Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!

How about some other reasons for studying plasma
Plasma the 4th state of matter

A plasma rocket test

UFO technology

B2 MHD Plasma Stealth

Russian Plasma Jet
www.youtube.com...
A quick video about some of the uses of plasma
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Second let's start with your claim that Ted Gunderson is a loony tunes, over the hill crackpot

why?

Your level of evidence consists of "I said it so it is true" - so why can't other people use it?

Then there's the "look up - it is obvious" level of evidence you also subscribe to - for which there's a "look at his website and videos - it's obvious he's nuts" that is equally valid.

And if THAT isn't enough then there's all the "facts" on
this page -

-Child molester
-diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic
-Bush crime family terrorist
-Satanist
-CIA Shadow Government Scamster-Crime Syndicate Member
-Gunderson Ran Operation Brownstone, The Blackmail of Congress and Senate with kidnapped Children for sex and children from Orphanages all across America.

and more

So it must be true - right??

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

OK weedwhacker here is your chance to DEBUNK THIS.

First give me the links to the other threads you mentioned that as you claim have already proven the items I posted to be "bunk".

Second let's start with your claim that Ted Gunderson is a loony tunes, over the hill crackpot

post by weedwhacker
>sigh< Ted Gunderson is a loony tunes, over-the-hill crackpot. We have covered HIM, and that video, in another thread already. He has ZERO CREDIBILTY, and every claim he has made RE: "chem"-trails shown to be false. He is a joke.

Show me the psychiatric reports that support your claims and also any other evidence you wish to submit that back up your statements about Mr. Gunderson

edit on 8-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text

Ted Gunderson claims Ft Sill has the chemplanes. However, Ft SIll does not even have a runway for these aircraft, nor has anyone claimed to have seen these secret aircraft taking off out of Ft Sill, which is right next to Lawton OK.

He also says the Lincoln Nebraska public airport has secret bomber unmarked aircraft being flown by the Air National Guard for chemtrails. It is a PUBLIC airport, amazing how this has not been seen yet.

Ted also says that there are 30,000 guillotines stored on military bases

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Sounds like a typical smear campaign for anyone who blows the whistle. Where is any of the real evidence of your accusations besides another propaganda website? Why doesn't your propaganda website mention the child molestation accusations? You guys are too much, anyway this just proves how low you will go. I think the real reason you don't like him is because you're the molester and he exposed your gang on Alex Jones.

In regards to your claims that my only evidence is "I told you so" . You are really showing how blind your eyes are and how blank your memory is. Which one of the men in black agents zapped you J or was it K ?

reply to post by firepilot


Is this your idea of facts? Your goof ball writer on some no name website making wild false accusations and demanding a response from people within 10 days of his secret unseen posts. If they don't respond then that's some how an admittance of guilt ?

www.stewwebb.com...

April 1, 2005 THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC POSTING:I, Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower hereby challenge Government Plants and Patriot Name Collectors CIA-FBI-DCS Ted L. Gunderson, Tim White, Ken Adachi, Larry Lawson Todd Fahey, Brenda Negri or anyone listed on this page. To write a similar Affidavit and sign and sent to me, Stew Webb and I will post it here. I will assume if I do not receive such within 10 days of this posting, by refusal to acknowledge you hereby admit to the facts you all are either or have been on Government payroll, paid by a FBI informant account, or by the US Inspector Generals account.

Where did your version of Bill Nye the science guy go at least he had some brains.

Did you miss the quyote mark around "facts"??

Look dude - if you are going to spam YT drivel "proving" your case then you have no cause to complain when I sink to your level and post nut-case drivel "disproving" it

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Did I or did I not prove that the Battelle corporation blends industrial toxic waste into the fuel to make a special high thermal value fuel?

Do you or do you not believe that the fuel is intended for use in the aviation industry?

You sound like you been breathing the chemtrails too much. Lay off they're starting to affect your brain.

Here just for you. Once again if you missed it the first time is a report on the difference between normal jet fuel and a jet fuel with additives used for military jet engines.

www.dtic.mil...

Evaluation of a Jet Fue l Thermal Stability Rig

Current and planned gas turbine engines use fuel as their primary heat sink. When jet fuel is
thermally stressed it will form gums and deposits. These deposits can block engine fuel nozzles,
causing damage to the engine hot sections, especially the combustor region. The fuelís thermal
stability is a critical fuel property with respect to optimum performance of modern military gas
turbine engines. The current standard method to rate fuel thermal stability, the Jet Fuel Thermal
Oxidation Tester (JFTOT), is a subjective, pass-fail type test and is not adequate as a tool to
quantitatively investigate fuel thermal stability.

A test to quantitatively rate a fuelís thermal stability was required to assist the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in evaluating current fuels relative thermal stabilities and to assist in the assessment of the proposed fuel thermal stability additives, commonly known as JP8+100

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


As I said, it mentions JP8+100 exactly once- and you found it.

Now what is the actual link to anything nefarious at all, let alone CIVIL airliners??

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot

 

Is this your idea of facts? Your goof ball writer on some no name website making wild false accusations and demanding a response from people within 10 days of his secret unseen posts. If they don't respond then that's some how an admittance of guilt ?

www.stewwebb.com...

April 1, 2005 THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC POSTING:I, Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower hereby challenge Government Plants and Patriot Name Collectors CIA-FBI-DCS Ted L. Gunderson, Tim White, Ken Adachi, Larry Lawson Todd Fahey, Brenda Negri or anyone listed on this page. To write a similar Affidavit and sign and sent to me, Stew Webb and I will post it here. I will assume if I do not receive such within 10 days of this posting, by refusal to acknowledge you hereby admit to the facts you all are either or have been on Government payroll, paid by a FBI informant account, or by the US Inspector Generals account.

Where did your version of Bill Nye the science guy go at least he had some brains.

edit on 8-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with what I posted, about Ted claiming Ft Sill has secret chemplanes based there, or also with the Lincoln Nebraska public airport having them, or that Ted has claimed the military has 30000 guillotines.

Do we also want to get into where he has said Area 51 is used for harvesting organs from children?

doublepost

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Did I or did I not prove that the Battelle corporation blends industrial toxic waste into the fuel to make a special high thermal value fuel?

You didnt' prove it - you founf it in their publically available information!! lol

Do you or do you not believe that the fuel is intended for use in the aviation industry?

I didn't notice anything in there about it being used for any particular purpose - that is why I asked if you had any more info on the "specification fuel" they say it was part of. do you have any information about it being used for aircraft, or any other particular purpose?

they (engines) usually ahve a temperature margin - thde difference between th temperature at a given set of operating condistions and the maximum they can take. As the engine wears out this temperature margine decreases - they have to pump in more fuel to maintain the nominal output at those set conditions - and hen it gets too small they pull whichever parts of the engine need work (maybe just the turbine module, maybe the combustion module if that is sperate, maybe the whole engine) and send it off for maintenance.

So using high thermal value fuel in aircraft would probably require significant modification to the engines, and possibly the fuel pumps as well. Most engines already operate near the thermal limit for the materials they are made of, and "over temperature" is a common reason for maintenance ranging from borescope inspections for damage, replacement of turbine modules or even whole engines if that is simpler - usually the onboard system will detect the overtemp and record how long it lasts, and that is the basis for deciding what maintenance is performed.

You sound like you been breathing the chemtrails too much. Lay off they're starting to affect your brain.

Because I keep asking what is the link betwen your prolific posts and supposed chemtrails, and you can't actually show any such link?

You claim to have all this information - you keep posting stuff - but you always refuse to say how it links to "chemtrails" - why is that?

reply to post by firepilot


The issue is not about Ted Gunderson or his credibility. And even if it was I hardly think that any of your claims have been proven or have discredited him in any way. None of you appear to have any real credibility to back up your smear campaign of propaganda and out right lies.

I haven't seen or heard any proof or evidence that what he said is false and in my opinion his credibility is a lot better than yours. So if all I have to go on is a persons credibility then I'm going to believe him before I believe you.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by firepilot

 

The issue is not about Ted Gunderson or his credibility. And even if it was I hardly think that any of your claims have been proven or have discredited him in any way. None of you appear to have any real credibility to back up your smear campaign of propaganda and out right lies.

I haven't seen or heard any proof or evidence that what he said is false and in my opinion his credibility is a lot better than yours. So if all I have to go on is a persons credibility then I'm going to believe him before I believe you.

Wait, didnt you just ask earlier for any evidence he was a crackpot?

And if it is not about his claims or credility, then why did you post videos of him?

You have quite a double standard of proof. You have no proof of anything, just endless speculation with a shotgun approach, throwing up as many different unrelated things, and then demand absolute proof for it to be debunked, when in reality, you would never accept anything.

I have already show on ATS, that Ft Sill near Lawton OK cant possibly have these jets there.

I have already mentioned, how the Nebraska Air Guard flies out of a public airport

And yes, Teddy has claimed kids are stolen, taking to the USAF base at area 51. Funny how you ask for evidence that he is bonkers and his statements are disproven, then his credibility no longer matters.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I don't know how you see or read but whatever method you are using obviously isn't working to well for you. I absolutely described the connection between the fuel with additives from toxic waste and chemtrails. I also stated that there are more than just 1 type of chemtrail. The fuel with the toxic waste are the ones with more particulate matter and also have a higher thermal value. Therefore the chemtrails are the planes making the so called "persistent contrails".

reply to post by firepilot


Where is the evidence ? Huh? Are you mad? Where, when and how did you prove it? I haven't seen any proof. All I have seen is some pretty slanderous false accusations, That about all I've seen

The man claimed he saw them there with his own eyes. He didn't say they sat their all the time for everybody to come and take pictures and get autographs. How does the fact that the plane isn't there now prove that it wasn't there when he said it was?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I don't know how you see or read but whatever method you are using obviously isn't working to well for you. I absolutely described the connection between the fuel with additives from toxic waste and chemtrails. I also stated that there are more than just 1 type of chemtrail. The fuel with the toxic waste are the ones with more particulate matter and also have a higher thermal value. Therefore the chemtrails are the planes making the so called "persistent contrails".

You didnt' show anything of the sort.

You showed that some fuel was being made, and you explained how high combustion temperatures can help create longer-lasting contrails (which the known contrail science already knee, and which is anti-chemtrail evidence BTW....).

Then you leapt to a conclusion that this fuel is linked to civilian airliners that make persistant contrails.

Somehow you got this connection through JP8+100, which is a fuel additive used in some militaries, and you suggested also by private jets. I pointed out that your own list of users did not include Civilian airliners, nor did you show that the fuel you are fixated on has anythign to do with JP8+100.

On top of that you did not actually show that the fuel has anything to do with aviation at all - all you did in regard of that was ask whether or not I thought it was. As I indicated I did not read anything that showed it being used for aviation so I asked what your evidence for that was - and, as usual, instead of providing any actual evidence you have attacked me.

Par for the course for you really.

But I do find this info interesting - it is much better than YT videos, even though it shows nothing supporting your contentions at all.

BTW what is your take on Ship Trails or ship tracks? The link says they may be a cause for the Southern Hemisphere warming faster than the northern....and that's from NASA!! Surely that's got to be suspicious?!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Here is a sample of the evidence linking the toxic fuel from Battelle to it's use in aviation
Source: 01_tp_fineparticles.pdf

Battelle
Putting technology to work
Environmental Technology
Verification Program
Advanced Monitoring
Systems Pilot
FOR
VERIFICATION OF
AMBIENT FINE PARTICLE MONITORS
June 14, 2000
Prepared by
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 ETV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Fine Particulate Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Test Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Test Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Technology Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Chemical Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Mass or Surrogate Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Verification Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Scope of Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1 Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.2 Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3. Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4. Reference Methods and Supplemental Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.1 PM2.5 Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.2 Speciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.3 Supplemental Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5. Data Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5.1 Quantitative Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5.2 Qualitative Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.6. Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.6.1 Battelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.6.2 Vendors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.6.3 EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.6.4 Test Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.6.5 On-Site Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.6.6 Contract Analytical Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4. Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1. Phase I - Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2. Phase II - Fresno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3. PAH Sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3.1 Denuders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Test/Test/QA Plan for the Verification
of Ambient Fine Particle Monitors
Page v of vi
Version: 1.1
June 14, 2000
4.3.2 Other Sampling Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3.3 Shipment of Sampling Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3.4 Field Sampling for PAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.3.5 PAH Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5. Materials and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.1. FRM Sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2. Speciation Sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.3. PAH Sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.4. Sampling Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6. Quality Assurance/Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.1. Sample Collection/Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.2. Data Collection/Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.3. Field QA/QC Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.3.1 Flow Rate Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.3.2 Leak Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.3.3 Temperature and Pressure Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.3.4 Field Blanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.3.5 Collocated Samplers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.4. Laboratory QA/QC Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.4.1 Laboratory Blanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.4.2 Analytical Duplicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.4.3 Analytical Spikes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.5. Assessments and Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.5.1 Performance Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.5.2 Technical Systems Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.5.3 Data Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.6. QA/QC Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.7. Corrective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
7. Data Handling and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.1. Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.2. Data Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7.3. Statistical Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.3.1 Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.3.2 Predictability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.3.3 Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7.3.4 Meteorological Effects/Precursor Gas Interferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Test/QA Plan for the Verification
of Ambient Fine Particle Monitors
Page vi of vi
Version: 1.1
June 14, 2000
7.3.5 Short-Term Monitoring Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7.3.6 Qualitative Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
7.4. Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
8. Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Organizational Chart for Ambient Fine Particle Monitor Verification Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
LIST OF TABLES
1. Parameters Being Monitored by DOE/NETL at Pittsburgh Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Parameters Being Monitored by CARB/DRI at Fresno Supersite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. Summary of Data Comparisons to be Made
in Verification of Continuous Monitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Pick a chapter section

reply to post by firepilot



No that was in reply to a post of mine where I linked to a nut-job website about Gunderson by one of his arch enemies - who is just as loonie....possibly even more so......

sorry for hijacking your discussion