It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anthropological Effects: From acid rain to chemtrials and the mediation methods

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





Where are the environmental impact statement for the shading of the planet from these jet induced haze and graffiti lines in the skies around the world? Just how much is the Jet haze cutting down the Sun and IR energy to the Earth's surface as that is required in environmental impact reporting.


Here read and enjoy...

www.faa.gov...




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I have seen the WWII photos of chemtrails from bombers.

Now tell us the type fuel they used to extend the range of bombers. It was war time and they were going for deep range penetration at the range limits of bombers and special fuels with enhancements were needed. Boron was one of the top fuel enhancements to extend range.


After all, the gasoline companies certainly knew much about Boron:

Citation:




The element boron was added to gasoline offered by Sohio, DX and Richfield of California and nickel was added to Sinclair fuels. While these later additives do not often have a direct interest to collectors of petroleum memorabilia, they are referenced in print ads and on signs and globes. Sohio went so far, of course, as to introduce Boron as a secondary brand.



Source:

Boron Gasoline
edit on 10-3-2014 by MagnumOpus because: 5



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





Where are the environmental impact statement for the shading of the planet from these jet induced haze and graffiti lines in the skies around the world? Just how much is the Jet haze cutting down the Sun and IR energy to the Earth's surface as that is required in environmental impact reporting.


Here read and enjoy...

www.faa.gov...




Now Boron is in the fuel, so they are not contrails, as chemtrails with Boron. It is no longer water vapor.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


the visible part of contrails is still just water vapour.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





I have seen the WWII photos of chemtrails from bombers.


Please provide us a link for those because that would be amazing when chemtrails weren't made up until the mid 90's by a man named Will Thomas.

So how does something that wasn't even known about get used in WWII?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





When half the planet is upset with chemtrails fogging the skies and making lines to involve aerosol type clouds.


Really half the planet you say...what happened here then?





I am not sure what world you live in where half complain about chemtrails, but that isn't nowhere near how few people are complaining about them in the real world.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

MagnumOpus
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I have seen the WWII photos of chemtrails from bombers.

Now tell us the type fuel they used to extend the range of bombers. It was war time and they were going for deep range penetration at the range limits of bombers and special fuels with enhancements were needed. Boron was one of the top fuel enhancements to extend range.


the allies had a major advantage in being able to produce and use large amounts of 100/150 "octane" Avgas

the additive used was tetra-ethyl lead. See the MSDS for 115/145 fuel from here listing the antiknock compound as CAS 78-00-2, and you can google that number and get this page on tetraethyl lead.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


the visible part of contrails is still just water vapour.



The issue is why didn't the commercial passenger aircraft of the 60's, 70's, and 80's not have the water vapor turning the sky into a haze and graffiti lines.


Those aircraft didn't need or make persistent clouds, so why did jet planes suddenly turn into cloud makers?



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





I have seen the WWII photos of chemtrails from bombers.


Please provide us a link for those because that would be amazing when chemtrails weren't made up until the mid 90's by a man named Will Thomas.

So how does something that wasn't even known about get used in WWII?



Science knew all about Boron enhanced fuels in WWII.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

MagnumOpus
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I have seen the WWII photos of chemtrails from bombers.

Now tell us the type fuel they used to extend the range of bombers. It was war time and they were going for deep range penetration at the range limits of bombers and special fuels with enhancements were needed. Boron was one of the top fuel enhancements to extend range.


the allies had a major advantage in being able to produce and use large amounts of 100/150 "octane" Avgas

the additive used was tetra-ethyl lead. See the MSDS for 115/145 fuel from here listing the antiknock compound as CAS 78-00-2, and you can google that number and get this page on tetraethyl lead.



Looks like another admission for chemtrails, as lead isn't water vapor.

That lead deal ended up being so dangerous that it poisoned the IQ of all kinds of kids, and lead drives up blood pressure in the long term exposed leading to heart problems and strokes.

Where was the environmental impact statement for that one?



edit on 10-3-2014 by MagnumOpus because: 8



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

MagnumOpus

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


the visible part of contrails is still just water vapour.



The issue is why didn't the commercial passenger aircraft of the 60's, 70's, and 80's not have the water vapor turning the sky into a haze and graffiti lines.

Those aircraft didn't need or make persistent clouds, so why did jet planes suddenly turn into cloud makers?


They did make contrails in the 60's and 70's and 80's. There are plenty of photos around of them, and a couple of threads on here eg www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or some other places off site - such as Pre-1995 persistent contrail archive or contrails in airline advertising - which goes back to the 1950's

I personally remember contrails spanning the horizon from the late 1960's - which was when domestic passenger jet aircraft weer introduced to New Zealand.

There are certainly more contrails now - probably because there are a LOT more jet aircraft operating - here's the number of large jets in service over the last few decades, along with how much flying they did, taken from a couple of reports from Boeing:




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





The issue is why didn't the commercial passenger aircraft of the 60's, 70's, and 80's not have the water vapor turning the sky into a haze and graffiti lines.


They did you just didn't see them as much because air travel was not as prevalent as it is now.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

MagnumOpus

Aloysius the Gaul

MagnumOpus
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


I have seen the WWII photos of chemtrails from bombers.

Now tell us the type fuel they used to extend the range of bombers. It was war time and they were going for deep range penetration at the range limits of bombers and special fuels with enhancements were needed. Boron was one of the top fuel enhancements to extend range.


the allies had a major advantage in being able to produce and use large amounts of 100/150 "octane" Avgas

the additive used was tetra-ethyl lead. See the MSDS for 115/145 fuel from here listing the antiknock compound as CAS 78-00-2, and you can google that number and get this page on tetraethyl lead.



Looks like another admission for chemtrails, as lead isn't water vapor.



Lead is also not visible - the visible part of eth engine exhaust is water vapour.

there are lots of chemicals in engine exhaust - but they are mostly invisible - and they are all there whether ther is a contrail or not -



Every now and then someone comes on here and tries to convince us all that chemtrails exist because engine exhaust contains chemicals - as you appear to be about to do.

But of course everything is chemicals - you and I are chemicals, our breath is chemicals - trying to include every chemical trail as a chemtrail is just silly - "chemtrails" are supposedly a deliberate programme of something OTHER THAN "normal exhaust" for some unknown purpose.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



It appears the jet industry is trying to mislead folks, because those are chemicals in the exhaust, not just water vapor.

Correct terms would tell any jet exhaust is a chemical emission and provided a chemtrail.

I grew up in those times and white fog trails never persisted or smeared across the entire sky. They were short lived.

I've read the reports on Jet Trails that were black smog that was loaded with carbon that was increasing the warming of the air and the concerns for global warming from jet traffic began.


Jet trails were black back then, and science was all concerned about all the black stuff in the air.


Which means the Jet companies have long conducted a PR campaign to mislead the public about their huge pollution trails, even back in those days.



edit on 10-3-2014 by MagnumOpus because: 7



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


You didn't look at the photos or threads, did you?? Because if you hd you would not have said anything as obviously wrong as "there were no white trails back then".

There was certainly little or no concern about contrails back then - why would there have been?

Black trails are an indication of poor combustion, and unburned fuel making it into the exhaust stream where it gets carbonized. the worst effects were when water injection was used to increase engine thrust on takeoff - this photo of B-52's is a classic example:



p-3 Orions, Convair 540 variants, and C-130's before the J model use old technology engines that still leave faint trails that are more obvious from directly in front or rear - eg




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 





The issue is why didn't the commercial passenger aircraft of the 60's, 70's, and 80's not have the water vapor turning the sky into a haze and graffiti lines.


They did you just didn't see them as much because air travel was not as prevalent as it is now.




I paid close attention back then and well saw all the black soot that persisted after jets. I also read the reports about that black soot adding to the global warming issue that existed back then due to that effect.

I know about the water injection on B-52's and it was not limited to just them.

I also know the Jet industry got so worried over that environmental effect that they changed the designs to make more white fog and not less.

The American People have a right to their skies, and this progression of cover up is an issue.


The black soot trails happened all the time, and that was proof positive of chemical trails that had lots of the dangerous components of smog. Jets have never been just contrails and it is misleading to claim jet trails are just water vapor.

Never has a jet trail been just water and it has always been misleading and aircraft industry PR lies to cover up the massive emissions these things leave in the skies.



edit on 10-3-2014 by MagnumOpus because: 12



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

MagnumOpus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



It appears the jet industry is trying to mislead folks, because those are chemicals in the exhaust, not just water vapor.


Of course het chemicals aer in the exhaust - I said that myself!!

But the VISIBLE part is the water vapour - the rest of the exhaust is generally invisible.

and of course ALL the exhaust chemicals are present whether the water is visible or not - even at take off and landing - so if it is chemical pollution you are worried about why bother discussing contrails at all?
.


Correct terms would tell any jet exhaust is a chemical emission and provided a chemtrail.


How did I know you weer going to say that??


By that token your breath is also a chemtrails - stop breathing immediately!!



I grew up in those times and white fog trails never persisted or smeared across the entire sky. They were short lived.

I've read the reports on Jet Trails that were black smog that was loaded with carbon that was increasing the warming of the air and the concerns for global warming from jet traffic began.


Jet trails were black back then, and science was all concerned about all the black stuff in the air.


Which means the Jet companies have long conducted a PR campaign to mislead the public about their huge pollution trails, even back in those days.


No - it means you have no idea what you are talking about, and are ignoring the actual evidence - probably (IMO) because you hate being wrong and don't want to admit that you are.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote mark



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

MagnumOpus

I paid close attention back then ....


Really - you were following chemtrails in the 60's??

Pray tell....




I also know the Jet industry got so worried over that environmental effect that they changed the designs to make more fog and not less.


They certainly changed engine designs to burn a lot less fuel and save money - got any actual EVIDENCE they did so in order to create more contrails?

Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

edit on 10-3-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tag



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

MagnumOpus

I paid close attention back then ....


Really - you were following chemtrails in the 60's??

Pray tell....




I also know the Jet industry got so worried over that environmental effect that they changed the designs to make more fog and not less.


They certainly changed engine designs to burn a lot less fuel and save money - got any actual EVIDENCE they did so in order to create more contrails?

Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

edit on 10-3-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tag



The aircraft companies were in huge environmental trouble over the black smog following airplanes and their being connected to global warming. Their correction---move to engine designs with more high bypass compression to make huge amounts of white smog. It was very intentional, because they could then claim Mie Scattering that cooled rather than heating due to black carbon soot.


Very simple and logical. I know the design change process leading to the GE-90s.

It was very intentional. The push to do that came from Oak Ridge and Martin-Marietta, the ORNL contractor.


edit on 10-3-2014 by MagnumOpus because: 33



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


Any actual EVIDENCE that this was in order to make more contrails?? Or again are we supposed to take you word for it?

I certainly recall lots of articles in Flight magazine through the 80's and 90's talking about the improvements in fuel efficiency and reduction in NOx and SOX pollutants that new engines achieved - but that wasn't in order to create more contrails AFAIK.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join