reply to post by Uncinus
Yes yes, calm down everyone. My first reaction when I saw these posts were to start barking up some bile, but truth is told you don't know me
from a hole in the wall, and I have presented no evidence. I have made a few postings about myself, and my past involvement with Darpa in previous
posts. I even included some still classified documents, when I was so desperate to try a get a word across to Japan. I'll just write this down
long form, sorry.
The use of metals in fuel goes back to the beginning of the 1900's, when fuel specifications were virtually unheard of, and some crude supplies were
heavy Pb rich. It was noted that the engines with the higher lead content in their fuel experienced a longer service life. It took some time to
determine what classification the presence of the metal in fuel should be given. Some felt the lead coated the valves as the pistons, and acted as a
shield, while others believed the lead absorbed flash heat from the combustion reaction, and made the mixture more tolerable for the available alloys
to handle. Today we know a lot more about the purposes metals serve in out engines. In both reciprocating and gas turbine engines, metals are added
for their electrolytic effects on completing the transfer of electrons in octane or certain thermal decomposition. They also serve as a thermal
catalyst based on their head radiant properties, and as a lubricant based on their melting point and their atomic flexibility. All of these things
enhance performance, but have a price.
Back in the fifties, when jet aircraft were being introduced to commercial passenger flight, and Boeing had yet to deliver the 707, there were
competing ideologies in the aviation fuel industry about what was the best fuel to run these new birds on. No one could agree on what flashpoint was
ideal for jet aircraft. It was the great stochiometric debate, not unlike the one NASA went through of Oxygen versus oxygen nitrogen for their Apollo
capsules. Having resolved postwar issues of supply and fuel cleanliness, the arrival of the axial flow engines require a fuel with much higher
flashpoint. Rolls Royce, and consequently the British had adopted kerosene. In Canada and the northern states, Kerosene proved to be downright
dangerous to operate in our year round cold weather operating conditions. At altitude, these aircraft were always operating in subzero condition and
the fuel was literally molasses being injected into those very simple turbine designs. These were conditions that aircraft were just beginning to
broach commercially, and aircraft losses were significant due to clogged burner cans. The Brits thought it was safe to have a fuel that will not
easily ignite in a fire, but eventually people realized you need your fuel to burn to work well. Airlines were opting for a new formula which was the
precursor to Jet Propulsion 4, and no it wasn’t called JP3. The US navy had developed a functional fuel model that was made out of a diesel crude
mix of which became their whole fleets general light bunker spec. This fuel allowed them to use their carrier’s fuel stores to fuel the new breed
of gas turbine jump jets. The new planes were such pigs compared to the old radials that the vessel needed more fuel for the planes then for the
battle groups navigating. It turned out this new fuel was stable and volatilized well in cold and high altitude conditions. Had great desiccant
properties as well.
Over the years these fuels as well as many others were further developed to increase efficiency. By the end of the sixties, it was general school of
thought that a contrail was not only a safety concern for enemy targeting systems, it was also a simple indicator of an inefficient engine design. In
short, too much energy was being lost in wet vortices, when the engine could be making use of this power.
So fast forward to 2008. I heard about this silly comment from my brother about chem. Trails and I thought the whole thing was nonsense. Then on a
flight through Dorval airspace, while flying an absolute bucket of garbage Cessna, I was almost asphyxiated by the lingering cloud of while oxide foam
crisscrossing the skies. So, I started to notice after that, and I made a few calls, and was told by a few buddies that they have been noticing large
plume like contrails since 2003 and that ground crews have been complaining about being gassed during engine starts. It was particularly notable with
aircraft running JP8 .
Last year, I spent the greater part of summer and fall doing an advanced geological survey of the Ottawa valley. I was performing detailed maping and
mineral studies of previously unknown fault lines crisscrossing the Quebec Ontario Boarder. My work included performing lots of mass spectrometry,
and cataloging the soil and fossil record. Amazingly, the area along the approach routes for Mirabel Airport has so much Aluminum and Barium in the
topsoil that it was skewing all my results.
BTW, thanks for that cute diagram, whoever posted it, I suspect I’m going to save a bundle on my lab fees this year. I’m just going to tell them
to skip the soil portion of my core samples, because after all I have this nifty pie chart that says the world is a nice homogenous mix of uniform
inert material. I love master’s students. When you can tell me the reactive properties of Lanthanum by site, I’ll respect you.
I didn’t put it together until I saw other people here had spectro work done and found Barium. You see, Aluminum is a terrible fuel additive. It
was rejected long ago, because it was abrasive, and gummed up the system unless you operated at extremely high heat. Furthermore if was corrosive,
and hindered fuel burn by acting as a de-ionizing agent.
Anyway, perhaps they have managed to find a way to make aluminum boost an aircraft’s performance. It was theorized that highly magnetic material or
electrically unstable elements could make aluminum act much like it does in a thermite reaction. Never heard of that going further than a
You can draw your own conclusions, but if you have any knowledge of tomographic weaponry, the only reasonable if not ridiculously sounding conclusion
is HAARP. You can on read on this site some strong evidence about the GAO exposing some large chem. spraying budget, then you start to follow the
dollars and voila.
There are a lot of well done investigative threads on ATS, not all are about denying possibilities, but all are full of turfers.
Luv you Mississippi. AX