Chemtrail Chemistry Explained?

I found this on YouTube. It is "new", being dated June 13, 2013. This was posted without citation, and it is getting "likes" and positive comments. I've not seen it, nor the claims made before. I am trying to find the original, and so far believe the original poster is the sole source.

Chemical Reactions and Chemical Dusting of the Atmosphere

I am not a chemical, metallurgic, or atmosphere science expert. I do know enough chemistry to not trust equations and reactions without further research. Which I have started, beginning with Aluminum oxide. That first step seems to make this claim wrong from the very first sentence. Very wrong.

There is no chemical evidence that supports "chemtrail" theory. Is this a step in that direction? Is this even defendable? Is there something I am missing here?

I won't quote the entire post, but here is a captioned picture from the post.


One easy to see obvious error is the use of the term "cloud seeding" as applied in this picture. But what about the remainder?

i disagree with the whole chem trails are not cloud seeding idea, as many times where I am after a massive chem trail run and the haze sets in, in the afternoon the clouds build and the storms start, then other days its just the haze.
I feel it comes down to what ever is in the mix on the day, so essentially if it rains the clouds are seeded, by proxy or not.

reply to post by PLAYERONE01

i disagree with the whole chem trails are not cloud seeding idea, as many times where I am after a massive chem trail run and the haze sets in, in the afternoon the clouds build and the storms start, then other days its just the haze.

Well you can disagree, but science doesn't.

As far as seeing storms after seeing persistent contrails....

By taking advantage of this information in the sky, without any equipment, students can predict the weather. If the contrails are short (and there are few or no clouds in the sky) there is little moisture in the sky at high levels and chances are the next twelve to twenty-four hours will be clear.

If the contrails are long (and maybe clouds are already in the sky) the moisture content of the upper level of the sky is high and more clouds or even a storm is on the way.

The weather prediction is more dramatic when the sky is clear and the contrails are long. Then you can say on a clear day that tomorrow will be cloudy. Some days you can see a short trail in the morning and long trail in the afternoon; that tells you that moisture is moving in and you know it before the clouds come!

cf.synergylearning.org...

reply to post by stars15k

One easy to see obvious error is the use of the term "cloud seeding" as applied in this picture. But what about the remainder?

Well this makes me wonder...

Vinegar evaporation thus has double beneficiary effect, giving us the conclusion, that the defense with VINEGAR (CH3COOH) against chemical dusting of our atmosphere is correct and reasonable, therefore we urge everybody, yes you who are reading this, to spill vinegar on a hot asphalt, to evaporate vinegar into the atmosphere or just buy a bottle of vinegar and leave it open on some remote location to evaporate during the day.

Can you imagine the smell of vinegar on hot asphalt?

Well when you have this picture at the top of your page...



You can pretty much figure what type of so called evidence your going to get....

reply to post by stars15k


They use a lot of aluminium in aircraft construction and it naturally forms a skin of aluminium oxide which protects it from corrosion because it is unreactive. I don't think they've really thought this through.

reply to post by PLAYERONE01


You are watching the natural progression of a weather front moving in. Often contrails will form before the cirrus clouds are apparent. Weather controls contrail formation, contrails don't control weather.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Saw the credit the first thing myself. I was expecting the "it's spraying from nozzles because it's not coming from the engines" argument. But it's not even mentioned.

Can you imagine how strong vinegar would have to be, or how much would have to be spilled to be detected at flight altitude? The vinegar remedy is one of the strangest part of "chemtrail" lore. And one I've never seen defended.

reply to post by mrthumpy


When I looked up Aluminum oxide on Wiki, it became apparent that the poster read the chemistry without understanding the chemistry. That was mentioned, and it's like they got it all reversed. The YT video they posted was also reversed...and nonsensical. If there is a furnace, flame, and time needed where is that energy in the atmosphere? Things don't just happen because they touch.

According to their chemistry, the next time someone needs a cut disinfected, I'm going to apply vinegar with sandpaper!

reply to post by stars15k


TBH I didn't even click on your link I just looked at the that picture and it was obviously bollox. It's like the post that's been shared around FB explaining in great detail why aluminium isn't found in the environment. All perfectly correct and well researched, just failing to take into account the fact that if you analyse any aluminium compound the results will show it contains - aluminium!

chemtrails - setting a new standard for ignorance!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
chemtrails - setting a new standard for ignorance!

i take it you live in bunker
as NZ is currently "enjoying" the wild weather,
the fruit of covert geo-engineering efforts?

"enjoy"


ROFL
not enough "chemmies" posting that
you and the OP feel the need to tro *COUGH* trawl teh interwebs
for posting obvious baiting threads?

none are so blind as those who refuse to see...

but such are the ways of the "sane"
:shk:
you would do well to reflect on your siggy, as it applies to you and you gang

to a T

reply to post by TheMagus


Not trawling the interwebs, nor posting bait.

It is claims which I have a debunker have not come across yet. There are few new claims, and this seems original to the source. It's imaginative, but like most "chemtrail science," empirical, and fairly easy to check with a bit of chemistry background. Why I posted it is to get other's opinions. While I have seen vinegar used as a "chemtrail" buster, it was the first time I saw someone try to explain it.

It is my opinion that it is wrong. It is the opinion of another person at another place (and therefore hearsay) who has a diploma in metallurgy that it is wrong. According to my own attempt at doing the stoichiometry, it is wrong....but it's been a while since I've pulled that particular knowledge out of my middle-aged brain, so I'm sure it's rusty.

If you believe that this activity is going on, and apparently by your remarks you do, what are your feelings about the claims? Have you heard the vinegar claim? Have you tried it? Why or why not? Do you have any background in chemistry? Would you question it? Would you research it if you don't know chemistry?

As a debunker, these are things I would like to know.

Originally posted by TheMagus

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
chemtrails - setting a new standard for ignorance!

i take it you live in bunker
as NZ is currently "enjoying" the wild weather,
the fruit of covert geo-engineering efforts?

Indeed - and insofar as global warming is geo-engineering with warmer climes comes more moisture in the atmosphere and hence wilder weather.

However I survived the 200km/hr winds without any bother - thanks for asking.

you and the OP feel the need to tro *COUGH* trawl teh interwebs
for posting obvious baiting threads?

No trawling was required for the making of any of my threads - I only "look" on 1 "chemmie" blog.

none are so blind as those who refuse to see...

So you are happy to be blind, since you apparently refuse to see the problem with the OP, or indeed any of the other false or ignorant statements that support the chemtrail hoax?

reply to post by TheMagus

none are so blind as those who refuse to see...

does it not bother you , that chemtrail proponents are using a fabricated chemical exquation to " explain " thier fantasy ???

to whit :

Al2O3 + 3h20 = 2 Al(OH)3

that is the chemtrail proponents actual claim

and it is so wrong it hurts - aluminium oxide is not generally reactive with water

what ` some idiot ` has done is taken a real equation [ used in bauxite refining ]

2 Al(OH)3 > thermal decomposition > 3H2O + Al2O3

and assumed that it could be written backwards - without understanding the actual chemistry

another shot in the foot for chemtrail proponents - and they wonder why the scientific comunity laughs at them

now - who is refusing to see ????????

If any chemtrail proponent that disagrees with apes post would care to explain with detail where ape has got it wrong I would be all ears. It would make such a refreshing change from reading "shill, paid agent, denier blah blah blah" which somehow is supposed to make people see the light.

i have already explained that the thread
and it's video source are for the express purpose of baiting

"sanity" and the consistent practice of deceptive [mostly self-deceptive] behaviours
prevents you from seeing your own Role in the matter
TOTAL FAIL

...meanwhile, agent weedwhacker proudbird is trolling CT videos on YT
having been banned from ATS for sock-puppetry [and rightly so]...

reply to post by TheMagus


Wrong and off-topic.

The OP does not contain a video. It's an "article" like would be found on a blog or in a magazine.

It has chemistry in it, actual equations that can be figured and affirmed or denied.

A post just a few before your's, from Ignorant Ape, breaks the chemistry apart, and reaches the decision (correctly) that the "chemtrail" claim is wrong, non-science, and nonsense.

If he/she is wrong, where and how?

Instead you choose the route described preemptively in the post before yours....non-answers with calls of troll, even if that word wasn't used.

You seem to be the only believer on this thread. You refusal to actually make a comment about the contents of the questioned "article," indeed, your admission that you didn't even look at it, shows it is something that cannot be defended. And your two posts without comment on the topic at hand is trollish.

It is a point often made here at ATS in this forum that the debunkers are trolls and don't present anything to prove our claims. Many "chemtrail" threads reach no more than a few pages; I expect this one will fade today. This is why...believers present "evidence", it gets debunked, then the believers start whining about the disinfo-troll-shill-deniers, instead of addressing our errors.

You guys don't get it. If we are wrong, prove it. If you can't, either don't reply or explain why you still believe. It's not just here on ATS, either. As a debunker, I go all over the web, looking at the "chemtrail" believers sites as well. When a piece of information is proven wrong, why do even the "chemtrail" websites and professionals continue to use it? Case in point, the local "news" story from KSLA, and a test for barium. The reporter doesn't even say the numbers correctly along with his misinterpretation of the units. But this same wrong story is used over and over again...as recently as February 2013 by Geoengineeringwatch.com.

How is it possible in this age that people can continue to use errors to prove their beliefs? It's not just you, either. The OP post got FB "likes", good comments, and was "shared". The only ones who seem in denial are the believers, who continually deny that wrong information is wrong and continue to "believe" without research or question. It make "chemtrails" less a conspiracy and more a care-less belief system where facts are ignored and fiction encouraged.

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by TheMagus

 

1-The OP does not contain a video. It's an "article" like would be found on a blog or in a magazine.

2-It has chemistry in it, actual equations that can be figured and affirmed or denied.

3-A post just a few before your's, from Ignorant Ape, breaks the chemistry apart, and reaches the decision (correctly) that the "chemtrail" claim is wrong, non-science, and nonsense.

If he/she is wrong, where and how?

4-Instead you choose the route described preemptively in the post before yours....non-answers with calls of troll, even if that word wasn't used.

5-You seem to be the only believer on this thread. You refusal to actually make a comment about the contents of the questioned "article," indeed, your admission that you didn't even look at it, shows it is something that cannot be defended. And your two posts without comment on the topic at hand is trollish.

It is a point often made here at ATS in this forum that the debunkers are trolls and don't present anything to prove our claims. Many "chemtrail" threads reach no more than a few pages; I expect this one will fade today. This is why...believers present "evidence", it gets debunked, then the believers start whining about the disinfo-troll-shill-deniers, instead of addressing our errors.

You guys don't get it. If we are wrong, prove it. If you can't, either don't reply or explain why you still believe. It's not just here on ATS, either. *As a debunker, I go all over the web, looking at the "chemtrail" believers sites as well. When a piece of information is proven wrong, why do even the "chemtrail" websites and professionals continue to use it? Case in point, the local "news" story from KSLA, and a test for barium. The reporter doesn't even say the numbers correctly along with his misinterpretation of the units. But this same wrong story is used over and over again...as recently as February 2013 by Geoengineeringwatch.com.

How is it possible in this age that people can continue to use errors to prove their beliefs? It's not just you, either. The OP post got FB "likes", good comments, and was "shared". The only ones who seem in denial are the believers, who continually deny that wrong information is wrong and continue to "believe" without research or question. It make "chemtrails" less a conspiracy and more a care-less belief system where facts are ignored and fiction encouraged.

1-you ascribe credibility to a fakebook-PRISM page, yet YT videos are "proof" of hoax?
RLMFAO!
2-stop doing whatever chemicals you're huffing would be my advice
3-3 years of college chemistry over 25 years ago told me those equations were bs
but you needed I.A. to "explain" it to you?
as believable as this agitprop*COUGH* thread
[when are the mods going to stamp HOAX on it btw?]
4-obvious is obvious: note how no one is biting
5-just giving you a taste of your own medicine
who knows what you're missing out on due to the distraction this thread represents

especially after aloysius posted a couple of "threads" in the same vein recently

and in future, refrain from projecting to my person terms like believer,
especially when you've outed yourself as an evangelist * how ob-noxious of you.[ pun intended ]

a snake handler has more credibility as [s]he are constantly putting their faith to the test.

also cease and desist from projecting membership in a forum gang to my person.

reply to post by TheMagus

1-you ascribe credibility to a fakebook-PRISM page, yet YT videos are "proof" of hoax?

It isn't the fact that youtube videos are the hoax, it is the content of evidence it shows that make them hoaxes.

2-stop doing whatever chemicals you're huffing would be my advice

Not breathing oxygen is tuff on the body and mind.

3-3 years of college chemistry over 25 years ago told me those equations were bs

but you needed I.A. to "explain" it to you?
as believable as this agitprop*COUGH* thread
[when are the mods going to stamp HOAX on it btw?]

Please show us where this is a hoax?

4-obvious is obvious: note how no one is biting

Wow, Aren't you someone?

5-just giving you a taste of your own medicine

And what flavored medicine would that be?

reply to post by TheMagus

, yet YT videos are "proof" of hoax?

Actually it is the evidence or lack of that makes them hoaxes.