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.

 

Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Says Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped

page: 36
278
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Nope, facts are the ultimate debunker, not people. If facts debunk something, thats a good thing. Just because it does not leave open hopes, dreams and wishes for some of their pet conspiracies to be true, thats not my fault

You brought up the fact that Barium can not exist in a pure state. Thats entirely scientifically correct too, most chemtrailers havent the slightest clue what it is, its a buzzword to them that they read from chemtrail sites. They do not even realize its found in nature in the form of Barite

Its going to make them mad when they find out barite isnt even considered toxic, and its not a metal either.




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot
Nope, facts are the ultimate debunker, not people. If facts debunk something, thats a good thing. Just because it does not leave open hopes, dreams and wishes for some of their pet conspiracies to be true, thats not my fault

You brought up the fact that Barium can not exist in a pure state. Thats entirely scientifically correct too, most chemtrailers havent the slightest clue what it is, its a buzzword to them that they read from chemtrail sites. They do not even realize its found in nature in the form of Barite

Its going to make them mad when they find out barite isnt even considered toxic, and its not a metal either.




But you were prepared to talk about Barium to me and not the original poster??? he is the one who made the statement in an earlier post, not me! I do admire your gentlemans vegetables for sticking it out regardless.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   


That should apply to all parties, and quite frankly it's not. And perhaps you should ask if someone has a belief system in the first place, or are they just trying to wean out something that makes sense. I do recall you making a post about finding Barium in water, I find that strange. Barium is the metal and it reacts in water and air to make another form. So you are obfuscating, just as Pilot likes to do if he thinks someone is gull enough to lap up his every word, just leave a little bit out, here and there.


The belief system statement was in general, not pointed at you specifically, so I apologize if you were offended. I didn't make a post about finding Barium in water. I made several posts trying to explain why the science behind someone finding not just Barium, but ANYTHING in water using the methods described in the video would be beyond inconclusive. I've also made posts about finding and studying strange chemicals during air sample analyses, and that I would not be surprised to identify Barium in an air sample. I wasn't just saying that to try to debunk the video and say 'no big deal', air samples contain all sorts of things that don't make sense, and that was the point I was trying to make about the topic of discussion at the time regarding methods for homebrew analysis.

I'm not obfuscating or even taking a side. If anything I'm trying to bring my own knowledge of the subject to people who don't have the same experience, or don't make the effort to analyze the evidence they're presenting.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illuminizard


That should apply to all parties, and quite frankly it's not. And perhaps you should ask if someone has a belief system in the first place, or are they just trying to wean out something that makes sense. I do recall you making a post about finding Barium in water, I find that strange. Barium is the metal and it reacts in water and air to make another form. So you are obfuscating, just as Pilot likes to do if he thinks someone is gull enough to lap up his every word, just leave a little bit out, here and there.


The belief system statement was in general, not pointed at you specifically, so I apologize if you were offended. I didn't make a post about finding Barium in water. I made several posts trying to explain why the science behind someone finding not just Barium, but ANYTHING in water using the methods described in the video would be beyond inconclusive. I've also made posts about finding and studying strange chemicals during air sample analyses, and that I would not be surprised to identify Barium in an air sample. I wasn't just saying that to try to debunk the video and say 'no big deal', air samples contain all sorts of things that don't make sense, and that was the point I was trying to make about the topic of discussion at the time regarding methods for homebrew analysis.

I'm not obfuscating or even taking a side. If anything I'm trying to bring my own knowledge of the subject to people who don't have the same experience, or don't make the effort to analyze the evidence they're presenting.


You won't find find Barium in an air or water sample. It reacts in water and air, and acid, and extreme heat,

simple.wikipedia.org...

once it has reacted it becomes another compound. There are other Wiki links for Barium and compounds, but the one above is easier to navigate. It's not even a question of taking sides, it's doing away with the idea first off, that a jet exhaust is not a nasty piece of work, it is, and more and more people are starting to reavaluate what chemistry goes on in a jet engine and what novel properties come out in the exhaust after combustion. That's not so easy, since certain properties in fuel additives, (and there are more than a few) are not known. I am adding these other links to add to the awareness of jet exhaust. In this next link, pay close attention to the disclaimer in the fuel content section,

ftp.rta.nato.int...

This link deals with the same type of particle formation, and how it degrades in the body,

www.trbav030.org...

You will see that there is far more going on in combustion and recombining exhaust with the air than just "mostly water" It is also fairly new stuff, but it falls short in that, what is in additives is not wholly known, and thereby not all chemical reactions in a combustion chamber, and recombining in the air are also not known.


edit on 25-1-2011 by smurfy because: Add links.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   



You won't find find Barium in an air or water sample. It reacts in water and air, and acid, and extreme heat,

simple.wikipedia.org...

once it has reacted it becomes another compound. There are other Wiki links for Barium and compounds, but the one above is easier to navigate. It's not even a question of taking sides, it's doing away with the idea first off, that a jet exhaust is not a nasty piece of work, it is, and more and more people are starting to reavaluate what chemistry goes on in a jet engine and what novel properties come out in the exhaust after combustion. That's not so easy, since certain properties in fuel additives, (and there are more than a few) are not known. I am adding these other links to add to the awareness of jet exhaust. In this next link, pay close attention to the disclaimer in the fuel content section,

ftp.rta.nato.int...

This link deals with the same type of particle formation, and how it degrades in the body,

www.trbav030.org...

You will see that there is far more going on in combustion and recombining exhaust with the air than just "mostly water" It is also fairly new stuff, but it falls short in that, what is in additives is not wholly known, and thereby not all chemical reactions in a combustion chamber, and recombining in the air are also not known.


edit on 25-1-2011 by smurfy because: Add links.


Thanks for the links. If you take a look back you'll see that I've said something to the effect of "If you think that's bad, wait until you research what's in car exhaust...". There are endless amounts of toxins involved in the various processes that refine fuel. Some of them persist through the exhaust, most of them do not. By 'my experience' I mean, I find materials that are reactive with water in the air all the time. I also find chemicals, especially in automobile exhaust, that are supposed to kill human beings. I'm not going to go to any length to prove myself because I have non-disclosure agreements with my employers and frankly I don't think any attempts to do so would be fruitful ("Prove it!" "uh... come to my office then?" "Prove that it's really your office and not an elaborate front to conceal your pro-reptilian psuedo-agenda!"), but one of the systems under my purvue is an environmental monitoring system that takes continuous air samples and is in 24/7/365 operation. I am not a chemist, but I do review the data and pass the relevant portions of the data to the chemists. Most of the "stuff that isn't supposed to be there" is there because a compound containing the original element is broken down during whatever process is taking place to consume the original compound (i.e., fuel burns, compound containing Boron used to treat the fuel is consumed, boron present in the exhaust, boron dissipates harmlessly into the atmosphere after a few seconds). So, take it or leave it, there are trace particles of all sorts of highly dangerous and reactive substances flittering about in the air all the time. That's also why these tests of particulate filters being touted as "proof" are, as Firepilot stated "junk science".



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Yes, some of those chemtrail promoters completely misrepresent their testing, and it misleads people are who are easily swayed or not that familiar with it, or who are just trusting.

Arizona Skywatch tests particulates/dust from a filter, but then compared that to air sampling criteria, which is completely wrong. The 'what are they spraying" video tests mud/sludge and then uses that to compare against water results, and again thats entirely wrong. Neither of those two have the intellectual integrity to mention that aluminum is going to be found in pretty much any soil or dust sample, and can easily be found in amounts of up to 10 percent too..

So, chemtrail believers, when some website tells you that aluminum and barium (as aluminum oxide and barium sulfate) should not be found in nature, you should really ask them how they decided that, when those are most definitely normal soil constituents.

There are certain chemtrail promoters who most definitely try and play on peoples fears and scientific ignorance to make some bucks. Sad, but true.
edit on 26-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I've come to notice that chemtrail debunkers are even more ridiculous than UFO debunkers. Both groups are incredibly amusing, though.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I've come to notice that chemtrail debunkers are even more ridiculous than UFO debunkers. Both groups are incredibly amusing, though.


Well many people do find reality to be ridiculous, so they substitute one of their imagination



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I've come to notice that chemtrail debunkers are even more ridiculous than UFO debunkers. Both groups are incredibly amusing, though.


Hello Ryan,

I am truly curious of your opinion regarding why "chemtrail" debunkers are are so ridiculous. Perhaps you could give some insight on this, seeing that it was important enough for you to make the comment that you did?

Thanks



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I've come to notice that chemtrail debunkers are even more ridiculous than UFO debunkers. Both groups are incredibly amusing, though.

Have to agree with that,
So apt to the post above yours. Ah well, I really do try. Even these skypilots can be sick or incapable if something goes wrong with the AC units/servers and bring fumes into the cabin and they won't even know they are sick, or incapable, at least in their current speak.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I've come to notice that chemtrail debunkers are even more ridiculous than UFO debunkers. Both groups are incredibly amusing, though.

Have to agree with that,
So apt to the post above yours. Ah well, I really do try. Even these skypilots can be sick or incapable if something goes wrong with the AC units/servers and bring fumes into the cabin and they won't even know they are sick, or incapable, at least in their current speak.


Well, I am always willing to listen to where I could be wrong, and when I am wrong, I will admit it and thankfully take the correction. The problem is with that, is that each time I ask for a specific area I am wrong, no specifics follow, just hollow accusations of being a government agent.

Oh BTW, jet turbines use bleed air from a compressor section, before fuel is added and combustion happens, in order for cabin pressurization. But, if you do have evidence otherwise, about how jet turbines operate and how aircraft are pressurized, I am open ears.
edit on 26-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I've come to notice that chemtrail debunkers are even more ridiculous than UFO debunkers. Both groups are incredibly amusing, though.

Have to agree with that,
So apt to the post above yours. Ah well, I really do try. Even these skypilots can be sick or incapable if something goes wrong with the AC units/servers and bring fumes into the cabin and they won't even know they are sick, or incapable, at least in their current speak.


No one is disputing that exhaust is dangerous. Exhaust from a lawnmower is dangerous, exhaust from a car is used in suicides(and a string of accidental CO poisonings), so it's almost an absolute that even shorter term exposure to jet exhaust is dangerous, even without research. I'm not sure how I'm being ridiculous. I'm just telling you what I know and how it applies to the conversation.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
There would be a significant amount of irony, in a chemtrailer using a gas powered lawnmower.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 



Even these skypilots can be sick or incapable if something goes wrong with the AC units/servers and bring fumes into the cabin and they won't even know they are sick, or incapable, at least in their current speak.


Could you translate that?? I'm very curious what you meant.

First, when you wrote "AC units/servers"....are you trying to describe something called "air conditioning"? Because, on large jet airplanes (most jets, really) "AC" refers to electricity.

Second....if that was your intent, you have a lot to learn about airplane systems design....there are no "fumes" that will enter a jet's ventilation system in that way....except for very obvious cases where strong, strong odors and even visual indications are present. Smoke, for instance, from either an engine internal problem, or the pressurization packs...at worst, from overheating the ducting, and you get a hot rubber smell. Even bird injestion.....if a bird or other l large organic creature is 'swallowed' by the engine, and pieces get hot enough, through the compression and combustion cycle, then you can smell it, briefly. Burning featehrs ain't pleasant....lot like burning human hair.

You may be thinking of piston airplanes...and carbon monoxide poisoning? Very rare....it can occur due to leaks into the unpressurized cabins of those types airplanes, since the hot exhaust air is used in a plenum to heat the outside air, before it's introduced inside. A leak in that ducting might allow some exhaust (and CO) to mingle with the "fresh" outside air, and enter the cabin, but usually there is that smell, again. And, CO is only deadly when in great quantities, as it displaces the O2 in the bloodstream.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I've come to notice that chemtrail debunkers are even more ridiculous than UFO debunkers. Both groups are incredibly amusing, though.


Well many people do find reality to be ridiculous, so they substitute one of their imagination


That, is a contradiction in terms.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smurfy
 



Even these skypilots can be sick or incapable if something goes wrong with the AC units/servers and bring fumes into the cabin and they won't even know they are sick, or incapable, at least in their current speak.


Could you translate that?? I'm very curious what you meant.

First, when you wrote "AC units/servers"....are you trying to describe something called "air conditioning"? Because, on large jet airplanes (most jets, really) "AC" refers to electricity.

Second....if that was your intent, you have a lot to learn about airplane systems design....there are no "fumes" that will enter a jet's ventilation system in that way....except for very obvious cases where strong, strong odors and even visual indications are present. Smoke, for instance, from either an engine internal problem, or the pressurization packs...at worst, from overheating the ducting, and you get a hot rubber smell. Even bird injestion.....if a bird or other l large organic creature is 'swallowed' by the engine, and pieces get hot enough, through the compression and combustion cycle, then you can smell it, briefly. Burning featehrs ain't pleasant....lot like burning human hair.

You may be thinking of piston airplanes...and carbon monoxide poisoning? Very rare....it can occur due to leaks into the unpressurized cabins of those types airplanes, since the hot exhaust air is used in a plenum to heat the outside air, before it's introduced inside. A leak in that ducting might allow some exhaust (and CO) to mingle with the "fresh" outside air, and enter the cabin, but usually there is that smell, again. And, CO is only deadly when in great quantities, as it displaces the O2 in the bloodstream.




You answered your own question in many ways Weed. BTW fresh air is not available under pressurization.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Yes it is, it is fresh air that is being pressurized. Do you think the airplane is just reusing its own cabin air?



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 



BTW fresh air is not available under pressurization.


Wrong!!! This is why I mentioned that you don't understand the technology, and the systems.

ALL the air that is used to pressurize the cabin comes from outside!! (Where else?)

It enters the engines first....undergoes some magic, and then is pumped into the airplane. I'm sure there are very detailed explanations on the Webz, I don't need to describe the entire process here.

Point is, there are NO "chem"-trail sprayers in use attached to regular large commercial airliners...and nothing other than outside air gets into the systems.

Now, on modern jets, as a fuel-saving plan, airliners ARE equipped with "re-circ" fans and ducting....this has caused more "controversy" in the media, urged on by ignorant reporters and members of the public, than it warrants.

Re-circulating the interior air isn't what it sounds like...the pressurization "packs" aren't shut-down in flight, they continue to pump air in...and, of course, there is either one or more outflow valves to regulate the internal pressure properly...in normal modes, this is entirely automatic, computer monitored and controlled. Unless it has a fault, then it alerts the crew, and there are back-up systems and methods and procedures.

The hot engine bleed air has to be "pre-cooled" through an air-to-air heat exchanger. This is a back-pressure thing....by re-using some of the interior air, already at correct temp, you can divert the hot bleed air overboard...valves modulate to do this, as part of the whole system mentioned above.

When you read on it, the difference for passengers is minor. The old Boeing 727 (about the same size cabin volume as the 757) completely replaced its air, when at altitude, about every five minutes. Ont he 757, it's about every 10 minutes. No big deal.

But note the words...."completely replaces". And, that comes from where? Yes, outside, of course.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Quite right - that's a perfectly reasonable description of a pressurisation system and air sources.

I work for a Govt aviation regulatory agency - outside the Americas and Europe. For Gunderson to be right I, and all my colleagues, and all my former workmates in the aviation industry would have had to know about it - I overhauled pressurisation components, worked on airliners - 737's & BAe-146's - both types that left persistant contrails here where I live - performed base and line maintenance, and ramp servicing. I worked for airlines and maintenance companies for 20 years.

The hundreds of other mechanics in companies I worked for would have to know about it - we serviced foreign aircraft before and after long transoceanic flights - including some to and from the US.

I now work for the national aviation authority - people here come from all parts of the aviation industry - the military, agricultural, helicopters, airline - our inspectors go out and view local and foreign aircraft every day. The servicing equipment at local airports is completely known to us - and is used on all foreign a/c.

So Gunderson says that I am part of the conspiracy, along with and everyone I now or have ever worked with.

Since that is utter bollocks he is mistaken, a liar, or a nutcase.

By all means I leave the choice of which up to you - but there's no other possibilities.

He might have been a great FBI agent, but he's an aviation ignoramus.

Edit - oh yeah, and we perform(ed) contract mantenance on US C130's, C141's and C-17's too.......


edit on 26-1-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: Just adding to my own appeal to authority to debunk the loony's appeal to authority



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Oh wow. So how far are they going to go to vilify this gentleman? Let me guess...he's had a psychotic break...he's old and feeble...he has a grudge. Anyway...here's the video...

added video....
edit on 1/16/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


In all fairness, he does come across as a psychotic. The theory that there are death dumps to pointlessly and intentionally kill thousands of animals doesn't make sense. I'm not saying he's not right, just that I'd like to have a better idea of WHY they're doing it and what they hope to gain.




top topics



 
278
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join