Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

As I said this conversation will obviously go nowhere with you because you've made up your mind, I have heard both sides of the argument and I have drawn my conclusion...If congress isn't gonna prove it to you then neither will a scintilla of evidence and/or proof...

I told you I have not said they aren't real but proving they are requires irrefutable evidence. Kucinich's document is meaningless. Any representative can submit any bill saying anything.

I respond very positively to proof. Someone just needs to provide it. I believe that's what this thread is about.

reply to post by zzombie


Ummmm....suggest you go back and READ more carefully, there. Use your noggin.

NASA launched with a 100 KG load of Aluminum Oxide (sept 09) is well documented.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So is Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"100KG"?? That's about as effective, in the vastness of our atmosphere, as a fart in a hurricane. 220 pounds. Spread out, over a large region. Yeah....

Now, the "Welsbach Patent"...that's been well-covered here. IT IS A PATENT to protect an IDEA!!

People need to understand the difference between a patent on an invention, or concept...and the actual CONSTRUCTION and implementation of such inventions or ideas!!!

Go look at OTHER patents, and show where each and every one of them has actually been built, and is in use.

I'll repeat this:

Originally posted by Essan
But none of this is evidence that what you see in the sky are in fact chemtrails.

And therein lies the issue. IMHO.

Whilst an alternative explantion exists, one which has been subject to extensive scientific examination for nigh on 80 years, and whilst there is no evidence to refute this scientific explanation, then why should anyone think that what we see in the skies are chemtrails?

i work at different US military bases in europe and I have seen on MANY occasions jets flying directly over these bases laying down grid lines and after a short time (30 mins or less) these trails diffusing into light cirrus clouds. Personally, even though I do believe that there may be 'chemtrails' in the sinister sense, i think most of what i have been witnessing to be fairly pedestrian cloud seeding or the like.

One thing is completely clear to me, and i have no doubt about it, is these 'trails' are purpose built and not just exhaust.

I can appreciate the pie chart. Would be interested to know how these categories shown could effect honey bee behavior. Either as a whole or individually.

We've all seen the smoking device used by bee keepers; receptors are dulled and they fail to sound the pheromonious alarm. Sulfur smoke kills bees. Bee smoker can use "FIBER" fuel! FIBER = Symptom Magellan's Disease = con/chemtrail?

I challenge a qualified researcher to compare the fibers used in bee smoker fuel with that found on Magellan victims.

Could con/chemtrails be playing a role? Not trying to change the subject, just twisting in this spider web of the unexplained.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Essan

 

Who said anything about aliens? You ok?
.
.
.

HR 2977 says something about aliens. I know I'm coming in a late, but this same thing before. The bill has in in the same section other weapons mentioned. Like "tectonic", "psychotropic", and "extra-terrestrial". To say inclusion proves "chemtrails", you would have to say ALL weapons mentioned are also true and being used.
I don't think anyone would care about some 'chemtrails" if there existed mind-controled, or alien weapons, do you?

Also, it's about "Space". "Chemtrails" are atmospheric.

OK I call conspiracy here:

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Two contrail cases are presented here: one contrail generated by the 757 aircraft on 7 may 1996 and one generated by the DC-8 itself on 12 May 1996.

Who the heck was still flying DC-8’s in 1996…

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Sulfur is used in jet fuels to help with lubricity, as a side note, many groups are pushing for fuels which contain little to no sulfur in them due to environmental concerns.

To my knowledge, Sulfur is a naturally occurring substance in all Kerosene (both JP’s and Diesel fuel are cuts of Kerosene), the higher the quality the lower the sulfur content. They even dye fuels to show the sulfur content as it affects the cost and taxes on the fuel according to how high the level of saturation is:

en.wikipedia.org...
In United States of America, the Environmental Protection Agency mandates use of a red dye to identify high-sulfur fuels for off-road use. Solvent Red 26 is used in the United States as a standard, though it is often replaced with Solvent Red 164, similar to Solvent Red 26 but with longer alkyl chains. The Internal Revenue Service mandates use of the same red dyes, in fivefold concentration, for tax-exempt diesel fuels such as heating oil; their argument for the higher dye content is to allow detection even when diluted with "legal" fuel. Detection of red-dyed fuel in the fuel system of an on-road vehicle will incur substantial penalties.

Sulfur is removed from fuel via Hydrodesulfurization:

en.wikipedia.org...
Hydrodesulfurization (HDS) is a catalytic chemical process widely used to remove sulfur (S) from natural gas and from refined petroleum products such as gasoline or petrol, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel fuel, and fuel oils. The purpose of removing the sulfur is to reduce the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions that result from using those fuels in automotive vehicles, aircraft, railroad locomotives, ships, gas or oil burning power plants, residential and industrial furnaces, and other forms of fuel combustion.

Its not added, its simply removed to various levels that are acceptable for each particular usage.
Other then that… Carry on…

reply to post by defcon5


Thanks for the correction!



Am I understanding correctly that there is a push to remove sulfur from jet fuel entirely?
And there are issues such as seals being damaged due to the reduction of sulfur?

reply to post by Chadwickus


As far as I know, its done strictly for emissions purposes. I don’t think its possible to remove 100% of all extraneous minerals from any fossil fuel:

en.wikipedia.org...
Ultra-low sulfur diesel (U'___') (sulfur is also spelled “sulphur” in British English) is a term used to describe a standard for defining diesel fuel with substantially lowered sulfur contents. As of 2006, almost all of the petroleum-based diesel fuel available in Europe and North America is of a U'___' type.
The move to lower sulfur content is expected to allow the application of newer emissions control technologies that should substantially lower emissions of particulate matter from diesel engines. This change occurred first in the European Union and is now happening in North America. New emissions standards, dependent on the cleaner fuel, have been in effect for automobiles in the United States since model year 2007.

The sulfur content in JP is kept much higher then in regular diesel, so I am not sure if there is any significant impact on the engines by reducing it:

A batch of 500 ppm diesel might be wrapped between a batch of 2,000 ppm jet fuel and a batch of dye non-road distillate fuel oil (heating oil) at 3,000 to 5,000 ppm.

A good question for a Mechanic...

Alo ha,
Without question, some posters are paid dis info employees
of gov. and big corp, on this site. I am curious how much they make?
I wonder if they care at all what will happen to us, and them?
Anyone who claims Cliff is making money,
and not doing high altitude air testing is definitely being paid to lie.
Anyone who claims the fibers in different fuels is the same fiber in morgellons has got to be paid to fabricate such a statement.
Hey all you readers out there- they are making fools of you.
They believe with their irresponsible lies,
they can control your thoughts and decisions.
Well, can they?
Bill

reply to post by mrgalleria
Absolutely I could call people out individually on this site who are without a doubt disinfo agents but I would have this post banned...But for some it's fairly obvious as to who they are...

Originally posted by mrgalleria
Anyone who claims the fibers in different fuels is the same fiber in morgellons has got to be paid to fabricate such a statement.

There are no fibers in JP fuel, the fuel is filtered at the Tank Farm, twice on the hydrant truck, and again in the engine. Putting fibers in the fuel would cause substantial damage to the aircraft, which is why fuel is so closely monitored for any type of contamination, including bacterial and fungal.

reply to post by mrgalleria


reply to post by NWOWILLFALL



Yes on this site there are certainly some people who appear to have motives beyond their explanations. While they say they are only doing it for our own good, it appears the opposite.

[edit on 28/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]

What weak arguments.

Three posts in a row suggesting that certain members, gee I wonder who you're talking about?? Are disinfo.

Looks like you can't argue the evidence, since calling names is now the only comeback.

When in fact, "we" are living longer than ever before, and the average lifespan keeps increasing every year.

Jeah, because of medical advancement and chronic use of medication.

One in three people get cancer nowadays. We may live longer, but our health isn't increasing.

reply to post by Point of No Return


I would more readily attribute that to the crap that they put in our food now a days, then I would to anything coming from aircraft 30K feet above your head.

reply to post by Chadwickus

Someone needs to put their money where their mouth is and get up there, after all it's yours and your families lives at stake isn't it??

Like you did?

Posting the findings of a 12 year old study, isn't really getting "up there" either Chad.

You act all "scientific" and stuff, but you just posted some old information, wow, great research Chad, bravo.

How are people going to get up there? Regular Joe hasn't got the means, and you know it.

reply to post by defcon5


Maybe so.

Still, it's not like were getting healthier like your comment implied.

reply to post by Chadwickus
No the truth is you cannot or will not argue the evidence...
That's our problem, your explanations do not hold water...

reply to post by Chadwickus

Photo's and videos aren't proof of anything, patents aren't proof of anything, pseudo-science isn't proof of anything and the words of charlatans aren't proof of anything.

Chad, you do realize we are living in 2010, right. If you want to debate the existance of chemtrails today, in 2010, 12 year old investigations, and 14 year old pie charts, aren't proof of anything.

You claim to be scientific, why don't you get "up there" and post some recent studies, that actually apply to the time we are living in right now.

Epic fail Chad.