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.

 

Shocking Annoucment about Chemtrails on MSM

page: 36
67
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdRock69
 


No, he was not correct. If read the pages I linked to the studies showed that when VLF waves hit the ionosphere and electron precipitation occurs it affects atmospheric pressure which has a large impact on weather systems globally.

I read them... and no they don't! Here's the part you made up:

it affects atmospheric pressure which has a large impact on weather systems globally.

I'm tired of rehashing your fiction. If you can prove me wrong, provide a direct link. Until you do so, I'm done with that nonsense.

The comments you made about neutralization of acid was in reference to the stadis-450 and dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid being additives in jet fuel.

Well... yeah... kinda sorta... but not quite. You gave it a fair try though, so I'll give you another star.

Let me get more specific:
I was responding to Alchemist7's concerns over whether or not "Stadis-450" contained "barium salts or alluminum or thorium oxides".

I doubt it will help, but let me sort it out for you:
Here's my initial response to Alchemist7.
This is the specific comment I was referring to:

The other theory out there is that there are other metalic particles being added to jet fuel for a dual purpose. For instance Stadis-450 is added to jet fuel as a static dissipator. This additive ingredients is a trade secret and is not disclosed but is assumed to contain either barium salts or alluminum or thorium oxides.

And here's the source of the above comment.

The remainder of your post is nothing but raw garbage, and is not worthy of a response... so I won't.

See ya Eric,
Milt




posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Past behavior of contrails doesn't explain what I see, how these trails look, and what they become.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


But for clarification, I am not hostile. I'm passionate.

If you insist...

I noticed you didn't deny:
1) Lack of Evidence
2) Insults

I reckon you're finally showing a little integrity... I'll give you a star for that! Thanks!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





No, you did no such thing. You demonstrated that you don't understand what is wrong with the claims made...throughout the "Case Orange" document.


Really?


Are we still going to debate this?

The statement in the Case Orange report was about HAARP correct?

Do you admit that HAARP is an ionospheric heater. What happens when you heat something?

It expands correct? When you expand something what happens? It rises / lifts because it becomes less dense / less pressure. Correct? You following me so far?

OK, so what happens to the atmosphere underneath the portion of the ionosphere that gets lifted?

It loses pressure correct? Now what happens to an area of the atmosphere that loses pressure? Does less atmospheric pressure affect weather systems ?


Once again here was a portion of the link I quoted
thayer.dartmouth.edu...

Dissipation of electromagnetic and electron power flowing from the magnetosphere into the highlatitude ionosphere regulates the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction and modifies the upstream
flow state, which is manifested during extreme events as transpolar potential saturation.
– The accompanying Joule heat causes the thermosphere to expand and upwell and can generate
traveling ionospheric disturbances and atmospheric gravity waves that propagate to lower latitudes
.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdRock69
 


The statement in the Case Orange report was about HAARP correct?
Incorrect.
Here is the first sentence of the paragraph.

The study of ELF-transmitters either for civil or military purposes is particular important in the scope of this survey, because alteration or manipulation of the ionosphere at a specific place inevitably alters the weather below.
HAARP does not transmit ELF (or VLF).


It expands correct? When you expand something what happens? It rises / lifts because it becomes less dense / less pressure. Correct? You following me so far?
I follow you but I would say that you are, again, incorrect.

For ionospheric layers below about 200 km in altitude (the "D" and "E" layers, for example), the electron density may actually increase as a result of active heating because of the suppression of recombination processes. Compare this with the natural depletion that occurs after sunset every evening when the E-layer electron density falls by as much as 200 times to levels of 1,000 cm-3 over almost the whole nighttime hemisphere.

www.haarp.alaska.edu...


OK, so what happens to the atmosphere underneath the portion of the ionosphere that gets lifted?

What lifted? You mean like when the density drops dramatically naturally after every sunset? I don't know, you tell me.


Thermosphere

The thermosphere is the layer of the Earth's atmosphere directly above the mesosphere and directly below the exosphere. Within this layer, ultraviolet radiation causes ionization. The International Space Station has a stable orbit within the middle of the thermosphere, between 320 and 380 kilometres (200 and 240 mi).
en.wikipedia.org...
Tell me how "space weather" affects atmospheric weather, the kind we experience in the troposphere. Yes, I know that it may affect climate. Climate is not the same as weather.

When trying to connect dots you need to use the right ones.

edit on 2/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/28/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I found a very informative document about the different aviation fuels used and the specifications/differences between each fuel. The emission standards for jet fuel from the 40's is way different from the standards of current fuels used. The sulfur content is also different between civilian aircrafts vs Military aircrafts. Also fuel manufactured during WWII didn't have emission standards and explains why such large plumes of condensations vs current civilian jet plains. Theres alot to read but very informative:

aviation fuel tech



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Alchemst7
 


Page 11 of the link I posted above aviation fuel tech explains what static dissipators/ anti static additives do.


Conductivity improving additives are also called anti-static additives or static dissipator additives. The additive DOES NOT prevent charge generation, rather it increases the rate of charge dissipation by increasing fuel cunductivity,


This answers my question...so with that being said, could stadis 450 additives in the jet fuel exhaust increase the rate of charge dissipation in the atmosphere?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alchemst7
I found a very informative document about the different aviation fuels used and the specifications/differences between each fuel. The emission standards for jet fuel from the 40's is way different from the standards of current fuels used. The sulfur content is also different between civilian aircrafts vs Military aircrafts. Also fuel manufactured during WWII didn't have emission standards and explains why such large plumes of condensations vs current civilian jet plains. Theres alot to read but very informative:

aviation fuel tech

You're my friend now. You're pretty damn cool... You've forced me to learn quite a bit.

You are right about those old aircraft. They were nasty old birds! I can confirm that. There's been a lot of changes since then. The engines are a lot cleaner burning now. Most of it has to do with engine technology that requires updated fuel.

I'll look at that document when I get a chance.

Great job! I gave you a star because you deserve it.

See ya buddy,
Milt


edit on 29-2-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I found another confliction between the 2 refrences I gave earlier, Geo-engineer site states that "Increasing Sulfur Content of Jet Fuel in Commercial Fleet to create the mirror like reflectors of solar heat involves increasing the sulfur content of jet fuel for the commercial fleet of jet aircraft (around 20,000 planes today) from 0.04% to 0.6 and increasing to 0.9% by 2050."

and this document aviation fuel tech page 12 states that :" A similar reduction has not occurred for jet fuel; the specifications continue to allow
a maximum of 3000 ppm sulfur although the worldwide average sulfur content in jet fuel appears
to be between 500 and 1000 ppm."

so jet fuel sulfur content can be already around .3% or 3000 ppm. this is pretty dam close to the increase by 2050, or is my math off?
edit on 29-2-2012 by Alchemst7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Alchemst7
 


I'm confused by your post.

In your first paragraph it says


increasing the sulfur content of jet fuel for the commercial fleet of jet aircraft (around 20,000 planes today) from 0.04% to 0.6 and increasing to 0.9% by 2050."


In your last paragraph you said


so jet fuel sulfur content can be already around .3% or 3000 ppm. this is pretty dam close to the increase by 2050, or is my math off?


0.3% is the maximum allowable. The increase you show is double 0.6% and then triple 0.9% the current amounts.

Your second paragraph states


worldwide average sulfur content in jet fuel appears to be between 500 and 1000 ppm."


So if the sulfur content reaches 9000 ppm by 2050. That about 9 times the current average.

That sounds like a large increase to me.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBassistant
 

I have no intention of wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. You wouldn't believe me anyway. Do your own damn research.

All I'm saying is that I don't see anything at all unusual in your pictures. It's also obvious that you don't know enough about contrails, that you acknowledged do indeed exist, to tell the difference between "normal" ones and "abnormal" ones. This is known from the questions you asked me at the beginning of your post.

As far as I'm concerned, ALL contrails are normal, and you haven't convinced me otherwise. Hell, you didn't even try, other than using a phone call to back your claim. Nice try, but it certainly didn't work.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Alchemst7
 


No - the proposed increase could be achieved within the specifications for Jet A1 - I posted as much somewhere here on ATS in the last couple of weeks

But you would know it was happening because you could buy some Jet A1 and measure the sulphur content.

Companies have been trying to lower sulphur in the fuel for the last couple of decades

Edit - here's where I posted it: www.abovetopsecret.com... - 3 weeks ago - sheesh - time flies!!
edit on 29-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alchemst7
reply to post by Alchemst7
 


Page 11 of the link I posted above aviation fuel tech explains what static dissipators/ anti static additives do.


Conductivity improving additives are also called anti-static additives or static dissipator additives. The additive DOES NOT prevent charge generation, rather it increases the rate of charge dissipation by increasing fuel cunductivity,


This answers my question...so with that being said, could stadis 450 additives in the jet fuel exhaust increase the rate of charge dissipation in the atmosphere?


Probably not - if for no other reason than there is no fuel left to gain a charge after it has been burned!!

All hydrocarbons are prone to collecting static charges because they are non-conductors - a spark in a fuel tank is obviously a bad thing, so it is a sensible precaution to increase the conductivity to help such charges disperse rather than build up.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBassistant
 


Past behavior of contrails doesn't explain what I see, how these trails look, and what they become.

I agree! Only the conditions at the altitude of the contrail can do that. Conditions vary, as do the contrails. It's pretty simple really.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Since detailed, thought-out responses don't really seem to be your thing, I'll keep this short.

Why are you trying to convince me that chemtrails don't exist? Do you have any of the evidence you always demand that proves chemtrails are nothing more than an elaborate "hoax" (who benefits from that anyways?) I'm certainly not trying to impose upon you my beliefs, and I don't know why you would get that from me relating conversations with local officials about the trails I saw in the sky. I thought it was an interesting piece of circumstantial evidence to corroborate my claims of what I saw and took pictures of.



reply to post by TheBassistant
"Past behavior of contrails doesn't explain what I see, how these trails look, and what they become."

I agree! Only the conditions at the altitude of the contrail can do that. Conditions vary, as do the contrails. It's pretty simple really.

See ya,
Milt


If it's pretty simple, why do so many people not believe it? Are we all just ignorant? If you really want to have a discussion about the possibilities (i.e. are an open-minded individual), you should stop implying that myself and other chemtrail observers are nothing but a 'waste of time' to you, because you aren't able to 'convince' us. I look forward to a civil conversation with you later. Off to work now.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TheBassistant
 


Why are you trying to convince me that chemtrails don't exist?

I'm not! That would be a definite waste of time.

Considering you didn't understand the opening paragraph in the post you are currently responding to, please reread it:

I have no intention of wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. You wouldn't believe me anyway. Do your own damn research.



Do you have any of the evidence you always demand that proves chemtrails are nothing more than an elaborate "hoax" (who benefits from that anyways?)

I certainly do! I find it everytime I enter one of these "chemtrail" topics. There are many HOAXERS that benifit from the HOGWASH they peddle for money.

Because I am NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU OF ANYTHING: Please do your own damn research.


I'm certainly not trying to impose upon you my beliefs, and I don't know why you would get that from me relating conversations with local officials about the trails I saw in the sky.

Sure you are! I didn't get that from "relating conversations with local officials about the trails I saw in the sky" though. I get that from your insisting that I believe your pictures are of "chemtrails" just because you say it is so. That's all you've done, and it certainly isn't a convincing argument.


I thought it was an interesting piece of circumstantial evidence to corroborate my claims of what I saw and took pictures of.

You apparently thought wrong. What's interesting, circumstantial, or even evidentiary about you making a few damn phone calls? Here's a clue: Absolutely Nothing!


If it's pretty simple, why do so many people not believe it?

Most likely it's because those people don't, or DON'T WANT TO, understand basic science. You clearly fall into the "DON'T WANT TO" group. I reckon that's because it would destroy your belief in the "chemtrail" related conspiracies.

To you guys, this crap is a religion, and "trails in the sky" are your God.


Are we all just ignorant?

No! Not at all! Many of you are VERY paranoid as well. This is evidenced by the numerous accusations of me being part of a "disinfo" campaign, if I provide evidence to the contrary of your beliefs.


If you really want to have a discussion about the possibilities (i.e. are an open-minded individual), you should stop implying that myself and other chemtrail observers are nothing but a 'waste of time' to you, because you aren't able to 'convince' us.

I'm not interested in discussing the POSSIBILITIES of what MIGHT be in your pictures. I just want to know WHAT in YOUR PICTURES, and ONLY IN YOUR PICTURES, HAS CONVINCED YOU that they ARE NOT "normal" contrails.

It has not yet been demonstrated that "chemtrail observers" even exist. There are only those that believe they are observing "chemtrails".

I didn't imply a damn thing! I made a direct statement to you:

I have no intention of wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. You wouldn't believe me anyway.

You have demonstrated numerous times that the above statement is, in deed, TRUE.

As I've said before:

Do your own damn research.


See ya,
Milt
edit on 29-2-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alchemst7
I found a very informative document about the different aviation fuels used and the specifications/differences between each fuel. The emission standards for jet fuel from the 40's is way different from the standards of current fuels used. The sulfur content is also different between civilian aircrafts vs Military aircrafts. Also fuel manufactured during WWII didn't have emission standards and explains why such large plumes of condensations vs current civilian jet plains. Theres alot to read but very informative:

aviation fuel tech


Most of the stuff you see in a visible contrail did NOT directly come from the particles in fuel exhaust. Most of what you see is due to the moisture that was already in the air (plus some water created by combustion, and a little soot).

There may be differences in aviation fuel today as compared to WWII, but contrail production is not that reliant on what is in the fuel. It is more reliant on existing atmospheric conditions at that altitude, such as humidity and temperature.

Differences in contrails today are also due to today's high-bypass jet engines, where a full 85% of the existing outside air being sucked into the engines never goes through a combustion chamber (it "bypasses" the combustion chamber). Therefore, when that air is exhausted out the back of the engine, it is cooler and wetter (along with being compressed).


edit on 2/29/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Alchemst7
 


I have used that same document in order to attempt to educate people:


I found a very informative document about the different aviation fuels used and the specifications/differences between each fuel. The emission standards for jet fuel from the 40's is way different from the standards of current fuels used.


What I find odd, though, is how different people interpret it differently....based on the comment above.

You say the "emission standards for jet fuel from the 40's"...? Ermm......the document discusses that the EARLY jet engines, from the 1940s, used kerosene primarily....the same concoctions used in lanterns.

Because, and get this: Jet Engine technology was in its infancy in the 1940s!! The majority of airplanes were still piston-engine-powered back then....and they used what s basically just a version ofgasoline....same as automobiles. In fact, even today, automotive gasoline will work in a piston airplane engine....but, it is against the law to use it, as it is formulated slightly differently AND will cause damage to the airplane engine, because of the differences. Primarily it is a property of reduced tendency to vapor lock that is the difference. Automotive fuel has a higher and less uniform vapor pressure characteristic.

Airplane gasoline is called "Avgas", or "Aviation gasoline" in the USA. And, it is entirely, entirely differnt from Jet engine fuel....Jet-A1.

Please research further, it is freely available on the InterWebs:

Avgas

Jet-A and Jet-A1






Read up in the rest of the document, to better understand modern



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Most of the stuff you see in a visible contrail did NOT directly come from the particles in fuel exhaust. Most of what you see is due to the moisture that was already in the air (plus some water created by combustion, and a little soot).

There may be differences in aviation fuel today as compared to WWII, but contrail production is not that reliant on what is in the fuel. It is more reliant on existing atmospheric conditions at that altitude, such as humidity and temperature.

Differences in contrails today are also due to today's high-bypass jet engines, where a full 85% of the existing outside air being sucked into the engines never goes through a combustion chamber (it "bypasses" the combustion chamber). Therefore, when that air is exhausted out the back of the engine, it is cooler and wetter (along with being compressed).

Who the hell is going to believe that crap? That would ruin the conspiracy!

Star for you. You earned it!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
lol, so i saw this thread and wanted to see whats going on here, as it appears far more in depth than my own,and i come to find its the same names fighting the same battles against the same opponents lol. come on guys lets all get along...on all threads lol.

very nice thread OP. i have learn many new sources of information from your thread, thank you



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join