Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails , page 24

reply to post by zorgon

---

You could always read a few dozen of the papers I linked to - instead of mischievously suggesting something which isn't there

But then, people still study how planes fly. Hmmm, must be a conspiracy. Do planes really fly? People still study tornadoes. That proves tornadoes are a US govt secret weapon ........

reply to post by pteridine

---

How interesting that you should feel this way, that anything outside of your immediate sense of perception or understanding cannot possibly exist. Wonderfully ego centric of you my friend, but I am saddened to inform you that much of the world continues to function quite well whether you acknowledge it or not. And so is it with the chemical trails. Trace amounts of chemicals in the exhaust of aircraft are exactly by definition, chemical trails or Chemtrails whether fully oxidized or not.

Addressing the possibility if there is a conspiracy or not, I can only revert back to its feasibility. Is it feasible to execute such a conspiracy, is it possible? Yes, as I have stated before, should you take the time to read about it, it is feasible and possible because this type of conspiracy is so potentially compartmental. The only persons who would need to know the details would be those actually directing the action. None of the grunts involved would need to know or even have the required education or sophistication necessary to properly identify the components of the conspiracy, let alone any chemical function less its catalyst. That being said, it would be as equally presumptuous of me to suggest that there is a definite conspiracy in place all across the world at every place, at every moment as it is for you or your friends to suggest that there is no possibility of such a conspiracy anywhere in the world at any time. You may notice that the balance in that last statement leans more to one side than the other, most rational people can and do see it when the information is presented in this way.

As to the clarification of the Chemical trails, yes by definition all exhaust trails are in fact chemical trails, but I have consistently addressed the difference between commonplace condensation trails of simple exhaust and the chemical trails resulting from a modified chemical reaction(s) as a result of additives to the aviation fuel.

Further defining a conspiracy for this discussion I would ask you if a conspiracy must be reserved for actions well thought out in advance with a purposefully goal in mind, or does the definition allow for a conspiracy of silence when faced with the discovery of a health risk? In my discussion, not to hijack this thread, but for clarification, I have incorporated the possibility of silence being included as part or whole of the conspiracy definition in part, full or aggregate considering that the end results are often not discriminative.

You made several references that I am more than happy to address, You mentioned altitude, efficiency, concentration, dilution effects, al compounds, solar photolysis, science, engineering, and pharmaceutics, simple logistics, book sales, CD’s, financial gain, childish rants, patents, legislative papers, fear mongering, the mentally unhinged, desperation, barium and aluminum.

Some of these things have little or nothing to do with me, I have no financial gain or loss from this debate, no books, no CDs, nor do I know or talk with anyone personally who does. I am not sure what an al compound is, I believe my self to be mentally stable, I have no patents, pending or otherwise and I am in no way desparate. I do know something of science, chemistry, engineering, planning in private and civil with short and long term goals, I understand words and phrases like accumulative, in aggregate, systemic absorption and relative dissipation ratios, sublimation. I am familiar with simple and complex chemical formulations and the use of multiple catalysts. I am familiar with methodologies that produce direct and singular chemical reactions as well as multiple stage or complex reactions, organic chemistry and pharmacology.

As far as high altitude dispersal being ineffective, that might work with someone who buys off the rack, but it doesn’t fly with a chemical engineer as this is simply taken into consideration and compensated in design. Also note that the bulk of your refute is handled in this way. If something is to be spread over an area from a specific altitude, one simply does the math and compensates. Take also into consideration accumulative concentrations by design. Indirect chemical reactions, for example, let’s say I hypothetically want to kill off all the fish over a fifteen mile stretch of coastline using this method. I present another additive to the aviation fuel for the aircraft in that area, calculate the concentration to affect that immediate area with the anticipated under threshold amount of concentration outside the designated zone. Done to aid in the growth and bloom of a specific algae, as a result of dispersal over a three month period the algae grows too fast for its environment, chokes and dies, the dead and decomposing algae becomes toxic and kills all the fish. The chemical engineer need only decide if the payload should be a type of fertilizer in specific ratios for the algae or if an artificial growth hormone specific to that algae is to be used. My money would be on the hormone, its specific, less variables. But again, this was hypothetical and in no way related to jen5-ttew.

Chemistry wasn’t even my main study I just have a lot of lab time, 3 years in school, 10 years in a lab at work, but I do get a little tired of the pompous attitudes from people who feel that since they can explain how a fluffy cloud is formed it somehow invalidates all chemical trails. Or working on the flight line pumping gas makes them an authority on anything other than pumping gas. Don’t get me wrong I’m sure they are all great guys, but I take issue when they make an all encompassing statement, to say that something so possible to exist, doesn’t exist at all because they simply aren’t aware of it.

reply to post by eaganthorn

---

Egothorn,
Your armchair engineering experience and dearth of practical experience are evident. Fuel additives go through the combustion process with the fuel. Any organics that you might want to add will be burned, save trace amounts. Inorganic additives to fuel are limited to those that will not erode or slag valuable gas turbine parts. This is a reduced set. Splash-blend additives are not put in fuels on an aircraft by aircraft basis. Given that aircraft fueled by this elixir will be travelling different routes and at different altitudes with different weather conditions it is extremely unlikely that a knowledgeable group of conspirators would consider such a hare-brained method of delivering chemicals for whatever purpose. As has been stated many times, there are much better ways of delivering chemicals to a target area that do not require secret fuel additives, mission impossible planning, subversion of fuel supply systems, deadlifting the chemicals to high altitude, running all of the applied chemicals through the combustor, dealing with jetstream winds in the hundreds of knots, dealing with particle drifts on the scales of miles to hundreds of miles, and having this effort kept quiet. It is much easier to have a tanker truck drive the roads with valves opening and closing as required.
You suggested hormone delivery in your example. The engines won’t really be able to tell the difference between a hormone and Jet A. Wouldn’t you consider a fishing boat running down the coast delivering the hormone with GPS accuracy a better move than hoping that combusted hormone residue falls generally where you want it? Given dose-response curves, you might have to plan many flights and could even miss the season by the time concentration were whare you wanted them. Certainly, the fishing boat scenario would eliminate the Rube Goldberg pathway required by chemtrails.
You suggested that designing for delivery is only a matter of “doing the math.” I suggest that the math will be a little more difficult than you expect. The atmosphere is layered, like the ocean, and has streams of different speed and directions stacked like a layer cake. Now consider that they are continuously changing while the plane is in the air and that information on their speed and direction may not be readily available real time. This isn’t ChemE Unit Ops 101 and “doing the math” will be a neat trick.
The arguments against “chemtrails” are many. The first is that many of the proponents are suggesting that they “see” the differences between chemtrails and contrails. When evidence is requested, the response is either more “feelings” or list of many references that have no real impact on the question, e.g., a patent for smoke generators for target drones. When the proponents ask what evidence would be good enough for the non-believers, they are told. If there is evidence of activity, sample a contrail. Unfortunately, they have no idea what they are to sample for. Some think that extra tanks on aircraft disperse chemicals. Some think that chemicals added to the fuel have dual purposes. No one can agree on what’s being dispersed, who is doing it and why. The suggested conspiracy is vague and purposeless. It changes as we go. Then there is the issue of the focus on contrails. This is probably because people can see contrails and contrails behave in a complex manner that is not intuitive which means conspiracy, of course. Only a few worry about more likely scenarios of silent-mode black helicopters dispersing secret stuff in the night, additives to the water supply, additives put in commercial smokestacks, radioisotopes in food, dispersal along highways, and the like. I actually like the highway idea because the targets are specific, captive, and can be dosed regularly on their daily commute.
I now ask you, what do you think is being dispersed, who is doing it and why? Do the engineering math and tell all what the conspiracy is.

Originally posted by zorgon

Now excuse me while I eat more Turkey (They can't fly either... someone tryed releasing one from a helicopter... didn't work to good )

I believe you're referring to this:
Turkeys Away

A lot of turkeys don't make it through Thanksgiving

But the truth of the matter is, turkeys can fly.

[edit on 11/30/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by pteridine

---

Egothorn?!? Ouch, I’m hurt, I’ve been wounded by a seven year old, what’s next, you gonna make fun of my haircut?

I see from your reply that you are having some trouble with the English language and some big words, I’ll go slower and use smaller words, try to break it down to a level that everyone can understand. Going forward I’ll keep you in mind, but try to keep up, and if it is still over your head, no worries, just let me know and I’ll get my niece to explain it to you, as she might be closer to your age than I.

Some pesticides, for example, and some herbicides, for example were once delivered into a farm or onto crops through a device we call a chemical fogger. A chemical fogger is just a simple little engine that burns gasoline but doesn’t really do anything else, it is an engine just like in a lawn mower but it doesn’t cut the grass, it is an engine just like in a car, but people do not ride in it, it is an engine just like in an air plane, but it does not fly. But the engine does run and when it runs, it burns gasoline. The thing that makes the fogger so special is that we mix herbicides and pesticides, lets call them “chemicals”, in with the gasoline, so when the little engine is running, smoke comes out of it. Lots and lots of smoke and in that smoke are the chemicals we want to put on our crops to keep away insects and weed.

Why do we want to use smoke, you ask? We use smoke because smoke gets into places that water cannot reach, and smoke doesn’t cause mildew or other molds. The really funny thing about the smoke from the fogger is that we make it smoke so much on purpose, Yes, that’s right, we make it smoke so much so we can see where all the smoke goes and we can avoid breathing the smoke because we all know that smoke is bad for our lungs, right? But if we wanted to, we could make the fogger work just as well, with just a tiny little bit of smoke, so little you couldn’t even see it unless it is a really cold day. And on those really, really cold days, those days when you can see your breath for a moment or two, any amount of smoke lingers for a long time.

Most aircraft engines are designed for a relatively low octane requirement, something akin to kerosene, which is the most commonly used base for aviation fuel. A low octane rating, among other things means a higher flash point. A flash point is the exact temperature in which something can ignite. However, for some engines, alcohol is added to the kerosene for a different fuel mix, and gives the fuel a lower flash point. Here’s the tricky part so pay extra special attention to this information kids. Kerosene and alcohol are both fuels but they are also very strong solvents and almost all drugs can be dissolved in either kerosene or alcohol, so when the fuel is a mixture of the two, virtually any drug can be dissolved in the mixture. Now remember that information kids, cause there’s going to be a test later on.

A low octane requirement allows for greater amounts of additional particles within the fuel with the only real concern being binders or chemicals that could become sticky before, during or after ignition. Those are simply not added to the mix as they generally only added in manufacturing a pill or an elixir and certainly not recommended for a fuel additive. Most drugs are in the form of a salt for human consumption but this is also easily manipulated in manufacturing.

Now, you mentioned that the use of chemical trails or aircraft exhaust as being an ineffective means to disperse chemicals and that it would be much easier and effective to spread poison out of the back of a boat while trolling up and down the coastline. Let’s think about that, someone would see you, the action would be traceable, the concentration of poison would be very high and exposing not only the intended target(s) but the driver of the boat, the tourist and swimmers in the water, the marine mammals and so on. My God, man, are you insane? To jeopardize the health and well being of every known creature in the kill zone, you’re not very good at this, you fail, miserably. The goal was to kill off the fish, only the fish, in the zone. My method achieved the goal and gave a three month window of time for marine mammals to swim off to safety, unharmed. Bystanders only experienced a mild cough, I guess efficiency and effectiveness are examples of perspective. As far as the math goes, I understand math was hard for some people, its ok, I understand, really, its ok.

I would suggest you read up a little more about the potential use of aircraft exhaust as a chemical delivery system, you either don’t get it, or don’t want it. In either case your opinion is irrelevant as aircraft exhaust is in fact, a very effective means of dispersal if the dynamics are understood and used accordingly. It is wide open and available to anyone smart enough. Of course I couldn’t expect everyone to understand that, some people just don’t have the mental capacity. Just as we shouldn’t expect that everyone in the Air Force is a pilot, someone has to stay on the ground and pump the gas, and I am sure that those guys do it because they wanted to and not because they lack the required pilot skills. Reality can be harsh, yeah, I know. Here’s a hint for you, I respect those who show respect.

reply to post by eaganthorn

---

That really isn't the way foggers work. Running the pesticide through the carburation system would be very messy, the carburetor jets and sparkplugs would get fouled pretty quickly.

Systems based on internal combustion engines involve two different but integrated systems. The engine drives a blower and a pump. The heat generated by the engine heats the pesticide solution (generally oil based) to aid aerosolization. The pump then sends the solution to the blower. The pesticide is not "burned" in the engine.

A combination ultra-low volume aerosol generator and thermal fogger for dispensing a mosquito killing insecticide includes a power source which may be a gasoline driven engine and an air pump connected to the power source. The air pump drives a turbine pump which has a rotatable turbine wheel. There is a fluid pump connected to and driven by rotation of the turbine wheel. An insecticide formulation tank is connected to the fluid pump and provides insecticide to an atomizing nozzle and a thermal fog muffler and fog discharge. There is a flow selector valve connected to the fluid pump to determine which discharge device receives fluid insecticide. There is a volume control valve connected between the fluid pump and the flow selector valve.

www.freepatentsonline.com...

When I was a kid we used to run around behind the "mosquito truck", playing in the "fog". I remember the distinctive sound of the pump that signaled the truck's arrival. Throughout the neighborhood the cry would rise, "MOSQUITO TRUCK!" and kids would appear in the street.

Hmm, I wonder if that might have had something to do with the radiation and chemotherapy I went through years (a lot) later.

[edit on 11/29/2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

---

You are correct about some of the fogger systems, as there have been many designs over the years. There are direct combustion foggers, atomizers, aerosol sprayers and vaporizer systems, all which have been commonly called foggers.

Most often, vaporizer units were used to disperse the mosquito insecticides in and around civilian neighborhoods. I remember seeing such things myself in a subdivision just outside Chicago in the early 60’s, when my father was working at DuPont Chemicals. I remember watching that vapor spew out the back of a machine sitting in the back of a city truck. The vapor slowly sank to the ground and I watched it linger in the grass for several minutes.

The type I referred to were direct combustion systems used back in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s most commonly used in DDT dispersion during that era. Note that DDT was distributed to farmers at low cost or even free at times, during that same era and used in the direct combustion foggers which looked like nothing more than a lawnmower engine with a large cone shaped exhaust where a muffler should have been. In the cases whereas the DDT was given away, some farmers horded this poison (came in 55 gallon barrels) and used it as a fuel supplement or replacement in various farm equipment, but since it was designed to smoke very heavily, it was embarrassing to use it in the family car when driving to such places as to church, the store, etc.

reply to post by eaganthorn

---

Golly, gee whiz, Mr. Science, your panties are really in a knot even though your haircut is spiffy. You need help with anger management. Let’s start with the first things you think you know that may be a bit fuzzy for you. Phage has already discussed chemical foggers so your other comments will be addressed.
Jet aircraft burn jet fuel. It is a middle distillate cut, kind of like kerosene or diesel fuel. The flash point is higher than gasoline or alcohol. When we talk about this fuel, we don’t talk about octane at all. Octane and Cetane numbers are only important in piston engines. Usually we just state what fuel it is, such as Jet-A for commercial aircraft, and for military planes JP-5, JP-8 and other JP type designations. The specs for these fuels are published and somewhat tight in certain areas. Now these fuels have small amounts of expensive additives put in them for various reasons and the additives do different things. Some additives inhibit corrosion. Some additives reduce friction. Some reduce tars and gums by preventing oxidation. All of these additives add to the heating value of the fuel and are burned along with the fuel. Of course, one can dissolve other materials in it, too but we can’t really mix a whole lot of other stuff in there because other stuff will change the fuel characteristics. Light alcohols are one thing we won’t add because they will change the vapor pressure, making our fuels unsafe, and they would also change the spec on the fuel making our unsafe fuel unsalable. We would also get undesired attention when the storage tanks burned. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that we can dissolve the fish killing hormone in the Jet-A and that we have subverted the fuel supply and added it to some fuel. That fuel now goes to the airport and is put in a big storage tank. Our hormone is now diluted but let us suppose, for argument’s sake, that we have been juicing all the fuel for months on end. Every commercial jet aircraft flying out of our airport has fuel loaded with fish killing hormone. If we are successful in our dispersion technique, we will be killing fish far and wide. Fortunately, for fish everywhere, any compounds we want to dissolve in the fuel will also go through the gas turbine engine. They will burn, more or less, in such a fashion as to make our addition pointless. Maybe we can find a way to convince engine manufacturers to design an engine that will waste a bit more fuel in a bypass and allow our fish killing stuff to get through. Another small group of conspirators we can silence if need be. Pretend that we can.
Now for the smoke. The reason that the foggers are effective is that the small particles they produce stay airborne longer and reach places bigger particles would not reach. This is good for your garden but not so good if you have a specific target that you would like to dust from 30,000 feet. The particles you generate might not come down for a while, so when you do the engineering math you find that you can’t hit anything specific. Remember the layer-cake model of the atmosphere? If we were dropping anvils, we might get reasonably close, but for micron-sized particles dispersed at 30,000+ feet we would be fortunate to hit the continent we were aiming at.
So, let’s discuss your trepidation at the fishing boat scenario. Your method does nothing that you claim it can do. Fish killing hormones can be delivered daily on a finely targeted area by a pleasure craft or fishing boat with a relatively simple device diffusing below the water line at any depth we wish. Alternatively, we can have land based dispersal methods. Concentrations and dosage can be controlled as the water may be sampled before and after. No one will be throwing drums of flaming material over the side. This is far more accurate than anything you can do from 30,000 feet. It is far more controlled than random dispersion of partially burnt compounds on water surfaces. It can allow for tides and even save the marine mammals if you think that they would notice fish hormone. It can even shape the dispersion to the shoreline and water depth, something no commercial aircraft can do. It does not need a thermally stable additive that is soluble in Jet-A. Aircraft chemtrails are really the hard way to do any of this.
As a famous person once said “I would suggest you read up a little more about the potential use of aircraft exhaust as a chemical delivery system, you either don’t get it, or don’t want it.”

I now ask you once more, as part of your conspiracy theory, what do you think is being dispersed, who is doing it and why?

Originally posted by pteridine
I now ask you once more, as part of your conspiracy theory, what do you think is being dispersed, who is doing it and why?

Aluminum particles, the government, to protect us form solar radiation

Well you asked what we THINK :p

JP-8 Jet Fuel

*DOD Jet Fuel since 1991, used predominately by the Army and the Air Force to power aircrafts and land vehicles. Also now used by the Navy at land based activities.

SPECIFICATION** MIL-T-83133

98 % Kerosene containing compounds in the C7 through C18 range

may contain one or more of the following:
· 2,6-di-tert -butyl-4-methylphenol
· 2,6-di-tert -butylphenol
· 2,4-dimethyl-6-tert-butylphenol
· 75% min-2,6-di-tert -butylphenol 25% max tert-butylphenols and tri-tert -butylphenols
· 72% min 2,4-dimethy-6-tert - butylphenol 28% max tert-butylmethylphenols and tert -butyldimethylphenols
· 55% min 2,4-dimethyl-6-tert - butylphenol
15% min 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4- methylphenol 30% max mixed methyl and
dimethyl tert -butylphenols

That's a WHOLE BUNCH of CHEMICAL trailing out behind jets...

And the Government disagrees with you on the "Burning up" part

What happens to jet fuels JP-5 and JP-8 when
they enter the environment?
q Some chemicals in JP-5 and JP-8 will evaporate into air
from open containers or when they are spilled into water
or soil.
q JP-5 and JP-8 in air may break down by reacting with
sunlight or chemicals in air.
q Chemicals in JP-5 and JP-8 may slowly move from the
soil into groundwater.
q Other chemicals in JP-5 and JP-8 will attach to particles in
water and may sink to the bottom sediments.
q Chemicals in JP-5 and JP-8 may be broken down by bacteria
and other organisms in soil and water.
q JP-5 and JP-8 may stay in the soil for more than 10 years.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...


SO it seems you have given us at least ONE example of truly toxic chemtrails left in normal operation of military jets. But not to worry... they don't fly that often right?


But thanks for the lead It just lead me to a whole cabinet of military files on toxic substances from jets


OH and there is this...

How can jet fuels JP-5 and JP-8 affect my
health?

Little is known about the effects of jet fuels JP-5 and JP-8
on people’s health. Breathing large amounts of JP-5 and JP-8

for a short period may result in headaches, difficulty in concentrating,
coordination problems, and fatigue. Breathing
lower levels of JP-5 and JP-8 for a longer period could result in
lack of initiative, sleep disturbances, and dizziness.

It is not known whether jet fuels JP-5 and JP-8 can affect
reproduction or cause birth defects in people or animals.

DAMN They are using it and don't even know the effect?

for a short period may result in headaches, difficulty in concentrating,
coordination problems, and fatigue. lack of initiative, sleep disturbances, and dizziness.

Good grief...

Thanks for proving part of our case I will be sure to credit you




...---...

[edit on 30-11-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon

---

You didn't know that breathing in large amounts of vapourised jet fuel will be bad for your health? Wow.

reply to post by zorgon

---

Ah, Zorgie, all those evil chemicals. Those that you listed are anti-oxidants. One is BHT; you eat it regularly.
The lists that you show are likely concerned more with spills and vapor releases. Check your references carefully. Most of what is in the fuel gets burned.
Your source for the JP spec fuels is correct. Carrier aircraft use JP-5 because of the higher flash point. JP-8 is used in land based aircraft because fires on land are not nearly as exciting as fires at sea and on land one does not have fuel lines and cat steam lines in the same space.
As to proving anything, there is nothing there about your big concern, Aluminum. I did nothing to prove your point that you couldn't have done yourself had you tried to learn about what you claim to understand.

reply to post by zorgon

---

You said: "Aluminum particles, the government, to protect us form(sic) solar radiation"

Did you see any aluminum particles coming from the contrails? What form was the aluminum in? How do you propose it was distributed in the contrails?

Plans of this sort have been proposed, but particles to shade the planet would be dispersed at much higher altitudes than jet aircraft are capable of.
Try again.

Originally posted by pteridine
Ah, Zorgie, all those evil chemicals. Those that you listed are anti-oxidants. One is BHT; you eat it regularly.

Chemical is chemical I have not made any claims as to evil chemicals. That is YOUR gig.
Have I SEEN the aluninum? No. If I had I would not have answered your "What do youTHINK it is" question... I would have posted the document

See you don't even stick to your own rules... with every question you ask you change it when we answer. And you set your own criteria.

But as you wish... since the military says jet fuel is TOXIC and can be absorbed through the skin... I would say that list qualifies as 'evil'



Assessment of Skin Absorption and Penetration of JP-8 Jet Fuel and Its Components Operational Toxicology Branch, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL/HEST), 2856 G Street, Building 79, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,

HI-Flash; anti-icing aviation fuel additive. MIL-I-85470(A) APPROVED AND BY THE ASTM UNDER STANDARD D4171 (for use in civilian jet fuels as a fuel system icing inhibiter)

Health Hazards. Acute—Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether (DEGMME), the primary ingredient of Prist Hi-Flash aviation fuel additive, is an eye and mucous membrane irritant, a nephrotoxin and central nervous system depressant. DEGMME can be absorbed through skin in toxic amounts when contact is extensive and prolonged; it is toxic by skin absorption. And it may cause pain and transient injury to eyes. DEGMME may cause irritation to the mucous membranes.

www.supliaereos.com...


Air Traffic Controllers Concerned Over Chemtrails

These radar returns are the signature of the fine aluminum particles found in laboratory tests of chemtrail-contaminated rain taken in Espanola, Ontario in the summer of 1999. The lab analysis found reflective quartz particles in the chemtrail fallout - and levels of aluminum FIVE TIMES higher than Ontario's maximum permissible health safety standards.

After NDP Defense critic Gordon Earle presented a petition signed by 550 Espanola residents to Parliament in November, 1999 demanding an end to aerial spraying by commercial or military aircraft, foreign or domestic, which appeared to be making many people sick, DND eventually replied, "It's not us."

The aluminum found in chemtrails over Ontario matches the 10 micron aluminum oxide called for in a 1994 patent issued to Hughes Aircraft Company. 'Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming' refers to spreading highly reflective materials in the atmosphere to reflect enough incoming sunlight (1 to 2%) to slow rapidly-accelerating global warming.

Now why do they have a maximum permissible health safety standards for aluminum particles set if there is 'nothing going on'?




[edit on 1-12-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon

---

It would have to be an awful lot of Aluminium to have any effect.

In 2006 there was a total of 40,910,355 pounds of aluminium from industry, dumped into the environment.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 1-12-2008 by Chadwickus]

The secrets hidden in the pyramids. A real eye opener!
  Posted 6 days ago with 187 member flags

The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it
  Posted 15 days ago with 106 member flags

Scientists able to talk to and teach dolphins sentences - Dolphins share a universal language.
  Posted 13 days ago with 93 member flags

6 Real People With Mind-Blowing Mutant Superpowers
  Posted 5 days ago with 90 member flags

Pirate Bay to Allow Real-Object Downloads. The Real Reason for SOPA, IMO.
  Posted 15 days ago with 74 member flags

a drop of water orbiting a nitting needle in space
  Posted 5 days ago with 69 member flags

Top 10 Most Incredible Pieces Of Nanoscale Art
  Posted 10 days ago with 43 member flags

cold plasma found above earth raises questions of einstiens "gravity is a fundimental force"
  Posted 18 days ago with 25 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: