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

Originally posted by Chadwickus
It would have to be an awful lot of Aluminium to have any effect.

Worse than that... they aren't even sure it would work.

I have heard rumors that the Anunnaki used gold for this, but our government wouldn't waste that on us



Well all those toxins have drained me so time for some ZZZzzzz's

reply to post by zorgon


Hey, now that's a thought! Why's the price of gold so high these days? Why did our wonderful PM Mr Brown sell off our gold reserves all those years ago? Why do some 'chemtrails' appear golden in colour? I think we've cracked it

Not sure that explains the red ones though

reply to post by zorgon


When I wrote about all those “evil” chemicals I didn’t think you’d take it seriously, as I also said you eat them regularly. BHT is a food additive and a fuel additive.
Your mention of the toxicology of JP-8 has to do with the raw fuel. That is to say, that which is laying about waiting to be burned. Gasoline is worse, but people usually don’t drink or eat either. Breathing the vapors is not uncommon. Gasoline has a greater effect but neither is recommended. DGEMME is a variant of plain automotive anti-freeze which has similar characteristics.

Now for the Aluminum. I was asking the form of the aluminum because people confuse aluminum metal with aluminum oxide and often, in excerpts and snippets, the distinction is not made. The metal is used as radar reflecting chaff but those are relatively large strips and would not stay in the air very long. Aluminum oxide is a common material. Exposure to fine alumina dust is limited in industrial settings as is exposure to any fine dust. I asked how you thought it was dispersed because you didn’t say whether you thought it was the metal or the oxide.
Finding quartz mixed in with the alumina sounds more like a dust storm than some sort of seeding operation. It would be good to see the actual analyses to make sure that the results haven’t been misinterpreted. “Five times the limit” is not specific as we don’t know if they are talking about dust in air or Aluminum in water. If they analyzed the rainwater mixed with insoluble aluminum oxide particles, their numbers are meaningless, of course, because water standards are for soluble forms of metals.

Originally posted by Essan
Not sure that explains the red ones though

Nice capture Essan... I like it..

It's probably to do with this Air Force recovery. It's only red smoke, right?



[edit on 1-12-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by pteridine
When I wrote about all those “evil” chemicals I didn’t think you’d take it seriously,gless, of course, because water standards are for soluble forms of metals.

>>>> Makes note to self.... do not take anything pteridine says seriously

BHT is a food additive and a fuel additive.

Not in MY food it ain't

It would be good to see the actual analyses to make sure that the results haven’t been misinterpreted. “Five times the limit” is not specific as we don’t know if they are talking about dust in air or Aluminum in water.

Well of course it would be good to get the actual data and figures from the government. Somehow I don't see this happening.

5 times the limit is however an interesting statement as it implies that SOMEONE set a limit on how much is safe... and they ignored it.




...---...

[edit on 1-12-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


So you've never seen a red sun at sunset/sunrise? wow.

Originally posted by dave420
So you've never seen a red sun at sunset/sunrise? wow.

Red sun? Not in THIS solar system... our sun is Yellow..

Don't know what yer game is bub...

Red Sun Bwhahahahaha Nice try

reply to post by zorgon


When I told you that “BHT is a food additive and a fuel additive.”
You said, “Not in MY food it ain't.” Check the labels on your food. If it has vegetable oil in it or lard, it likely has BHT. So do cereals and cake mixes among other things. Love that BHT and BHA.
As to the aluminum issue, you do not know what limits were being discussed and how the data was interpreted. We have seen some misleading statements due to the misinterpretation of the data, so five times the limit may just mean that someone assumed the wrong units or the wrong matrix.
You never did answer the question of what form you thought the aluminum was in as it came from the aircraft.

Originally posted by dave420
So you've never seen a red sun at sunset/sunrise? wow.

And after those red chemtrails from Essan start to fall you get THIS



Not sure what chemical gives the red color though

This is neither a Chemtrail nor a Contrail... maybe HAARP artistry?

But I couldn't resist...

This one is for OzWeatherman





...---...


[edit on 3-12-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Sorry - red sun light. Nice pedantry. Very fetching.

reply to post by zorgon


That's what happens when a red light shines through a white cloud - a cloud that looks red.

You really aren't up to scratch with paying attention to your surroundings or in science class, huh?

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

Mr. Science references, LOL, I wish you could understand how extremely funny that is and why, I will cherish these few pages for the remainder of my life. At least something got through to you, yeah, ah, memories! Since you’ve decided to refer to me as Mr. Science, A.K.A. Mr. Wizard, does that make you Lil’ Timmy or Mr. Scarecrow?

You mentioned Phage, I like Phage…Phage is sensible, direct, and respectful. Phage made a clear point of describing one of many types of foggers and he did so with undeniable accuracy. It was, however, not the type of fogger I made references to and I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the issue and if you ever learn to read even your own posts, you might advance, but I seriously doubt that to be your goal.

We used a fogger to test certain substances in the lab in KCMO, a small direct combustion fogger made from a modified Briggs and Stratton engine that we kept in what we call a “hood”. A hood is a safety enclosure that prevents gases from unintentional contact with people. We would run the tests to assess if the product met design standards. Part of the quality control evaluation included assessment of residue build-up in and/or on specific machine parts, as well as a sample of the delivered “fog”. Now that’s out of the way, we can move forward.

The hypothetical scenario didn’t work for you, I am sorry about that, odd that most children can grasp the concept, but there are those who cannot, no worries though as there is always hope, as long as you want to learn. So, let’s go with something less abstract, DDT.

DDT was at one time considered to be the single best technological advancement in insecticides ever created. Its potency was relative to its concentration and its LD50 (lethal dose 50%)ratio was so amazingly controllable. In mild concentrations, you could spray it directly on a newborn infant without any immediately notable harm. However, its greatest asset was also its greatest liability. What made DDT so amazing, so safe, was that an extremely mild concentration was all that was needed to treat a large area. DDT would not break down or erode away. Once sprayed on the soil at the park, there it would stay, forever and at its same strength for about 75 to 100 years. If another application of DDT was again sprayed on that same soil in the park, it too would stay and the concentration would now be doubled. And so it would go, continually building up over time but that wasn’t the extent of it. DDT could be past from one animal to another in the food chain.

A cricket could consume the DDT and it would stay in its body building up to it’s LD100 as it continued to eat treated crops, or until a frog ate the cricket and then the frog would absorb the DDT and it would build up in its body until a bird ate the frog, then a cat would eat the bird, a dog the cat and so on. Each time the DDT would be passed along in the food chain. Eventually the DDT would kill us all, so it was removed from the marketplace and use in the USA although production continued for many years afterwards. In so much as the way it lingers in the soil, in the plants and in the bodies of animals and in the way it is passed on in the food chain, DDT behaves much like a type of protein called a Prion even though it isn’t a naturally occurring compound, but it is instead, a synthetically engineered toxin.

DDT was extremely versatile in the way it could be delivered, water based, petroleum based, alcohol, etc. The most effective way to deliver minute concentrations was through foggers in a petroleum based mix. The choice petroleum was what was called then, Premium grade leaded gasoline, Hi-test, Ethyl. A very small amount of DDT was added to the petro along with a color agent. This would make the burnt petro produce a thick and obvious colored smoke, the color of choice was grey-blue, but could of just as easily been orange, red, yellow, brown, even a pretty emerald green for you Mr. Scarecrow.

Now, to address your other comment, me in need of anger management, not hardly, I’ve been rolling on the floor laughing my a## off at some of these statements, seriously dude, read a book.

reply to post by eaganthorn


You win....you can pee farther than pteridine.

Nice essay, but I'm not clear what the abridged history of DDT and its delivery methods have to do with the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by eaganthorn

 

You win....you can pee farther than pteridine.

Nice essay, but I'm not clear what the abridged history of DDT and its delivery methods have to do with the topic of this thread.

LOLOLOLOLOL
It goes to demonstrate the effective capabilities of chemical dispersal via engine exhaust, specifically to this thread, aircraft. It even goes to address the effectiveness issue, if a chemical, by design, is intended to build up over a period of time. Etc.

It was also suggested that some people out west used the DDT laced fuel in other engines, because the Eagles and Condors seemed to be effected to a much greater degree than could be explained away in the food chain scenerio.

Originally posted by zorgon
Not sure what chemical gives the red color though

Regarding the different colors of clouds, it has to do with how densely packed the particles of water are, and the reflection/absorption of light:

Clouds form when relatively warm air containing water vapor is lighter than its surrounding air and this causes it to rise. As it rises it cools and the vapor condenses out of the air as micro-droplets. These tiny particles of water are relatively densely packed and sunlight cannot penetrate far into the cloud before it is reflected out, giving a cloud its characteristic white color.
As a cloud matures, the droplets may combine to produce larger droplets, which may combine to form droplets large enough to fall as rain. In this process of accumulation, the space between droplets becomes larger and larger, permitting light to penetrate much farther into the cloud. If the cloud is sufficiently large and the droplets within are spaced far enough apart, it may be that a percentage of the light which enters the cloud is not reflected back out before it is absorbed.
......
Red, orange and pink clouds occur almost entirely at sunrise/sunset and are the result of the scattering of sunlight by the atmosphere. The clouds are not that color; they are reflecting the long (and unscattered) rays of sunlight which are predominant at those hours. The effect is much the same as if one were to shine a red spotlight on a white sheet. In combination with large, mature thunderheads this can produce blood-red clouds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by eaganthorn
the effective capabilities of chemical dispersal via engine exhaust, specifically to this thread, aircraft.

Maybe, I guess....if we were talking about internal combustion engines, like Briggs & Strattons. But we're not, so the specificity is lost somewhere.

the Eagles and Condors seemed to be effected to a much greater degree than could be explained away in the food chain scenerio.

Not really....raptors and scavengers are considered apex agents in the food chain; resulting in higher concentrations of contaminants and poisons. The result of the poisoning in those animals was severe thinning of their eggs, hugely increasing mortality rates. In the case of the condor the symptom was exacerbated by two criteria; they don't start laying eggs until 5 or 6 years of age, then, only lay a single egg every two years.

reply to post by eaganthorn


I’m so happy to hear that my writing is something you will cherish for the rest of your life. I do have that effect on people. Actually, the Mr. Science reference was a bit of sarcasm lost on you. I should refer to you as LOLOLOLOL because that is probably your most direct statement as you try to deflect questions away from the nice corner you have argued yourself into. I also liked the modern vernacular “dude” which shows that you are young at heart and with it.
As was posted by Mr. Penny, you are confusing a gas turbine engine on a jet aircraft with your lawnmower. That must have been some science lab with a lawnmower in a fume hood. Wait for the call from the Nobel committee.
Now, try to address your flawed idea of putting things in fuel so that after being combusted in a gas turbine, they will be effective doing whatever it is that you think they do. I already explained to you why it is a bad way of delivering anything to a specific target. Remember that DDT in lawnmowers is not the issue, nor is the half-life of DDT in the environment, so take a deep breath, reinflate your ego, and try to expand the scope of your arguments to contrail-chemtrail issues. That is what this thread is about. Show how something added to the fuel can go through a gas turbine at 30,000 feet and end up doing something to people, animals, plants, or things on the ground.

reply to post by pteridine


I guess you aren’t able to make the DDT connection, huh? DDT is one of many similar types of synthetic compounds that by design, do not break down without a specific chemical process, build up in aggregate, are absorbed systemically. As far as how it can be dispersed via aircraft exhaust, that has already been covered in previous posts on more than one occasion and if you do not take the time to review the material, you can not be taken seriously.

Again, I am very sorry that you do not understand. There is not much more I can do for you except to recommend remedial classes in both math and general science. Once you get those out of the way, maybe then you can tackle something like chemistry. I know it is difficult for some, but I understand your frustration, Mr. Scarecrow.

Originally posted by MrPenny
Maybe, I guess....if we were talking about internal combustion engines, like Briggs & Strattons. But we're not, so the specificity is lost somewhere.

Not at all, you are assuming that you know what the tests were for, and you do not. Relative factors for quality control evaluations do not mean we must purchase a jet turbine engine when a simple combustion will suffice. One merely needs to keep things relative. But I suppose I needed to spell that out. Feel free to ask about anything you do not understand.

The questions raised about the Eagles and Condors of California come as a result of the their population being more adversely effected by the DDT contamination when California had such greater restrictions on DDT use, whereas in other States with less restrictions, the raptor’s conditions were not as serious. The allegation is/was that there must of been either another contaminate or another source and distribution of DDT than originally reported. That is still unresolved but one allegation stemmed from farmers using the DDT in ways other than how it was intended.


[edit on 12/3/2008 by eaganthorn]

reply to post by eaganthorn


I do understand. I understand that it is you who are frustrated because you can’t wiggle out of your earlier posts without admitting defeat. Your original theory was additives in the jet fuel to strike specific areas. That was argued to be impractical. You had no response. Now, in desperation over arguing yourself into a corner, you are resorting to changing the subject to lawnmower engines. Additional puffery on your engineering experience will not impress anyone. DDT may well pass through a lawnmower engine, only partly burnt. What does that have to do with gas turbines? Are you proposing that we are being dusted by DDT from high flying aircraft? What do you propose is being dispersed in contrails? What classes of chemical compounds do you believe will go through a gas turbine without being combusted? How do you think they get in the fuel? What do you propose is being targeted? To what ends? What concentrations do you expect to reach the ground, unhydrolyzed, unoxidized, and unphotolyzed?
Perhaps you can check your lawnmower chemistry references, do some engineering math, and come up with theories relating to your original claims. You should also consider taking your own advice:
“There is not much more I can do for you except to recommend remedial classes in both math and general science. Once you get those out of the way, maybe then you can tackle something like chemistry.”