Are They Spraying Anything?

page: 9
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


It would seem that yes 0% would be the optimal, but, I believe that is unrealistic...........

I believe the amount in question is 3.8%, and it is being associated with alledged "Chemtrails".

What I feel has been avoided is how does the 3.8% compare to our other exposures to aluminum, like drinking from a can, or brushing our teeth????

Does this really sound so unreasonable a question, that both you and WeedWhacker seem to feel the need to jump in and help Phage??????

From what I've seen in my short time here Phage is more than capable, and as he has proved he is both intelligent, and well versed..................now, with that being said, I don't just accept anything that anyone says, not even someone of Phage(s) stature.

If, something does not make sense to me, I will question anyone, perhaps this could be sound advice for you??

After all, is this site not about questioning authority as much as ignorance???

To be a blind follower is not something that I ever longed to be, can the same be said of you?????????????

Regards,
Parker


edit on 2-3-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-3-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 

The elemental form of aluminum does not exist in nature. It only exists in the form of compounds. Aluminum oxides are the most common. Aluminum oxide is what the "chemtrail" crowd claims is being sprayed.
edit on 3/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I think the whole point is that yes, aluminum does NOT exist in nature..
So how did it appear in the test results if that is what they found..

I'm more than open to you proving the results were for aluminum oxide but that's not how I'm reading the report..


elemental aluminium does exist in nature - it is metallic Aluminium that does not - there is a difference.

Pure aluminium instantly forms aluminium oxide in contact with oxygen - it is not optional!
the "aluminium" you see in cans, boats, pots and pans, and everywhere else, already has a coating of aluminium oxide on its surface that stops any further contact - and if that oxide coating gets scratched then the scratch instantly gets an oxide coating.

That is why aluminium "doesn't corrode" - because it actually does corrode extremely quickly and the corrosion bonds with the metalic aluminium underneath forming a protective layer - as opposed to iron oxide which falkes off as rust.

So either the tests are for all forms of aluminium, wheter in oxides or any otehr chemical arrangement, or they will show 0.

Why would you think that the tests were for pure aluminium - ie metallic aluminium - when that cannot exist in contact with oxygen?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OneNationUnder
 



Planes have to fly in air patterns.


?? Completely, totally nonsense. Not even a valid term, "air patterns"....



You need HIGH clearance to fly outside of a pattern, even if it's a mile off course.


NO. YOU. DON'T.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Qcuailon
 

Oh, how l wish l could give you a 1,000 stars and flags for all you have said. Thank you. Please, l would like to say just one word. DITTO. Peace starchild.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 

You think soil testing is a valid air test?
You think testing pond sludge is a valid air test?
You think testing for 2 or three substances in rain water is a valid test to show "high levels" of contamination? How can it be when other "safe" contaminants were not tested for? We have no way of knowing how much "bad" stuff there was in comparison to the harmless stuff. The water tests (all of them) are pointless. They show nothing except that there is aluminum in dust.
The only thing approaching an air test tells us there was a very small amount of aluminum in the sample taken.


They would obviously test the soil as a control..You know that Phage..
The rest, as I stated before, if in doubt I'm sure they would answer your questions..
But no, you'd rather this lame attack where you merely make assumptions..

But it's your thread so we'll just watch the responses..



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Anything in a contrail is very, very small, about 10 to 20 micrometers in diameter. Something that small has a terminal velocity of between 0.03 to 1.2 cm per second. Which means that in a still column of air it will take at least 24 hours to reach the level of air we breathe. But there is wind (forgotten yet again by "chemtrail" theory) and updrafts, so that time is much longer, if it reaches the ground at all. The only thing that can come down from flight altitude will come down to earth quicker is fairly large hail.
What surface water and precipitation is testing is ground level pollutants and those from the air, but the industry, surface transportation, agriculture, mining, construction, dry dirt roads have put much more substance than the planes. Snow in your area doesn't get dirty from exhaust? Really? Puddles don't ever show oil slicks?
In order for a test of ground water to be useful for showing anything released in a trail all other sources need to be eliminated. Or a test needs to be done on the trail in situ. Show a test like that. Please. We've been asking for it and haven't seen one yet.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dizziedame
 


Oh wow...bots thanking trolls.

Just tell the public the truth. Who cares. Lets just fast forward the panic and get it over with.
ONLY THE STRONG AND INTUITIVE SURVIVE.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
This morning the Georgia sky was deep blue as the sun was rising, the the planes started, x's and y's all over the place dumping something for sure, within 2 hours the sky was milky white and as the continued it was so obvious. The sun was blocked out and as they continued you could see them last all day. thats not contrail's thats something new!
edit on 2-3-2011 by Deja`Vu because: added something



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deja`Vu
This morning the Georgia sky was deep blue as the sun was rising, the the planes started, x's and y's all over the place dumping something for sure, within 2 hours the sky was milky white and as the continued it was so obvious. The sun was blocked out and as they continued you could see them last all day. thats not contrail's thats something new!
edit on 2-3-2011 by Deja`Vu because: added something


This is interesting claim I have not examined. I actually have never disagreed that there have been persistent contrails for a long time.

What is new is this covering of the sky.

I've seen many videos of how these "contrails" act very un-contrail like and cover the entire sky forming a haze.
ETA Here is a video that shows this:
video.google.com...#

Google Video Link
edit on 2-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

No, it is not new.
From 1970:

The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

journals.ametsoc.org...



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qcuailon

I shouldn't even have to remind you of this, but, the UN just passed resolutions prohibiting certain aerosols that are used for the purposes of Geoengineering. Big word there. "Geoengineering." Silly stuff...probably doesn't exist...right?


Of course it exists - go look up the wiki page on it.


Aerosols...Now, where did the U.N. get that word from?


From the dictionary I expect - the study of atmospheric aerosols is quite old - you do realise that aerosols get into the atmophere from virtually everywhere don't you?

when you walk along you kick up aerosols, your car exhaust generates aersols, domestic and industrial smokestacks generate aerosols, and of course mother nature is perhaps the biggest generator through volcanoes, geothermal activity, and simpe sea spray.

You do realise that don't you?


And how would the UN expect that we would deliver such aerosols in the sky?


I don't think it really cares, as long as it isn't done!



Those silly people with all of that scientific evidence amassed from researchers who have real degrees MUST ALL BE WRONG.


Wrong about what? that we could spray sulphur compounds into the sky if we wanted? Nope - I'm pretty sure they are not wrong about that.



So Phage...How do you suppose those aerosols got up there if not "SPRAYED" by airliners?



As far as I can see the UN has not said that there are any aerosols in the atmosphere placed there by airliners - they have said that no one is allowed to put any there.

And why would they do that? Maybe because people are talking about it as a possible method for combating climate change, and the UN has said "Hang on a second - let's not do anything unilaterally here until we've sorted out a lot more information on it!"

I dunno, but I see nothing particularly strange about banning something you think might be dangerous if it weer to take place - in fact that seems like a good idea to me.

You do understand that talking about the possibility of doing something is different to actually doing it don't you?


Do you have a well thought out, factual presentation for that question?


Yep - slamed and dunked.



Not that I should have to provide ANYTHING,


some actual evidence that chemtrails exist in the first place would help your case and make you look a little less silly.


but, I will...
www.nowpublic.com...


Again - how about some evidence that chemtrails actually exist??


For all those who want REAL INFORMATION WITH SOURCES to research, check this wikipedia article. And some will say "Wikipedia???" Really??? Check the sources and then come back with that nonsense.
en.wikipedia.org...


Especially this bit of it: en.wikipedia.org...


Patents:
www.google.com...


Got any evidene that it is actually being used? Any photos of one (or more) under a wing, or in an engine nacelle?

You do realise that millions of patents exist for things that hav never been built or used don't you? Tehre are web sites for silly patents.....the existance of a patent means someone had an idea...nothign more or less.


Other info:
www.lexum.umontreal.ca...
www.history.com...


wondering why you think this is evidence of anything othe than the historically obvious:


For countless generations, weather has influenced the planning and conduct of military and naval campaigns. In his instructions to his generals, Frederick the Great wrote, "It is always necessary to shape operation plans... on estimates of the weather."



William Cohen addresses Weather Warfare: Of course, "Phage and company" will have more reliable information than the former secretary of defense. Phage gets briefings from the White House all the time.
www.fas.org...


I dont' see any mention of chemtrails in there at all...was there a point to this link?


en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.govtrack.us...


from which I conclude that weather is really important and it would be good to get a handle on it some time, but everyone realises that it would be incredibly powerful so have agreed not to do so.

And het US has legislation controlling such weather modification techniques as may be allowed - which is completely public and has a budget of $10 million per year in the legislation.

No mention of chemtrails




I showed you mine, now, you show me yours...By the way, I HAVE TONS MORE info where that came from.


I don't doubt it.

I also don't doubt that it is all the sort of "connect the dots" "evidence" that you ahve already shown youself susceptible for that does not actually contain one single iota of evidence showing that chemtrails exist.


There's more recorded evidence for our argument for the existence of "Chemtrails" than against it.


Arguments are only as strong as the evidence they start with.

Sincd there is no evidence at all that chemtrials exist all those myriad arguments for their existance are little moer than hysterical ravings.

To descend to yuor level of evidene would require me to point out that there's more evidence for the existance of the Starship Enterprise than for chemtrails......


It was a pleasure schooling you, and before you say a SINGLE word to me, I want you to provide me with EVIDENCE that you have a meteorology, physics and Chemistry degree. If not, then what you say is conjecture and not worth listening to.


Now that's a 2-edged sword!!
edit on 2-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: still fixing quotes



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deja`Vu
This morning the Georgia sky was deep blue as the sun was rising, the the planes started, x's and y's all over the place dumping something for sure, within 2 hours the sky was milky white and as the continued it was so obvious. The sun was blocked out and as they continued you could see them last all day. thats not contrail's thats something new!
edit on 2-3-2011 by Deja`Vu because: added something


Maybe it is new in your parts, but it isn't new in the world - it has been noticed as far back as 1940 by French military pilot Antoine de Saint-Exupery in "Flight to Arras" (available on Amazon).

He wrote:


The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.



(taken from Wakes of War - Contrails and the rise of airpower)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm not going to argue this point as it seems like the weakest part of the argument for current geoengineering in my mind.

But I grew up in the 70's and I do not remember it ever forming these hazes... I remember contrails spreading out and interconnecting, but not forming this crystalline haze that I've seen in some of the videos.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Some people remember seeing it and some people don't. Memory is a funny thing, especially memories from when we were quite young.

Contrails have been persisting and spreading for a long, long time. Like you say, it is a weak argument for "chemtrails" but it is the one that seems to be most closely clung to.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


Sorry, the only time I follow Phage is if he's ahead of me in line somewhere. Or he replies to the same person before I do.

What is the acceptable level of Al? Did you research? Hmmmm....???? Here is a link:
Aluminum in the Human Body

Apparently not. We are surrounded by Al, and it's excreted in urine and feces. Make you fell better? It should.
Keep in mind the amount of Al in the samples in question did not test the exposure of any population. It tested the ground water, which is contaminated by ground level sources of all kinds. So you cannot really compare the two. It's apples and oranges.
Show the level in the populace is toxic and that the aluminum came from a jet's exhaust plume and you have a claim. Show your soil or ground has Al in it and you are......well, tilting at windmills.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Which is fair enough - I never saw it spread out much in the 60's and 70's either, and of course there were many fewer contrails then for it to do so.

But I see no reason to doubt that it can do so now that I've seen accounts from the 1940's right up to today, and meterological & atmospheric science gives the mechanism and reasons why it can happen.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 


Sorry, the only time I follow Phage is if he's ahead of me in line somewhere. Or he replies to the same person before I do.

What is the acceptable level of Al? Did you research? Hmmmm....???? Here is a link:
Aluminum in the Human Body

Apparently not. We are surrounded by Al, and it's excreted in urine and feces. Make you fell better? It should.
Keep in mind the amount of Al in the samples in question did not test the exposure of any population. It tested the ground water, which is contaminated by ground level sources of all kinds. So you cannot really compare the two. It's apples and oranges.
Show the level in the populace is toxic and that the aluminum came from a jet's exhaust plume and you have a claim. Show your soil or ground has Al in it and you are......well, tilting at windmills.


Well, now we are getting somewhere, the article you posted says the average intake of Al is between 10-110 mg. per day.................................

Now, we need to determine how many Mg. the 3.8% in question is??????????????

I never claimed the aluminum came from jet's exhaust, but, I can see that false statement would probably make you feel better....................So, now can you provide the answer to my question, and was it natural aluminum occuring in nature?? Or, was it Aluminum Oxide??????????????

Parker



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
double post
edit on 2-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ParkerCramer
 

2.6 grams of dirt.
But as the article says, most of it passes right through you. Just like most of the other stuff in the dirt.

edit on 3/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

None of this dismisses the possibility of geoengineering. Just because contrail can spread does not undermine the possibility of aerosol spraying in addition and some of the videos seemingly show both....

All the science say contrails are due to atmospheric conditions and if there are horizon to horizon conditions for contrails to persist they will persist. The atmosphere is more like an ocean with currents, counter, currents, and rip-tides. I spent 15 years as a very-amature weather watcher/storm chaser. I loved watching the clouds. I would download the GOES satellite images and watch them, making movies out of them. The earth remains vast, wonderful, and mysterious. Meteorology, while having some good science, is one of the least understood and lots of great science is going on currently.

There are current plans for "smart dust" which would be released into the environment and mimmic nature designs to stay aloft and monitor atmospheric conditions. I do not know if this is currently taking place, but I'm sure they will engage in future operations.
edit on 2-3-2011 by pianopraze because: fixed video link


ETA...

Originally posted by Phage
Like you say, it is a weak argument for "chemtrails" but it is the one that seems to be most closely clung to.

This is another disingenuous argumentative technique you employ. I never said "chermtrails" I said geoengineering.
edit on 2-3-2011 by pianopraze because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join