Toxic Skies and What in the World Are They Spraying?

Originally posted by firepilot

Why are chemtrailers so actually ignorant about science and aviation?

Because it cannot be otherwise - believing in chemtrails REQUIRES ignorance of such things.

reply to post by firepilot


i am not a chemtrailer
as you seem to like to think

merely observing
ignorance is shown in immature behavior

yours is glaring
even to the blind

i would talk with you
but you act like children

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
It was a fuel additive composed of large concentrations of aluminum and rare earth metals. It was paid for by the US goverment at a cost of roughly 6 billion a year, designed by monsanto, and sold through esso and BP as JP8. It helps in field harmonics for HAARP, and increases water evaporation from soil for controlled flooding. Aluminum is so toxic on fields, that it is virtually impossible to grow crops in contaminated soil with trace amounts. In comes monsanto and their miracle corn, made with Fish DNA. This is the New World Order, rape the planet , drown the people, or starve them to death. Very evolved.

reply to post by AlphaExray
Forgot to mention, My grandfather is the designer of record for JP4, and I am a from an aviation and advanced research Metalurgical background and I am a pilot.

reply to post by AlphaExray


Baloney.

It was a fuel additive composed of large concentrations of aluminum and rare earth metals. It was paid for by the US goverment at a cost of roughly 6 billion a year, designed by monsanto, and sold through esso and BP as JP8

Total rubbish....and I think you know it to be bunk.

reply to post by AlphaExray


JP8 is nto a fuel additive - it is a fuel. It is the military designation for Jet-A1 - see en.wikipedia.org...

chemmies used to go on about Stadis 450 being added to it as "proof" that barium was being spread.

But Stadis 450 is only added at 2 parts per million initially, up to 5 ppm over tiem if it is left sitting and degrades.

At 5ppm, with a 747 using an average of 3000 US gallons per hour on a 14 hour flight, that equates to almost 12,000 litres (easier to work ppm with litres) - 11355 to be precise...but since it's only an average I'll work with 12000.

12,000 litres of jet fuel would weight 9600 kg (specific gravity is about .8) - and at 5ppm that means it contains about 48 grams of Stadis 450.

now at cruise speed that 747 is doing something like 550-600 mph across teh ground, and "spraying" 50 grams of Stadis 450 across those 550-600 miles - less than 0.1 gram per mile traveled.

but wait - there's MORE.......

Stadis 450 is not entirely barium! It is only partly barium!! the exact formula is "secret" - proprietary. However the material safety data sheet (MSDS)does tell us something - it has no mention of barium at all!

but let'
s be pesimistic here....there are a couple of compunds that are not specifically namesd - they are jsut given as "TRADE SECRET POLYMER CONTAINING SULPHUR", and "TRADE SECRET POLYMER CONTAINING NITROGEN".

So for the sake of discussion, let's assume that those contain barium - they total a maximum of 40% of the substance. And they are clearly not 100% barium - for starters they are polymers which means long molecules, which invariably means they have a "backbone" of oxygen or silicon, or, usually, carbon.

but let's assume, again for the sake or discussion, that these polymers are as much as 50% barium.

that would mean that the 747 is "spraying", AT MOST, about 0.02 grams of barium per mile - 2/100ths of 1 gram.

but how much is 0.02 grams of Barium? well seawater apparently contains an average 13 µg/L in sea water (from wiki) - 1 microgram is 1 millionth of a gram, so 0.02 grams is 20,000 micro-grams - and at 13 µg/L that's as much as is in about 1540 litres of seawater.

Alternatively, Barium makes up approx 0.0425 % of the Earth's crust - so 0.02 grams is as much barium as you'd expect to find in about 50 grams of soil on average.

wow - you could thow 50 grams of soil into the air and get a higher concentration of barium??!!

Now it's entirely possible I got some of the math wrong so please feel free to correct me, but I can't really see how putting such a miniscule amount of something that occurs completely naturally in much greater quantities in ordinary soil actually accomplishes anything!

Not to mention I think the whole HAARP conspiracy is rubbish in the first place!

Originally posted by AlphaExray
reply to post by AlphaExray

 

Forgot to mention, My grandfather is the designer of record for JP4, and I am a from an aviation and advanced research Metalurgical background and I am a pilot.

What precisely does "an aviation and advanced research Metalurgical background " mean?

What pilot qualification do you hold, and how did your grandfather "design" JP-4.....which is a US military specifiction?

Originally posted by AlphaExray
Aluminum is so toxic on fields, that it is virtually impossible to grow crops in contaminated soil with trace amounts.

Trace amounts? Soil is NATURALLY 7% aluminum. That's 70,000,000 ppb

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c033779f2676.jpeg[/atsimg]

To increase that to 8%, you'd have to increase the volume of the planet's crust by 1%. That would take rather a lot of aluminum.

But yes, aluminum IS toxic in areas where it's naturally high. Hence people have always tried to breed plants that are resistent to aluminum. As you would expect.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


So you think it's rubbish huh??
Well tell me then , what does H.A.A.R.P do??!!
They openly admit they mess around with electromagnetic energy.
And that's exactly how they tamper with the weather , not control but alter you could say.
And there is more than one of those facilities
Last but not least chem trails to contaminate soil for easier flooding and a chance
for bioengineering to take place that's right folks GMOs!!
Oh and isn't there a pending bill in the states right now that would prohibit the growth, sale , trade of food!
Bill S 510
Ohh how i wish i was still so ignorant (sigh...)

Originally posted by Genefique
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

So you think it's rubbish huh??
Well tell me then , what does H.A.A.R.P do??!!

Investigates the upper atmosphere miles higher than aircraft fly - it heats the near vaccuum with relatively small amounts of power and studies the effect.

They openly admit they mess around with electromagnetic energy.

so dose your microwave oven!!

And that's exactly how they tamper with the weather , not control but alter you could say.

How?

And there is more than one of those facilities

Yep ....and..????

See en.wikipedia.org...

Last but not least chem trails to contaminate soil for easier flooding and a chance
for bioengineering to take place that's right folks GMOs!!

How do they do that?

Oh and isn't there a pending bill in the states right now that would prohibit the growth, sale , trade of food!
Bill S 510

en.wikipedia.org...

Not quite prohibiting it tho.....

Ohh how i wish i was still so ignorant (sigh...)

Looks like your wish has been granted

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


HAHAHAHAHAHA You are pitiful man....

Investigates the upper atmosphere miles higher than aircraft fly - it heats the near vaccuum with relatively small amounts of power and studies the effect.

That is the biggest joke ever.... once again you prove you know NOTHING but what some crap website tells you or what you usually do...make it up....

Here ...let me help you ...instead of reading crap websites and linking wikipedia a thousand times why don't you actually read a real book.

Angels Don't Play this Haarp

There that's real information ...with a bibliography of real references with real facts.

Grow up contrailscience man......

reply to post by dplum517


Yeah - sorry about that - I have this major problem in that I let facts, sience, & Verifiable evidence get in teh way of a good hoax.

Figured out anything actually wrong on contrail science yet, or are you still playing your part of the coverup?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


All of your facts, verifiable evidence, and other [snip] comes from one place...... lol

"Coverup" lol you wish... you are just projecting yourself on me.

I said THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE AND PROOF OF CHEMTRAILS IN DUE TIME....just gotta have patience

And yes that might mean YEARS ..... I'm in no rush.... sooo wine all you want that I haven't provided "proof" yet.

....and really man... read that book... you obviously need to.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Here ...let me help you ...instead of reading crap websites and linking wikipedia a thousand times why don't you actually read a real book.

Angels Don't Play this Haarp

There that's real information ...with a bibliography of real references with real facts.

Yes it has managed to identify that HAARP exists, and there may or may not be an actual and real conspiracy with the funding of it an power generation in Alaska.

apart from that it's written by someone who bought his PhD for $400 from Sri Lanka, and the references are either supporting obvious facts (as above), or utterly irrelevant to the conclusions reached, or fantasy publications in their own right.

Oh and as usual patents are listed as if they prove something exists

Grow up contrailscience man......

found anything wrong over there yet? Or are you still playing your part in hte coverup?

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

All of your facts, verifiable evidence, and other sh#* comes from one place......

lol

No it comes from many palces - however 1 site has bought it al together, with links back to original sources so yuo can check them.

It's called organisation, it's the result of having verifiable evidence that means there's no need to go inventing hew stories every couple of years.

"Coverup" lol you wish... you are just projecting yourself on me.

Ewww.......

I said THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE AND PROOF OF CHEMTRAILS IN DUE TIME...

No you didn't - you said there were "Blatant lies" on contrail science, and that is was saying that "blAtant chemtrails" were being called contrails.

If they are "blatant" why can't you identify thenm to us now???

.just gotta have patience

Nope - I gotta have evidence - if somethign is blatant hen you should be abel to point it out.

Why are you changing your story???

And yes that might mean YEARS ..... I'm in no rush

If these mistakes and lies are BLATANT then why would it take years??

Why would you want to have more time for chemtrails do do their thing? Yet more evidence that you are actually helping with the cover-up - you could expose teh BLATANT LIES but you choose not to!

.... sooo wine all you want that I haven't provided "proof" yet.

Why can't you??

you said it was BLATANT almost a month ago - if it was BLATANT then then why can't you point it out??

It looks like it is you who tell the BLATANT LIES - accusing others of lying and not having teh evidence to back it up, nor the honety to retract your alsnder.

You keep making these assertions but have never presented any evidence at all. Not one bit.

[snip]

And there has most certainly been plenty certain types of evidence in plenty of other threads .... you know the threads that have flags....

As opposed to you and your "friends" threads that have no flags and stars.....

Also....don't claim you have evidence of anything... you don't

No one needs to be told what a Contrail is.... we all know

Originally posted by dplum517
And there has most certainly been plenty certain types of evidence in plenty of other threads .... you know the threads that have flags....

lol - read my sig......

As opposed to you and your "friends" threads that have no flags and stars.....

Hmmm...you know I dont' actually see a single therad in this forum that has no stars and no flags.....indeed it looks like the only ones with no flags are started to support he chemtrail hoax.....so it seems you have a bit of a problem with visual accuity!!

Or are you deliberately spreading disinformation again??

and also see my sig

Also....don't claim you have evidence of anything... you don't

I have evidene that you cannot back up your claims, that yuo constantly spout out that contrail science lies and you won't say what the lies are.

I have evidene that "What in the world are they spraying" presents false evidence.

I have evidence that the author of "Angels don't play this HAARP" got his Phd from a Stri Lankan degree mill and paid $400 for it.

No one needs to be told what a Contrail is.... we all know

And from this simple statement I have evidence that you actualy have no idea at all what a contrail is.

So just from this one post of yours I have more evidence about you than you've ever provided about contrail science.

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 blackboard.

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