Chemical Trails: Are we being sprayed?

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

It blows me away the way the bunkers make connections that don't exist and throw red herrings into the discussion.

I've never said that "things" are not put into the atmosphere. I've never said that no planes are capable of dispersing material.

I have said that crop dusting and cloud seeding have nothing to do with what people call "chemtrails". "Chemtrails" are persistent contrails, ice crystals.

reply to post by Phage


There's a big difference between spraying crops and literally modifying the weather with particles that at some point come back down to Earth.

reply to post by Neo-V™

Yes, there is a big difference.

There is also a big difference between cloud seeding and the creation of persistent contrails (sometimes called "chemtrails"). Cloud seeding is carried out under and in existing cumulus clouds. It is not carried out in clear air, at high altitudes, over large areas. Cloud seeding is done with two primary substances; dry ice (CO2) and silver iodide. Neither is harmful.

[edit on 8/7/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

"Here are some excerpts from a 1998 Department of Defense Report by the United States General Accounting Office-09/22/98, GAO/NSIAD-98-219: "Chaff is used worldwide in conjunction with military training, testing, and other assigned missions.

"While DOD (Department of Defense) components report that chaff is an effective means of defense for aircraft, ships, and related weapon systems, DOD and other agencies have identified some unintended and potential side effects of chaff. Chaff can affect safety by interfering with air traffic control radar. Chaff can also affect weather radar observations and the operation of friendly radar systems, especially when vehicles stir up chaff that has settled on the ground. It has been reported that chaff has also caused power outages and damaged electrical equipment. Potential effects cited by Defense and other organizations include those on health and the environment. For example, the Air Force reported that chaff has a potential but remote chance of collecting in reservoirs and causing chemical changes that may affect water and the species that use it.

"Chaff can show up on radar as a false weather phenomenon and may affect lightning within storms. The National Weather Service (NWS) began to observe the widespread and frequent use of chaff in the late 1980s, when it started using new and more sensitive weather radar. Radar observations show that chaff can spread over several hundreds of miles and stay in the air for up to a day. A scientist formerly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who now performs weather research at the University of Oklahoma, estimated it would have taken more than 200 billion chaff particles to create a radar picture taken in Arizona in 1997. DOD officials stated that it is improbable that such a large chaff deployment occurred outside of combat and is unlikely to occur in any future DOD training events...NOAA also provided pictures taken since 1993 in many other parts of the country and showing radar images of chaff."

It’s hard to believe that people spend time on the Internet arguing about "contrails versus chemtrails" when this has been going on openly for decades. Call it what you want, the military openly admits that is has been spraying us with chemicals of known toxicity, without our permission, for generations."

Source

There is also the likely hood of sun screening going on.

I hear there's new research (not yet published) further linking persistent contrails to global warming - or, at least, regional warming. It may be no coincidence that the most warming has occurred in areas which see the most commerical air traffic, and that in particular the Arctic - crossed by thousands of airliners every day flying between N America and Europe - is warming much more than Antarctica - crossed by virtually no airliners at all.

It does amuse me the way the chemtrailers claim that what they see and call chemtrails are part of some secret effort to stop global warming when all the research over the past couple of decades has pointed to them being a cause of global warming.

Still, when did scientific research, evidence and fact ever get in the way of a good fantasy?

reply to post by Neo-V™


Well since no such chaff gets deployed over the UK (I know - I study the radar every day) that presumably proves there are no chemtrails over the UK. And furthermore, since chaff - like particles used in cloud seeding - is not visible from the ground, it proves that all those pictures claimed to be of chemtrails are just normal contrails after all. Thanks

All we're left with to discuss then is pictures of deadly dihydrogen monoxide crystals - which may be causing some global warming - and small scale deployment of chaff in military exercises and some cloud seeding, both of which have been going on openly for many decades and are about as secret as the location of Buckingham Palace.

Originally posted by Essan
It does amuse me the way the chemtrailers claim that what they see and call chemtrails are part of some secret effort to stop global warming when all the research over the past couple of decades has pointed to them being a cause of global warming.

And it amuses me how the chemtrail deniers will say it's all nonsense, that the Government wouldn't spray us with anything then in the same breath tell you, well actually they are doing, but they have good reason for doing so.

Originally posted by Essan
that presumably proves there are no chemtrails over the UK.

Not really, my purpose for posting it was to show it's yet another element being sprayed in to the atmosphere.

Pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to block the sun, brightening clouds with reflective sea salt, or fertilizing the oceans with iron are just some of the way-out schemes some scientists have proposed to fight global warming if all else fails.

This week, the American Meteorological Society issued a final version of its policy statement on geoengineering Earth’s climate system. The organization warns against the potential risks but also endorses research into the feasibility of such efforts, along with their ethical, social and political implications.

“Geoengineering will not substitute for either aggressive mitigation or proactive adaptation, but it could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts,” the statement says.

President Barack Obama’s science advisor, physicist John Holdren, has previously said, “We have to keep geoengineering on the table...because we might get desperate enough to use it.”

Source

How might I be exposed to sulfur dioxide?

* Breathing air containing it or touching it.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Anaphylactic reactions are much less common Occasional patients exposed to sulfites, will experienced symptoms similar to anaphylaxis with flushing, fast heartbeat, wheezing, hives, dizziness, stomach upset and diarrhoea, collapse, tingling or difficulty swallowing.

Sulfite Allergy

So considering the affects sulphur has, and the many reports of an increase in respiratory problems around the world, can we really disregard the evidence suggesting that...
A. Not only are we being sprayed &
B. Whatever it is they are using, is not all that good for us?

1999
January 7-March

WILLIAM THOMAS ON ART BELL AS EMERGENCY ROOMS OVERFLOW ACROSS USA
William Thomas makes his first of eight appearance on Art Bell's “Coast to Coast” radio show with news of something he calls “chemtrails”.

The Philadelphia Daily News reports that Emergency Room patients were overflowing into the hallways at West Jersey Hospital in Berlin, New Jersey “as a wave of respiratory illnesses swept the area.”

There is a 24-hour waiting period to get into New York State hospital. In San Francisco, TV stations report that paramedics are being diverted to help handle swamped ERs. A person in Portland “heard on the radio that the hospitals in Portland are jammed up with people coming in. Plus in Eugene it seems like everyone is coming down with something. And my wife and I saw some rainbow-colored clouds yesterday. We are calling them chem-clouds.”

Source

reply to post by Neo-V™


I see where you're going here.

Sulfur dioxide to combat global warming.

If such a plan were to be implemented, consider this:

Observational evidence shows a clear correlation between historic eruptions and subsequent years of cold climate conditions. Four well-known historic examples are described below.

LAKI (1783) -- The eastern U.S. recorded the lowest-ever winter average temperature in 1783-84, about 4.8OC below the 225-year average. Europe also experienced an abnormally severe winter. Benjamin Franklin suggested that these cold conditions resulted from the blocking out of sunlight by dust and gases created by the Iceland Laki eruption in 1783. The Laki eruption was the largest outpouring of basalt lava in historic times. Franklin's hypothesis is consistent with modern scientific theory, which suggests that large volumes of SO2 are the main culprit in haze-effect global cooling.

TAMBORA (1815) -- Thirty years later, in 1815, the eruption of Mt. Tambora, Indonesia, resulted in an extremely cold spring and summer in 1816, which became known as the year without a summer. The Tambora eruption is believed to be the largest of the last ten thousand years. New England and Europe were hit exceptionally hard. Snowfalls and frost occurred in June, July and August and all but the hardiest grains were destroyed. Destruction of the corn crop forced farmers to slaughter their animals. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry. Sea ice migrated across Atlantic shipping lanes, and alpine glaciers advanced down mountain slopes to exceptionally low elevations.

KRAKATAU (1883) -- Eruption of the Indonesian volcano Krakatau in August 1883 generated twenty times the volume of tephra released by the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Krakatau was the second largest eruption in history, dwarfed only by the eruption of neighboring Tambora in 1815 (see above). For months after the Krakatau eruption, the world experienced unseasonably cool weather, brilliant sunsets, and prolonged twilights due to the spread of aerosols throughout the stratosphere. The brilliant sunsets are typical of atmospheric haze. The unusual and prolonged sunsets generated considerable contemporary debate on their origin.They also provided inspiration for artists who dipicted the vibrant nature of the sunsets in several late 19th-century paintings, two of which are noted here.

www.geology.sdsu.edu...


IMHO if there were a serious plan to introduce sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, a large volcanic eruption would be the cheapest and easiest way to carry this out. It would also be a lot more clandestine than any supposed chemtrail plot don't you think?






[edit on 8/8/09 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus


Not really, while it may be cheaper, they wouldn't have the control over it.

reply to post by Neo-V™


You're fairly new, and likely haven't read all of the thread, but up above you posted the same info that's been put up multiple times, all of it in the "studying" stages.

AND, you say the Gov't can't control volcanoes to pump sulphur dioxde??? Prove it!!!!!

reply to post by Neo-V™


If it's being carried out by the same government that yourself and others believe to be carrying out these top secret chemtrail programs, it doesn't have to be controllable does it?

Who's going to question a volcano erupting?

Originally posted by Neo-V™

So considering the affects sulphur has, and the many reports of an increase in respiratory problems around the world, can we really disregard the evidence suggesting that...
A. Not only are we being sprayed &
B. Whatever it is they are using, is not all that good for us?

Only if you believe in straw men, non sequiturs and other logical fallacies.

As you've now gone from chaff to sulphur I'm assuming that your premise is that someone is spraying something for some reason. You have no idea who what or why but you refuse to believe that the government wouldn't spray us and therefore they must be spraying us. Is that right?

Obviously there is little point in debate if that's the case. So if you don't mind I'll just quickly creep off and go back to studying the real impacts of deadly dihydrogen monoxide crystals as produced by commercial aircraft and called by some 'chemtrails'. I believe there was recent a conference at which some interesting new research was presented regarding their contribution to AGW and I need to see if I can find the papers

I just found this interesting excerpt from a report.

Abstract: A Nitroplastisol propellant composition designated as LPC-1040A has been formulated and partially characterized to meet Phase I program requirements. The selection was based on a computer optimization program designed to provide a formulation which would yield maximum amounts of silver iodide. The selected propellant is considered to be thermally stable and its sensitivity is adequate for safe processing pending completion of hazard tests under the proposed Phase II of the current program. Strand burning rate and mechanical property characterization have been completed. (Author)

Description: Rept. for 4 May-9 Jul 65
Pages: 30
Report Date: OCT 1968
Report Number: 0279448
Report Unavailable

www.stormingmedia.us...

Silver Iodide acting as a propellant. Have you noticed the deeper tone from the overhead aircraft. First time I heard it, I thought they were testing a new powerful engine, but then they start sounding like that most of the time.

Sort of like a jet using afterburner, but coming from commercial looking aircraft.

reply to post by Udontknowme


Based on your linked info (from the 1960s???!!!???) are you suggesting, now, that commercial passenger jets have solid rocket fuel thrusters attached?? BECAUSE, that is what the article is referring.

I realize you desperately want this "chemtrail" stuff to be true, but you really had to dig into the illogic barrel for that one!

BTW, your question about jet engines, and the various sounds? That "growling" sound is just a feature of high-bypass jet engines, which of course are coming more and more prevalent. Especially the bigger engines, the sound is the N1 fan "biting" into the air, it is most common at higher power settings and slower airspeeds.

reply to post by Udontknowme


So uhh you heard a rocket powered commercial jet in the 60's flying over head did you?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Udontknowme

 

Based on your linked info (from the 1960s???!!!???) are you suggesting, now, that commercial passenger jets have solid rocket fuel thrusters attached?? BECAUSE, that is what the article is referring.

I realize you desperately want this "chemtrail" stuff to be true, but you really had to dig into the illogic barrel for that one!

BTW, your question about jet engines, and the various sounds? That "growling" sound is just a feature of high-bypass jet engines, which of course are coming more and more prevalent. Especially the bigger engines, the sound is the N1 fan "biting" into the air, it is most common at higher power settings and slower airspeeds.

Introducing the silver iodide compound into the jet exhaust the the extended hollow nozzle could introduce a pressure wave, enhance the thrust.

Two citizens would be killed with one stone, because they are laying the trails in areas where they want to affect the weather.

Edit to add; The chemicals would be injected through the N2 or N3 hollow shaft rotating the second and third stages.

N1 speed refers to the innermost rotating shaft. This shaft will carry the most forward stage of fan (compressor) blades and the most rearward stage of turbine blades. N2 refers to a hollow shaft that rotates around the N1 shaft which carries the second stage of compressor blades and the first stage of turbine blades, if the engine only has 2 stages. If the engine has 3 stages, then N3 would refer to a third shaft, another hollow one, rotating around the second stage shaft, that would carry the third stage of compressor blades and the first stage of turbine blades

answers.yahoo.com...

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Udontknowme]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Udontknowme]

reply to post by Udontknowme


No.

Your imagination is keen, there's no doubt.

There are no provisions to introduce any silver iodide into the engine so that it will exit in the exhaust. If you look at the exhaust nozzle of, say, a CFM56, the diameter of the center opening is just over an inch, less than two. You just ain't gonna get much from that!!! EVEN IF it were possible to do as you are suggesting (it isn't).

I think we've already introduced videos and animations, showing the jet engines in operation, and in cut-away views depicting their internal arrangements. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that your proposal af what MAY be happening is pure fantasy, and completely without merit.

AND, just for emphasis, we were discussing, from your latest idea, the concept of some sort of SOLID rocket fuel being introduced....notice my capitalization of 'solid'. Means it doesn't flow. It is contained in a vessel, it is ignited, it burns and exhausts out a nozzle. Look at the Space Shutle SRBs.

I just don't know how, any more, to explain it any clearer!

Thought people might find this interesting. A plane leaving chemtrails, within view of the passenger from another ac.



[edit on 8-8-2009 by Udontknowme]

Originally posted by Udontknowme

reply to post by Udontknowme

 

Edit to add; The chemicals would be injected through the N2 or N3 hollow shaft rotating the second and third stages.

No, once again. The shafts are concentric, but the innermost one is solid!!

I think the only way to convince you would be for you to actually see a real engine being torn down, in person, up close, so you could touch it!!!

It's a wild fantasy idea, nothing more.

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Thought people might find this interesting. A plane leaving chemtrails, within view of the passenger from another ac.

ONCE AGAIN, those are normal contrails being formed, due to the hot engine exhaust and its effect on the air it is flying through.

One contrail, per engine. Period.

AND, that is a very normal sight, especially on the North Atlantic Tracks. You can Google the NAT System --- I'd provide a link, but my right mouse button doesn't work, so I don't know how else to do it.