Heavy/Primary Water

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:12 pm

Posted by csp on 06/25/2015
I saw here recently the video with Mike DeGruy and the amazing ocean in the ocean and started digging around trying to find some connections and more information.

I did find a few more videos:

and this one here:
oceantoday.noaa.gov/lakesinanocean/

Some basic info on what they tell us about brine pool/lakes:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine_pool
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine_lake

And Brine ponds which I'm sure we have all seen:
www.google.com.au/search?q=brine+pond&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X

Obviously they keep claiming it's just high salinity or 'brine' - but if that were the case, could we not keep adding salt to water to achieve the same effect in an aquarium? I've personally ran across a salt production 'brind pond' and while it does have more buoyancy, it certainly doesn't stop you splashing it and breaking its surface tension (much like the Dead Sea).

How much salt/salinty would you need to stop the weight of the submersible Mike DeGruy (or the crew in the other video) were in?

So lets look at heavy water instead, as I think it explains what we are seeing and takes us down a deep rabbit whole too

:
en.wikipedia.org/?title=Heavy_water
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium

"Physical properties to distinguish water from heavy water: Heavy water is 10.6% denser than ordinary water."

Now if we read the wikipedia page, we also have use in:
a) Nuclear power plants
b) Atomic bombs

And if we look at the other thread regarding the authenticity of atomic bombs, we can quite clearly see faked footage. So if atomic bombs are fake, and you need heavy water to make an atomic bomb, what sort of conclusion can we come to? Perhaps that the powers to be do not want anyone outside the regulated industries to get their hands on heavy water?

They also say Hitler was trying to get his hands on heavy water for atomic uses as well, perhaps another reason?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3216_hydro.html

Now, this one was interesting because I recently learned about Tritium by watching a video from Dr Judy Wood regarding 9/11, and tritium was one of her listed anomalies. And it just so happens, Heavy Water can produce tritium:

Tritium production
Tritium is the active substance in self-powered lighting and controlled nuclear fusion, its other uses including autoradiography and radioactive labeling. It is also used in nuclear weapon design for boosted fission weapons and initiators. Some tritium is created in heavy water moderated reactors when deuterium captures a neutron. This reaction has a small cross-section (probability of a single neutron-capture event) and produces only small amounts of tritium, although enough to justify cleaning tritium from the moderator every few years to reduce the environmental risk of tritium escape.

Producing a lot of tritium in this way would require reactors with very high neutron fluxes, or with a very high proportion of heavy water to nuclear fuel and very low neutron absorption by other reactor material. The tritium would then have to be recovered by isotope separation from a much larger quantity of deuterium, unlike production from lithium-6 (the present method), where only chemical separation is needed.

And now this was interesting too:

According to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research report in 1996 about the U.S. Department of Energy, only 225 kg (496 lb) of tritium has been produced in the United States since 1955. Since it continually decays into helium-3, the total amount remaining was about 75 kg (165 lb) at the time of the report.

If anyone has seen Dr Judy Wood's videos regarding 9/11, she shows the dust cloud from the collapsing towers rising upwards and never moving too far outwards (I suggest watching the video). So if tritium was present (which she showed it was), it would have been decaying into helium-3, which we all know helium is very light, pop it in a balloon and it rises. Could this have been the reason why the dust was rising?

Now helium-3 is not your normal helium, I'm not going to go on quoting more wikipedia entries, but I suggest taking a read, especially the areas relating to "Terrestrial abundance" and "primordial substance":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Now on to another use for heavy water, these experiments/facilities:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Neutrino_Observatory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNO%2B
www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/sno2.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNOLAB
www.snolab.ca/
www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sudbury/sno3.html

These are interesting places:

Heavy/Primary Water 2

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), shown in the artist's conception above, was built 6,800 feet underground in a working nickel mine in Ontario, Canada. The detector is immersed in light (normal) water within a 10-story-high barrel-shaped rock cavity. Located in the deepest part of the mine, the overburden of rock shields the detector from cosmic rays.

SNO can be thought of as a type of telescope, though it bears little resemblance to the image most of us associate with that word. It consists of an 18-meter-wide stainless steel geodesic sphere inside of which is an acrylic vessel filled with 1,000 tons of heavy water (deuterium oxide). Honeycombing the sphere are 9,522 ultra-sensitive light-sensors called photomultiplier tubes. When neutrinos passing through the heavy water interact with deuterium nuclei, faint flashes of light, called Cerenkov radiation, are emitted. The photomultiplier tubes detect these light flashes and convert them into electronic signals that scientists can analyze.

Note the "9,522" light sensors, this is interesting because of biblical references to 10,000 stars and the fact the human eye can see ~10,000 stars in total, only the "super NASA telescopes" get to see all the extra stuff we ordinary people cant

e.g:

www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/how-many-stars-night-sky-09172014/
earthsky.org/space/how-many-stars-could-you-see-on-a-clear-moonless-night
www.alcyone.de/brightest_stars.html
tdc-www.harvard.edu/catalogs/bsc5.html

Some speculation:

* Seems to be a big correlation between heavy water/tritium and energy production?
* Could the biblical accounts be correct, there are only 10,000 stars?
* Could nuclear plants actually be getting most of their energy from the heavy water reaction? rather than the "nuclear fuel"?
* The atomic bomb was meant to be the heavy water/tritium bomb, but they failed and faked it?
* Perhaps such such a technology was used on 9/11, and Dr Judy Wood is not far off the mark?
* Biblical/Alchemy connection, Deuterium, Tritium.. Deuteronomy, Trinity? Perhaps the original "bible" once was the book of complete "science", the Astronomy chapters of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch show this too.
* Could the SNO/neutrino observatories be capturing the star light and watching its reaction with the heavy water? splitting it into the separate sensors?

So there we go - I know it's not really related to flat earth, but personally I had never heard of tritium until a couple of weeks ago, and heavy water until tonight when I tried to find an explanation for Mike DeGruy's experience with the underwater ocean.

I'll leave it here, but very interested to see what other people think!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:15 pm

Posted by csp on 06/25/2015
Just found this:

I would hazard to guess this is only really the "allied" side of the story, however it does illuminate the fact that it's not very well know.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:16 pm

Posted by lizardking on 06/26/2015
Very good post, thanks.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:16 pm

Wow, great comment.

You have done a lot of very interesting research, and I agree with your conclusions.

It would definitely make sense for them to try and hide this 'Heavy Water' from us, especially if it did have energy producing qualities. By using the Nuclear Fraud to keep it from us, they stop us from understanding and making use of it.

It does seem very possible to me that it is used to create the 'Nuclear' energy, and that it was used on 9/11. It is especially interesting that it involves the same substance that Judy Wood has proven was found at the site.

I also agree that it seems very likely that we only have the 10,000 stars that can be seen by the human eye, and that special telescope that you mentioned did seem to prove the Bible right on that issue.

Despite the fact that much of the Bible is nonsense, it definitely does contain a lot of good information, because it took from so many ancient parables/sources.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:16 pm

Posted by schpankme on 06/26/2015
Jun 25, 2015 13:07:14 GMT csp said:

Now helium-3 is not your normal helium
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

From wiki

"Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron" = Science Fiction

"[Helium-3 ] is rare on Earth" = where else is it found on one of the Planets? = Science Fiction

"The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon" = Science Fiction

"(embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years)" = Big Bang Bullshit = Science Fiction

"Its hypothetical existence was first proposed in 1934 by the Australian nuclear physicist Mark Oliphant while he was working at the University of Cambridge Cavendish Laboratory."
"Oliphant had performed experiments in which fast deuterons collided with deuteron targets"

Say it with me = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 was taken from the terrestrial atmosphere and from natural gas wells." = Selling other Planets = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 occurs as a primordial nuclide, escaping from the Earth's crust into the atmosphere and into Outer Space" = Big Bang Bullshit = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 is also thought to be a natural nucleogenic and cosmogenic nuclide, one produced when lithium is bombarded by natural neutrons." = Theory = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 found in the terrestrial atmosphere is also a relic of atmospheric and underwater nuclear weapons testing = Theory = Science Fiction = Hoax

"Helium-3 have been deliberately produced in nuclear reactors .. used to "boost" nuclear weapons" = Theory = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 is proposed as a second-generation fuel for nuclear fusion in hypothetical fusion power plants = Theory = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 can be used in instruments for the detection of free neutrons, leaking from nuclear reactors." = Theory = Science Fiction

Beam me up Scotty!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:17 pm

Posted by csp on 06/26/2015
Jun 25, 2015 16:31:09 GMT schpankme said:
Jun 25, 2015 13:07:14 GMT csp said:
Now helium-3 is not your normal helium
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

From wiki

"Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron" = Science Fiction

"[Helium-3 ] is rare on Earth" = where else is it found on one of the Planets? = Science Fiction

"The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon" = Science Fiction

"(embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years)" = Big Bang Bullshit = Science Fiction

"Its hypothetical existence was first proposed in 1934 by the Australian nuclear physicist Mark Oliphant while he was working at the University of Cambridge Cavendish Laboratory."
"Oliphant had performed experiments in which fast deuterons collided with deuteron targets"

Say it with me = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 was taken from the terrestrial atmosphere and from natural gas wells." = Selling other Planets = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 occurs as a primordial nuclide, escaping from the Earth's crust into the atmosphere and into Outer Space" = Big Bang Bullshit = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 is also thought to be a natural nucleogenic and cosmogenic nuclide, one produced when lithium is bombarded by natural neutrons." = Theory = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 found in the terrestrial atmosphere is also a relic of atmospheric and underwater nuclear weapons testing = Theory = Science Fiction = Hoax

"Helium-3 have been deliberately produced in nuclear reactors .. used to "boost" nuclear weapons" = Theory = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 is proposed as a second-generation fuel for nuclear fusion in hypothetical fusion power plants = Theory = Science Fiction

"Helium-3 can be used in instruments for the detection of free neutrons, leaking from nuclear reactors." = Theory = Science Fiction

Beam me up Scotty!

Great dissection!

The current theory floating around in my mind is that it's just naturally forming helium from the ocean floor/under earths crust (perhaps a naturally occuring reaction with heavy water in the depths?), floating up and heading towards the "firmament" or into the sky if you wish (but not into "Outer Space" as they say). Then instead of it being "embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years" it just keeps on floating up there and being pushed around by the winds - all speculation of course, but I'll keep digging around to see what I can find.

They also say they "deliberately produce it in nuclear reactors", but as per my speculation - it's most likely just a bi-product from the decaying tritium produced from the heavy water reaction. Maybe they are just throwing uranium in the mix to scare people away from studying the actual science behind these reactors?

Also I find it quite amusing that they state this "helium-3" can just "float into outer space", why does our atmosphere not just float into outer space too? Why can't they just float a "shuttle" up with some big helium balloons instead of using their big fake rockets? So many contradictions in their science, it's laughable.

Either way, I still think the tritium connection is the most interesting due to Radioluminescence:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioluminescence

We can observe this too (tritium vials, watch faces, etc), so light + tritium = enough energy to produce the glowing green light we see.
Even the SNO experiments linked above indicate this "When neutrinos passing through the heavy water interact with deuterium nuclei, faint flashes of light, called Cerenkov radiation, are emitted".

I'll try formulate something a little more complete when I find the time.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:17 pm

Posted by schpankme on 06/26/2015

Jun 26, 2015 1:49:06 GMT csp said:
Jun 25, 2015 16:31:09 GMT schpankme said:

"Helium-3 can be used in instruments for the detection of free neutrons, leaking from nuclear reactors." = Theory = Science Fiction

Even the SNO experiments linked above indicate this "When neutrinos passing through the heavy water interact with deuterium nuclei, faint flashes of light, called Cerenkov radiation, are emitted".

Neutrons, nutrinos, deuterium are all THEORY, make believe. = Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

"Deuterium was discovered and named in 1931 by Harold Urey, earning him a Nobel Prize in 1934. This was followed by
the discovery of the neutron in 1932, which made the nuclear structure of deuterium obvious. Soon after deuterium's
discovery, Urey and others produced samples of "heavy water" in which the deuterium had been highly concentrated."

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:18 pm

Posted by csp on 06/26/2015

Jun 26, 2015 3:12:33 GMT schpankme said:
Jun 26, 2015 1:49:06 GMT csp said:
Even the SNO experiments linked above indicate this "When neutrinos passing through the heavy water interact with deuterium nuclei, faint flashes of light, called Cerenkov radiation, are emitted".

Neutrons, nutrinos, deuterium are all THEORY, make believe. = Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

"Deuterium was discovered and named in 1931 by Harold Urey, earning him a Nobel Prize in 1934. This was followed by
the discovery of the neutron in 1932, which made the nuclear structure of deuterium obvious. Soon after deuterium's
discovery, Urey and others produced samples of "heavy water" in which the deuterium had been highly concentrated."

Most certainly, there is an obvious large fabrication of "science" on top of "heavy water" but I believe there is still something valid underneath it all - remembering what started my search here was the Mike DeGruy discovery of the underwater ocean, which appears to have completely different properties to "brine lakes" or "brine ponds"!

Peeling back the onion, layer by layer!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:19 pm

Posted by schpankme on 06/26/2015

Jun 26, 2015 3:24:01 GMT csp said:

there is an obvious large fabrication of "science"

my search here
was the Mike DeGruy discovery of the underwater ocean
which appears to have completely different properties to "brine lakes" or "brine ponds"!

How deep was Mike?
Have we seen "brine water" under compression?

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:20 pm

Posted by csp on 06/26/2015

Jun 26, 2015 3:57:47 GMT schpankme said:
Jun 26, 2015 3:24:01 GMT csp said:
there is an obvious large fabrication of "science"

my search here
was the Mike DeGruy discovery of the underwater ocean
which appears to have completely different properties to "brine lakes" or "brine ponds"!

How deep was Mike?
Have we seen "brine water" under compression?

Both good questions, in Mike DeGruys clip narrated by David Attenborough, David claims "half a mile down, bottom of gulf of mexico".

Here is the clip again:

And another clip from Mike himself:

David Attenboroguh claims they knew about these in the 1990's - and it looks like Mike is one of the few people to actually see them. Personally, Mike's enthusiam seems genuine to me.

In regards to "brine water under compression", it could well be the case.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:23 pm

Posted by schpankme on 06/26/2015
Jun 26, 2015 4:22:08 GMT csp said:
Mike DeGruys
David Attenborough, claims "half a mile down, bottom of gulf of mexico".

In regards to "brine water under compression", it could well be the case.

I think Mike reported what he saw, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm more interested in simple explanations
for the pool of water shown, one half mile deep, which looks to be denser than surrounding water.

Thx for the video reference.

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:24 pm

Posted by Observicus on 06/26/2015

Jun 26, 2015 3:24:01 GMT csp said:
Jun 26, 2015 3:12:33 GMT schpankme said:
Neutrons, nutrinos, deuterium are all THEORY, make believe. = Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

"Deuterium was discovered and named in 1931 by Harold Urey, earning him a Nobel Prize in 1934. This was followed by
the discovery of the neutron in 1932, which made the nuclear structure of deuterium obvious. Soon after deuterium's
discovery, Urey and others produced samples of "heavy water" in which the deuterium had been highly concentrated."

Most certainly, there is an obvious large fabrication of "science" on top of "heavy water" but I believe there is still something valid underneath it all - remembering what started my search here was the Mike DeGruy discovery of the underwater ocean, which appears to have completely different properties to "brine lakes" or "brine ponds"!

Peeling back the onion, layer by layer!

Nice comprehensive research Csp, in fishing for clues, some peripherals here to throw in the mix;

If the substance at sea bed was being formed there, wouldn't you expect a transitional layer?
The separation is quite distinct.

From Schpankme's Duetrium reference:

Ur
n an ancient city of Sumer located on a former channel of the Euphrates
ur-
combining form a variant of uro-1 and uro-2 before a vowel
Ur-
combining form original, primitive
Ursprache
(German)

Harold Urey

Urea - a white water-soluble crystalline compound with a saline taste and often an odour of ammonia, produced by protein metabolism and excreted in urine.
A synthetic form is used as a fertilizer, animal feed, and in the manufacture of synthetic resins. Formula: CO(NH2)2.
(Also called) carbamide.

Deuteron - ,deuto- , (before a vowel) deuter-, deut- combining form
1. second or secondary
deuterogamy, deuterium

Deus (Latin)
n God
(related to Greek Zeus)

Another (deuteron) god particle?

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:25 pm

Posted by csp on 06/27/2015

Jun 26, 2015 9:31:50 GMT Observicus said:
Jun 26, 2015 3:24:01 GMT csp said:
Most certainly, there is an obvious large fabrication of "science" on top of "heavy water" but I believe there is still something valid underneath it all - remembering what started my search here was the Mike DeGruy discovery of the underwater ocean, which appears to have completely different properties to "brine lakes" or "brine ponds"!

Peeling back the onion, layer by layer!

Nice comprehensive research Csp, in fishing for clues, some peripherals here to throw in the mix;

If the substance at sea bed was being formed there, wouldn't you expect a transitional layer?
The separation is quite distinct.

From Schpankme's Duetrium reference:

Ur
n an ancient city of Sumer located on a former channel of the Euphrates
ur-
combining form a variant of uro-1 and uro-2 before a vowel
Ur-
combining form original, primitive
Ursprache
(German)

Harold Urey

Urea - a white water-soluble crystalline compound with a saline taste and often an odour of ammonia, produced by protein metabolism and excreted in urine.
A synthetic form is used as a fertilizer, animal feed, and in the manufacture of synthetic resins. Formula: CO(NH2)2.
(Also called) carbamide.

Deuteron - ,deuto- , (before a vowel) deuter-, deut- combining form
1. second or secondary
deuterogamy, deuterium

Deus (Latin)
n God
(related to Greek Zeus)

Another (deuteron) god particle?

Thanks Observicus,

It does seem to have a "primordial" meaning in most context you see it in.

Note, these early German cars too, had some history in Germany:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Ursaab
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Quattro
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Ur-S4_/_Ur-S6

Yep, definitely deeply rooted in Germany:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur_(rune)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_Futhark

The reconstructed Proto-Germanic name of the Elder Futhark u rune ᚢ is *Ūruz meaning "wild ox"[1] or *Ūrą "water". It may have been derived from the Raetic alphabet character u as it is similar in both shape and sound value. The name of the corresponding letter in the Gothic alphabet is urus.

The Icelandic word for "rain" and the Old English for "aurochs" go back to two different Proto-Germanic words, *ūruz and *ūrą (although possibly from the same root).

Also scottish, with a meaning of land/clay, etc:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Ar

And the Basque, with a meaning of water, torrential river, torrent:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur_(root)

Being so rooted in language/linguistics/phonetics too, makes me always go back to Phoenicia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia

I'm formulating some other ideas too, I'll update the post tomorrow!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:26 pm

Posted by Observicus on 06/27/2015

Interesting learning, earth and water roots, thank you CSP. Yes it does seem like an ancient ‘sound’ and sits as the second Rune in Proto-Germanic,

Old English and Old Norse and while I have heard it in plenty of languages it seems to be nearly lost from modern English, that’s if the sound I am

using is correct. My reference is the word ‘sure’ when said the way the Omani’s say the town name of Sur.
And now you have me interested in learning about runes, but heck I must go back to study of the moon device because I don't know where I live yet!

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:26 pm

Posted by csp on 06/30/2015
After seeing the news paper thread (don't know how I missed that one), I found a few things relating to heavy water:

This one in particular is very interesting:
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/76988510

Why stuff doesn't grow under willow tree's:
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/41504391

Apparently not too good for consumption:
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/169394015

Also relating to Nazis trying to get it, and related to explosives, which Urey discounts:
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/46751984

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:27 pm

Posted by schpankme on 06/30/2015
Jun 29, 2015 15:41:14 GMT csp said:
After seeing the news paper thread (don't know how I missed that one), I found a few things relating to heavy water:

Apparently not too good for consumption:
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/169394015

Why stuff doesn't grow under willow tree's:
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/41504391

Apparently not too good for consumption

Daily Mercury, Monday 24 October 1938
"Heavy Water (heavy hydrogen)."
"Now that heavy water is cheaper, animals have been given it as their sole drink."
"They die within a week."
"Their eyes protrude, their hair stands on end, and they die' of "artificial fright."

Thats right ladies and gentlemen, Heavy Water will Scare you to Death.

Nothing grows under the "Weeping Willow Tree".

Cairns Post, Saturday 16 June 1934
"This mystery has puzzled the world for untold years. It is solved at last, says the London "Daily Express."
"When the ever-mourning tree weeps it sheds tears of "heavy water" - tears of death to everything on which they fall."

Heavy/Primary Water Willow-tree

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:27 pm

Posted by csp on 07/15/2015
Sorry schpankme, I didn't see your post til just now!

All that poor dead grass under the Willow Tree!

by truthplease Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:00 pm

Just learned about this stuff called primary water. Another way of enslaving us by not telling us about the replenishing water in "consolidated rock fissure waters". It is fascinating and been around for a long time. Been lying to us about the hydrological cycle as being the only source of water and this is what gives us rivers and perpetual waterfalls etc. This is bunk. There is a unique cycle beneath the earth that produces endless pure, pristine waters. This would be your springs etc. Read: New Water for a Thirsty World written in 1960 with a foreward from Aldous Huxley. Author is Michael Salzman. Also listen to interview with Dr. Stephan Riess on YouTube. He is an amazing man who knows all about this and has most of his life. He even had a primary water well at his house in dry California area to prove to all. He also drilled 72 wells around the world with 70 being successful. The flow rate on these is tremendous. Needless to say this info has been intentionally squelched. Surface water and aquifers are what we tap into now. There could be primary water wells around the world for everyone. Endless supply. There is already one in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Africa, etc. They were drilled decades ago. Everyone needs to learn about this because as they continue their nefarious agenda in California with drought, and try to take this who knows where, we can hopefully make enough fuss about primary water. Once again divide and conquer applies here. Hydrologists and geologists are kept apart. Of course many were bought off to keep the secret. I still have a lot to learn but this is another big piece of the grand scheme of things. Please let me know if anyone uncovers more info on this topic.

by hmasoud Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:49 am

Interesting, thanks!

by observer Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:32 pm

this is not about primary water but about water distillation, i found no fitting thread, sorry about of topic.

Perfect argument as to why Distilled Water is not only good for you but the best!.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL15tVt_AsU

so, who wants diarrhea, and who wants cancer?

clean water dont even conduct electricity.

only thing in this video i dont agree with is that you should buy a distiller.
its simple to build youre own.

heres 4 ways to do it so you can get the idea of how it works.
however i think you should probly be carefull on what materials you use, im no expert but i think glass is recomended, but i will probly use stainless steel.
i wouldnt feel safe with copper or aluminium or plastic like used in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOOI1-ANVWU

this is the best idea i found.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7u-rFndOxw

i recomend you all to take a pot and fill it with water and let the water boil away, when all the water is gone you will see what was in the water. i never want to drink tap water again.

(not allowed to post links, so hope its ok how i did it.)

by observer Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:44 pm

truthplease wrote: There could be primary water wells around the world for everyone. Endless supply.

there already is endless supply of water in the world if you know how to clean it. salt water or even swamp water is drinkable if distilled.
im gonna assume this primary water has rocks and stuff in it that youre body cant absorb and this will instead get stuck in youre body.
they call it minerals, but youre body obviously want bioligical minerals and not rocks.

they say distilled water is slightly acidic, but this is how nature cleans water, and what life gets from nature.
its safe for all plants and animals, so i doubt its harmfull for humans.
rain water is distilled water.

(actualy, perfectly distilled water has perfectly level ph, its just hard to make it "perfect")

by debonair Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:05 pm

I have just watched this video on primary water and how the govt of USA and Rothschilds have been manipulating the water supply for decades and longer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuwcILhWRlU

The Executive Order 13514 mentioned in this video, signed by Obama is here for download.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-EO13514envtlleader.pdf

by Oliver_Bestfall Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:03 pm

[quote="observer"]

truthplease wrote:
they say distilled water is slightly acidic, but this is how nature cleans water, and what life gets from nature.
its safe for all plants and animals, so i doubt its harmfull for humans.
rain water is distilled water.

I am not entirely certain that rain water is distilled water. There are plenty of examples of smoke, pollution, dust and even salt in the air that would foul rain water as it condensates and falls to the flat Earth.

I do agree that nature has some reasonable means of cleaning water, such as groundwater diffusing through porous rock.

by observer Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:33 pm

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:
I am not entirely certain that rain water is distilled water. There are plenty of examples of smoke, pollution, dust and even salt in the air that would foul rain water as it condensates and falls to the flat Earth.

I do agree that nature has some reasonable means of cleaning water, such as groundwater diffusing through porous rock.

i agree, but the question then is how much it collects on the way up, and while in the clouds, cause on the way down you just need to wait for the first few minutes of rain to clean out the air before collecting it. I would still trust the rain water more then ground water tho. Thanks for showing intrest, its an important topic.

by observer Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:01 pm

I would like to suggest that we use this thread (or a diferent if thats beter) to discus all types of drinking waters. I would be very interested to hear what other ppl do to have clean and safe water. Is this possible? And if so, what do you guys drink?

by Sponsored content

Heavy/Primary Water

Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

PRIMARY WATER

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water

Re: Heavy/Primary Water