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.

 

Chemtrail Tanker Air Show For The Skeptics

page: 22
52
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus

What was the question?

Oh yes now I remember.



reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And would that be visible?


Yes darling. Due to the hygroscopic nature of sulfuric acid. It would attract the moisture in the air and form ice crystals just like your beloved contrails do.


You clearly have no idea what happens when sulphuric acid encounters water - it does not simply make "sulpuric acid ice" in some fashion that will freeze looking exacly like water - it makes hydronium ions H3O+

Hygroscopic does not mean "makes water" - it means "absorbs water" - so therefore there is no water (or at least less water) left in the environment to freeze to make contrails at all!!





Where are the tankers loading it onto he aircraft? Why aren't there lots of people standing around in hazmat suits??



To answer your second question you edited in. Other materials like salts also have the same hygroscopic quality. Private or military aircraft flown from private or military airfields would make it quite easy to conceal.


No - it would not make it easy to conceal - these are civilian airliners - large aircraft that require massive infrastructure to operate. they carry hundreds of passengers on each trip who would probably notice the alteration to their itinerary if they dropped into a "private or military" airfield to fill up with sulphuric acid every now and then.





I'd say "half baked" was a fairly optimistic description - someone saw a word somewhere and decided to use it....but hasn't really put any thought into what it would actually require in real life.


Your ignorance never ceases to astound me.


I am not surprised by that.
edit on 15-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Hygroscopic does not mean "makes water" - it means "absorbs water" - so there fore there is no water left in het environment to freeze to make contrails at all!!




Well, here we are again where a word is being used without actually understanding what it means.

I didn't know you could create persistent contrails by absorbing the moisture from the air, well that sure makes it a whole new ballgame.


I guess trying to keep the belief of chemtrails up is taking a toll on actually finding evidence to support chemtrails if they are resorting to using such words as Hygroscopic without actually understanding what it means.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Thorazine
 


Not open to logic and reason, are we? Got to stick with our psuedo-science at all costs, do we? You don't want someone to explain to you why a grid pattern in the sky is not possible without the addition of chemicals. Unless it's a thousand bombers in tight formation, there aren't enough hygroscopic particles to create anything but a fluke, here for a few minutes and then gone, contrail. Unless there's a front. And even with the thousand bombers, it usually took a front anyway.

This is the tragedy of man. We don't learn from history. And so any ignorant NSA pied piper can string us along. And so far, on this entertainment forum, I've never been wrong in my first assessment of intent and agenda.


Well, you sure have been wrong about two of your big claims - one that air traffic has decreased, and one that contrail science was an overnight creation. If the rest of us on this forum were to only learn from history, we'd be ignoring pretty much everything you say. You've nearly doomed yourself to eternal irrelevance here, so post something that can actually stand up against more than a cursory search in Google.

So, you've posted a few bits about the bombers in WWII, and that was pretty cool. Now, if you could show us why you seem to think that a grid pattern would not be possible without chemicals, we'd appreciate it.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



So the wind is creating grid patterns. If you'll believe this, you'll believe anything and deserve to be decieved.


Too bad the Air Force did not actually say that. Here is the source the Chemtrail Conspiracy site is supposedly referencing. Please locate that statement, or admit that Writers In The Sky is simply lying:

www.fas.org...



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





You clearly have no idea what happens when sulphuric acid encounters water - it does not simply make "sulpuric acid ice" in some fashion that will freeze looking exacly like water - it makes hydronium ions H3O+



What a waste of time it is discussing this with you.

In your rush to play psuedo scientist you forgot to factor in that the sulfuric acid is injected into the hot exhaust of the jet engine and is immediately vaporized.

How many times do I keep having to post the same quote?


Source

However, some thrust augmentation may be realizable by injecting the sulfuric acid downstream of the turbine, in a manner similar to a modern afterburner. By this approach, to achieve thrust increases the turbine exhaust gases must be hot enough to vaporize the sulfuric acid.


Next time you go consult your chemistry teacher make sure you give them all the correct information and describe the actual scenario. You won't look as foolish then.




Hygroscopic does not mean "makes water" - it means "absorbs water" - so therefore there is no water (or at least less water) left in the environment to freeze to make contrails at all!!


Show me where I said it "makes water". I never said any such nonsense.

Look at the quote you posted. I said "attracts water".


Nice try try trying to twist my words.

The only person you fooled is Tsurfer he ate up your lies hook line and sinker.
edit on 7/15/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Hygroscopic does not mean "makes water" - it means "absorbs water" - so there fore there is no water left in het environment to freeze to make contrails at all!!




Well, here we are again where a word is being used without actually understanding what it means.

I didn't know you could create persistent contrails by absorbing the moisture from the air, well that sure makes it a whole new ballgame.


I guess trying to keep the belief of chemtrails up is taking a toll on actually finding evidence to support chemtrails if they are resorting to using such words as Hygroscopic without actually understanding what it means.


Neither of you two actually understand the science behind normal contrail formation.

The amount and type CCN material is a huge factor in the development of a contrail.

The more hygroscopic the CCN is the larger the ice particles will be and longer they will last.

Do you get it now?

You posting your little laughing smiley faces only serve to make you look even more ignorant when shown how wrong you both are.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




Too bad the Air Force did not actually say that. Here is the source the Chemtrail Conspiracy site is supposedly referencing. Please locate that statement, or admit that Writers In The Sky is simply lying


Kind of free about calling others liars, aren't you? You could have asked nicely and I would have been more than happy to search it out for you.

At the following link, open item #4 under references (pdf) and on page #12 (almost to the end) under 'Claims & Facts.'

Contrail Facts/Air Force 2005

Fact: The National Airspace System of the United States is orientated in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation. Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





You clearly have no idea what happens when sulphuric acid encounters water - it does not simply make "sulpuric acid ice" in some fashion that will freeze looking exacly like water - it makes hydronium ions H3O+



What a waste of time it is discussing this with you.

In your rush to play psuedo scientist you forgot to factor in that the sulfuric acid is injected into the hot exhaust of the jet engine and is immediately vaporized.

How many times do I keep having to post the same quote?

That is entirely up to you - I guess you will stop when you realise it has nothing to do with your supposed "sulpuric acid contrails" that look exactly like "normal" contrails.



Source

However, some thrust augmentation may be realizable by injecting the sulfuric acid downstream of the turbine, in a manner similar to a modern afterburner. By this approach, to achieve thrust increases the turbine exhaust gases must be hot enough to vaporize the sulfuric acid.


Yes...and then, according to you, it absorbs water and freezes to look exactly like contrails - isn't that what you say happens? why....yes....it is:


Due to the hygroscopic nature of sulfuric acid. It would attract the moisture in the air and form ice crystals just like your beloved contrails do.


-www.abovetopsecret.com...


Next time you go consult your chemistry teacher make sure you give them all the correct information and describe the actual scenario. You won't look as foolish then.


I think you should follow this advice - it is perfect for you.





Hygroscopic does not mean "makes water" - it means "absorbs water" - so therefore there is no water (or at least less water) left in the environment to freeze to make contrails at all!!


Show me where I said it "makes water". I never said any such nonsense.


and I didn't actually say you did - I did not attribute it to you at all. I put it in quote marks purely as an indication it is "shorthand" - just like I don't attribute "shorthand" to you.


Look at the quote you posted. I said "attracts water".


Nice try try trying to twist my words.


since I wasn't quoting you I wasn't twisting your words - nice try doing so yourself tho!!


also nice try completely ignoring the basic science - absorbing water still means there is no (or less) water to freeze


The only person you fooled is Tsurfer he ate up your lies hook line and sinker.


Probably because I backed them up with actual science (even if it was only via wiki) that was relevant rather than your quotes which have nothing whatsoever to do with the "sulphuric acid contrails" you seem to think they support somehow.

Here's some more science for you to complain about: sulphuric acid mist is a regulated pollutant (5mb pdf) - so if yuo have any actual evidene of it being used you should start filing complaints with the EPA immediately - I look forward to you getting back to us on how those proceed.

Measurement of atmospheric sulphuric acid is long standing and not particularly difficult to do

edit on 15-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



I don't make stuff up.

Apparently you do.



Air traffic has decreased.

Provide a credible source for this.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I bet he won't offer this as a credible source for air traffic decreasing:



original is here, on page14
edit on 15-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi


Contrail Facts/Air Force 2005

Fact: The National Airspace System of the United States is orientated in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation. Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.


The NAS consists of federal airways for IFR flight. They aren't oriented any specific way, but a Victor Airway, which goes from 1200-18,000 feet can be oriented East-West or North-South. A Victor Airway will be labeled with an odd number if it's North-South, and an even number if East-West. A jetway can go any direction, and under the Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums, they have to maintain 1000 feet of vertical separation.

IFR Handbook


edit on 7/15/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/15/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/15/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Like I said before you keep ignoring and leaving out the important factors that make your argument invalid.

The heat from the exhaust incinerates and vaporizes the material.


Source

Pure sulfuric acid is a colorless, odorless, oily liquid. It freezes at 10.5°C. It fumes when heated, because some of the H2SO4 decomposes to H2O and SO3. The H2O is retained in the liquid, while SO3 gas is released. Therefore, the concentration of H2SO4 decreases, reaching a concentration of 98.33%. This solution boils at 338°C and is the material sold as "concentrated sulfuric acid." Concentrated sulfuric acid, which is 18M, has a strong affinity for water and is sometimes used as a drying agent. It can be used to chemically remove water from many compounds.

It dehydrates sucrose (table sugar), C12H22O11, leaving a spongy black mass of carbon and diluted sulfuric acid. Concentrated sulfuric acid reacts similarly with skin, paper, and other animal and plant matter. When it is mixed with water, a highly exothermic reaction occurs, and the energy released can be enough to heat the mixture to boiling. Therefore, concentrated sulfuric acid must be diluted by adding the acid slowly to cold water while the mixture is stirred to dissipate the heat.


I also stated that there are many other types of chemical other than sulfuric acid that have been proposed.

I used Sulfuric acid because it was the one suggested in the Aurora report.

I think they have tried out numerous chemicals and materials in their tests.

That's one of the reasons the Geoengineering scientists have switched from suggesting sulfur to alumina.

Using alumina may have less harmful effects on the environment than sulfur would.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Like I said before you keep ignoring and leaving out the important factors that make your argument invalid.

The heat from the exhaust incinerates and vaporizes the material.


Source

Pure sulfuric acid is a colorless, odorless, oily liquid. It freezes at 10.5°C. It fumes when heated, because some of the H2SO4 decomposes to H2O and SO3. The H2O is retained in the liquid, while SO3 gas is released. Therefore, the concentration of H2SO4 decreases, reaching a concentration of 98.33%. This solution boils at 338°C and is the material sold as "concentrated sulfuric acid." Concentrated sulfuric acid, which is 18M, has a strong affinity for water and is sometimes used as a drying agent. It can be used to chemically remove water from many compounds.

It dehydrates sucrose (table sugar), C12H22O11, leaving a spongy black mass of carbon and diluted sulfuric acid. Concentrated sulfuric acid reacts similarly with skin, paper, and other animal and plant matter. When it is mixed with water, a highly exothermic reaction occurs, and the energy released can be enough to heat the mixture to boiling. Therefore, concentrated sulfuric acid must be diluted by adding the acid slowly to cold water while the mixture is stirred to dissipate the heat.


OK...one more time...where in there is there anything about it freezing in a like manner to "ordinary" (not attributed to you) water vapour?


I also stated that there are many other types of chemical other than sulfuric acid that have been proposed.

I used Sulfuric acid because it was the one suggested in the Aurora report.



Indeed - it is pretty old news really - and has been discussed here on ATS many times before.

eg here
here or
here

But regardless - there is still no actual evidence of it happening, and if sulphur was to be used it seems far more likely that it would be done by increasing the amount of sulphur in jet fuel within the current limit of 3000ppm - that would not require any special equipment at all!!


I think they have tried out numerous chemicals and materials in their tests.

That's one of the reasons the Geoengineering scientists have switched from suggesting sulfur to alumina.

Using alumina may have less harmful effects on the environment than sulfur would.


the obvious problems with using sulphur are easy to see - you may be too yuong to remember the acid rain scares of the 1980's - but I do, and hte problems are well enough known to be part of the wiki article on Sulphuric SRM

Studies of various materials that could possibly be used for SRM have also been done over eth eyars.

This is obviously news to you - but it isn't actually news to anyone in the geo-engineering field at all.




edit on 15-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





OK...one more time...where in there is there anything about it freezing in a like manner to "ordinary" (not attributed to you) water vapour?




Yes, one more time. Once vaporized it becomes tiny particles that become CCN ( cloud condensation nuclei ). These tiny particles attract and absorb the water from the exhaust and the atmosphere just like normal contrails form.

The difference is in the way these particles absorb the moisture from the surrounding area. Because they are very hygroscopic. They will continue to absorb water which will allow them to persist and spread much more than normal contrails.


But regardless - there is still no actual evidence of it happening, and if sulphur was to be used it seems far more likely that it would be done by increasing the amount of sulphur in jet fuel within the current limit of 3000ppm - that would not require any special equipment at all!!


Except this would negatively effect engine lifespans. I already supplied papers that discuss this technique when I posted the other report. Now you're just parroting what I said earlier.




the obvious problems with using sulphur are easy to see - you may be too yuong to remember the acid rain scares of the 1980's - but I do, and hte problems are well enough known to be part of the wiki article on Sulphuric SRM

Studies of various materials that could possibly be used for SRM have also been done over eth eyars.

This is obviously news to you - but it isn't actually news to anyone in the geo-engineering field at all.



I'm in my 40's now so I remember it just fine.

Nothing you have posted is news to me.

How you come to that conclusion is just another display of your ignorance.

Your condescending posts are just more poor attempts to distract from this discussion.

You're rather useless for me to continue discussing this with.

I supported my argument with facts and you have decided to move on to ad hominems and changing the subject.


edit on 7/15/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus


The more hygroscopic the CCN is the larger the ice particles will be and longer they will last.




Alas, your understanding of the physics behind contrail formation and persistence is lacking.

The persistence of any contrail, regardless of the size of its CCN, is predicated on the ambient humidity level- not the size of the ice crystal.

If adding sulphur to the fuel would actually survive the combustion of the engine, it would not persist any more or less than any "normal" contrail...

So, seeing a persistent trail is not evidence of any nefarious activity...



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





OK...one more time...where in there is there anything about it freezing in a like manner to "ordinary" (not attributed to you) water vapour?




Yes, one more time. Once vaporized it becomes tiny particles that become CCN ( cloud condensation nuclei ). These tiny particles attract and absorb the water from the exhaust and the atmosphere just like normal contrails form.


You haven't actually presented any evidence for that and in fact that is NOT what condensation nuclei do at all.

They do not abosorb water - they provide a "spot" in the atmosphere for water to condense around.

They cause water to coalesce - which is completely differnt to absorbing it.

Sorry - but again you have been betrayed by your lack of actual knowledge.

Part 2 follows, since I went over the word limit.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



But regardless - there is still no actual evidence of it happening, and if sulphur was to be used it seems far more likely that it would be done by increasing the amount of sulphur in jet fuel within the current limit of 3000ppm - that would not require any special equipment at all!!


Except this would negatively effect engine lifespans.


Again your lack of actual knowledge betrays you - 3000 parts per million of sulphur in Jet fuel is the maximum allowed AT THE MOMENT. specification for Jet A1 - sulfur limit is on page 4, section 8 - limit % m/m is 0.30 - ie 0.3%, or 3000ppm.

It will not increase wear or negatively affect engine lifespans because engines are already made to tolerate it.


I already supplied papers that discuss this technique when I posted the other report. Now you're just parroting what I said earlier.


Yes you posted papers - which I already mentioned had been seen on here long ago.

You should read them and understand what is actually in them befoer you think they support your case.





the obvious problems with using sulphur are easy to see - you may be too yuong to remember the acid rain scares of the 1980's - but I do, and hte problems are well enough known to be part of the wiki article on Sulphuric SRM

Studies of various materials that could possibly be used for SRM have also been done over eth eyars.

This is obviously news to you - but it isn't actually news to anyone in the geo-engineering field at all.



I'm in my 40's now so I remember it just fine.

Nothing you have posted is news to me.


Clearly the amount of sulphur allowed in jet fuel is news to you, and how condensation nuclei work to coalesce water rathe than absorb it is news to you.


How you come to that conclusion is just another display of your ignorance.


I presume you think I concluded that you weer not old enough to remember acid rain??
I made no such conclusions - I said you MAY not be old enough - again you have not actually read what is there



I supported my argument with facts


the only facts you proposed to support your argument are irrelvant - in this post you introduced us to sulphur injection to increase thrust, and also to said you think that such sulphur injection would look like contrails.

You based your assumption, I think, on the idea of hygroscopy that you previously intrioduced - because you think that absorbing water makes sulphuric acid into cloud nuclei - whereas absorbing water and coalescing water into rain are 2 completely different actions.

So firstly you have not established that sulpuric acid injection is happening at all, and secondly your idea of how it would create "contrails" is simply wrong.


and you have decided to move on to ad hominems and changing the subject.


Pointing out your errors is not ad hominem attacks, and I have stayed with the topic of how it is that sulphuric injection would look like contrails - which you yourself raised.

Your whole idea also ignores some basic concepts - where are the tanks full of the sulphuuric acid on commercial aircraft that are used for this? Why does this only result in "contrails" sometimes?

How do you account for the vast amount of water that jet engines generate anyway without any need for injection of exotic materials:



edit on 15-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




Go out and try it. I already know I'm right.

No amount of side stepping and word games changes the facts.

You obviously have no clue. I'm bored with you playing games.




They do not abosorb water - they provide a "spot" in the atmosphere for water to condense around.

They cause water to coalesce - which is completely differnt to absorbing it.

Sorry - but again you have been betrayed by your lack of actual knowledge.


Are you saying it can't do both at the same time?

Because just because they absorb water doesn't mean they can't coalesce also.

In fact it's guaranteed that they do both. You're trying to cause confusion based on semantics which are false.




Yes you posted papers - which I already mentioned had been seen on here long ago.

You should read them and understand what is actually in them befoer you think they support your case.


You should read them. Because you keep saying there is no evidence.




Clearly the amount of sulphur allowed in jet fuel is news to you, and how condensation nuclei work to coalesce water rathe than absorb it is news to you.


Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. CCN will almolst always do both at the same time.




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   


Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


They cause water to coalesce - which is completely differnt to absorbing it.

Sorry - but again you have been betrayed by your lack of actual knowledge.


Are you saying it can't do both at the same time?

Because just because they absorb water doesn't mean they can't coalesce also.

In fact it's guaranteed that they do both.


Guaranteed? By who? What evidence do you have that supports that claim?



You're trying to cause confusion based on semantics which are false.


Sigh - it is not semantics - it is science.

There are 2 completely different mechanisms at work. One is absorbtion of water - the other is coalescing.

You said that the process absorbs water and therefore acts as a condensation nucleus.

That is just wrong - it is not semantics any more than saying sublimation is melting.

I am sorry that you persist in simply being argumentative - you have been given a lot of good information in this thread, but you refuse to bother understanding it - that's unfortunate, but it does make your claims to be looking for the truth seem very hollow.




Yes you posted papers - which I already mentioned had been seen on here long ago.

You should read them and understand what is actually in them befoer you think they support your case.


You should read them. Because you keep saying there is no evidence.


I hav looked at all of them.

There is not one single piece of evidence for your claims in them.



Clearly the amount of sulphur allowed in jet fuel is news to you, and how condensation nuclei work to coalesce water rathe than absorb it is news to you.


Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. CCN will almolst always do both at the same time.



Really? And what is your evidence for that? I thought you said it was "guaranteed that they will do both" (attributed to you) - not that they will only "almost always do both" - which is it?

I am unfamiliar with any studies that show this connection between the 2 processes - certainly none of the links you have provided so far support this claim. Can you elaborate on it please?
edit on 16-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


You are the one being argumentative here. You keep asking questions but you do not answer mine.

You claim to know already so why don't you answer your own question and quit playing dumb.




There are 2 completely different mechanisms at work. One is absorbtion of water - the other is coalescing.


Assuming we're talking about material that absorbs water. Are you saying it can't coalesce?

Answer the question and please quit wasting time with your ridiculous games.




Really? And what is your evidence for that? I thought you said it was "guaranteed that they will do both" (attributed to you) - not that they will only "almost always do both" - which is it?


The only reason it won't do both is if the material doesn't absorb moisture. Like metal for example.
edit on 7/16/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join