I want to be buried beneath an oak sapling. After I'm dead, of course. I have one already pre-prepared by my brother. He's a professional astrologer...
Now that made be chuckle. In all seriousness I have already donated my body to the local medical school. They emailed and said that at the time as I live close they will come to collect me. I emailed back and told them I was fine as I live on the bus route but I might need some help getting off. They appear quite insistent on the issue.
I know this is old, but id like to add that it is rather rare for a diversified company to own their own injection molding factory. Many(most) companies which sell or produce products such as these will draw the item up via a free lance or on staff mechanical engineer, do a few expensive low number prototype runs for testing and quality checks, then pay a company that does nothing but run injection molding machines to produce several tens of thousands of units. the more units, the cheaper. vastly so. 5 prototypes may cost the same as 300 units the whole cost, minus electricity and plastic pellets, which are both cheap, is producing the mold and getting your mold in que behind other customer's orders. nothing about this is weird at all. to think it is only shows just how separate you are from manufacturing and where the goods you use in your everyday life come from. the little plastic tray that your cookies come sitting in all wrapped up inside plastic wrap, it is made the same way, designed the same way, purchased the same way, and stored the same way stacked and upside down, but inside of a warehouse. My father is a prototyping mechanical engineer for a company which produces high end treadmills and i witnessed this process countless times. His company happened to be lucky, the injection company they used was not too far away from their factory so i got see it a couple times. So i am actually kind of surprised they didnt have a field with 5 million of these in it to be honest. thats the whole reason the 3d printing industry is in a boom....
You must have made them nervous. "Modern Man" denies the Earth, even in death. Pathetic. He dies in denial. I would rather honor it, returning myself to its eternal nutrient flow. Caesar's dying breath, and all that...
The main problem with this "debunk" is if you put an air tight container under ground and water rises from under it, IT WILL FLOAT, and it will come out of the ground. ANyone with a general knowledge of physics know this. It has happened before.
Coffins are often pulled up in floods and float away. I believe the construction in many coffins leaves pockets of air and so they float. They could also just be sealed well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/coffin-floats-away-_n_1173174.html
Then why is a coffin container necessary, oh because waters rise in some instances? Not debunked, do you have such blind faith in US government? IF you think they wouldn't kill any of their citizens to put a dollar in their pocket, i am afraid you will find yourself in one of these plastic coffins.
So you think there is no such thing as plastic grave liners? Go to your local funeral home and ask them if you can order one up.
So the government, according to this theory is, smart enough to plan and carry out secret murders that would need to involves 'disappearances' yet they are not smart enough to pick a place to bury the victims where it wont flood? Or just save the money all together and use mass graves.
During my research of this and other theories pertaining to FEMA, martial law, etc. I came across this site. I know I'm a little late here but better late than never. I do believe that in the not so distant future, the government is going to launch some form of massive attack on the people. I also believe that as a result of this attack, there will be massive numbers of dead involved. However, I don't believe that they are stockpiling these plastic "coffins" or "liners" in response to the anticipated number of dead. I might have entertained this theory if I didn't know the government. It would be hard to imagine them spending that kind of money on anything that didn't profit them directly. As a few have already stated, it would be way cheaper and easier just to pile us up and burn us. Think of the time, effort and cost that would be required to contain and bury every casualty from say a biological attack for example. The number of dead would be insurmountable. Consider this... you can't hardly get any help from them now to bury the average number of people when they die, what makes you think they are going to care when millions are dead?
What purpose would a massive attack on the people serve? Even in the most pessimistic view, the people are the government's tax base. Do you mean an attack involving troops and bombs and bullets and destruction to property, or a 'soft kill' approach as in bio-warfare? What has led you to believe this?
Well Pete, what purpose do nuclear weapons serve? In the event that the nukes are launched, there would be no winners but yet they are still loaded and ready to go. They are there as a demonstration of power and control. That's what it all boils down to isn't it? Power and control. Yes the people are the government's tax base true enough but that's assuming that all people are actively contributing tax paying citizens. Unfortunately that isn't the case. You have the very young, the very old and all those in between that sit on their butts doing nothing collecting welfare. It is only a matter of time before the decision is made to thin the herd. If you think the government wouldn't try to eradicate these "drags on the economy", think again. What use are people that take more than they give? As to the type of attack, I think it will begin at the biological level. Then I think troops and guns will be involved. All the government needs is a pandemic to initiate martial law. What would be an easier way to start a pandemic than through the use of vaccines and who are the main target groups of these vaccines? The very old and the very young. Now I'm sure you are saying to yourself that this would affect everyone that gets the vaccine, not just the young and the old and you would be right. There will be those that don't fall into the "drag" category that will die as a result. These people will be considered "acceptable losses". You can bet that those who are considered useful won't be included in this. Now to address your question as to what has led me to believe this. Anyone with a mind to think and open eyes can see the gross misuse of power that occurs on a daily basis. Slowly but surely our rights are being taken away until one day we will be totally defenseless. It all comes back to power and control. To take a few lines from the Megadeth song Symphony of Destruction..."You take a mortal man and put him in control. Watch him become a god, watch people's heads roll. Just like the Pied Piper led rats through the streets. We dance like marionettes, swaying to the Symphony Of Destruction".
The very young are the workers of tomorrow. Do you have any evidence for this 'thinning the herd'? It would seem the easiest way would be to convince some folks to ignore getting vaccinations and to doubt modern medicine, that way you 'thin the herd' by allowing folks to choose to be thinned. Since everything I see from 'government' is running contrary to that, I think that there is NO evidence.
I don't quite see how misuse of power logically leads you to the conclusion they are planning to exterminate a large portion of the citizens. What it does make me think is that is what you would want do if you were in power, and that's why it seems a logical conclusion to you.
"What it does make me think is that is what you would want do if you were in power, and that's why it seems a logical conclusion to you." Nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe in the people and the rights and freedoms that two of my sons joined the USMC to uphold and defend. I realize that I have made some pretty bold statements and they may seem insignificant coming from an average Joe such as myself but what if you heard it directly from the horses' mouth? “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN. “Advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” - The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz “The elderly are useless eaters” -Dr. Henry Kissinger “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” -Bill Gates “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” -David Rockefeller These are quotes from some of the most influential people in the world. Still think the powers that be have your best interests at heart?
"There are none so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see." Matthew Henry
Let's look at those 'quotes' The first one. was taken out of context http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Can you find evidence of the Kissinger quote, and it's context? What is wrong with Bill Gates quote? Or do you feel that more population is better for the world, the environment and even for people? The David Rockefeller quote was misquoted and It was debunked here. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...risis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-nwo.174
The Kissenger quote is derived from a book written in 1976 entitled "The End of Days" by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Unfortunately, I was unable to pull up the full version of this book without paying for it so the complete context of the quote is unknown but I can't really see where saying "The elderly are useless eaters" would be acceptable in any context. Also, judging from other comments he has made such as “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns" and “World population needs to be reduced by 50%”, it's clear that he is a real humanitarian. In regard to the Bill Gates quote, I suppose there is nothing wrong with what he said if you don't care about your family. It's good to know that there are people out there such as yourself that would be willing to sacrifice their loved ones and friends because it is "better for the world." The link that you provided, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...risis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-nwo.174, claiming to have debunked the Rockefeller quote does nothing of the sort. That thread is about debunking gurus. "Thought would destroy their paradise. Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise".- Thomas Gray
You seriously think Bill Gates is advocating killing off members of your family, rather than reducing population growth which will reduce pressures on your family? How is it sacrificing any loved ones simply not to over-breed? I don't think anyone is under any delusions Henry Kissinger is a great humanitarian. Him having the opinions he does, does not equate a government plan to kill you.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...sis-and-the-nations-will-accept-the-nwo.1741/ Is the correct link. Don't you find it odd that no one has included the context of that quote? I do and you should also. For all we know he was quoting someone else, or making a tasteless joke. I believe you will find that many of those other quotes were taken out context. To me, any quote where the context is not revealed is suspect. One needs to see the reference. What was in the book was this "Military men are 'dumb, stupid animals to be used' as pawns for foreign policy." The part in quotes is what he said, the rest was added by others. I bet the other quote is also not direct. http://akio.tumblr.com/post/15761244430/internet-meme-falsified-quote-military-men-are-just How is the Gate's quote sacrificing anyone's family? Vaccines save lives, so does allowing women to choose the number of children they want and can afford.
How many children qualify one to be over breeding and who determines this number? What number of children exactly should we be allowed to have?
I don't see anyone in a Western country telling women how many children they can have. A woman or family should be able to decide that on their own. China did and India is pushing women to limit families. In most of the world the average family size is going down, for several reason. The availability of birth control is one, the reduction of diseases that allow more children to survive is another, the change from children as a labor force is another. In Nigeria, some 20 years ago, women wanted 10 children, they have went back and asked their daughters the same question and they want 4 children. When asked why, they said that that was the most that they could afford to feed, clothe and send to school. The more educated women are, the less children they want. That has been true through history. I believe it was Aristotle that complained that the slaves of Greece were out producing the free citizens of Greece. Do you like to see children starving to death? Dying of preventable disease? Women treated like a broodmare?
There is a direct relationship between number of children and health and life-expectancy and poverty. Change the health of the environment (vaccines, poverty reduction) and people don't breed to excess out of desperation.
It's my opinion. http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn126manupured http://www.fpi.org.nz/about_us/the_issues/poverty_and_population_growth http://rprogress.org/training_manual/20-PopulationPoverty.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12262264 http://www.unep.org/training/progra...upplemental/Poverty_and_Population_Growth.pdf
Around the world, better education for women=less children http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2105295.html http://www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/HumanPopulation/Women.aspx http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm http://globaleduc.wordpress.com/201...h-korean-is-higher-education-really-to-blame/ http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/225.html
I am not convinced by this debunking, tho it is very interesting. There are far too many coffin liners to believe the explanation. 100,000 containers to that only fit a low probability situation of death is far too many. However this goes a long way from proving they are for mass sacrifice, there are still many questions that have no answer. I would like to commend mick on the thouroughness of the original post, his skepticism always effectively narrows the argument to logical terms instead of illogical theory. Tho its not proven they are for death camps, the evidence mick has provided definitively suggests they are used for something aside from the stated purpose, tho I know that was opposite of his intentions, lol. The supply greatly exceeds the demand, this deserves to be investigated specifically because the explanation is insufficient
Around 2.5 million people die each year in the US, that's plenty of demand for coffin liners. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=us+deaths+per+year&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
mick posted earlier abt 900,000 people are buried every year. that seems high but I trust micks reporting. How many of those are adults that need a specific style of waterproof/airtight containers? this seems like an extremely specific burial style to keep two facilities stocked at above capacity for. Even for 'pre death' orders this seems extraordinarily high.
Apparently in many states it is a legal requirement for some burial plots ( or at least a contractual requirement by the cemetary). I would think stockpiling makes good fiscal sense. A massive production run will make more money over time once you account for inflation. I am certain also that the government has had contingency plans for massed casualties since the Influenza epidemic 1918 but it makes one wonder why move from mass graves to individual burials. Guess they must be more caring now
I can see both those arguments, but i am still skeptical. Seems excessive as a business model. The fact that they can be used in pandemic situations, but as an unstated usage, is also disturbing to me. there are many questions. Why not disclose a second facility initially to curtail inquiry? why mass move the containers after an investigation? are there any container sales reports that justfy sch a bulk buy, besides death figures?
It's far more economical to set up the machines to do big than than lots of small runs. I used to work at a plastics moulding company and we would always try and put orders for the same product into one large batch rather than produce them individually
Do you have any evidence to support any of your claims? 100,000 liners. I've only seen evidence for 50,000. As mentioned elsewhere on this thread FEMA will not use these vaults for mass casualties. Bodybags are more efficient.
900,000, by your research. Im sensing a pattern in debunking methods here, focusing on a single aspect of a single aspect, and by comparison implying debunk of the entire concept. This is not a complete strategy, though an important component of one. a grouping of ideas possibly could be addressed, in order to add validty and credibtlity to some aspects of investigation, while eliminating others. Both are very important however, in a broader sense. I am researching sales numbers now mick, because the amt buried obviously is insufficient to gauge scale.
