Are They Spraying Anything?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Yup.
Like I said...dust. Airborne dust carried by the first drops of rain. Or dried out leftovers in the containers.

Not much dust blows around in the rain..

"Dried out leftovers in the container" Well what can I say to that.?
Seems like you simply wish to bag these guys...

reply to post by backinblack

Right. But there is dust in the air when the rain first starts to fall, isn't there? Where does that dust go? Do you think maybe the rain carries it away? We don't how large the sample was. If it was 1/4" of rain, a small amount of aluminum could show a high concentration.

We also don't know the levels of other contaminants, like silicon, or iron, or copper. Things that would give an idea of the total amount of contamination. They didn't test for those. They only tested for the "scary" stuff.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Yes. yes. Whether or not the "sprayed" aluminum can significantly affect the pH levels is open to discussion at this point. Let's assume it can.

Why would Monsanto be spreading aluminum while at the same time increasing the pH of the soil which protects plants from aluminum poisoning. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of their aluminum resistant varieties? Wouldn't it be a better idea to lower the pH?

edit on 3/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Still waiting for you to respond to my inconvenient posts....

They are supposedly saving the planet and killing us off in their minds (as stated in the CFR links above)... as noted in the CFR acidic aluminum would endanger the planets choral reefs, so they are using alkaline (if they are doing it). With that big IF... the alkaline is rapidly raising the ph killing the indigenous trees which thrive, and have lived for the previous 20+ years of US Forestry data at a 5.5 ph. The rapid increase in the last five years from 5.5. to almost a neutral 7 is causing the killing of the trees and killing many of the microorganism healthy to the soil and plant growth. Thus their Monsanto aluminum resistant "uber-seed" will grow in unhealthy soil with the healthy microbes killed off. Only this seed sterilizes us (or at least it did rats) within three generations. Interestingly enough there are a lot more miscarriages and people having trouble getting pregnant....

reply to post by pianopraze

Please provide evidence of the pH increase worldwide...oops sorry...forgot. Skunk Works.

Shouldn't Monsanto be working on a strain that will be resistent to basic soils rather than one that is aluminum resistant? If the dastards are increasing pH levels their aluminum resistant strains will be pointless.

Please provide evidence of increased miscar...oops.. sorry. Can't help it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Please provide evidence of the pH increase worldwide...oops sorry...forgot. Skunk Works.

Shouldn't Monsanto be working on a strain that will be resistent to basic soils rather than one that is aluminum resistant? If the dastards are increasing pH levels their aluminum resistant strains will be pointless.

Please provide evidence of increased miscar...oops.. sorry. Can't help it.

*still* waiting for you to address all my other inconvenient posts... I shall now withdraw from this charade.

Your showing the true reason for moving the discussion here... to be able make fun of contrary assertions with calling a childish "skunk works, skunk works" school-yard mantra. I understand. I have consistently addressed the substance of your posts but you refused to return the favor and cherry picked. I have not belittled you in any way... can you say the same?

You have turned this into a churlish one sided discussion. You have not shown respect or consideration. I have been reading some other threads by BTS tonight and find this is a consistent pattern of behavior on your behalf.

Even posting belittling pictures such as this: phage ats thread post.

Others have seen through your charade also: Nightmare-david ats thread post.

Here's something I've noticed about Phage that anyone can see proof of by re-reading this thread.

Visit a thread he's posted in where his posts have gathered a lot of stars. You'll notice he doesn't post much after getting more stars than the person he's trying to prove wrong. Now look through this thread. Notice that the chemtrail believers have more stars than his posts? Notice that he has been posting more and more and showed a little attitude here and there and some nitpicking?

He can't stand when people don't agree with him. Plain and simple and easy to see by visiting any thread he posts in where a lot of the posters don't agree with him.

I had seen some insightful post by you in other threads phage and had some respect for you.

Now I see you.

I was enjoying our conversation, I'm sorry you degenerated it so.

I have answered you questions, now answer mine. In both threads without me having to reiterate them over and over, you can reread the threads and see where you cherry picked. Don't try to flag me as off topic. If you can post childish name calling pictures and get away with it, my calling you to answer my posts should not be flagged. And besides. I am doing it politely. (Yes i've been warned how you try to flag anyone who doesn't agree with you ). So I call you to answer all my inconvenient posts and stop the childishness.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Right. But there is dust in the air when the rain first starts to fall, isn't there? Where does that dust go? Do you think maybe the rain carries it away? We don't how large the sample was. If it was 1/4" of rain, a small amount of aluminum could show a high concentration.

We also don't know the levels of other contaminants, like silicon, or iron, or copper. Things that would give an idea of the total amount of contamination. They didn't test for those. They only tested for the "scary" stuff.

edit on 3/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

You know, you are the one making all the assumptions..
If you need more information in regards to how the tests were carried out, did you ever think to email them and ask,??
Or is it easier to merely assume they did them all wrong.??

reply to post by pianopraze

Yeah. I thought that scarecrow picture was pretty funny. After being told "Don't perceive with your mind" it seemed appropriate.

You know what? I really don't care what people think of me but it gets pretty old when people start talking about me rather than the topic. On either side of the fence. Degenerated? Nah. You brought up a thread only a year old. Keep looking you'll find older with more of the same. Maybe it's just that you don't like what I said. Maybe you don't like that I think the movie is slick crap. Maybe you don't like that I call bs on "chemtrails". Too bad.

You say I should show respect to the makers of the movie. Why? They are distorting information and preying on fear to make a buck. I don't respect hucksters. I don't respect snake oil salesmen. I do respect an honest discussion of facts, not invented "facts", not distorted "facts". I don't respect people who represent their product as science when it is nothing of the sort.

Our discussion started out pretty well. In the course of that discussion I found something worth making a new thread about and it hurt your feelings. Too bad.

I responded in the other thread to your questions. You don't like the answers? I'm not going to change them for you. Too bad.

You demand I respond to you. I did. I showed you the real CFR stance on geoengineering. I didn't select out of context portions of the briefing. I responded to your questions about Monsanto. I pointed out how absurd the idea that their development of aluminum resistant crops is all part of a diabolical plan, a plan of which "chemtrails" are a part. You came up with an even more nonsensical statement.

You demand I answer you. Forget it. I'm not here to meet your demands. I'm here to learn something and to spread around some of what I learn.

reply to post by backinblack

What assumptions?

The reports are there. The substances tested for are there. Aluminium, sometimes barium, and sometimes strontium. Labs don't test for "everything", they test for what is requested. Note that sometimes aluminum is shown as "ND" for Not Detected. That means they were testing for it and did not find it. I don't see "Silicon ND". I don't see "Copper ND". I don't see them because the lab was not paid to test for them.

Originally posted by leaualorin

 

 

this is really disturbing for me!
Can I ask the moderators WHY WAS MY POST DELETED AS "OFF-TOPIC"?
I was VERY on-topic calling the starter of this topic a CRIMINAL AND SHAMELESS for starting such a topic!
Is this forum REALLY controlled by some government agency or what?!
I mean a lot of BS is not even "touched" and one post (or almost ALL my posts) , are beeing systematically deleted , I got 2 warns in one day , I MEAN COME ON what is your problem with what I say around?
Chemtrails really exist and who doesnt believe it should move his/her arss and do the testing how he/she considers is scientifically CORECT!
In the meanwhile I WILL NEVER UNDESRTAND WHY MY POSTS ARE BEEING DELETED!
Makes me wonder what would happen to a topic OPENED BY ME!!!
I came to this FORUM thinking I would be able to debate FREELY curiosities from today's reality!
I guess there is no freedom of speach on this forum that is PROBABLY ownd by some government agency , that leads almost everybody on a wrong path and if someone says something REAL is beeing slapped back or even kicked out!
And the disinf government agents are sickening obviously to almost anyone with some decency STILL in their thinking!
I don't think this post will "last long" , but at least I have said WHAT I HAD TO SAY!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

What assumptions?

The reports are there. The substances tested for are there. Aluminium, sometimes barium, and sometimes strontium. Labs don't test for "everything", they test for what is requested. Note that sometimes aluminum is shown as "ND" for Not Detected. That means they were testing for it and did not find it. I don't see "Silicon ND". I don't see "Copper ND". I don't see them because the lab was not paid to test for them.

What assumptions? Are you kidding.??
Everything Phage..You have proven nothing, just accused them of not testing properly..

You question the size of the samples...Did you ask them.??
You question where the snow sample was taken from...Did you ask them.??
You say they used a contaminated container..Did you ask them.??
You assume they collected rain from the start of the shower..Did you ask them.??

I can go on if you need more.....

reply to post by backinblack

What's the point?
The movie claims there are unusually high levels of aluminum found in the Mt. Shasta area.
The levels in the soil are normal. It cannot be determined if the levels in the water samples are unusual because there is nothing to compare them to.

They lie.

reply to post by Phage

Let’s start with the soil samples so frighteningly high in aluminum. The soil under Frances Mangel's house tested at 13,600 mg/k!. Brookings, Oregon; 38,000 mg/kg! Big numbers! 38,000 somethings must be a lot! But is it?

38,000 mg/kg is 38 grams per kilogram. That's 38 grams per thousand grams. That's 3.8%. Is 3.8% a lot? Let’s check. According the chart in the book linked below, the percentage of aluminum oxide in California soils ranged from 1.63 to 32.42.

I note the tests are reporting the concentration of aluminum (Al)
though your comparison in California soils is stating "aluminum oxide" (Al2O3)

Would that not fudge the comparison somewhat.?
Whats the actual aluminum content,by weight, in aluminum oxide.??

reply to post by Phage

They lie.

Says you...But it seems many think THEY are not the ones lying..
I note in the other thread you clearly say you are not a soil expert..
Your opinion is just that.......

reply to post by Phage


Thanks for posting the info, it will be helpful in fully understanding the issue. I haven't watched the video yet, but when I do, I'll bear your thoughts (and the data you bring to the table) in mind.

However, I do not for a second believe that the issue is as cut & dry as you would have us believe; I have learned that the sneakiness of the 'PTB' knows no bounds.

Is money to be made in the hoax? Possibly - but not much in the grand scheme of things.
Is there money to be made by destroying the small-medium scale agricultural producers, by preventing them from generating decent crop yields? Definitely - lots and lots of money.

That's just one reason (though probably one of the primary reasons) why 'chemtrailing' would prove useful to certain groups with the money and influence necessary to conduct a large-scale operation of the purported nature of chemtrailing. Add in the desire to control/ subjugate the populace, to control the economy/ related industries in the favour of those with vested interests, and you have the makings of a sufficient 'motive'. I personally am starting to believe that the 'rabbit hole' runs much deeper than many of us could have imagined.


Fly.

When I went to China for the 2008 olympics we were supposed to take air samples and document changes in the atmosphere. They confiscated everything and said that we could not proceed with 80% of our planned activities. At the same time the Chinese were admittedly seeding clouds almost every day to prevent smog.

reply to post by pianopraze


Thanks for posting all the relevant and important links/ info. This thread has proved very enlightening. I'll be reviewing all the data as soon as I can set some time aside for proper, focused research. This topic intrigues me more with each passing day, despite the efforts of many to bury it.

I'm out too for now; other duties call. Added you (pianopraze) as a friend, so I can keep tabs on your relevant posts and threads. Thanks for taking the time to post clearly & intelligently, and for remaining focused in the face of it all.


Good stuff!

Sorry if this has been covered here already but what makes you so sure that it must be aluminum that they are spraying? Also I believe there has been legislation in the Shasta area to ban spraying although Im not sure if that has happened yet or not but that may also have some significance to the levels you spoke of if it has in fact already happened.

I will agree that they are probably not spraying aluminum but everything else is still possible.

Sorry I am drunk responding from my iPhone so I am limited, grammar doesn't matter right now I can't even see what I am writing, but I have an important question that I don't know if it has been answered, do contrails do what they are suppost to do, what has been said by said knowledgeable people or do they just happen.

First I wanna say contrails are suppost to make rain right? (correct me if wrong) do the contrails do it?
Third what can we do to stop it if they are harming us, please someone respond to my drunken concerns, I appreciate very much your answers, as it is a ATS that nobody reads and just responds to whatever people believe towards OPs I would like to get a response here being honest, factual and whatever else to deny ignorance.

I give no flags or stars unless it makes a difference, on knowledge that is and ofcourse if u agree with ya, right now can make up my mind maybe tomorrow... But that's another day.

Phage... Exellent post regarding that video. Your point is well taken.

Therefore chemtrails are not real? That your point? The video is flawed.Good catch. OH in THAT video.

Big whupp.

That is no reason to say that the PPM(parts per million) of barium or aluminum is/are higher where they spray.

And you didn't say that. And you are correct.

Deny ignorance.

Don't deny they spray crap either. One flawed report is not the whole of the sum. I have no clue what it is. I have no clue what's in it. But when they spray? They spray.

I'll "film" it. (get it? FILM) Hard to deny here in Reno/Tahoe when "they" do it.

Your argument is valid..for THAT report.

This discussion is not the end of chemtrails. But you sound convincing for THAT report.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi


It is a good idea to have aircraft fly at altitudes that aren't conducive for contrails, who is going to bring this up to Congress or the EPA?

You think that's a good idea, huh. By doing so, you eliminate the availability of air travel to the person of normal financial means. A nominal fuel burn for a common airliner powered by CFM-56 engines at 37,000 feet is in the area of 4,500 pounds per hour. At 15,000, where it might be too warm for contrail formation, the burn increases to around 6,000 lb/hr. So you burn 1,500 pounds more per hour. That's 2,250 gallons/hour more by flying low. Then double that penalty by recognizing that possible speeds are much higher at high altitudes. The last time I fueled at Jfk in New York, jet fuel was over $7.00 per gallon plus a bunch of taxes.A 737 can cruise at a max speed of .84 Mach at 35,000 feet. That gives you better than 500 mph up high. Down low, it is limited to max speed of 340 knots, or about 390 mph. So not only do you burn a ton more fuel down low, but it takes much longer at that high fuel burn to get there. You have pretty much eliminated long non-stops like LA to NY, and you have also squeezed all of the traffic that can now use from the surface to 45,000 feet into the bottom one-third of that, causing more enroute congestion delays and weather delays since you're now flying in the weather and not above it. Since it now takes twice as long to do a Point A to point B trip and crews are limited by law as to max duty times, the airlines have to double the number of flight crew and cabin crew. And since maintenance is based on flight hours, those costs also double.
You plan sounds like a great way for the super-rich elites not to have to share their airliners with the scruffy common man.