Jump to content

Department of Homeland Security to Deploy 'Safe Gas' At 120 Locations in NYC to Test Biological Weapon Attack Readiness


Spockydog
 Share

Recommended Posts

Next week, DHS officials will begin pumping a cocktail of chemicals they are calling 'safe gas' into dozens of locations in NYC.

The DHS says the non-toxic substances include salt, glycerol, maltodextrin, a fluorescent brightener, non-coding DNA oligos, amorphous silica among others.

Could be perfectly innocent, but given the USA's track record of conducting clandestine experiments on its own citizens, I'd be getting out of town for a bit.

 

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW here's a description of the secret gay Army gas test: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/fonsi_utd_cbt_-_db_ir_signed_-_1.pdf

If you are desperate to become gay -- straight ladies, this one's definitely gonna be for your overall benefit! -- this article tells you when and where you might get that sweet, sweet gay Army gas: https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/non-toxic-gas-will-be-dispersed-in-nyc-subways-this-month-101221

No guarantees, though, because the Army already tried to turn everyone gay back in 2016, and clearly that didn't pan out. 

Edited by Xray the Enforcer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this will be like the 7/7 attacks in London, when officials happened to be running a simulation exercise of terrorist attacks on Tube and train stations, while actual bombs were going off at the very same Tube and train stations.

Quote

 

It began when Peter Power, one time high ranking employee of Scotland Yard and member of its Anti-Terrorist Branch, reported in two major UK media outlets that his company Visor Consulting had on the morning of 7th of July been conducting 'crisis exercises' whose scenarios uncannily mirrored those of the actual attack.

In interviews on Radio 5 Live and ITV News, Power appeared to claim the exercises involved 'a thousand people' as well as a dedicated crisis team whose number was not specified. The consultant described the simulation of 'simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station' and 'bombs going off precisely at the railway stations' at which the actual bombings occurred.

 

Unbelievable as it might sound, this actually happened. 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

I can't wait for the secret army gas to turn every last person in NYC gay. 

There are chemicals that can actually alter to hormone equilibrium and make you to make 'weird things'. Some hypergolic fuels for example. Some compounds from the plastic industry and some medicines.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

I wonder if this will be like the 7/7 attacks in London, when they ran a simulation exercise of a terrorist attack on Tube and train stations, while actual bombs were going off at the very same Tube and train stations.

WTF?

and WTF at the experiment. Couldn't have they time it a little bit better. People are quite susceptible nowadays.

Edited by rotting sea cow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

WTF?

Oh yeah. And exactly the same thing happened on 9/11.

Pretty wild coincidences. No wonder a bunch of conspiracy theories sprung up.

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Oh yeah. And exactly the same thing happened on 9/11.

Pretty wild coincidences. No wonder a bunch of conspiracy theories sprung up.

 

JET FUEL DOESN’T MELT STEEL BEAMS!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

JET FUEL DOESN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS THAT WEREN'T HIT BY ANY PLANES, BUT STILL SOMEHOW MANAGED TO COLLAPSE INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT REGARDLESS*.

There, fixed that for you.

* This is in reference to WTC7, only the third steel-framed skyscraper in history to collapse due to fire. The other two were WTC1 and WTC2.

Most people have no idea that three towers came down that day.

 

 

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been done periodically.  I never hear any conclusions or results though.  I cannot imagine, considering how the pandemic has been handled, that if there really is a chemical gas attack on the City, these tracking experiments will be utilized by anybody for anything because that would take planning, information and competent teamwork, which as said, have appeared in extraordinarily short supply -- like testing, tracing for covid, etc. has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

7 WTC was hit by lots of debris and it was on fire to boot.

Plenty of skyscrapers have burned far longer and hotter than WTC7. None have ever collapsed into their own footprint like WTC7.

Throughout history, steel buildings that burn have tended to topple, not collapse into their own footprint. There's quite famous footage of a Dutch demolition expert viewing video of the freefall collapse of WTC7 with no context. You can clearly see the building collapsed from the bottom, not the top. He says, 'That's a controlled demolition, no?' 

Also, quite how the BBC managed to report WTC7's collapse before the building had actually collapsed is a bit of a mystery. A BBC reporter was interviewed live from NYC about the collapse. She said that the building had been weakened by debris and had subsequently collapsed. Only problem is, the building was visible, still standing, over her left shoulder as she gave her report. The BBC have never offered any explanation for this, and have since 'lost' all archive footage of these reports. They can still be viewed freely on the interwebz though.

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for how the BBC had foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC7. Any ideas, Scot?

I mean, if they'd reported that JFK had been shot, half an hour before JFK was shot, that would be troubling, no?

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

Plenty of skyscrapers have burned far longer and hotter than WTC7. None have ever collapsed into their own footprint like WTC7.

Throughout history, steel buildings that burn have tended to topple, not collapse into their own footprint. There's quite famous footage of a Dutch demolition expert viewing video of the freefall collapse of WTC7 with no context. You can clearly see the building collapsed from the bottom, not the top. He says, 'That's a controlled demolition, no?' 

Also, quite how the BBC managed to report WTC7's collapse before the building had actually collapsed is a bit of a mystery. A BBC reporter was interviewed live from NYC about the collapse. She said that the building had been weakened by debris and had subsequently collapsed. Only problem is, the building was visible, still standing, over her left shoulder as she gave her report. The BBC have never offered any explanation for this, and have since 'lost' all archive footage of these reports. They can still be viewed freely on the interwebz though.

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for how the BBC had foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC7. Any ideas, Scot?

Dude, it was a crazy day and I’m not buying into any conspiracy Kool aid.  7 WTC was severely damaged by the collapse of the other two big towers.  It wasn’t anything beyond that.  The damage coupled with unrestrained fires because getting fire equipment into the environs around the collapsed twin towers was near impossible makes 7 WTC collapse unremarkable in the context of that horrible day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the BBC's foreknowledge.....?

I repeat, if the BBC had reported that JFK had been shot, half an hour before JFK was shot, would you not find that strange at all?

Please, please, please, try and explain this with a theory that doesn't involve time travel.

 

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

And the BBC's foreknowledge.....?

I repeat, if the BBC had reported that JFK had been shot, half an hour before JFK was shot, would you not find that strange at all?

Please, please, please, try and explain this with a theory that doesn't involve time travel.

 

 

The reporter misspoke and reported a likely collapse as a collapse that had already happened.  9/11/2001 was crazy and reporters getting confused is completely unsurprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The reporter misspoke and reported a likely collapse as a collapse that had already happened.  9/11/2001 was crazy and reporters getting confused is completely unsurprising.

Lol. At least you tried. Though that's not how that report went down. At all. You obviously haven't watched it.

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...