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.

 

Dont believe in Chemtrails ? please spend 5 mins reading this

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
William Thomas is an investigative journalist who comes from the Gulf Islands of British Columbia. He has won numerous awards for his feature films and articles. His 30-minute Gulf War documentary "Ecowar" was the U.S. Environmental film festival award for "best documentary short" in 1991.

He is the author of "Scorched Earth" The Military's War Against the Environment and "Bringing the War Home" The True Story Behind the Gulf War Illness and Biological Warfare in the Gulf.

He has lectured extensively on the Gulf War and biological warfare in the '90's & is a frequent guest on the "Art Bell Radio Show". His latest book is "Probing the Chemtrails Conundrum."

This is his report...

"In January, 1999, I was contacted by the managing editor of the Environment News Service, an international wire service which I had worked for in the Gulf. I was asked to check out a story by William Wallace about very unusual aerial activity over the state of Washington that was apparently changing the skies overhead.

Wallace & his wife lived in a remote mountainous area, and he claimed that large unmarked jet aircraft were flying back and forth over his property, spraying something in the air. Unlike normal contrails behind commercial jets which dissipate quickly, these lingered for hours, came together & obscured the sky. Mr. Wallace said that he and his wife were very ill, their dogs were dying, and their plants were dying.

I began to investigate this story and after looking at a videotape made by Mr. Wallace, realized as a former pilot and former member of the military myself, that this was very unusual aerial activity. He gave me some of his contacts across the United States, and as I followed up on those contacts, I developed a huge story. As of today we have over 1,000 eyewitness reports on the so-called chemtrail phenomena.

We have documented evidence that chemtrail spraying is taking place over cities throughout Canada, the United States, England, Australia, Holland, Italy, Germany, and New Zealand. And I have uncovered direct ties between biological warfare experimentation and the spraying of pathogenic material and chemicals over our cities.

I have found in my research over the past 15 months that in every instance of heavy spraying over cities across Canada and the United States, there has been an epidemic of acute upper respiratory ailments and gastrointestinal ailments that have overfilled hospital emergency rooms across North America.

After researching biological warfare, I found two U.S. Congressional investigations documenting decades of biological warfare experimentation carried out over hundreds of cities in the United States and Canada, including Winnipeg. While these biowarfare simulants were said to be "harmless", some of the new genetically-engineered pathogens - particularly mycoplasma and other fungi - are now loose among the general population.

THERE ARE 2 TYPES OF SPRAYING PROGRAMS: HIGH AND LOW
(a) THE HIGH-FLYING SPRAY PROGRAM Chemtrails are not contrails from commercial airplane traffic. Contrails are condensation trails formed when moisture from hot engine exhaust momentarily condenses into ice crystals, usually above 35,000 feet. Chemtrails occur around 22,000 feet, and they do not dissipate within 45 seconds as contrails usually do, according to Air Transport authorities. (However, genuine contrails over heavily trafficked areas do sometimes linger and nitrogen oxide & other jet engine pollutants can form extensive cloud cover over time.) Unlike normal contrails, chemtrail plumes are laid in parallel lines in grid patterns and telltale X's over towns, cities and remote rural areas by UNMARKED Airforce tanker planes."

The complete report makes for fascinating reading & can be found on the "Canadian Consumer Health Organizations" web-site

www.consumerhealth.org...

I strongly urge everyone to read this report,

Wishing you all good health,
PEACE,
RK.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Rigel Kent]




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Thank you for your contribution to this debate. You will find staunch advocates of both types in ATS. Makes for great reading!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Thanks maxmars, I was only too glad to paste the link. I would like to know what you guys think after reading the full report. I hope it hasn't been linked on here before as it seems to be a few years old now


PEACE,
RK



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Great info. I hadn't seen this before. I have a lot to say on this, but to keep it short, watch people come here and say that the *trails are "seasonal" and a bunch of people were ill because of the weather.

I've been watching the skies over L.A. for some time now - what I do know is that something unnatural is being done to our skies and it sickens me that we are so oblivious and helpless to what is going on.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
These were my favorite parts of the article.


We have positively identified many of these aircraft as unmarked KC-135 and KC-10 Airforce tankers. In early March, hundreds of KC-135 aircraft were grounded for a part to be replaced in the tail-section of the airplane, and spray activity decreased from 24, to just two locations across the United States. Spray activity climbed right back to previous levels as the planes returned to service the following week.


I spent 25 years working around USAF aircraft, including KC-135s and KC-10s. There is no way that there is a large number of "unmarked" KC-135 and KC-10 aircraft. There are only 59 KC-10s in the entire inventory. I've seen almost all of them at one point or another, and have NEVER seen an unmarked one. There are 453 KC-135s in the inventory as of September 2008. You can knock that down some, as there are 28 that are unflyable, and at any given point 50-60 are in PDM at the depot, as well as a bunch that are undergoing phase inspections at their unit.

KC-135s and KC-10s are used to supplement airlift, which means that they fly cargo around like C-5s and C-17s. During the years that I was working on these aircraft we had multiple times when we had fighters forced to sit for two to three weeks waiting for an available tanker, because they were all tasked with airlift missions.


These contrails are sprayed by low flying C-130 Turboprop aircraft. I witnessed this myself in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, last summer. I was stunned to see a C-130 gliding low over this little resort town in the mountains, engines throttled back, dead quiet, spray coming out of the wings of the aircraft as it pulled away.


First of all, good luck finding ANY pilot that would try to "glide in with the throttles pulled back" in a C-130. Secondly, there is no such thing as a dead quiet C-130. The only way you're going to find one that quiet is if the engines are throttled back so low that the plane wouldn't keep flying. Even sitting on the ground at idle this is a very loud aircraft.


A reddish powder was also dropped on patios and a nearby lake from AC-130s flying at rooftop level.


The only AC-130s are gunships. They carry a 105mm canon, 40mm gun, and 20mm minigun. They wouldn't be flying at rooftop level, and they're not capable of carrying cargo because their cargo holds are filled with the guns and ammunition.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I'm sure the debunkers will swoop in, but for me, that was the sealant on my view that we are being systematically made ill (to the benefit of Big Med and Big Pharma) with toxic spray in chemtrails.

If one reads these data, one must at least leave open the idea that this is being done to us. If one does not...one is lying to oneself or to the rest of us.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I spent 25 years working around USAF aircraft, including KC-135s and KC-10s. There is no way that there is a large number of "unmarked" KC-135 and KC-10 aircraft. There are only 59 KC-10s in the entire inventory.


First... I suspect that if they have these craft, unmarked and all, it is unlikely that they are telling everyone in the force. It is likely that this activity is partitioned off from normal operations, and just because you spent 25 years working "around" the USAF (not even IN the USAF) does not mean you had access to ALL information.

Secret operations tend to be...er...secret.


I've seen almost all of them at one point or another, and have NEVER seen an unmarked one. There are 453 KC-135s in the inventory as of September 2008. You can knock that down some, as there are 28 that are unflyable, and at any given point 50-60 are in PDM at the depot, as well as a bunch that are undergoing phase inspections at their unit.


You might presume you have seen "almost all of them," but I suspect that unless you were high enough in the USAF, and passed the tests for being trustworthy, you would not see those planes involved in secret operations.




These contrails are sprayed by low flying C-130 Turboprop aircraft. I witnessed this myself in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, last summer. I was stunned to see a C-130 gliding low over this little resort town in the mountains, engines throttled back, dead quiet, spray coming out of the wings of the aircraft as it pulled away.


First of all, good luck finding ANY pilot that would try to "glide in with the throttles pulled back" in a C-130. Secondly, there is no such thing as a dead quiet C-130. The only way you're going to find one that quiet is if the engines are throttled back so low that the plane wouldn't keep flying. Even sitting on the ground at idle this is a very loud aircraft.


Hmmmm.... Although I am not an expert on planes and their behavior, I have flown a prop plane, and the instructor told me to back off the throttle all the way. Then he asked me if I knew that it was as if the engine was not functioning. I said I would believe it and he confirmed that we were coasting as we would if we had no engine.

Now I might presume that most planes (if not all of them) have SOME coasting behavior with no thrust. I mean, planes don't just plummet out of the skies with no engines. They coast until they reach the ground.

So I might presume that throttling back for short periods of time would be feasible in the craft in question.




A reddish powder was also dropped on patios and a nearby lake from AC-130s flying at rooftop level.


The only AC-130s are gunships. They carry a 105mm canon, 40mm gun, and 20mm minigun. They wouldn't be flying at rooftop level, and they're not capable of carrying cargo because their cargo holds are filled with the guns and ammunition


So you're saying that guns and ammo on planes, kept secret and separate, could not be removed and replaced with equipment to spray us like roaches? Really?

I'm betting this could easily be done.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well Zaphod "the thread killer" ( I like that
)

You certainly seem to know your aircraft and I am not going to dispute any of the technical claims that you made. Please understand that I did not write this myself, it is the report of William Thomas.

I would however like to make the following comments:

Having read the FULL article 3 times now, I do not remember the author claiming that all the planes came from the Military. In fact he does state that the CIA commandeered dozens aircraft from the Forest fire fighting services around the USA for "missions undisclosed"...... What would the CIA want with so many C 130's ?
This information was disclosed by the Portland Free Press in an article written by John Titus, in March 1997.

It is a simple task to take all of the identifying marks off of an aircraft if they are to be used for clandestine purposes.

Cannons, Guns and other hardware can all be easily stripped out of planes by mechanics to make room can they not? But since the KC 130 is a Hercules refueling tanker I suppose there would be no need to strip out the non existent hardware.

I was hoping that people would follow the thread and read the FULL report and hope that you find the time to do so.

There are many excellent videos on Youtube showing both interior and exterior mods to very large aircraft which turn them into giant aerosols and there is video showing unmarked planes taking off and landing at USA airports after spraying missions. If you have time to search on there I would welcome your comments as you obviously know your planes and may be able to shine some light on the "innocent" use of such modified aircraft.

Thanks for your comments,
PEACE,
RK

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Rigel Kent]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
First... I suspect that if they have these craft, unmarked and all, it is unlikely that they are telling everyone in the force. It is likely that this activity is partitioned off from normal operations, and just because you spent 25 years working "around" the USAF (not even IN the USAF) does not mean you had access to ALL information.


Just because I wasn't IN the USAF doesn't make my experiences or information wrong. A large amount of support is handled by civilians, who do the same work as the guys in uniform. I'm not saying that I have all information in the USAF. I know that there's a lot that I never had access to. But to hide a large fleet of these planes would be difficult. Sooner or later one of these aircraft is going to have to land somewhere other than their top secret hideout and someone will comment.


Secret operations tend to be...er...secret.


Yes they are. But it's kind of hard to hide a large number of unmarked planes on an air force base. Someone would notice them and comment.



You might presume you have seen "almost all of them," but I suspect that unless you were high enough in the USAF, and passed the tests for being trustworthy, you would not see those planes involved in secret operations.


KC-10s are too valuable to have them and not use them for their mission. The USAF has had a tanker shortage for YEARS, and desperately needs every aircraft they can get for the mission. One one day over Afghanistan this year, they offloaded 3.3 MILLION pounds of fuel into 305 aircraft. But you're argument is that they're going to have secret tankers that aren't doing anything but spraying us. That makes no sense to me.



Hmmmm.... Although I am not an expert on planes and their behavior, I have flown a prop plane, and the instructor told me to back off the throttle all the way. Then he asked me if I knew that it was as if the engine was not functioning. I said I would believe it and he confirmed that we were coasting as we would if we had no engine.

Now I might presume that most planes (if not all of them) have SOME coasting behavior with no thrust. I mean, planes don't just plummet out of the skies with no engines. They coast until they reach the ground.

So I might presume that throttling back for short periods of time would be feasible in the craft in question.


The heavier an aircraft the less time it has to glide. Not to mention that small planes are a lot more aerodynamic than a C-130 is. There is a ton of drag on a C-130 due to the large size of the fuselage. The empty weight of a C-130 is 83,000 pounds. That's before you put on crew, cargo, etc. The maximum take off weight of a C-130H is 155,000 pounds. It's higher for the J model. That means that if you throttle down to nothing, and try to glide, you're not going to get very far. I don't have the exact glide ratio, but it's horrid in a plane with that shape.


So you're saying that guns and ammo on planes, kept secret and separate, could not be removed and replaced with equipment to spray us like roaches? Really?

I'm betting this could easily be done.


No, it can't. Then you have a C-130 instead. Visibly, there is almost NO difference between a C-130 and AC-130 except the guns. The AC-130 has different fuel tanks on the wings, a FLIR on the nose, and a glass bubble under the tail for the observer. Unless you are very good at identifying planes, there is no way you could tell one from the other.

As for removing the guns, when they are converted to the AC standard, the guns are fixed in place. To remove them you have to take parts of the fuselage apart to get to the anchor points. What's the point of going to all the trouble of taking the guns out if you have a regular C-130 to do the same mission.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


I did read the whole article you linked to.

It's not so easy to remove the guns from an AC-130. As for the military part, if it's a KC-135 or KC-10 then it IS military. The military is the only operator of these aircraft.

I've seen a lot of the videos of the interiors, and they're not sprayers. One of the most popular ones is a Boeing 777LR undergoing testing. The tanks are water ballast for center of gravity testing. They don't spray it, they just shift it around.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
My biggest problem with the whole debats is peoples lack of understanding of what a contrail is.
I have seen photographic evidence of chemtrails and do not deny that they exist.
The main problem is when your average joe looks up for the first time and sees a regular contrail and screams from the rooftops, "they are spraying us"
Contrails exist and some can last over an hour, they generally do not flatten out and just look like a long cloud.
It is these types of people who give chemtrail witnesses a bad name.

does anyone remember the poster who asked if they changed the receipe because the trail only lasted 30 seconds and they where being sprayed?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I come from an aviation family and have been around aircraft and pilots my entire life and I have to say that this is hands down the most bogus and ridiculous conspiracy theory on the planet. It has been debunked over and over again by aviation professionals and related personnel, yet it persists. Other evidence regarding contaminated water or soil is spotty at best and limited in scope, and yet accepted as though it accounts for the whole perceived phenomena. Nobody is debating that spraying hasn't occurred in isolated locals or that weather manipulation hasn't been tried in various locations, but to take that and stretch it like a giant piece of silly putty and try to wrap it around the entire planet Earth and say it is a massive international effort to spray when what 99.999% of what you are seeing is regular condensed ice crystals formed from ordinary jet exhaust in a sky that has increasingly grown in terms of quantity of flights exponentially...well that's just not using your noggin! A theory doesn't remain a theory once it has been faulsified...this one is so shot full of holes you could read a novel through it in your neigbor's back yard!

I suspect (now here's your theory) it [chemtrail theory] has been perpetuated by ops in order to side step attention from other theories that actually hold some water...in other words, if the "regular Joe and Sue" were to gain an inclination to start sticking their nose in strange places, or start asking questions about major events and cover-ups, and happen across this one (red herring) then if even two thirds decide to never venture out into conspiracy land ever again, then it succeeded in it's endeavor.

"Deny Ignorance". More than just a slogan folks!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Wow working overtime today huh?

What makes you think everything involved in aircraft is up for your eyes?

What makes you think you can't be kept in the dark on such matters?

What makes you think you know what other people are thinking or what they know?

What makes you think ANY evidence such as this will make you believe?

Why are you on ATS for anyway? To "debunk"?

wZn



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow



What makes you think everything involved in aircraft is up for your eyes?


I've never said that it was. But when people post the same pictures over and over again of aircraft that I know and types I have worked on then I would say that I know a thing or two.


What makes you think you can't be kept in the dark on such matters?


Never said I couldn't be. But again, the things that are being claimed about these aircraft are things that are public knowledge and easily verified.


What makes you think you know what other people are thinking or what they know?


When did I say that I did? I have only pointed out errors about the aircraft.


What makes you think ANY evidence such as this will make you believe?


It won't. Because when it comes to aviation I know what I'm talking about. If someone were to actually test an actual contrail and find something then I might listen more. But collecting water on the ground, when there are dozens of other sources of that material nearby won't do much to convince me.


Why are you on ATS for anyway? To "debunk"?


Yeah, you're right. This site is only for people that believe so you can all sit around patting each other on the back at how right you are and how everyone else is a sheeple.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Regarding the red dust and c-130 type aircraft flying low and coasting which is also done by firefighting water bombers doing practice drills such as the ones in the link below

Waterbombers

these craft do resemble c-130's and they do spray/drop a red fire retardant. Is it not at all possible that this is what he saw?

A lot of other types of aircraft do this as well


source


image source



image source


So is it not remotely possible that this is what the guy in the article saw?

This could explain the red dust and the low, slow flying aircraft.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Just because I wasn't IN the USAF doesn't make my experiences or information wrong. A large amount of support is handled by civilians, who do the same work as the guys in uniform.


Surely this is true... But secret stuff is seldom handled by civilians (and when it is, all kinds of tests and checks take place, with sworn statements to keep the secrets secret. So unless you were given such a position, you really don't know.


But to hide a large fleet of these planes would be difficult. Sooner or later one of these aircraft is going to have to land somewhere other than their top secret hideout and someone will comment.


Well... According to the OP in the post above yours, there are cases of unmarked craft landing. On top of that, "hiding" these craft would not be that difficult. A secret area on a base, for example. I can assure you, having held a civilian position with the USMC at 29 Palms, there are HUGE areas that could be used as landing strips and to hide craft.

Granted, that was USMC and not USAF, but the point is that there are many, many places they could be hidden. (And they may not be all together in one place. Two or three here, two or three there... Easy.)

I don't think you realize just how easy it would be to hide such a fleet.



Secret operations tend to be...er...secret.


Yes they are. But it's kind of hard to hide a large number of unmarked planes on an air force base. Someone would notice them and comment.


Depends on the base, and that assumes they are all in one place. Sure, some may notice - and some HAVE noticed and made comment. But unless the information is taken to the tipping point it will not spread. Some few will have the data, and the MSM will not inject it into the infosphere, so it peters out in overall awareness.



You might presume you have seen "almost all of them," but I suspect that unless you were high enough in the USAF, and passed the tests for being trustworthy, you would not see those planes involved in secret operations.


KC-10s are too valuable to have them and not use them for their mission.


Mhmmmm... And you can prove that we have not "thrown cost to the wind" for an Elite (Lizard Hearted) program to decimate the population? I know I cannot prove we have - but I can show evidence that we likely have. Like the linked article in the OP.

And if their "mission" is to spray us...?


The USAF has had a tanker shortage for YEARS, and desperately needs every aircraft they can get for the mission.


Maybe there is a shortage because many have been "redirected" in their assignment? Is that possible? If one arm needs something and another arm has it secretly... It will appear that there is an actual shortage.


But you're argument is that they're going to have secret tankers that aren't doing anything but spraying us. That makes no sense to me.


It makes sense to me if the priority is not Afghanistan, nor Iraq, nor other official war zone, but is actually the war on Humans by the Lizard Hearted.


The heavier an aircraft the less time it has to glide.


Agreed, but this does not make it impossible for a skilled pilot to glide the plane in question for short durations. It may offer a "horrid" glide ratio, but it is likely to offer enough glide time. A few seconds to pass over many populated areas. More than that if the activity is in a wide area of population. Still, I think it very easily could be done by a skilled pilot.



So you're saying that guns and ammo on planes, kept secret and separate, could not be removed and replaced with equipment to spray us like roaches? Really?

I'm betting this could easily be done.


No, it can't. Then you have a C-130 instead.


You say this and then you go on to tell me how you really wouldn't because of the differences. I'm not sure what your point is...


Visibly, there is almost NO difference between a C-130 and AC-130 except the guns. The AC-130 has different fuel tanks on the wings, a FLIR on the nose, and a glass bubble under the tail for the observer. Unless you are very good at identifying planes, there is no way you could tell one from the other.


Ok. Does it really matter whether they were perhaps misidentified? Or properly identified? If they look so similar, it may have been a case of misidentification, but the point is, that there are planes doing this.


As for removing the guns, when they are converted to the AC standard, the guns are fixed in place. To remove them you have to take parts of the fuselage apart to get to the anchor points. What's the point of going to all the trouble of taking the guns out if you have a regular C-130 to do the same mission.


You must believe that the Elite are not interested in eliminating most of us like roaches.

Best to you on that, but when I take all the many signs together I must give a very high probability to the idea that they are indeed killing us off slowly (for the moment) so as to sap our money from us at doctor's offices, hospitals, and at the pharmacy.

It will get much worse before too long.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by QBSneak000
This could explain the red dust and the low, slow flying aircraft.


Does it explain the pathogens, too...?

Second line.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
I come from an aviation family and have been around aircraft and pilots my entire life and I have to say that this is hands down the most bogus and ridiculous conspiracy theory on the planet.

Originally posted by skyshow

If you want to triviallize this, fair comment but at least make an effort to back it up with something more credible than "I come from an aviation family and da da da da da da" ....It doesn't wash with me.


Originally posted by skyshow It has been debunked over and over again by aviation professionals and related personnel, yet it persists.

Originally posted by skyshow

I disagree, I have seen videos of mods to aircraft for spraying purposes and they are not going out dusting crops. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation for any of these mods.


Originally posted by skyshow Other evidence regarding contaminated water or soil is spotty at best and limited in scope, and yet accepted as though it accounts for the whole perceived phenomena.

Originally posted by skyshow

People are getting sick, what more evidence do you need?


Originally posted by skyshow Nobody is debating that spraying hasn't occurred in isolated locals or that weather manipulation hasn't been tried in various locations, but to take that and stretch it like a giant piece of silly putty and try to wrap it around the entire planet Earth and say it is a massive international effort to spray

Originally posted by skyshow

This is being reported from other countries outside of the USA.
U.K, Holland, Germany, Australia, Canada to name a few. Is everyone a hypochondriac?


Originally posted by skyshow when what 99.999% of what you are seeing is regular condensed ice crystals formed from ordinary jet exhaust in a sky that has increasingly grown in terms of quantity of flights exponentially...

Originally posted by skyshow

Please give people a bit more credit to know the difference between con and chem. I spoke to a guy in Spain today who is reporting finding chaff raining down from the clouds and a guy in Arizona who says most of the people he knows in his town just got sick after planes had been spraying.

"There's non so blind as them that can not see" old Yorkshire saying


PEACE,
RK



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

See also: Fire retardant
Borate salts were used in the past to fight wildfires but were found to sterilize the soil, were toxic to animals, and are now prohibited.[7] Newer retardants use ammonium sulfate or ammonium polyphosphate with attapulgite clay thickener or diammonium phosphate with a guar gum derivative thickener. These are not only less toxic but act as fertilizers to help the regrowth of plants after the fire. Fire retardants often contain wetting agents, preservatives and rust inhibitors and are colored red with ferric oxide or fugitive color to mark where they have been dropped. Brand names of fire retardants for aerial application include Fire-Trol and Phos-Chek.
Some water-dropping aircraft carry tanks of a guar gum derivative to thicken the water and reduce runoff.


source

Ammonium sulfate, (NH4)2SO4, is an inorganic chemical compound commonly used as a fertilizer. It contains 21% nitrogen as ammonium ions and 24% sulfur as sulfate ions. Ammonium sulfate occurs naturally as the rare mineral mascagnite in volcanic fumaroles and due to coal fires on some dumps.[2]



Ammonium polyphosphate is an inorganic salt of polyphosphoric acid and ammonia containing both chains and possibly branching. Its chemical formula is [NH4 PO3]n showing that each monomer consists of an orthophosphate radical of a phosphorus atom with three oxygens and one negative charge neutralized by an ammonium anion leaving two bonds free to polymerize. In the branched cases some monomers are missing the ammonium anion and instead link to three other monomers.
The properties of ammonium polyphosphate depends on the number of monomers in each molecule and to a degree on how often it branches. Shorter chains are more soluble less thermally stable.
Ammonium polyphosphate is used as a food additive, E number e545, used as an emulsifier. It is also used as a flame retardant and as a fertilizer.
[edit]



Maybe

Im not a chemist so....but im pretty sure I wouldn't want to be ingesting the fire retardant any time.

But this still IS a possibility of what the guy saw.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 

The claim is that bacteria were found as a result of the spray from the alleged C-130. No lab report provided, just another claim.

For a control on this test of a sample from Colorado he used samples from Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now that's great science in action.

Not one source for any of sample tests. Why not? What labs were the tests carried out in? Serious claims require evidence. Why is there no substantiation of his claims?

BTW, that article is 10 years old. No wonder there's nothing new in it.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join