to post by Mikeultra


Why are you arguing this? Even if we pretend you're correct for a moment it would do nothing to prove "chemtrails".

reply to post by Mikeultra


They require consent to test biological materials on people. Releasing a marker into the subway system isn't a biological material, and doesn't require consent.

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

Why are you arguing this? Even if we pretend you're correct for a moment it would do nothing to prove "chemtrails".

Well like I said earlier, this is not a court of law. I don't have to prove anything. I guess what I have gathered would be only circumstantial evidence, not enough for a conviction in a courtroom. Don't you ever put things together and come to a conclusion? That's all I've done. I never set out to prove anything. Some people started demanding proof, and that led me astray trying to prove it. You are free to not believe, as I am to believe.

reply to post by Mikeultra


It's not even circumstantial for chemtrails. It has nothing to do with chemtrails.

reply to post by Mikeultra

Don't you ever put things together and come to a conclusion?

Sure but I wouldn't claim something is blue because "7".

Your conclusion is unrelated to your "evidence".

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

It's not even circumstantial for chemtrails. It has nothing to do with chemtrails.

It is for those who believe chem-trails or some other method of dispersal could be taking place.

reply to post by Mikeultra

I guess what I have gathered would be only circumstantial evidence, not enough for a conviction in a courtroom.

Didn't you use the term "smoking gun" in a courtroom context?

I found the smoking gun in all of this, and it's like the defense attorneys are doing all they can to avoid having to acknowledge what the document proves.

So, what does the document prove?

Some people started demanding proof, and that led me astray trying to prove it.

No. People are trying to lead you to the actual fact that there is no evidence that "chemtrails" are not normal contrails.