They is spraying us!!!!!

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Isn't summer the hottest time of year...that would be a good reason they are impossible to touch during the summer day.

Now if you said that happened during the winter then I think I would be worried.

a reply to: riley

Exactly how do you know they were chemtrails?

As for how long they last...depends on the atmosphere...

www.pbs.org...

usatoday30.usatoday.com...

And exactly who is everybody and what flu like illness are you talking about?

I am going to guess you can't answer either question posed to you...because nnothing you said is actually true, but feel free to answer them with some actual evidence if you care to try.

a reply to: network dude

Forgive me, but as this Op discussed Sulfide Aerosols at high altitudes I was wondering if anyone here could give me a brief rundown of the chemical composition of these proposed substances, because while Chemistry was never my strongest suit and taking into effect what we know of how Venus turned out because of the Greenhouse Effect and it....ya know....is still raining SULFUR onto the lifeless baked molten planetary remains as we speak....I just want to make sure we aren't inadvertently buying into some Alien Trickster pseudo-science "cure all" when in reality it's just a ploy to kill off the Dominant Life on Earth to make way for their little mining operations and sneaky Terraforming nonsense.

Not to mention the CFC aerosols that got us started on this Ozone Hole mess back in the late 80's....sorry, showing my age here.

Because from what I remember about large scale mass volcanic eruptions (back when Earth was still relatively young) and large scale meteor impact clouds actually WARMING THE HABITABLE LIFE-ZONE UNDER THEM IN SOME CASES (another variation of Greenhouse Gases just lower down than the Stratosphere, some say it had a cooling effect but I didn't take those classes back then) and causing great distress to the larger non-aquatic and non-microbial life.

We already lost Venus and Mars to "hit or miss science", so call me a Cautionary Skeptic right now. Notice I didn't imply ALL aliens, just the trickster types. Those sneaky trolls of the universe. Ya'll know the ones. We all know those dweebs*.

Oh hey, wow....lookie there...next level chemtrails.

Sorry, I've been walking in 119 degree heat during the summers the past decade or so and I think I baked my brain.

I've got some ground level options via emissions, move to solar and wind energies, less dependence of fossil fuels, synthetic fuels and engineered engines capable of running on 'em to help mediate the Habitable Zone to a cooler temperature....imagine cool breezes and more oxygen and nitrogen and other natural trace gases mixtures and less carbon monoxide, but still enough CO2 for trees and planet life and less concrete urban sprawl....build UP not OUT...I'll shut up because like I said....Chemistry wasn't my strongest subject.

Hit me up if you have insight into my post though, I'd love an actual discussion on this and viable alternatives should this sulfide thing actually turn out to be nothing more than something pulled out of the ass-end of a faulty computer theoretical modeling system by grad thesis flunkies*.

NOTE :
* no offense dweebs, but it takes one to know one, amirite?
**no offense to grad thesis flunkies

The term sulfate aerosols is used for a suspension of fine solid particles of a sulfate or tiny droplets of a solution of a sulfate or of sulfuric acid (which is not technically a sulfate). They are produced by chemical reactions in the atmosphere from gaseous precursors (with the exception of sea salt sulfate and gypsum dust particles). The two main sulfuric acid precursors are sulfur dioxide (SO2) from anthropogenic sources and volcanoes, and dimethyl sulfide (DMS) from biogenic sources, especially marine plankton. These aerosols can cause a cooling effect on earth.

However the UNFCCC has noted that sulfate aerosols remain in the atmosphere for only a short amount of time in comparison to other greenhouse gases, and therefore their cooling is localized and temporary. Other side effects of sulfate aerosols in the environment include poor air quality.

Wikipedia : Sulfate Aerosol

Please note this is a sulfate referenced entry and not a sulfide (entry not found).

(SOURCE : Wikipedia as of Terra Date 07142016)

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: network dude

Forgive me, but as this Op discussed Sulfide Aerosols at high altitudes I was wondering if anyone here could give me a brief rundown of the chemical composition of these proposed substances, because while Chemistry was never my strongest suit and taking into effect what we know of how Venus turned out because of the Greenhouse Effect and it....ya know....is still raining SULFUR onto the lifeless baked molten planetary remains as we speak....I just want to make sure we aren't inadvertently buying into some Alien Trickster pseudo-science "cure all" when in reality it's just a ploy to kill off the Dominant Life on Earth to make way for their little mining operations and sneaky Terraforming nonsense.

Not to mention the CFC aerosols that got us started on this Ozone Hole mess back in the late 80's....sorry, showing my age here.

Because from what I remember about large scale mass volcanic eruptions (back when Earth was still relatively young) and large scale meteor impact clouds actually WARMING THE HABITABLE LIFE-ZONE UNDER THEM (another variation of Greenhouse Gases just lower down than the Stratosphere) and causing great distress to the larger non-aquatic and non-microbial life.

We already lost Venus and Mars to "hit or miss science", so call me a Cautionary Skeptic right now.

Oh hey, wow....lookie there...next level chemtrails.

Sorry, I've been walking in 119 degree heat during the summers the past decade or so and I think I baked my brain.

I've got some ground level options via emissions, move to solar and wind energies, less dependence of fossil fuels, synthetic fuels and engineered engines capable of running on 'em to help mediate the Habitable Zone to a cooler temperature....imagine cool breezes and more oxygen and nitrogen and other natural trace gases mixtures and less carbon monoxide, but still enough CO2 for trees and planet life and less concrete urban sprawl....build UP not OUT...I'll shut up because like I said....Chemistry wasn't my strongest subject.

Hit me up if you have insight into my post though, I'd love an actual discussion on this and viable alternatives should this sulfide thing actually turn out to be nothing more than something pulled out of the ass-end of a faulty computer theoretical modeling system by grad thesis flunkies*.

NOTE : *no offense to grad thesis flunkies

Remember what happened when Mount Pinatubo erupted? That's basically the same effect they would be aiming for

a reply to: mrthumpy

Dude, I wasn't in the region when it happened and I'm still eyes deep in World Anthrogeological Studies.

I'll read up.


ETA: Ah, '91....I was unaware of it being that recent.
Was HS Soph at the time, mind elsewhere.
Reading now. Thanks!

a reply to: riley

Everyone?

So, a whole town? A city?

What numbers are we talking about here?

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: mrthumpy



ETA: Ah, '91....I was unaware of it being that recent.

You'll recall the widespread devastation to fauna and flora and the transformation of the Earth into a Venus like hell planet then.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Oh dude.
If I ever get my book written on that past-life regression you totally get a signed copy on the house....assuming someone will publish my B.S. that is, lol.

originally posted by: Starling
a reply to: network dude

So why in the world did you start a thread just to get people all riled up about a subject you brought up for no reason at all? Do you still think people are so stupid as to not notice what's going on in our skies, around the world no less?

Is SAI the new buzz word for SRM/chemtrails, like Isis was the new buzz word for Al Qaeda?
Yes I heard about the new SAI term, explained by the jolly head of CIA, with reference to volcanic eruptions, as if that explains it all away as a 'natural phenomenon'. How goofy do you people think we are?
Try a new one on us. See if that deflects our attention from your goddamn $10 billion p/year project to kill populations.

Not sure if you can read or understand my language, but hopefully, you will be able to translate this. I don't like the idea of Geo-engineering the skies either. I just understand that contrails don't have anything to do with it, and would like to get those who don't understand that to look into why that is. I explained it all in the OP.

Do you know where the Stratosphere is? Do you know where planes fly?

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

I'll look forward to it.

There are acknowledged risks from introducing sulphur aerosols into the atmosphere, the number of deaths it would cause has even been calculated. However, as David Keith points out, there are already millions of deaths a year around the world attributable to the addition of sulphur to the atmosphere from pollution and the additional deaths would be a small percentage of this and could be offset by a reduction in sulphur emissions from other sources.

This sounds callous I know, and as David Keith says it would be "a horrible thing to do", but it must be looked at in terms of the broader picture - ie what are the consequences of NOT doing it?

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Here is the plan. Customize several Gulfstream business jets with military engines and with equipment to produce and disperse fine droplets of sulfuric acid. Fly the jets up around 20 kilometers—significantly higher than the cruising altitude for a commercial jetliner but still well within their range. At that altitude in the tropics, the aircraft are in the lower stratosphere. The planes spray the sulfuric acid, carefully controlling the rate of its release. The sulfur combines with water vapor to form sulfate aerosols, fine particles less than a micrometer in diameter. These get swept upward by natural wind patterns and are dispersed over the globe, including the poles. Once spread across the stratosphere, the aerosols will reflect about 1 percent of the sunlight hitting Earth back into space. Increasing what scientists call the planet’s albedo, or reflective power, will partially offset the warming effects caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases.

www.technologyreview.com...

This is an old article, but hopefully some parts of it are still relevant.

It's funny, even David Keith, the guy who proposed all this, also doesn't like the idea.

originally posted by: riley
a reply to: network dude

I never used to believe in them until they were real above my house. Normal contrails do NOT stay bellowing in the air for an hour. Normal contrails don't coincidentally make everyone sick with a strange flu that doesn't seem to respond like it should.

It is not the flu. They ARE either culling us or trying to at least sabotage our immune systems for when they decided to accidentally release something more deadly.

Shearing the sheep before slaughtering them.

when you can explain why "Normal contrails do NOT stay bellowing in the air for an hour" I'll entertain the idea. But if you cannot offer evidence that your statement is true, why should it be taken as fact? Where did you learn this from?

originally posted by: riley
a reply to: network dude

I never used to believe in them until they were real above my house. Normal contrails do NOT stay bellowing in the air for an hour.

Really? What is it about contrails that prevents them from behaving like any other cirrus cloud? I know this idea is taken for granted in chemtrail circles, but I've never seen the explanation. My findings so far are that chemtrail believers can't explain contrail behaviour because their chemmtrail sources never give an explanation of how a contrail should behave and why.

Normal contrails don't coincidentally make everyone sick with a strange flu that doesn't seem to respond like it should.

Indeed they don't which probably explains why everyone isn't sick. At least not where I live. Maybe we're immune to them over here?

It is not the flu. They ARE either culling us or trying to at least sabotage our immune systems for when they decided to accidentally release something more deadly.

Shearing the sheep before slaughtering them.

It's not the flu? What isn't? And who is this 'they' you speak of?

As for sabotaging immune systems: we're doing an excellent job of that ourselves, ingesting all kinds of junk that we KNOW is going to compromise our health, but since we're addicted, we do it anyway. Not just our immune systes though; we're also sabotaging our intellect by hanging out on crazy conspiracy sites without checking any facts, which makes us gullible and dumb. The result? Well one of them is the chemtrail cult.

originally posted by: IronNuts
a reply to: payt69
Did you see my first post in this thread? The quoted material has not been addressed. So why don't you guys do the research and tell me why the information that I have provided is not creditable? If a transcontinental flight could switch to a cheaper fuel at altitude do you think they might? Aircraft have multiple fuel bladders in the wings.
Also I am very informed in meteorology and aircraft, I have actual done ground school. I am aware of what a contrail is and consist of, hint, it does contain sulphur. All water particulates need to nucleate on a particulate before a cloud can start to form. If weather is of interest, then check out micro-burst and how baseball sized hail is formed.

Cheers, Nuts

Well you're going to have to provide credible evidence that there's any material in contrails that shouldn't be there first.

As for your expertise on contrails, I'm more of a don't TELL me you know all about it, but SHOW me.

The bit of information you provided was quoted from wikipedia, and it makes it abundantly clear that it's dealing with PROPOSALS of how to combat global warming, in case they have to eventually take measures:

The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in solar radiation management climate engineering projects[1] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid,[3] hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons has been proposed.[5] It presently appears that this proposed method could counter most climatic changes, take effect rapidly, have very low direct implementation costs, and be reversible in its direct climatic effects.

That's the opening paragraph to the same article you quoted from. Now we know that a certain brand of chemtrail believers would like us to believe that:

1: Geoengineering is already happening
2: They're using commercial jets representing all airlines all over the world to accomplish this
3: It looks like contrails

The problem is: you don't have evidence for any of these points

On the other hand: we do know what contrails look like and how they behave, and the trails in the sky look and behave exactly how we expect them to. So why should we expect them to be anything else, given the complete lack of evidence indicating otherwise? It's the ignorance of chemtrail believers that sets of their alarms when somebody tells the it's something nefarious, man playing god with chemicals etc.

As for water having to nucleate on a particle, that's true. But those nuclei are already abundantly present in ambient air. How else cloud, say, a cirrus cloud form? We don't have to inject those particulates for that to happen, even though some part of the contrail forms on the particulates ejected from the jet engine, of course.

originally posted by: IronNuts
a reply to: payt69
Did you see my first post in this thread? The quoted material has not been addressed. So why don't you guys do the research and tell me why the information that I have provided is not creditable? If a transcontinental flight could switch to a cheaper fuel at altitude do you think they might? Aircraft have multiple fuel bladders in the wings.
Also I am very informed in meteorology and aircraft, I have actual done ground school. I am aware of what a contrail is and consist of, hint, it does contain sulphur. All water particulates need to nucleate on a particulate before a cloud can start to form. If weather is of interest, then check out micro-burst and how baseball sized hail is formed.

Cheers, Nuts

If you are interested in discussion and not just superiority, cool. Yes Aircraft do have the capability to switch tanks in flight. But do they have different fuel in different tanks? All the aircraft I have ever fueled had the same fuel in all tanks. The only stipulation was how the tanks were filled to make sure the weight was distributed as the flight engineer requested. If there is a different fuel being used, there should be some evidence of it. A second fuel truck at each plane, the ground crew having knowledge of the different fuels in different tanks and why. So yes it's possible, but is it happening?

Remember, some planes are outfitted for the specific purpose of spraying stuff. That doesn't make chemtrails a reality. The chemtrail theory is that any trail lasting longer then a few minutes MUST be a chemtrail since contrails cannot persist. (even though nobody on that side can offer an explanation as to why that is)

a reply to: mrthumpy

The required altitude to enter the stratosphere is the height of the tropopause, which varies from 11 km (6.8 miles/36,000 feet) at the poles to 17 km (11 miles/58,000 feet) at the equator.

That is from my very first post in this thread, reading the full thread would be a good idea. It will help bring context as it shows all sides of this story.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: payt69

So had little sleep kinda confused,

As for your expertise on contrails, I'm more of a don't TELL me you know all about it, but SHOW me.

How do you propose I do this on a forum. I can't mime it for you, I am going to have to use words.

1. It is very ignorant to say geoengineering isn't happening as we know cloud seeding exists. As as been used to direct rainfall during monsoon season and for agricultural purposes.
2. That is an assumption, as is this, maybe it would just take one major airline. It also could be that they just know they get cheaper fuel, better net profit, bigger bonus. Some people don't take the time to read, look at the bills that get passed.
3. Just a guess but it probably would look like a contrail.

But those nuclei are already abundantly present in ambient air.

Yes I understand dust and other particulates are what are naturally there. As you mentioned the main reason a contrail forms is because it instantly nucleates to the particulates in the spent aircraft fuel. Also what I referenced was a proposal but usually that means that some thought has gone into the matter. When a bill is going to be passed it is a proposal, does that mean it's all fictional prior?

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: network dude

The chemtrail theory is that any trail lasting longer then a few minutes MUST be a chemtrail since contrails cannot persist.

I didn't realize that there is just one guideline for the chemtrail theory.

I know COG is one of the most important things to maintain for most controlled flight, if you move the weight too far to the tail you induce stall characteristics. A good example is the C-17 that had it's cargo shift to the tail during takeoff. What airport did you work at? I was at YVR prior to the Olympics, the stuff I saw there made me laugh. I got in crap for wood pallets 200' from the aircraft being FOD. So I went around and took footage of all the baggage tags, zap straps and luggage handles that were 20' from the aircraft. From my understanding when they fuel a large aircraft they use pressure filling through one nozzle. It is then transferred to the designated fuel bladder from a panel in the cockpit.

So yes it's possible, but is it happening?

I do not have undeniable verifiable proof that it is happening, just as you do not have the safe proof that it's not.

Cheers, Nuts

a reply to: IronNuts

If you're talking about the one that crashed in Afghanistan it was a 747 that had the cargo shift. The only C-17 crash was one that stalled during practice for an airshow.

Depending on the aircraft, fuel is moved around to different tanks through either the cockpit or the fuel panel near the Single Point Refueling nozzle. That's the usual way to do it, as it doesn't require cockpit crew to closely monitor the fueling process. A fuel plan is laid out, and the tanks are filled based on all the factors involved in coming up with the plan.

I was in the USAF for 5 years. Aside from being an avionics tech, I acted as a crew chief. And yes, the c-130's I fueled had a pressurized fitting and I could direct the fuel flow to the different tanks through the fuel control panel.

Can you prove bigfoot isn't drinking a beer next to me right now? (see, proving something isn't happening is kind of like that)