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.

 

Debunking Chemtrails

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel

To the point that was made about different reactions occurring at different altitudes is false. The same reaction happens at sea level. The reason why those air liners fly at 35,000 feet is because it is so cold up there and turbine engines perform more efficiently at those cold altitudes.


Any second year Chemistry student should know that both temperature and altitude make a difference in chemical reactions, please research "ideal conditions in chemical reactions". My emphasis was on heat but thanks for pointing out the altitude aspect as it is also a factor in chemical reactions. As far as your health is concerned, you do face some inherent risks in your job and I sincerely hope you take every available precaution to protect your lungs, eyes, ears and skin.


Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
I hope that those who read this that believe in chemtrails will be able to look at the evidence presented objectively. I cannot "prove" that there are no additive in gas and TPTB aren't spraying us all but the evidence is favor of no conspiracy here and the only "evidence" for chemtrails is conjecture and gut-feelings.


Thank you for pointing out that you cannot prove that there is no additive in the fuel designed for distribution in the exhaust, I appreciate your honesty. The idea that you chose to believe against this type of conspiracy is understandable given your career choice, but you must also accept that your belief is equally a faith or a gut feeling as that evidence is yet unconfirmed on either side of the debate and any control in discerning that evidence will be highly subjective to a test-end goal.




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
While I never did the testing myself, I know that they had to test what additives were in the fuel to make sure that it was the proper JP type. There are 4 types of fuel that are used in aircraft, JP4, JP5, JP8, and Avgas. Avgas is a gasoline-based fuel that comes in 55 gallon drums, but the other three are all Kerosene’s with differing cuts and additives. You bet they have to test the additives to ensure that they don’t accidentally add a load of JP5 into a tank of JP8.


Again, these would all be very specific tests, designed to identify specific content and relative ratios and doesn’t exclude any other additional additives. I don’t think you actually understand the testing process and what it actually does or how the results are calculated but you’ve now confirmed that there are more than one type of aviation fuel in use, which might not be an intentional conflict with your earlier statement that there is only one fuel at the airport and all of the equipment uses that same fuel, but could be interpreted as such. Please research “chemical analysis techniques” to get a better understanding of the actual types of testing that you may have witnessed.


Originally posted by defcon5
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t a chromatograph show exactly what it contains. We are talking about an industry that moves millions of dollars in fuel every month, they will spare no expense at ensuring that fuel is up to standards.


There are several different types of chromatographs, gas, liquid, electro, etc and their intended purpose is to identify various elements in a given substance by burning that substance and comparing the various colors in the flame to the known colors of each element. This shows us which elements are present but does not provide any accuracy as to how those elements are combined; otherwise the Colonel’s secret recipe would be in jeopardy of discovery. A fuel may return spectrum analysis indicating hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, but will not show us exactly how those three elements are put together and there are many combinations to those three elements. As far as sparing no expense in testing, the industry would only want to test the fuel for relative standards to fuel efficiency, octane ratings, and that which makes JP8 different from JP4 and so on.


Originally posted by defcon5
So I guess that the supposed poison that everyone is so worried about has no effect on those of us who were walking around directly in the path of aircraft engine exhaust, service equipment exhaust, and directly breathing the fumes of that fuel? Funny, I wonder why I don’t have Morgellions, or one of the other supposed chemtrail related diseases. You don’t even want to know the number of times I spilled that fuel all over myself, right down into my boots, then had to finish an eight hour shift like that.


It is not my intention to insult you by pointing out that you do not understand basic or intermediate level chemistry as it really isn’t required for day to day activities, but some basic understanding is required for you to effectively argue this point with any intelligent leverage. Again the above statement further exemplifies that you do not understand conditions for chemical reactions, please review “ideal conditions for chemical reactions” and it should provide you with an answer as to why the fumes on the flight line may be much different from the fumes at 10,000 ft.


Originally posted by defcon5
Not only would the FAA have to know about it, but also the ramp crews, the fuelers, the mechanics, the tank farm personnel, truckers, airline management, flight ops personnel, flight crews, and even the cabin service personnel. They would all know about it, or have to be in on it as well, and that is hundreds of thousands of people who take no oath of secrecy.


And here my friend is where you couldn’t be more wrong as this type of conspiracy is one that is feasible because it is so potentially compartmental. The only ones who need to know about it would be the ones who initiated it. The scientist who created such a compound wouldn’t need to know it was to be introduced into aviation fuel, the boys at the refinery or the tank farm wouldn’t need to know anything other than that they are instructed to add this additive and that additive to aviation fuel and they could be told that the additives are to stop bacteria from growing or that it is a fuel detergent to prevent carbon build up. The fuel handlers wouldn’t need to know anything nor would the mechanics or flight line crew, pilot, FAA, truckers, etc. Any such compound could be called anything they wish, twinkie juice or dimethanolbromide-tetrasulfate. Do you really think Cletus at O’Hare or my pal “Sparky” over at Edwards AFB would know to question or even begin to know how to test for such a compound’s high heat properties or subsequent chemical reactions? No they wouldn’t, nor would you or I, we simply either trust or don’t trust, based on what we each have experienced.

So the possibility of such a thing is feasible, despite your belief or trust but that being said, the practicality is another issue entirely. Could such small amounts of any substance make any significant difference or change at all?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Well, still digging around..........

I found an interesting site with an online book from 1992. I haven't seen this posted anywhere so I thought I would add it here. It does have alot of technological information as to what the spraying could be being used for.


Total denial by governmental authorities, the shunning of this topic by mainstream media, the systematic discreditation of researchers, ongoing coverups by the scientific establishment, and a coordinated systematic policy of disinformation has relegated this topic to the realm of fantasy and paranoid delusion. Regardless, it continues to go on above our heads, and has now grown to become the largest coordinated global engineering project in the history of our species.



www.chemtrails911.com...


Here is a link to a really good site with alot of material.

www.chemtrails911.com...

The second site I listed has a link that has a list of patents starting in the early 1900's.


One more link that I find to be very interesting and it provides insight on the mindsets of the different "sides" of the issue.

www.lacarte.org...

[edit on 8-10-2008 by interestedalways]



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


" It wasn't repressed information. There was no struggle to "reveal" the truth as the post I was replying to implied. There were no brave hearted souls who boldly put forth the "new" idea that the world was round. "

What about human sacrifice to appease the gods?

It was a bunch of crap dreamed up to keep their seat of power.

Of course we could go on about it, but I know what I've seen, and it's no NORMAL contrail, I know the difference.

I can't tell you why they're not down by you.

ever look at this? ;

www.carnicom.com...

All I can tell you is, I did my best to ignore this, because it just didn't make any sense, and it sounded very weird. Then one day, I caught a perfect "X" marks the spot in the sky above WINNETKA, Il. I even took a cpl pictures, I've been looking up ever since.

You'll figure it out eventually.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

From what I've read, it's been going on for years



The 1920s to be exact. First became a big issue in WWII. A lot of serious research has been carried out since then.

Until someone falsifies the very robust and extensively studied meteorological explanation for the phenomena people call chemtrails then frankly there's nothing to discuss. Why assume just because they look like normal contrails, act like normal contrails, are formed in the same way as normal contrails and have been studied for many decades, that they are something else?



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Sorry its been a few days, I took some time off from here to go diving.



Originally posted by eaganthorn
I don’t think you actually understand the testing process and what it actually does or how the results are calculated

I never claimed to be a chemist, simply that there are chemists, who worked for my company, who test the fuel continuously, as contamination of any type is a serious issue. Its easy enough to get a smaple of that exact same gas yourself, if you feel that you want to test it. It might be nice to have a member here do that so we can put this “fuel” conspiracy to bed. Apparently there was already a discovery channel show where they did this, and found nothing whatsoever in the fuel that did not belong there:

Chemtrails (funny stuff)
Pilotpip:
There's a show on Discovery right now called "Best Evidence". They're examining the whole "chemtrails" conspiracy theory. One lady from California in particular is a riot. She has a wall of pictures showing differnet 'chemtrail' styles. The show paid a lab to perform analysis on jet fuel samples from across the country. I'll let you guys guess what they found...

If you want to, send me a U2U, and I'll try to give you a hand getting some to test yourself.


Originally posted by eaganthorn
but you’ve now confirmed that there are more than one type of aviation fuel in use, which might not be an intentional conflict with your earlier statement that there is only one fuel at the airport and all of the equipment uses that same fuel, but could be interpreted as such.


This is a misunderstanding of what I said and how fueling works. Maybe its my fault for not being clear enough, I am not a professional writer after all. 90% of all aircraft, plus all ramp equipment is run off JP8, even the majority of military aircraft. JP5 is used only on fighter aircraft, mainly for carrier ops, because it has additional fire retardant properties. The lines at an airport, which is using a hydrant system, are all charged with the exact same fuel. As I stated above, when they have to switch lines its a huge deal, and it requires shutting down the system to discharge and recharge it. This is only done in an emergency where a military base closes its runway, and fighters have to divert to the airport. The military contracts with one of the hangers, the planes sit there, get fueled by the airport fueling agency, and they wait until their runway re-opens.

The other odd-ball case is some of the smaller prop-aircraft which run on Avgas, which is hand pumped from 55 gallon drums. Obviously neither types of these aircraft match up with the supposed “Mega Sprayers” that we see on chemtrail sites. All of the pictures of those aircraft are the type that run off of normal JP8. So for example, a TACAMO plane, or a KC-109 are both variants of the B707, and they run on the same JP8 that the B707 does.


Originally posted by eaganthorn
There are several different types of chromatographs, gas, liquid, electro, etc and their intended purpose is to identify various elements in a given substance by burning that substance and comparing the various colors in the flame to the known colors of each element. This shows us which elements are present but does not provide any accuracy as to how those elements are combined; otherwise the Colonel’s secret recipe would be in jeopardy of discovery. A fuel may return spectrum analysis indicating hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, but will not show us exactly how those three elements are put together and there are many combinations to those three elements.

You are better suited at telling what the equipment is called, all I know is that the fuel is placed in a tube, and exposed to a magnet and centrifuge, then it produces a chart showing what elements are present in the fuel.


Originally posted by eaganthorn
As far as sparing no expense in testing, the industry would only want to test the fuel for relative standards to fuel efficiency, octane ratings, and that which makes JP8 different from JP4 and so on.


Nope its tested for any type of contaminate. Could be something that is bleeding into the fuel in the lines, could be something growing on the walls of the tank, could have been exposed to something on shipping, etc.


Originally posted by eaganthorn
It is not my intention to insult you by pointing out that you do not understand basic or intermediate level chemistry as it really isn’t required for day to day activities, but some basic understanding is required for you to effectively argue this point with any intelligent leverage.

I have had basic chemistry, apparently the same as you, because if you were such the advanced chemist you would know that:
See below:

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Again the above statement further exemplifies that you do not understand conditions for chemical reactions, please review “ideal conditions for chemical reactions” and it should provide you with an answer as to why the fumes on the flight line may be much different from the fumes at 10,000 ft.

While the chemical reactions may differ some at higher altitude (it would be harder to start something on fire as there is less oxygen, or it may not burn as brilliantly), once it is burning it releases the same gas. If this were not the case then I could, for example, smoke a cigarette at 10,000 feet and not get any tar or nicotine from it...
Unfortunately, not the case. If there was some type of poison present in the fuel we would be breathing it at an even more concentrated level here at sea level. The air here is at a higher BAR then it is at 10,000 feet, so it is denser and more concentrated then it is up there. The same way that when I dive I have to blow off the extra levels of nitrogen I inhale, due to increased density of the air at more then 1 BAR.


Originally posted by eaganthorn
And here my friend is where you couldn’t be more wrong as this type of conspiracy is one that is feasible because it is so potentially compartmental. The only ones who need to know about it would be the ones who initiated it. The scientist who created such a compound wouldn’t need to know it was to be introduced into aviation fuel, the boys at the refinery or the tank farm wouldn’t need to know anything other than that they are instructed to add this additive and that additive to aviation fuel and they could be told that the additives are to stop bacteria from growing or that it is a fuel detergent to prevent carbon build up. The fuel handlers wouldn’t need to know anything nor would the mechanics or flight line crew, pilot, FAA, truckers, etc.

So I guess that there are no career airport personnel who would notice that there is something different then there was 20 years ago.
Besides maybe you can then explain, through your theory, all the other chemtrail non-sense. How do the trails shut off and turn on if someone is not aware of it, unless its from thermals as I stated above? Why will one aircraft be leaving a persistent trail while another is not, unless its from differing atmospheric conditions, as I mention above. You cannot have it both ways, either it is happening as stated and someone must know about it, or its not happening at all. Geez, don't you think that the pilot would notice if they were being sent out of their way to lay down a supposed grid, or the ATC people would have to be in on it? Go get a part time job fueling aircraft, learn how airports work, and educate yourself, then come back here and tell me this garbage.


Originally posted by eaganthorn
Any such compound could be called anything they wish, twinkie juice or dimethanolbromide-tetrasulfate.

Yep, its called Dihydrogen Monoxide....
Really evil stuff too:


DMHO Facts
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.



Originally posted by eaganthorn
Do you really think Cletus at O’Hare or my pal “Sparky” over at Edwards AFB would know to question or even begin to know how to test for such a compound’s high heat properties or subsequent chemical reactions? No they wouldn’t, nor would you or I, we simply either trust or don’t trust, based on what we each have experienced.

I think when they asked them to put on a BNC Suit to fuel they would have an inkling that something was up. The ATC personnel and Pilots would know that they were being asked to fly strange routes. The FAA, ATC, and Pilots would have to know that there was a visual obstruction hazard.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn[/
So the possibility of such a thing is feasible, despite your belief or trust but that being said, the practicality is another issue entirely. Could such small amounts of any substance make any significant difference or change at all?

The contrails that are persisting are in fact changing the climate, they noticed that after 911, which is why they are now studying them.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


They just 'noticed' it in 2001?
In 1978, we had a teacher bring in a machine that could make snow.
The government hasn't known about cloud cover and the resulting effects on temps?

They know more than you or I about it.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Also, has anyone who 'believes' in chemtrails noticed that the effects are worse when the barometric pressure drops?
It gives me a headache.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Not what I meant.
911 was the only time in history that all the airlines were grounded, and so it was the first time they were actually able to get true scientific measurements as to how much of a difference that it made on the climate. It even showed up in Ice Core Samples. Despite the fact that I do not believe in Chemtrails, there is no question about the fact that persistent contrails do interfere with the sun reaching the surface of the planet, and that aircraft do in fact cause pollution, the same as any combustion engine.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
Also, has anyone who 'believes' in chemtrails noticed that the effects are worse when the barometric pressure drops?
It gives me a headache.


Oooh....
This is the type of question that Essan and OZ live for, and they know A LOT more about it then I do. However, and correct me if I am wrong here, but a barometric pressure drop means that a low pressure front has moved in. I believe that low pressure fronts bring with them stormy, colder conditions, which cause persistent contrails. This can certainly cause headaches and other pains. Think back to all the old timers who used to complain that they would get aches and pains when a storm front moves in.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


NOT ALL flights were grounded.
"Top White House officials approved the evacuation of 140 Saudis including relatives of Osama bin Laden days after 9-11, when all commercial and private flights were grounded."



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Think back to all the old timers who used to complain that they would get aches and pains when a storm front moves in.

I know what you're saying, but, I don't have ruemetism or arthritus in my cranium.
These headaches come from toxins.
I can tell you (From INSIDE my house) instantly, when a low, heavy, cloud cover passes over our home!
I have never been able to do this, until the military planes with chemtrails started flying over in 2005.

I grew up with asthma so bad, that I COULD NOT be around synthetic chemicals, or I would get headaches and have a wheezing attack.

I haven't had any symptoms, except the reaction to synthetic chemicals, since 1981.
I have never been able to stay around cheap, synthetic fragrances, or I would feel sick.
When the spraying is going on and the barometric pressure drops, I get IMMEDIATE, PIERCING headaches right above my eyes.
Then, my neck gets stiff and I feel VERY tired.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
NOT ALL flights were grounded.
"Top White House officials approved the evacuation of 140 Saudis including relatives of Osama bin Laden days after 9-11, when all commercial and private flights were grounded."


Your talking about a couple of aircraft compared to the normal tens of thousands that are in the sky at any given moment.

Originally posted by Clearskies
I know what you're saying, but, I don't have ruemetism or arthritus in my cranium.
These headaches come from toxins.

I don't have arthritis either, but I still can get headaches. Normally they are sinus associated. Though they can also be from blood pressure changes due to air pressure changes.


Originally posted by Clearskies
IMMEDIATE, PIERCING headaches right above my eyes.

Yep, sinus headache...
Frontal Sinus

Aerosinusitis
Aerosinusitis, also called barosinusitis, sinus squeeze or sinus barotrauma is a painful inflammation and sometimes bleeding of the membrane of the paranasal sinus cavities, normally the frontal sinus. It is caused by a difference in air pressures inside and outside the cavities.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Here is some more for you:

Pressure Headache
If you've ever had a barometric pressure headache, you know it can be really difficult to deal with. Let's take a quick look at the research that's out there on barometric pressure headache and see if we can limit your pain!
It's been fairly obvious throughout history that weather, and particularly changes in the weather, have an effect on your body. In spite of this long line of weather-sensitive individuals, scientists are still unsure why changes in weather cause headaches and other migraines. There is a theory, however. Changes in pressure cause changes in oxygen levels.

It could be that blood vessels in your head expand or contract to compensate. Changes in the size of your blood vessels is part of the flow of changes that happen when you get a migraine headache. This is also why you may get a headache when flying, hiking, or even traveling to a new location.....

Many researchers believe that it's not pressure alone, but a variety of weather factors together that trigger migraine. A study done in 1981 found that during phase 4 weather migraines increased – that's weather with low pressure, the passage of a warm front, high temperature and humidity, and often overcast skies.


So lets review here, you get frontal headaches when it gets overcast. Humidity also increases when this occurs. Sound familiar...

Hopefully this will help you alleviate the symptoms.



[edit on 10/11/2008 by defcon5]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Well, thanks for that!

That may be part of it.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Yes, weather fronts are usually associated with low pressure systems. And it's often the case that ahead of such fronts we see an increase in cirrus, which may spread out across the sky into cirrostratus. Under such conditions contrails will also tend to persist and merge with the cirrus and cirrostratus - the phenomena some call 'chemtrails'. As the front moves in, pressure continues to fall, as does the cloud level.

So it would not be uncommon for someone suffering barometric headaches caused by changes in atmospheric pressure to see 'chemtrails' a day or two beforehand.

Might be an idea to get a barometer and keep a weather diary?



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Sorry its been a few days, I took some time off from here to go diving.

No worries! Diving, eh, one of my pleasures as well, if you make it to the Florida panhandle, I’ll give you some GPS numbers.


Originally posted by defcon5
I never claimed to be a chemist, simply that there are chemists, who worked for my company, who test the fuel continuously, as contamination of any type is a serious issue. Its easy enough to get a smaple of that exact same gas yourself, if you feel that you want to test it. It might be nice to have a member here do that so we can put this “fuel” conspiracy to bed. Apparently there was already a discovery channel show where they did this, and found nothing whatsoever in the fuel that did not belong there


Here is yet another reason why this type of conspiracy will not go away, ever. To effectively clear this up, completely, remove all doubt, one would need to know in advance, exactly what to look for and then sample test every batch of fuel at every airport and every plane. This of course is neither practical nor feasible without logical pre-existing knowledge of the presumptive contaminant to warrant such an expense incurred by this additional wave of testing. And if such a conspiracy had foundation in truth, certainly this action would be thwarted and circumvented by design.


Originally posted by defcon5
There's a show on Discovery right now called "Best Evidence". They're examining the whole "chemtrails" conspiracy theory.

I saw enough of some show, perhaps the same one, recently that had a PR look about it but didn’t use any real science on either side of the debate to be worthy of a reliable or sincere outcome. It would be considered “fluffy science”, if any kind of science. I put it on the same level as the ghost busters and currently see way too much of it in the media. It does bother me to see pseudo science being passed off as real science for the sake of a TV show. Real science tends to get tedious and monotonous to be considered entertainment, so while I understand the reason for the fluff, I despise it because it makes so many people believe Sci-Fi is real and real science is unnecessary.

As far as the different fuels used at any given airport are concerned, I didn’t think you were intentionally misleading but wish to point it out to maintain consistency in our debate, and I am glade you cleared it up. It does go to demonstrate how easy it is for us to overlook something that is small in nature and perhaps considered insignificant by one person while a point of interest to another and I have no doubt that if it hadn’t been addressed, some one would yell “foul”.


Originally posted by defcon5
You are better suited at telling what the equipment is called, all I know is that the fuel is placed in a tube, and exposed to a magnet and centrifuge, then it produces a chart showing what elements are present in the fuel.


Well, a centrifuge separates any substances of different densities in a mixture or suspension but does little for compounds, distillates, solvents etc. and only confirms my point that these people only test for specific things, known things. So I take it that this is one of the points that you simply don’t understand. That’s okay, it was tough for many of the students to grasp, even into the second year.

When testing a substance, you really need to have a pre-conceived idea as to what you are testing for, so the tests are designed to return a value to support or deny the presences of a substance. To discover an unknown substance, there is a very long sequence of testing involving test after test after test after test and so on. Many times an unknown substance remains unknown, and the best that anyone can do is say what elements a substance is comprised of which doesn’t ever denote how a compound is put together, this is why chemical formulas are highly guarded secrets that can make or break a company. Research Dow, DuPont Chemicals, Abbott, Merck, Bayer Laboratories and corporate espionage to gain better insight to the secrecy and complexity of chemical formulas.


Originally posted by defcon5
Nope its tested for any type of contaminate. Could be something that is bleeding into the fuel in the lines, could be something growing on the walls of the tank, could have been exposed to something on shipping, etc.

Sorry, you are wrong here. They only test for known contaminates. I’ve already explained this and you should know that they cannot possibly test for any contaminant, only known ones. You even point out some known contaminates.


Originally posted by defcon5
I have had basic chemistry, apparently the same as you, because if you were such the advanced chemist you would know that:
While the chemical reactions may differ some at higher altitude (it would be harder to start something on fire as there is less oxygen, or it may not burn as brilliantly), once it is burning it releases the same gas. If this were not the case then I could, for example, smoke a cigarette at 10,000 feet and not get any tar or nicotine from it...
Unfortunately, not the case. If there was some type of poison present in the fuel we would be breathing it at an even more concentrated level here at sea level. The air here is at a higher BAR then it is at 10,000 feet, so it is denser and more concentrated then it is up there. The same way that when I dive I have to blow off the extra levels of nitrogen I inhale, due to increased density of the air at more then 1 BAR.


I have a little more than just basic chemistry, a little more.
I am surprised that a person with at least basic chemistry wouldn’t understand the concept of ideal conditions for chemical reactions. I recall it being taught in first year Chem, and as a constant principle of consideration for all studies of chemical reactions thereafter. Double my confusion that you are a diver and don’t understand the principle. The chemical reactions that occur at sea level may differ greatly at higher altitudes and equally as great at various depths below sea level. Which is why you are cautioned to not take certain medications prior to a dive as the chemical reaction in your body may change a helpful medication into a lethal poison at specific depths. The same is true for a chemical reaction at 10,000 feet and how they may be different than at sea level and it isn’t a question of nitrogen saturation or concentration levels, it is a question of relative pressures and temperatures to catalyst a chemical reaction.

These are all simple facts my friend and I have already suggested to you to research “ideal conditions for chemical reactions” to gain an understanding and if you chose to ignore these facts and the related guiding principles of chemistry then these discussions are no longer debates, but simply some one who wishes to ignore the facts over an opinion.


Originally posted by defcon5
Go get a part time job fueling aircraft, learn how airports work, and educate yourself, then come back here and tell me this garbage.

I don’t need a part time job, I am educated and I have posted facts and supplied you resource information to look up to better educate your self on the topic of chemical reactions which was my point of this debate. You either accept the facts or you don’t. As far as any other theories on the matter, I believe if you review my posts you come to realize that you are confusing me with someone else.


Originally posted by defcon5

DMHO Facts
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

Yes, not only that, did you know that our oceans are filled with a result combination of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide (drain cleaner). Scary huh?



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Here is yet another reason why this type of conspiracy will not go away, ever. To effectively clear this up, completely, remove all doubt, one would need to know in advance, exactly what to look for and then sample test every batch of fuel at every airport and every plane. This of course is neither practical nor feasible without logical pre-existing knowledge of the presumptive contaminant to warrant such an expense incurred by this additional wave of testing. And if such a conspiracy had foundation in truth, certainly this action would be thwarted and circumvented by design.


And thus people will continue to fall for the hoax .... because it can never be disproven.

The fact that alleged chemtrails have been observed and studied for decades - and continue to be studied even more so today - means nothing to those who wish to perpetuate the myth.

Of course, on the other hand, if chemtrails are real how do we prove them when they mimic in every respect normal contrails?



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
And thus people will continue to fall for the hoax .... because it can never be disproven.


Ok, I think you are starting to get it! But you are trying to imply the conclusion of the OP. You might be better suited to say, "and thus the people will never really know because chemtrails cannot be disproven".

My point of debate was that one cannot consider the whole Chemtrail conspiracy debunked simply based on ones personal experience, however limited or extensive that may be. That would be considered anecdotal and extremely ego-centric, with the ONLY exception being someone who is Omni-present.

The facts are that the ability to execute such a thing is FEASABLE, end of debate as proven by facts. But as I have continued to say, the practicality is another issue altogether.

There are plenty of reasons to either believe it is real or not real, or that it has been done from time to time, or that it has never been done. All of which suggest that it is more of a personal conviction as to how well you trust your government and the powers in charge. Some blindly trust while others do not. Some try to justify their trust or lack of trust with emotional outbursts launching sarcasm and ridicule at their opposition, which many times denotes more of a failure, desperation and a lack of facts instead of proving their point.

As far as I am concerned, I tend to not get too worked up about something that I cannot change and prior to this OP, I didn’t give the Chemtrail conspiracy much thought, but it is easy to debate on the side of the feasibility of its existence and impossible to prove against it.

And for those who don’t understand my comment about the Hydrochloric acid and Sodium hydroxide (drain cleaner) in the oceans, HCl + NaOH = H2O + NaCl (salt water) basic Chem.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join