Who Produces Chemtrail Chemicals?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 





And 90 percent of those chemicals can be run through an engine without causing permanent damage to said such engines, as they are a part of maintaining engines.


So you have put these chemicals thru an engine and run it, because that is what your implying right?

And what are these chemicals you think you can run thru an engine that won't cause damage?




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I thought the chemtrail movement was dead, credibility zero, what has dredged it back up again?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 





I think the people doing it would be ignorant to the fact.


Just a quick question for you...

How and where are they hiding all of this spraying equipment and tanks for such an operation that the pilots and crew will not see or find them when doing a pre flight inspections?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 




To prove to us that there is nothing added to the fuel that is harmful to humans, is show us pumping or fuel trucks that have no hazard warning decals on them.


Well let us go one step farther and ask how come cars don't have these decals as gasoline is also harmful and is much closer to the population compared to airplane jet exaust.

In fact how about you show us gasoline tankers without those same hazard warning decals?

Not one person has ever said that jet fuel is not hazardous, what has been said is that the chemicals chemtrail believers claim is in jet fuel is not, and has yet to be shown it is.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by flyswatter
 


You seem to be trying to pick a fight here. You fail to acknowledge that I said in my first post that I don't necessarily believe in Chemtrails. All I have said is that it is possible.

The fuel comes from a refinery. A refinery processes crude oil into other things. Including many types of chemicals. Why would they need any other source for chemicals. They are already processed at the refinery. That's the purpose of a refinery. The fuel comes directly from storage tanks at the refinery. Anything could be added to the fuel right in the tank. The lines come from all over the plant to the tanks. It would be quite simple to put something into the fuel and no one would ever know.

Ok lesson over. Next time learn about what you're talking about before you spout off. A small amount of learning can go a long way. As I said in my first post I worked with chemicals for years,20 to be exact. In a plant which manufactured chemicals. I was an operator,that means I made the chemicals. Many of the chemicals I used every day came to us directly from a refinery.
edit on 9/28/2012 by lonegurkha because: to add


I'm not attacking you, just the whole idea of chemtrails in general. Before you get pissy and start going all high and mighty, clarify things first.

Regardless of where chemicals would be added, that is still a step in the process that would have to be controlled. I mentioned it in another thread a while back - the manpower required and the amount of people under the thumb of chemtrail creators wouldnt exactly be realistic in that kind of scenario. They would have a hell of a lot more success just doing it from military planes at that point.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


You still don't get it do you? All that would have to happen at the refinery is for one, check that, one person to throw a valve and push a button for a pump. That's all it would take. Everything in a refinery works just like at a chemical plant, one person opens or closes valves to direct the flow and then pushes a button to turn on a pump. That's all there is to it, get it now, takes one person, thats all.

Perhaps this will not be enough to change your mind. I figure probably not. You are so convinced you are right that nobody will ever convince you otherwise.Shame really.

The operator may not even know what the stuff he adds will do. He gets a piece of paper that tells him what to add and how much.He just does his job.There's no huge group of people needed. They just make a product the way the customer wants it, and by the so called government regs.

So you see no huge conspiracy needed. Just a customer and a government, The customer for the product and the government to provide regulation. The rest is just people doing their jobs.
edit on 9/30/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


OK. If that were so, how do they get around the constant testing and analysis of the fuel? If something was in there, wouldn't it be found straight away?

Heres a fuel handling guide. Of particular interest are chapter 5 (5.1b talks about solids/particulates) and chapter 8 where inspections are talked about. 8.9D is of particular relevance to your point.

Then there is chapter 9, what happens if contamination is found.

All pretty thorough.

amd.nbc.gov...

And so, with this procedure in place not one person invloved has yet blown any whistle on chemtrail additives.

In 20 years there has been not a single mistake, a wrong aircraft given the concoction, the wrong mix of ingredients applied, no sudden recalling and draining of an aircraft, no pilot narrowly avoiding losing his aircraft and all his passengers due to inappropriate fuel being put on his aircraft, no crash investigators dismayed to find a plane was lost due to some error of this ilk.

And of course, nobody choking or developing ailments at the airports when these planes are taking off from ground level with the engines blasting away at their most furious power settings.

I dont buy that at all.
edit on 30-9-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


You guys aren't getting it. It can be produced with whatever they may add and would be tested and pass. if the fuel were knowingly produced with whatever chemical that may be added, It would pass the test because it was supposed to have that chemical in the first place. Does nobody here have any reading comprehension?

I never said that chemtrails are real, I just explained how it can be done.
I will no longer reply to stupid theories that have no bearing on what I posted.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 




To prove to us that there is nothing added to the fuel that is harmful to humans, is show us pumping or fuel trucks that have no hazard warning decals on them.


Well let us go one step farther and ask how come cars don't have these decals as gasoline is also harmful and is much closer to the population compared to airplane jet exaust.

In fact how about you show us gasoline tankers without those same hazard warning decals?

Not one person has ever said that jet fuel is not hazardous, what has been said is that the chemicals chemtrail believers claim is in jet fuel is not, and has yet to be shown it is.



Why did you stop there?
What else do humans do that is harmful to other humans.
I thought that is what chemtrails were about?
You agreed, is how I take it,
refined crude oil is harmful to humans and has chemicals in it,
and has warnings of the dangers.
You are doing good, slowly coming around to admitting the tons of refined chemicals loaded onto commercial planes and in cars, lawnmowers, etc.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by waynos
 


You guys aren't getting it. It can be produced with whatever they may add and would be tested and pass. if the fuel were knowingly produced with whatever chemical that may be added, It would pass the test because it was supposed to have that chemical in the first place. Does nobody here have any reading comprehension?

I never said that chemtrails are real, I just explained how it can be done.
I will no longer reply to stupid theories that have no bearing on what I posted.


You would be absolutely correct, and it would make perfect sense if the location of manufacturing was the only location that the testing was done. But the testing for Jet A, Jet A-50, JP-8, Jet A-1, Jet B, and JP-4 are also done at location.

Take a peek at Chapter 3 of the Aviation Fuel Handling Handbook, dealing with Quality Control:
amd.nbc.gov...



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 




To prove to us that there is nothing added to the fuel that is harmful to humans, is show us pumping or fuel trucks that have no hazard warning decals on them.


Well let us go one step farther and ask how come cars don't have these decals as gasoline is also harmful and is much closer to the population compared to airplane jet exaust.

In fact how about you show us gasoline tankers without those same hazard warning decals?

Not one person has ever said that jet fuel is not hazardous, what has been said is that the chemicals chemtrail believers claim is in jet fuel is not, and has yet to be shown it is.


The sticker on my car is a emission test sticker.
It says,
the public knows I am spraying them with chemicals,
from my exhaust.

Can you show proof of planes not legal,
for not meeting chemical release standards like cars,
until it complies?



edit on 30-9-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


You are still not getting it. If it's supposed to be there, then nothing would be out of place. Man I wish you understood chemistry. Especially testing of chemicals. No more replys till you learn chemistry.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Besides this is just another of one of those
tit for tat threads,
a question that neither you,
nor I should waste our time on.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha
reply to post by flyswatter
 


You are still not getting it. If it's supposed to be there, then nothing would be out of place. Man I wish you understood chemistry. Especially testing of chemicals. No more replys till you learn chemistry.


I see what you're saying, but that would also require an across-the-board change to the already established chemical makeup of jet fuel. They'd have to say "Hey, this is what is supposed to be in jet fuel now." And the logistics of how they would pull that one off without raising eyebrows would be mind boggling. Jet fuel something that you just alter on a whim.

And on that note, this isnt so much about the chemistry itself as it is the people that would be behind this whole thing, along with the knowledge of where the testing is done.
edit on 30-9-2012 by flyswatter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 





And 90 percent of those chemicals can be run through an engine without causing permanent damage to said such engines, as they are a part of maintaining engines.


So you have put these chemicals thru an engine and run it, because that is what your implying right?

And what are these chemicals you think you can run thru an engine that won't cause damage?


I will meet you at the store
I will pick them out, you pay for them,
we can use one of my engines or yours.
I will be holding my breath.
You can breathe the side effects, or just watch the results visually.
Deal?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 





And 90 percent of those chemicals can be run through an engine without causing permanent damage to said such engines, as they are a part of maintaining engines.


So you have put these chemicals thru an engine and run it, because that is what your implying right?

And what are these chemicals you think you can run thru an engine that won't cause damage?


And as always, the joke is on you!
I have read many a time on here how you explain the jet engines consume a chemical called H2O,
and it comes out the back,
compressed as Ice Crystals/Cirrus Clouds.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Since you like to use car exhaust claim it is the same as contrails/ice crystals,
show me pictures of ice crystals coming out the exhaust of cars.
And ice crystals would be abrasive, and injure humans at ground level,
What precautions are taken that no pedestrians are harmed by abrasive ice crystals on city streets?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
So on cars any climate that could cause ice,
to be emitted from the exhaust,
is impossible,
as the intake would freeze over and stall engine under the same conditions.
The only way cars can prevent this,
is to add chemicals to the fuel,
and preheat intake during freezing climate conditions.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Now lets move on to air bypass engines.
Engines that can not meet emission standards, so they suck in air, not consumed in combustion,
but government officials believe that they are cleaner engines.

Most car industries gave up this trick to pass emissions,called air pumps,
pumping air into exhaust.

It only had a high failure rate, and or increase fuel consumption.

So when they brag about their new air bypass engines on modern aircraft,
what they are saying is we were unable to meet EPA standards,
so we are mixing air with exhaust to make emissions, appear and measure lower.
Just like cars with air pumps in the past.

And what is the side effects?
More contrails, same pollution, less sunlight, you can add to the list.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
So anyway,
I know anyone that understands combustion of refined oil products knows,
what I am talking about.
And a an air bypass engine would fail/stall at those temperatures.
But being treated the same as a air pumped and heated by combustion to prevent freeze up could make ice on exhaust side.

Engineers invented engines,
the Government invent regulation/taxes,
Engineers respond, full circle,
uncontrolled side effects,
humans.


edit on 30-9-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join