Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: scienceofscience on 26/10/2013 00:27:30
-
Can someone tell us the physical consequences of being sprayed upon with the above subject matter?
and any possible antidote or protection?
-
Aluminium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium)is a quite reactive metal, with a melting point of 660 °C, 1220 °F.
Barium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium) is a very reactive metal, with a melting point of 727 °C, 1341 °F.
If you were sprayed with liquid aluminium or barium, you would be burnt to a crisp, and there is no antidote.
In fact, both metals are so reactive that they quickly oxidise in air, to form a much safer and more stable oxide.
So most likely, you would be exposed to a chemical compound containing these elements.
- Aluminium (with its aluminium oxide coating) is used in cookware and soft drink cans.
- Barium Sulphate is very safe, and is fed to people when taking X-Rays of the digestive system (a Barium meal). On the other hand, Barium Carbonate is used as a rat poison.
So if you can find out what compound it was, we could provide some more information.
-
If there is any chance of this turning into some discussion about "chemtrails", forget it.
They myth just isn't possible- for a start the Ba and Al oxides would coat the turbine blades and trash the engines.
It isn't even remotely possible so there's no need to discuss the other issues like- why nobody has ever actually analysed jet fuel and found Ba or Al or how they managed to get the entire world to play along.
Or even, why don't air crashes burn with a green flame?
It gets even stupider when you look at the numbers.
According to this
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel&graph=consumption world
jet fuel use is about 5 million barrels a day.
Imagine that they could get 10% (w/v) barium into that (which is absurdly optimistic)
that's about 70 million kilos of barium per day (never mind that they don't mine that much, I said it was absurdly high).
Most of that is spread sufficiently high up in the atmosphere that it won't fall straight down- it will spread out over the whole of the earth's surface.
That's 500,000,000 Km^2
So each square kilometre gets 0.14 Kg
So each square metre gets 140 micrograms of barium each day.
On average the earth;s crust contains about 400 ppm Ba by weight. That's 400 mg in each kilo.
So a square metre of a layer 1 cm thick would contain about 10 litres of soil something like 12Kg
So, the top 1 cm of soil will contain something like 4800 mg of barium (it will vary a lot from place to place- but that's a fair guess at the average).
So if that gains 140 micrograms per day from the impossibly high estimate from the mythical chemtrails, over a year it will pick up 50mg of barium
But it already contains about a hundred times that much.
It wouldn;'t make any difference
Since aluminium is much commoner in the soil the same sort of calculation for aluminium is even more absurd.
Why would anyone bother?
Since world barium production from mining is only 6 million tons per year or about 16000 tons or 16 million kilos per day they can't be adding 70 million to jet fuel
How come this idea ever gained any sort of credibility?
-
Aluminium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium)is a quite reactive metal, with a melting point of 660 °C, 1220 °F.
Barium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium) is a very reactive metal, with a melting point of 727 °C, 1341 °F.
If you were sprayed with liquid aluminium or barium, you would be burnt to a crisp, and there is no antidote.
If you were sprayed with a liquid metal at those temperatures, it woudn't make much difference if it were aluminum or barium or brass or else [:)]
-
Now that's not a question one hears every day. I don't know about protection or antidote, but a bit of blue touch paper could be fun :)
-
They myth just isn't possible- for a start the Ba and Al oxides would coat the turbine blades and trash the engines.
It isn't even remotely possible so there's no need to discuss the other issues like- why nobody has ever actually analysed jet fuel and found Ba or Al or how they managed to get the entire world to play along.
Or even, why don't air crashes burn with a green flame?
Dear Bored chemist, a nozzle is a specific type of device for aircrafts to deliver chemicals in a downward direction:
Aerial delivery system
US 7413145 B2
Abstract
A method and apparatus for aerial fire suppression utilizing a potable fire retardant chemical dispensing system, readily adaptable, without extensive aircraft modification, to various makes of aircraft, for dispensing current types of forest and range fire fighting chemicals. The aerial delivery system is self contained and reusable. It enables cargo/utility aircraft to carry and dump a load, under control. The aerial delivery system is capable of attachment at the wing box, pressurized delivery from the nozzles, and nozzles directed straight downward.
http://www.google.ca/patents/US7413145
jet fuel use is about 5 million barrels a day.
Imagine that they could get 10% (w/v) barium into that (which is absurdly optimistic)
Barium and aluminium fumes are simply by-products of the reaction of dumping [coal fly ash] particles in the atmosphere, reacting with oxygen to form oxides. Theses chemicals are not blindly mixed with the jet fuel... It's foolish and absurd to think the delivery mecanism would involve burning them. Why don't you educate yourself on how coal fly ash reuse has emerged into clandestine geoengineering activity? Why don't you get informations on the chemical composition of coal fly ash ?
I hope you learn that clandestine geoengineering activity is designed as a military technology, and that the reuse of coal fly ash is an evidence of the weaponization of this poorly understood chemical agent.
"Myths which are believed in tend to become true." -George Orwell
-
Dear Bored chemist, a nozzle is a specific type of device for aircrafts to deliver chemicals in a downward direction:
Aerial delivery system
US 7413145 B2
Abstract
A method and apparatus for aerial fire suppression utilizing a potable fire retardant chemical dispensing system, readily adaptable, without extensive aircraft modification, to various makes of aircraft, for dispensing current types of forest and range fire fighting chemicals. The aerial delivery system is self contained and reusable. It enables cargo/utility aircraft to carry and dump a load, under control. The aerial delivery system is capable of attachment at the wing box, pressurized delivery from the nozzles, and nozzles directed straight downward.
http://www.google.ca/patents/US7413145
Why don't you get informations on the chemical composition of coal fly ash ?
I hope you learn that clandestine geoengineering activity is designed as a military technology, and that the reuse of coal fly ash is an evidence of the weaponization of this poorly understood chemical agent.
I see you have brought up an old dead post to show that you still don't understand the nature of evidence.
The patent shoes that it's possible to spray things from planes. We know that.
However the chemtrails lie was that the stuff was mixed into the fuel. And I was pointing out that it is nonsense.
I don't need information of the composition of fly ash- though you might want to explain why it's got so much barium (which is relatively rare) in it and yet so little silica which is very common.
The reasons I don't need to look up data are firstly that I know it- at least well enough to show that your idea is dross,and also
There is no evidence of fly ash being used in any sort of high altitude spraying operation except- possibly- on a very small experimental scale.
Also, it's not actually very toxic so it's not much of a weapon.
And there's the old problem - the one you persist in ignoring.
If "they" put chemicals in the air, what do "they" breathe?
-
I see you have brought up an old dead post to show that you still don't understand the nature of evidence.
You don't need evidences to ponder on the nature of chemtrails. The stuff they are spraying is by itself an evidence that this is NOT water vapor. An empirical evidence can be acquired by simply observing the phenomenon and formulating an hypothesis.
The patent shoes that it's possible to spray things from planes. We know that.
However the chemtrails lie was that the stuff was mixed into the fuel. And I was pointing out that it is nonsense.
Good to know you're making progresses in your understanding of chemtrails. However the mecanism to deliver chemicals via a nozzle attached to an aircraft is a patented technology from Evergreen International Aviation, a CIA front company who ceased its operations in 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_International_Aviation
I don't need information of the composition of fly ash- though you might want to explain why it's got so much barium (which is relatively rare) in it and yet so little silica which is very common.
The reasons I don't need to look up data are firstly that I know it- at least well enough to show that your idea is dross,and also
There is no evidence of fly ash being used in any sort of high altitude spraying operation except- possibly- on a very small experimental scale.
The research of Dr. Marvin Herndon provides substantial evidences that coal fly ash is the prime suspect in the chemical agent being sprayed on a global scale. However you don't seem to recognize his work as legit. Why? What is your definition of scientific progress if you refuse to examine the evidences put forward by a trained scientist?
Also, it's not actually very toxic so it's not much of a weapon.
And there's the old problem - the one you persist in ignoring.
If "they" put chemicals in the air, what do "they" breathe?
We are breathing and drinking potentially neurotoxic aluminium sulfate, thanks to Philip Lader.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946821/
-
You don't need evidences to ponder on the nature of chemtrails. The stuff they are spraying is by itself an evidence that this is NOT water vapor.
OK, so what stuff are they spraying?
My guess is: Kerosene + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide (gas) + Water (vapour)
CnH2n+2 + (2n+1) O2 = nCO2 + (n+1) H2O
Perhaps you are assuming that it must not be water vapour, so it must be something else; then clearly it is not water vapour! If so, this is a logical fallacy called a "circular argument".
-
OK, so what stuff are they spraying?
My guess is: Kerosene + Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide (gas) + Water (vapour)
CnH2n+2 + (2n+1) O2 = nCO2 + (n+1) H2O
I assume you guess that this patented aerial delivery system uses jet fuel, but as I explained to Bored chemist there must be some kind of nozzle attached to a pressurized tank in the cargo of the aircraft. And yes, practically all aircrafts emits some water vapor, I'm sorry for the confusion.
-
Barium dust will make you heavy. Aluminium dust will make you reflective. Any molten metal (apart from mercury) will burn and possibly kill you.
-
I believe there is a conspiracy to produce conspiracy theories. It is insidious, addictive and should be prohibited by law.
What do you think?...
-
I believe there is a conspiracy to produce conspiracy theories. It is insidious, addictive and should be prohibited by law.
What do you think?...
Disinformation should be prohibited by law, not the opposite. The "conspiracy theory" label is just a marketing strategy created by the CIA for anyone who dares to challenge the official narrative. It is the job of scientists to shed light on the truth, and to dispel the propaganda we sought to believe without using a scientific method.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
-
I believe there is a conspiracy to produce conspiracy theories. It is insidious, addictive and should be prohibited by law.
What do you think?...
Disinformation should be prohibited by law, not the opposite. The "conspiracy theory" label is just a marketing strategy created by the CIA for anyone who dares to challenge the official narrative. It is the job of scientists to shed light on the truth, and to dispel the propaganda we sought to believe without using a scientific method.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
So you agree that we should outlaw the disinformation. Then start with the disinformation of the conspiracy theorists.
-
So you agree that we should outlaw the disinformation. Then start with the disinformation of the conspiracy theorists.
Disinformation and propaganda are not created by random peoples who report chemtrails. It is websites like wikipedia that spread insidious conspiracy theories and disinformation.
Meanwhile, a recent scientific study reported that bumblebees contains high levels of aluminium. This is likely an epistemological evidence that clandestine geoengineering activity may cause their populations to decline.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456414/
-
However, we do not know how commonly bees are exposed to aluminium, and no studies have investigated whether such exposure may contribute to bee health problems. Here, we quantify the concentration of aluminium in bumblebee pupae taken from colonies that had been foraging naturally in the UK landscape. We also examine whether aluminium concentration correlates with measures of colony fitness.
I think it's necessary we connect the dots... The increased levels of aluminium in the biosphere has been validated scientifically (Exley 2015) and new evidences suggests that aluminium exposure is neurotoxic and could be involved in Alzheimer pathogenesis (Kawahara 2011). Furthermore, the causality of aluminium poisoning by clandestine geoengineering activity has been characterized scientifically (Herndon 2015).
What else is needed to connect the dots?
-
I assume you guess that this patented aerial delivery system uses jet fuel, but as I explained to Bored chemist there must be some kind of nozzle attached to a pressurized tank in the cargo of the aircraft. And yes, practically all aircrafts emits some water vapor, I'm sorry for the confusion.
And as I explained you have no evidence that this "nozzle attached to a pressurized tank in the cargo of the aircraft" is anything but a figment of your imagination.
You can't say "because I made something up, the things that depend on it must be real".
-
Meanwhile, a recent scientific study reported that bumblebees contains high levels of aluminium. This is likely an ...
It isn't "likely" at all- you just made that idea up.
-
It isn't "likely" at all- you just made that idea up.
Yeah right. I suppose I imagined that bees are dying for nothing. And the increase of Alzheimer cases must be also the product of my imagination. The persistent trails made by aircrafts must be water vapor I suppose... How can you make such nonsense claims without even examining the evidences from scientists with higher education than you?
-
It isn't "likely" at all- you just made that idea up.
Yeah right. I suppose I imagined that bees are dying for nothing. And the increase of Alzheimer cases must be also the product of my imagination. The persistent trails made by aircrafts must be water vapor I suppose... How can you make such nonsense claims without even examining the evidences from scientists with higher education than you?
Ignoring the fact that there is noway that either you or I know how well educated those scientists are and you don't know how well educated I am so you are not in a position to say "scientists with higher education than you". That's just another example of you not understanding what evidence is.
No, you didn't imagine the dead bees- and nobody said you did- that's a straw man argument.
However you did imagine the idea that it is likely that the source of the aluminium in the bees is from nozzles spraying fly ash from aircraft.
And, having dreamed up that idea, you somehow came to the conclusion that it was "likely" when a better assessment would be "bloody near impossible".
-
No, you didn't imagine the dead bees- and nobody said you did- that's a straw man argument.
However you did imagine the idea that it is likely that the source of the aluminium in the bees is from nozzles spraying fly ash from aircraft.
And, having dreamed up that idea, you somehow came to the conclusion that it was "likely" when a better assessment would be "bloody near impossible".
Your wishful thinking certainly won't help. In reality the possibility that clandestine geoengineering activity is harming public health is being censored by our governments. You can ignore this fact but I'm confident that
the truth cannot be suppressed forever.
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. -Winston Churchill
-
No, you didn't imagine the dead bees- and nobody said you did- that's a straw man argument.
However you did imagine the idea that it is likely that the source of the aluminium in the bees is from nozzles spraying fly ash from aircraft.
And, having dreamed up that idea, you somehow came to the conclusion that it was "likely" when a better assessment would be "bloody near impossible".
Your wishful thinking certainly won't help. In reality the possibility that clandestine geoengineering activity is harming public health is being censored by our governments. You can ignore this fact but I'm confident that
the truth cannot be suppressed forever.
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. -Winston Churchill
So, once again, no actual evidence.
-
I suspect the increasing incidence of Alzheimer's is due to (1) increasing survival from other problems (Alzhiemer's being predominnatly a disease of old age) and (2) a greater propensity to diagnose senile dementia (which was the Big Problem of the 1960's) as Alzheimer's (whcih is much more fashionable).
Increasing Al in the biosphere is hardly surprising. It is a very reactive metal whose natural incidence is as very stable salts that take a lot of energy to refine into pure metal - very much a 20th century product following the introduction of deep drawing (beer cans and briefcases) and Tig welding (vehicles and aircraft). It returns to nature principally via the water-soluble and biologically reactive chloride and hydroxide, so it gets everywhere, but it is very debatable whether it does any actual harm en route, except possibly in the shells of smartphones, which destroy social interaction.
-
That must be why every time you see government officials on TV making statements they are wearing breathing aparatus.
-
That must be why every time you see government officials on TV making statements they are wearing breathing aparatus.
LOL.
Chemtrails propaganda (and disinformation) is an epistemological evidence that the chemical composition of the nanoparticles have neurotoxic properties on humans: Aluminium toxicity is likely to participate to Alzheimer pathogenesis.
-
CIA Director States (On Camera) His Support For Geoengineering & Spraying Particles Into The Atmosphere: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/12/cia-director-states-on-camera-his-support-for-geoengineering-spraying-particles-into-the-atmosphere/
-
If geoengineering activity would be safe then there would be room for commercial exploitation of this technology. The evidences that clandestine geoengineering activity is potentially toxic to humans lie in the unilateral use of this technology by the U.S government.
-
That must be why every time you see government officials on TV making statements they are wearing breathing aparatus.
LOL.
Chemtrails propaganda (and disinformation) is an epistemological evidence that the chemical composition of the nanoparticles have neurotoxic properties on humans: Aluminium toxicity is likely to participate to Alzheimer pathogenesis.
So, once again, no actual evidence of chemtrails- just stuff that might possibly be important if they existed.
-
CIA Director States (On Camera) His Support For Geoengineering & Spraying Particles Into The Atmosphere: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/12/cia-director-states-on-camera-his-support-for-geoengineering-spraying-particles-into-the-atmosphere/
A man who isn't a scientist says that something would be a good idea- in his opinion.
Do you realise that isn't the same as saying that that "something" is happening?
-
So, once again, no actual evidence of contrails- just stuff that might possibly be important if they existed.
A contrail is not a chemtrail.... Please educate yourself. A chemtrail persist in the atmosphere until it dissolve with air and water to form hydroscopic cloud condensation nuclei: "The concept of cloud condensation nuclei is used in cloud seeding, that tries to encourage rainfall by seeding the air with condensation nuclei. It has further been suggested that creating such nuclei could be used for marine cloud brightening, a climate engineering technique."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei
-
A man who isn't a scientist says that something would be a good idea- in his opinion.
Do you realise that isn't the same as saying that that "something" is happening?
This guy is the CIA director. I think he might have a better idea of what is going on than you and me...
By the way, when a official from the U.S government states his support for geoengineering activity its likely
not the product from my imagination.
At some point you must connect the dots between reality and the potential effects of this activity as a scientist?
-
So, once again, no actual evidence of contrails- just stuff that might possibly be important if they existed.
A contrail is not a chemtrail.... Please educate yourself. A chemtrail persist in the atmosphere until it dissolve with air and water to form hydroscopic cloud condensation nuclei: "The concept of cloud condensation nuclei is used in cloud seeding, that tries to encourage rainfall by seeding the air with condensation nuclei. It has further been suggested that creating such nuclei could be used for marine cloud brightening, a climate engineering technique."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei
You posted that after I noticed, and fixed, my typo. Did you not realise your post was an irrelevant waste of time?
-
A man who isn't a scientist says that something would be a good idea- in his opinion.
Do you realise that isn't the same as saying that that "something" is happening?
This guy is the CIA director. I think he might have a better idea of what is going on than you and me...
By the way, when a official from the U.S government states his support for geoengineering activity its likely
not the product from my imagination.
At some point you must connect the dots between reality and the potential effects of this activity as a scientist?
And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "Iwould support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?
-
And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "Iwould support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?
The CIA director is an authority... I trust what he says because clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact; Weather modification is controversial because its classified U.S military technology.
-
You posted that after I noticed, and fixed, my typo. Did you not realise your post was an irrelevant waste of time?
I'm guessing you believe that the word "chemtrails" is a product of conspiracy theorists, but in reality the scientific hypothesis that coal fly ash is being used validates the toxic nature of theses aerosols. And ignoring the science behind chemtrails is a waste of time...
-
And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "Iwould support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?
The CIA director is an authority... I trust what he says because clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact; Weather modification is controversial because its classified U.S military technology.
No he isn't.
No it isn't.
No it isn't.
He may well know stuff- so what. He doesn't decide what other people do in, for example, other countries. Nor is it clear that he would know what other countries (or even his own) are doing.
Nobody is doing any meaningful geoengineering. If you disagree please show some actual evidence (rather than someone saying it might be possible)
It's not classified- it's well documented. The three usual variations on the theme use silver iodide- which is effective, but expensive.
Cement powder which is a lot less effective, but much cheaper and was used by the Russians to stop it raining on their may-day parades and solid CO2 which comes between the first two in terms of cost an efficacy.
Why do you keep posting stuff that's irrelevant or wrong?
And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "I would support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?
Your other post implies that chemtrails are real(and made of fly ash).
You have not supplied a single shred of evidence to support that.
Do you understand that science relies on evidence- and you haven't got any?
You also still keep failing to address the other obvious point.
Why are "they" poisoning themselves?
-
No he isn't.
No it isn't.
No it isn't.
He may well know stuff- so what. He doesn't decide what other people do in, for example, other countries. Nor is it clear that he would know what other countries (or even his own) are doing.
Nobody is doing any meaningful geoengineering. If you disagree please show some actual evidence (rather than someone saying it might be possible)
It's not classified- it's well documented. The three usual variations on the theme use silver iodide- which is effective, but expensive.
Cement powder which is a lot less effective, but much cheaper and was used by the Russians to stop it raining on their may-day parades and solid CO2 which comes between the first two in terms of cost an efficacy.
Why do you keep posting stuff that's irrelevant or wrong?
And, once again.
Do you realise that someone saying "I would support this" is not the same as saying "this is happening"?
Your other post implies that chemtrails are real(and made of fly ash).
You have not supplied a single shred of evidence to support that.
Do you understand that science relies on evidence- and you haven't got any?
You also still keep failing to address the other obvious point.
Why are "they" poisoning themselves?
I don't need "evidences" to validate what I'm witnessing on almost a daily basis. The persistent trails left by non-commercial airplanes and drones are proofs that geoengineering is real. You cannot deny this, unless you live on some distant planet or you're mentally insane.
What is needed is scientific research on the possible impacts of geoengineering on the biota, in order to convince the policy makers that geoengineering is a bad idea.
By the way, we are poisoning ourselves with chemtrails simply because our leaders have decided this would save humanity from climate change.
-
I don't need "evidences" to validate what I'm witnessing on almost a daily basis. The persistent trails left by non-commercial airplanes and drones are proofs that geoengineering is real. You cannot deny this, unless you live on some distant planet or you're mentally insane.
What is needed is scientific research on the possible impacts of geoengineering on the biota, in order to convince the policy makers that geoengineering is a bad idea.
By the way, we are poisoning ourselves with chemtrails simply because our leaders have decided this would save humanity from climate change.
I need a new irony meter.
"I don't need "evidences" "
"What is needed is scientific research"
"The persistent trails left by non-commercial airplanes and drones are proofs that geoengineering is real. You cannot deny this, unless you live on some distant planet or you're mentally insane."
Actually I can deny it on the rather dull basis that I have evidence. All I have to do is point a camera out of the window. There are no "chem trails".
-
You should come to Canada. Clandestine geoengineering activity occurs all the time here.
-
And the first picture you posted looks like a chemtrail to me.
Are you mocking me??
-
And the first picture you posted looks like a chemtrail to me.
Are you mocking me??
I admit I was kind of hoping you would say something like that but those were just pictures I took of the sky from my house just before I posted them.
Here are some similar "chem trails" depicted by John Constable nearly a hundred years before man achieved powered flight.
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O82649/study-of-cirrus-clouds-oil-painting-constable-john-ra/
So, what you have done is prove that you are unable to recognise what's clearly a cloud.
that's what I was hoping for.
You can stop now.
-
I'm not stupid. A persistent trail is the signature of clandestine geoengineering activity. Theses trails condense into artificial clouds which looks like cirrus clouds.
http://www.chemtrails-france.com/cirrus_fibratus/cirrus_fibratus_en.htm
-
I'm not stupid. A persistent trail is the signature of clandestine geoengineering activity. Theses trails condense into artificial clouds which looks like cirrus clouds.
http://www.chemtrails-france.com/cirrus_fibratus/cirrus_fibratus_en.htm
"I'm not stupid."
I guess others will make up their own minds about that.
"A persistent trail is the signature of clandestine geoengineering activity."
The "ends" of the "trail" are both visible. The "trail" beyond those ends has vanished.
Since it went away, it's clearly not persistent.
You on the other hand persist on wittering on even when it's clear that you can't tell what a cloud looks like.
Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself?
-
"I'm not stupid."
I guess others will make up their own minds about that.
You bet they will. What is a embarrassment is your complete ignorance of the science behind geoengineering.
Did you know the pilot can switch on and off the nozzle to control the release of the pressurized fluid? And since distance may vary, your pictures are not a reliable measure of the duration the spraying occured.
-
"And since distance may vary, your pictures are not a reliable measure of the duration the spraying occured."
Meanwhile, back in reality, nobody mentioned duration.
"Did you know the pilot can switch on and off the nozzle to control the release of the pressurized fluid?"
Since there is no nozzle that makes no sense.
If you want to show some evidence that's fine.
In the meantime, you are the man who doesn't know what a cloud looks like.
-
What evidences do you got to claim there's no nozzle used to spray the pressurized fluid?
Are you still confused in believing chemtrails is a lie?
Why do you think there's a whole page created on Wikipedia about this "conspiracy theory" ??
Is stratospheric aerosol (sulfate) injection another deception?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)
-
Here's another patent on the use of "volcanic ash" to disperse or inject fine particles into the stratosphere:
Atmospheric injection of reflective aerosol for mitigating global warming: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100127224
In one embodiment, the fine silica particles can include at least one of silica fume, fumed silica, or powdered quartz. The fine silica particles may have an average diameter ranging between 5 nanometers and 10 microns. The fine particles may closely resemble a composition of volcanic ash, such that they have optical and physical properties similar to volcanic ash.
[0014]
A method is provided for mitigating global warming in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Such method can include injecting or dispersing fine silica particles into the stratosphere. The particles are dispersed in a concentration sufficient to cause statistically significant warming of the stratosphere. A statistically significant cooling of the troposphere can also occur simultaneously with the warming of the stratosphere.
I cannot believe you still think geoengineering is only a conspiracy theory...
You have no scientific method whatsoever and refuse to admit the evidences put forward by experimented scientists.
What a joke!
-
So, once again- no evidence from the man who can't recognise a cloud.
Did you read the wiki page? Here's the first paragraph or so. I have emphasised some words for you since you must have missed them.
The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a POSSIBLE candidate for use in solar radiation management climate engineering projects[1] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid,[3] hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons HAS BEEN PROPOSED.[5] It presently appears that this proposed method COULD counter most climatic changes, take effect rapidly, have very low direct implementation costs, and be reversible in its direct climatic effects."
Did you notice something there- nobody says that anyone is doing it (except on a tiny experimental scale).
You have misunderstood the scientific method .
It's not my job to prove that the mythical nozzles do not exist.
It's your job to show that they do.
You should be able to show me the things on lots of planes taken all over the world by holiday makers and plane spotters.
And yet you have nothing.
why is that?
Why can't you show me a stack of pictures?
And I may have mentioned this before; the patent office does not comment on whether or not something would work. Also the existence of a patent does not indicate that the product actually exists or is in use.
Why post stuff about patents?
Is it that you don't understand them; or just desperation?
-
Why can't you show me a stack of pictures?
You don't seem intelligent enough to use Google and search pictures of chemtrails by yourself...
Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you.
Why can't you politely admit your ignorance and let yourself become educated?
I guess you don't want to see hard photographic evidences of chemtrails because your subconscious mind cannot accept this possibility?
Let me know whenever your attitude towards science become positive...
-
"You don't seem intelligent enough to use Google and search pictures of chemtrails by yourself..."
I can search lots of pictures.
But we have established that you (the one who claims expertise) can't tell a chemtrail from a cloud.
So exactly what would I gain from looking at those pictures?
Did you somehow think you had made a valid point there?
"Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you."
Why make such an obviously false statement?
Evereybody with an IQ larger than their shoe size denies the existence of chemtrails (at least in the way you are suggesting they exists)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
"Why can't you politely admit your ignorance and let yourself become educated? "
I'm happy to admit my ignorance.
Just as soon as you have made some attempt to show that I'm the one who is ignorant.
As I have said repeatedly, you have not actually shown any evidence to support your claim.
"I guess you don't want to see hard photographic evidences of chemtrails because your subconscious mind cannot accept this possibility?"
I keep asking for that evidence; you keep failing to supply it. That's clearly got nothing to do with my subconscious (or any other aspect of me).
Why don't you supply some actual evidence? (Though I advise you to check on the meaning of the word, as it relates to science, iun oder to avoid wasting time + bandwidth with things like hearsay and logical fallacies)
"Let me know whenever your attitude towards science become positive..."
Science depends on evidence.
You have not yet produced any.
You have also failed to explain why chemtrails would even make sense.
And you still can't recognise a cloud.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
This page is a good example of how Wikipedia neutrality is contentious. The manipulation of Wikipedia objectivity confirms the censoring of clandestine geoengineering activity.
The evidences that you deny looking at are proofs that the brainwashing is working!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AChemtrail_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1#No_evidence
-
Ok, so I had a look at that wiki page.
And it points out that there is no evidence.
It does ask this poorly spelled question "When you're walking through central Sydney Australia and you see a fairly low flying plane leaving a thick white plume behind it, then observe it speading out into a huge strange feathery arc over the next two hours, you don't need a sicentific study to proove that this isn't your "normal" contrail. "
And a plausible answer is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
As for
"The manipulation of Wikipedia objectivity confirms the censoring of clandestine geoengineering activity. "
Nonsense. It confirms nothing- not least because you haven't shown either the censoring or the geoengineering to exist.
Essentially you are saying "it's not fair- Wikipedia requires evidence; we haven't got any and so they won't let us post our magic unicorn stuff as factual.; that's censorship"
No- it's common sense.
But you missed the point.
What you said was
"Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you."
And that's clearly not true.
So, once again, not only do you have a complete lack of evidence, but you are posting stuff which is obviously wrong.
It's as if you can't spot a cloud when you see one.
-
Ok, so I had a look at that wiki page.
And it points out that there is no evidence.
It does ask this poorly spelled question "When you're walking through central Sydney Australia and you see a fairly low flying plane leaving a thick white plume behind it, then observe it speading out into a huge strange feathery arc over the next two hours, you don't need a sicentific study to proove that this isn't your "normal" contrail. "
And a plausible answer is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
Incorrect. The thick white plume isn't fuel. Tanker-jets inject coal fly ash into the atmosphere using a nozzle.
As for
"The manipulation of Wikipedia objectivity confirms the censoring of clandestine geoengineering activity. "
Nonsense. It confirms nothing- not least because you haven't shown either the censoring or the geoengineering to exist.
Essentially you are saying "it's not fair- Wikipedia requires evidence; we haven't got any and so they won't let us post our magic unicorn stuff as factual.; that's censorship"
No- it's common sense.
Common sense is promoting a neutral point of view, not censorship.
But you missed the point.
What you said was
"Your attitude is so boring, nobody is denying the existence of chemtrails except you."
And that's clearly not true.
So, once again, not only do you have a complete lack of evidence, but you are posting stuff which is obviously wrong.
It's as if you can't spot a cloud when you see one.
Wrong. You expect me to believe stratospheric coal fly ash particles are a new type of cirrus cloud?
I suggest you educate yourself about geoengineering if you insist in believing your wishful thinking is credible.
-
And once again no evidence; just bald assertion masquerading as debate "Incorrect. The thick white plume isn't fuel. Tanker-jets inject coal fly ash into the atmosphere using a nozzle. "
"Common sense is promoting a neutral point of view, not censorship. "
So, by your "common sense" we should say that unicorns may exist or they might not- just to be neutral.
"Wrong. You expect me to believe stratospheric coal fly ash particles are a new type of cirrus cloud?"
No, I expect you to believe that clouds that look the same as they did a hundred years before the Wright brothers are not evidence of "chemtrails".
There's no evidence for the ash in the pictures. How could there be? How good a lens would it take to resolve sub-micron particles of dust from thousands of meters away.
So, as usual, you offer no evidence.
Do you realise this is meant to be science, and science is based on evidence?
-
And once again no evidence; just bald assertion masquerading as debate "Incorrect. The thick white plume isn't fuel. Tanker-jets inject coal fly ash into the atmosphere using a nozzle. "
"Common sense is promoting a neutral point of view, not censorship. "
So, by your "common sense" we should say that unicorns may exist or they might not- just to be neutral.
"Wrong. You expect me to believe stratospheric coal fly ash particles are a new type of cirrus cloud?"
No, I expect you to believe that clouds that look the same as they did a hundred years before the Wright brothers are not evidence of "chemtrails".
There's no evidence for the ash in the pictures. How could there be? How good a lens would it take to resolve sub-micron particles of dust from thousands of meters away.
So, as usual, you offer no evidence.
Do you realise this is meant to be science, and science is based on evidence?
Geoengineering is a pseudo-science with no credible evidences that this technology can cool the planet. You should stop spreading disinformation on a science forum. A thick white plume is evidence of fly ash vapor, and got nothing to do with natural cirrus cloud formation.
-
Geoengineering is a pseudo-science with no credible evidences that this technology can cool the planet. You should stop spreading disinformation on a science forum. A thick white plume is evidence of fly ash vapor, and got nothing to do with natural cirrus cloud formation.
"Geoengineering is a pseudo-science with no credible evidences that this technology can cool the planet."
Well,why did you introduce the topic then?
I never said it worked or not. What I said was that you have no evidence that anyone is actually doing it.
"You should stop spreading disinformation on a science forum. "
What disinformation do you think I have spread?
I have incidentally,pointed out several plainly false statements of yours.
"A thick white plume is evidence of fly ash vapor, and got nothing to do with natural cirrus cloud formation."
If you had evidence of the thick white plume that would be a start.
You have not.
As for what that plume might be made from, one sensible documented cause is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping
You don't need to make up stuff about flying unicorn farts or chemtrails.
(The evidence is just as good for either of those BTW)
The pictures I showed were clouds.
You stated that one of them was a chemtrail.
I pointed out that it couldn't be, because it wasn't persistent.
You have documented your lack of ability to recognise a cloud.
Do you think anyone is going to take your opinion seriously?
-
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/anti-geoengineering-legal-team-serves-60-day-notice-of-intent-to-file-federal-actions-against-over-30-us-government-and-california-state-agencies-and-entities-300304818.html
I suppose theses guys are unable to recognize a cloud...
-
What disinformation do you think I have spread?
You're ignoring the truth about chemtrails. Your wishful thinking doesn't promote scientific progress.
Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist.
Your attitude is desperate, nobody denies chemtrails except you...
-
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." -Winston Churchill
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stopgeoengineeringlegalalliance.com%2Fimages%2Fchemical-sky-with-lady-justice.jpg&hash=f77e9ff41d166d08b303aa28dfb1bc7f)
"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." -Winston Churchill
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stopgeoengineeringlegalalliance.com%2Fimages%2Fgeoengineering-header3.jpg&hash=dbd8ec42ecf6c63eabcf8cc05924cccf)
a cirrus cloud?
-
What disinformation do you think I have spread?
You're ignoring the truth about chemtrails. Your wishful thinking doesn't promote scientific progress.
Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist.
Your attitude is desperate, nobody denies chemtrails except you...
Well,as I have pointed out before, plenty of people deny the existence of chemtrails.
So your statement that "nobody denies chemtrails except you" is an obvious lie.
Plenty of people deny them.
So why are you accusing me of spreading disinformation: you are the one who is doing so- rather obviously.
And this statement
"Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist. "
makes it clear that you have abandoned science (and possibly rationality). You can hardly say that and also claim that I'm the one whose "wishful thinking doesn't promote scientific progress. "
If it existed there would be evidence.
Nice pictures of clouds and contrails.
Nobody has said that clouds and contrails don't exist. Did you somehow think they meant something?
And re. "I suppose theses guys are unable to recognize a cloud..."
Well, apparently yes; they can't.
It will be interesting to see what the court decides.
-
Well,as I have pointed out before, plenty of people deny the existence of chemtrails.
So your statement that "nobody denies chemtrails except you" is an obvious lie.
Plenty of people deny them.
Wishful thinking. A majority of people are actually afraid of chemtrails. The ones who is doing disinformation is people like you and the government.
So why are you accusing me of spreading disinformation: you are the one who is doing so- rather obviously.
Obviously, you don't understand the concept of disinformation.
And this statement
"Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist. "
makes it clear that you have abandoned science (and possibly rationality). You can hardly say that and also claim that I'm the one whose "wishful thinking doesn't promote scientific progress. "
If it existed there would be evidence.
No, I did not abandoned rationality; You just don't seem intelligent enough to use Google to search for chemtrails evidences yourself. Is that a rational attitude?
Nice pictures of clouds and contrails.
You have no clue what are composed theses "contrails". Nice disinformation.
Nobody has said that clouds and contrails don't exist. Did you somehow think they meant something?
And re. "I suppose theses guys are unable to recognize a cloud..."
Well, apparently yes; they can't.
It will be interesting to see what the court decides.
A contrail is not a chemtrail. This is a fact. Research for yourself before spreading disinformation on a science forum.
And yes, a fair trial of offenders of clandestine geoengineering activity is hoped.
-
I'm bored of this
Either stop telling lies or just go away.
For example, lets see you cite evidence for this claim
" A majority of people are actually afraid of chemtrails."
Got any proof?
No; of course you have not.
How about this "The ones who is doing disinformation is people like you and the government."
Any evidence?
Well, you certainly haven't produced any so far.
Why is that?
Could it be because it simply isn't true?
"Clandestine geoengineering activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist. "
That's plainly nonsense.
It's as if I had written "Unicorn farming activity is a fact that need no evidences to exist. "
Do you realise how stupid that is?
Well, your claim is just the same.
"You have no clue what are composed theses "contrails"."
Nor do you.
Had you not noticed that?
"A contrail is not a chemtrail. This is a fact."
Nobody has disputed that.
So there's no way it's spreading disinformation for both of us to say it.
However among the differences is that only one of the is actually real.
" You just don't seem intelligent enough to use Google to search for chemtrails evidences yourself. "
I looked; there wasn't any.
There was a lot of nonsense, and a few pretty pictures of clouds, There was also a lot of unevinced claims and lots of wishful thinking.
But I was unable to find any evidence.
Why don't you just go away and find some actual evidence (Once again, I remind you to check on what the word means before you post anything)?
-
Since you're unable to recognize evidences from scientific research and testimonials of clandestine geoengineering activity, I think its useless to discuss this any further. You must live on some distant planet or have become brainwashed by the disinformation. It's unfortunate you're not intelligent enough to research on your own.
Good bye.
-
You have not produced anything to discus.
You have made claims- some clearly false- and made assertions.
The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You say that chemtrails exist so it is your responsibility to provide supporting evidence.
But you have produced absolutely no evidence.
You certainly have not produced any "evidences from scientific research and testimonials" have you?
Go through what you have posted here an point out what you think is evidence and I will go through it pointing out why you are wrong.
Until you can cite some real evidence, you are right- there is no point in discussing it.
You simply have not said anything worthy of discussion.
-
You have not produced anything to discus.
You have made claims- some clearly false- and made assertions.
The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You say that chemtrails exist so it is your responsibility to provide supporting evidence.
But you have produced absolutely no evidence.
You certainly have not produced any "evidences from scientific research and testimonials" have you?
Go through what you have posted here an point out what you think is evidence and I will go through it pointing out why you are wrong.
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/htm
This paper provides scientific evidences of barium and aluminium presence in stratospheric aerosol injection. We already discussed this paper here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65238.0
On what basis do you believe this paper is nonsense?
We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle, as no comparable patent exist to use jet fuel as a medium for such purposes. Why do you need evidences to verify an hypothesis?
You should admit that chemtrails are real and that you were simply disinformed unless you don't care in your reputation.
-
The results show: (1) the assemblage of elements in rainwater and in the corresponding experimental leachate are essentially identical. At a 99% confidence interval, they have identical means (T-test) and identical variances (F-test); and (2) the assemblage of elements in the HEPA dust and in the corresponding average un-leached coal fly ash are likewise essentially identical.
-
You have not produced anything to discus.
You have made claims- some clearly false- and made assertions.
The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You say that chemtrails exist so it is your responsibility to provide supporting evidence.
But you have produced absolutely no evidence.
You certainly have not produced any "evidences from scientific research and testimonials" have you?
Go through what you have posted here an point out what you think is evidence and I will go through it pointing out why you are wrong.
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9375/htm
This paper provides scientific evidences of barium and aluminium presence in stratospheric aerosol injection. We already discussed this paper here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65238.0
On what basis do you believe this paper is nonsense?
We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle, as no comparable patent exist to use jet fuel as a medium for such purposes. Why do you need evidences to verify an hypothesis?
You should admit that chemtrails are real and that you were simply disinformed unless you don't care in your reputation.
There is all the difference in the world between a paper that says "fly ash gets into the air" and
"We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle".
In the real world fly ash is made by burning powdered coal. It is- of course- burned ina stream of air and the combustion products are - of course- vented to the atmosphere.
Good environmental management practice requires that most of the ash is stripped out before the waste gas is sent up the chimney.
However, I'm sure we can all foresee that- at least sometimes- the filtration systems will fail and the fly ash will get sent into the air.
So it's perfectly obvious to anyone who even halfheartedly looks at the question that you would expect to see some fly ash in the air- from power stations.
How do you get from that to "We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle"?
Especially when you have no evidence of the existence of the nozzle (ultrasonic or otherwise) and no evidence of fly ash being delivered to airports and loaded onto planes.
It would be an interesting delivery system. Fly ash is very hygroscopic and when it gets wet it tends to set like cement.
So, if there were not very careful systems for keeping it dry- it would just result in planes carrying bloody great bricks around the place.
Where are your pictures of the tankers collecting PFA and delivering it to the airports (with dry gas cover)?
Seriously, my reputation isn't under any treat here.
I ask you for evidence and the best you can do is tell me that power station soot ends up going up power station chimneys.
No sh1t Sherlock.
And that's after you carefully document your own inability to recognise a contrail.
Once again.
You have no evidence.
It really is time you dropped this one. You just keep making a fool of yourself.
-
How do you get from that to "We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle"?
Especially when you have no evidence of the existence of the nozzle (ultrasonic or otherwise) and no evidence of fly ash being delivered to airports and loaded onto planes.
The dispersion of uniform sized nanoparticles in the atmosphere to form cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) is evidence of a ultrasonic dispersion system. This technology is known as "cloud seeding". Also, keep in mind that geoengineering is a military program, thus commercial planes are not equipped for stratospheric aerosol injection.
It would be an interesting delivery system. Fly ash is very hygroscopic and when it gets wet it tends to set like cement.
Aluminium is slightly soluble in acidic solutions such as acid rain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572108
-
How do you get from that to "We hypothesize that coal fly ash must be inserted into the atmosphere using a ultrasonic nozzle"?
Especially when you have no evidence of the existence of the nozzle (ultrasonic or otherwise) and no evidence of fly ash being delivered to airports and loaded onto planes.
The dispersion of uniform sized nanoparticles in the atmosphere to form cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) is evidence of a ultrasonic dispersion system. This technology is known as "cloud seeding". Also, keep in mind that geoengineering is a military program, thus commercial planes are not equipped for stratospheric aerosol injection.
It would be an interesting delivery system. Fly ash is very hygroscopic and when it gets wet it tends to set like cement.
Aluminium is slightly soluble in acidic solutions such as acid rain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14572108
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
-
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
A chimney is not the same thing as a nozzle. Look it up.
Coal fly ash is pulverized using a nozzle designed to disperse aerosols in the atmosphere, where it condense to form cloud condensation nuclei. The chemical composition of coal fly ash is reflective and toxic to public health.
-
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
A chimney is not the same thing as a nozzle. Look it up.
Coal fly ash is pulverized using a nozzle designed to disperse aerosols in the atmosphere, where it condense to form cloud condensation nuclei. The chemical composition of coal fly ash is reflective and toxic to public health.
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
-
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
There's no chimney on aircrafts; What is you don't understand in the potential use of a nozzle
to disperse pressurized aerosols?
-
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
There's no chimney on aircrafts; What is you don't understand in the potential use of a nozzle
to disperse pressurized aerosols?
You really don't get it do you?
Lets start with the basics.
There are chimneys on coal fired power stations.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
-
BC, the horse died years ago. You may stop flogging it. The obvious eludes the deluded.
-
BC, the horse died years ago. You may stop flogging it. The obvious eludes the deluded.
I know- but my bloody mindedness is stronger than my common sense.
I'm hoping that he will see that a chimney- designed to put PFA into the air- and which actually exists is a more plausible source of PFA in the air than a non existent nozzle.
In any event, it might convince some "waverers".
I'm beginning to wonder if he's genuinely deluded or just a troll.
Anyone who knows my history here knows that I have more stamina that the trolls.
-
BC, the horse died years ago. You may stop flogging it. The obvious eludes the deluded.
I know- but my bloody mindedness is stronger than my common sense.
I'm hoping that he will see that a chimney- designed to put PFA into the air- and which actually exists is a more plausible source of PFA in the air than a non existent nozzle.
In any event, it might convince some "waverers".
I'm beginning to wonder if he's genuinely deluded or just a troll.
Anyone who knows my history here knows that I have more stamina that the trolls.
Show me some patents of this PFA delivery system and I will agree with you. Meanwhile, a ultrasonic nozzle for geoengineering is a patented technology. http://www.google.ca/patents/US7413145
-
The obvious eludes the deluded.
The bliss of ignorance is deeper in the region of tyranny.
-
BC, the horse died years ago. You may stop flogging it. The obvious eludes the deluded.
I know- but my bloody mindedness is stronger than my common sense.
I'm hoping that he will see that a chimney- designed to put PFA into the air- and which actually exists is a more plausible source of PFA in the air than a non existent nozzle.
In any event, it might convince some "waverers".
I'm beginning to wonder if he's genuinely deluded or just a troll.
Anyone who knows my history here knows that I have more stamina that the trolls.
Show me some patents of this PFA delivery system and I will agree with you. Meanwhile, a ultrasonic nozzle for geoengineering is a patented technology. http://www.google.ca/patents/US7413145
Are you aware that chimneys are rather old tech- and they predate patenting?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
-
Are you aware that chimneys are rather old tech- and they predate patenting?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
So you're right: Chimneys are old technology. In contrast, geoengineering uses advanced aerial delivery system designed to modify the weather with reflective Welsbach materials: http://www.google.ca/patents/US5003186
Besides, there's no point in comparing a chimney to a nozzle. Coal fly ash is pulverised using a nozzle to inject the fluid which condense to form cloud condensation nuclei.
-
Are you aware that chimneys are rather old tech- and they predate patenting?
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
So you're right: Chimneys are old technology. In contrast, geoengineering uses advanced aerial delivery system designed to modify the weather with reflective Welsbach materials: http://www.google.ca/patents/US5003186
Besides, there's no point in comparing a chimney to a nozzle. Coal fly ash is pulverised using a nozzle to inject the fluid which condense to form cloud condensation nuclei.
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
-
You should stop trolling around. There's no logic reason for any aircrafts to be equipped with a chimney; Coal fly ash isn't burned, it is stored under a powder form.
-
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
-
Next question please. I answered this question too many times.
-
What is the difference between a chimney and a conspiracy theory?
-
What is the difference between a chimney and a conspiracy theory?
Neither a chimney or a conspiracy theory could disprove clandestine geoengineering activity.
This wishful thinking is evidence of poor education and/or brainwashing, not critical thinking.
-
Next question please. I answered this question too many times.
No,you plainly have not- and pretending that you have doesn't help.
You have made many replies, but an answer would either be "yes" or "no".
So.
Lets start with the basics.
Do you understand that the point of a chimney is to disperse the products of combustion?
-
YES.
So what?
A nozzle is designed to disperse aerosol particles, not a chimney.
See: http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2009/ARL-TR-5026.pdf
-
Great- progress at last. You learned how to answer a question
Now you just need to recognise that, in the real world chimneys are actually designed to disperse smoke. That's why they make them so tall.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00966665.1954.10467643
Now if you can just stop thinking about your nozzle for the moment- I'm asking about chimneys.
Do you understand that the combustion of pulverised coal in power stations produces (lots of) fly ash?
(and things will go quicker if I you answer without my having to repeat the question 7 times)
-
Great- progress at last. You learned how to answer a question
Now you just need to recognise that, in the real world chimneys are actually designed to disperse smoke. That's why they make them so tall.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00966665.1954.10467643
Now if you can just stop thinking about your nozzle for the moment- I'm asking about chimneys.
Do you understand that the combustion of pulverised coal in power stations produces (lots of) fly ash?
(and things will go quicker if I you answer without my having to repeat the question 7 times)
Yes. You should educate yourself on coal fly ash reuse: Coal power stations produces lots of coal fly ash.
-
Yes. You should educate yourself on coal fly ash reuse: Coal power stations produces lots of coal fly ash.
I know they do.
And I know it's used (strictly, it's not "re-use" because it wasn't "used" in the first place. Not least as an ingredient on some cements- like I said- it tends to set if it gets wet.
There's not much point in you "telling" me things that I already pointed out that I knew.
Do you understand that the combustion of pulverised coal in power stations produces (lots of) fly ash?
(and things will go quicker if I you answer without my having to repeat the question another 6 times)
-
Do you understand that the combustion of pulverised coal in power stations produces (lots of) fly ash?
(and things will go quicker if I you answer without my having to repeat the question another 6 times)
Yes. Thats precisely why its profitable for coal power plants to sell out coal fly ash.
-
For the moment the coal fly ash hypothesis is credible. This is true scientific progress, not resignation to a nonsense conspiracy theory. The implications of injecting particles into the atmosphere are serious for the environment and public health. Besides I don't think your chimney theory has any scientific value to disprove the research work of Dr. Marvin Herndon.
-
OK, so you understand that coal fired power stations produce lots of fly ash as a by product of combustion, and you know that chimneys are there to disperse by products of combustion so you now can deduce that power station chimneys disperse fly ash.
That accounts for the paper you cited a while back that finds evidence of stuff that looks like fly ash in the air.
There is a perfectly sensible explanation for the presence of aluminium and such in the dust in the air.
And so there is no need for any other explanation.
In particular, there is no need to hypothesise that it is being sprayed out of aircraft.
Do you understand that normal people when faced with the fact that there is a simple explanation for dust in the air and also presented with a complete lack of evidence of the mythical nozzles will understand that the nozzles simply don't exist?
Why do you believe they do?
-
OK, so you understand that coal fired power stations produce lots of fly ash as a by product of combustion, and you know that chimneys are there to disperse by products of combustion so you now can deduce that power station chimneys disperse fly ash.
That accounts for the paper you cited a while back that finds evidence of stuff that looks like fly ash in the air.
There is a perfectly sensible explanation for the presence of aluminium and such in the dust in the air.
And so there is no need for any other explanation.
In particular, there is no need to hypothesise that it is being sprayed out of aircraft.
Do you understand that normal people when faced with the fact that there is a simple explanation for dust in the air and also presented with a complete lack of evidence of the mythical nozzles will understand that the nozzles simply don't exist?
Why do you believe they do?
Simply because the truth is incontrovertible. There's no logic reason for aluminium dust to be present in the air or rainwater except near a coal power plant. The only logical reason aluminium salts can be found in rainwater is the irrefutable clandestine geoengineering activity.
Please tell me on which planet do you live.
-
Simply because the truth is incontrovertible. There's no logic reason for aluminium dust to be present in the air or rainwater except near a coal power plant. The only logical reason aluminium salts can be found in rainwater is the irrefutable clandestine geoengineering activity.
Please tell me on which planet do you live.
No, you seem to have forgotten the earlier lesson.
Please try to pay attention.
The point of chimneys is to make sure that the by products of combustion are spread as far as possible.
So it's not just "near a coal power plant" that you would expect to find ash in the air.
The incontrovertible truth is that you have not evidence for your flight of fantasy.
If you had, you would have posted it here earlier.
-
The point of chimneys is to make sure that the by products of combustion are spread as far as possible.
So it's not just "near a coal power plant" that you would expect to find ash in the air.
No. The dispersion radius of a chimney is quite limited. There's no chance a coal power plant
could be a environmental or a public health risk.
-
chemtrails are highly dispersed aerosols.
-
No. The dispersion radius of a chimney is quite limited. There's no chance a coal power plant
could be a environmental or a public health risk.
You can not say "there is no chance that..." for something that is already known to have happened. That's just sily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
Chemtrails are imaginary " highly dispersed aerosols.".
-
Chemtrails are imaginary " highly dispersed aerosols.".
Only in your disillusionary world.
-
Chemtrails are imaginary " highly dispersed aerosols.".
Only in your disillusionary world.
So, still no actual evidence then?
Let us know if anything changes.
-
The truth is incontrovertible.
Look up "incontrovertible" in a dictionary.
-
Do you believe I hallucinated this?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fopenwetware.org%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fbd%2F3133.jpeg&hash=4e6a44b2469eeadf3fbeb59f1cddcbbc)
-
I know what the word means- it means beyond dispute.
Whereas the evidence you have supplied is non existent.
There's a big difference.
I remind you that you earlier on in this thread pointed out that there's a difference between contrails (as in that picture) and chemtrails (as in the figment of your imagination).
So, no actual evidence. Why don't you go away and not come back until you have some evidence?
-
I remind you that you earlier on in this thread pointed out that there's a difference between contrails (as in that picture) and chemtrails (as in the figment of your imagination).
This is not a contrail. Educate yourself or stop spreading disinformation. This picture was taken by me as a photographic evidence of clandestine geoengineering activity.
-
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139/full
-
I remind you that you earlier on in this thread pointed out that there's a difference between contrails (as in that picture) and chemtrails (as in the figment of your imagination).
This is not a contrail. Educate yourself or stop spreading disinformation. This picture was taken by me as a photographic evidence of clandestine geoengineering activity.
And there is no way to distinguish it from a picture of a contrail (you already demonstrated that earlier) and thus it is not evidence of the existence of chemtrails.
Stop calling the truth "disinformation".
The link you posted says this
"This article has been retracted. Please follow the link to the full retraction notice for details."
So it's obviously not evidence either.
However, one of the comments on it speaks volumes
"On 4-9-2015, after the retraction of Herndon's paper in IJPREH, I sent him and the IJPREH editor citations of previous research showing that the elements he was finding in rainwater were historically found in comparable amounts by numerous studies (ie. Warneck, 1999), some dating back to Antarctic ice cores 183 years old. Herndon was made aware of the ordinary components of tropospheric aerosols yet again ignored them in this paper. Anyone wishing to see that correspondence may ask me for a copy. So, my esteemed alumnus Dr. Herndon did not neglect this out of ignorance but rather by will."
It shows that your hero is wilfully ignoring the fact that dust inthe air looked pretty much the same 183 years ago and that's certainly not man-made "chemtrails".
So the person on whose reports you base your claim is known not to tell the truth.
Why don't you go away and stay away unless you can actually find evidence.
-
And there is no way to distinguish it from a picture of a contrail (you already demonstrated that earlier) and thus it is not evidence of the existence of chemtrails.
No. You're making the wrong assertion that I cannot distinguish a real cirrus cloud from a chemtrail. This photographic evidence clearly demonstrate that a plane is releasing aerosols which will alter cloud composition.
-
There is no way to tell these "chemtrails" from contrails. They look identical.
Even you got muddled (go back + check- you will see that I pointed out why you were wrong- it's do do with being able to see the end of something that you claim "persists".)
If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.
Until then once again, you have no evidence.
-
There is no way to tell these "chemtrails" from contrails. They look identical.
Even you got muddled (go back + check- you will see that I pointed out why you were wrong- it's do do with being able to see the end of something that you claim "persists".)
If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.
Until then once again, you have no evidence.
1. A water vapor contrail don't look identical to a chemtrail.
2. The retraction have zero scientific value.
3. Contrails don't create artificial clouds.
-
1 If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.
2 Yes it does-particularly when it's backed up by a clear reason; the fact that the same elements have been found in old ice cores.
3 Nobody said they did.
Still got no evidence h\ve you?
-
1 If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.
A contrail is invisible. It doesn't create a (persistent) thick white plume. The thick white plume is caused by condensation of the aerosol.
2 Yes it does-particularly when it's backed up by a clear reason; the fact that the same elements have been found in old ice cores.
Sadly I don't find the link to support this hypothesis.
-
Au contraire monsieur.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail)
Why not try being a grown up and stop all this nonsense.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail)
This proves nothing except the possible implications of Wikipedia in the public deception of clandestine geoengineering activity. Nothing new here. We all know Wikipedia neutrality is contestable.
-
So everyone is plotting? That makes it a conspiracy with hundreds if not thousands of participants. No wonder they were able to keep it secret! Your logic is faultless hooray! We have a hero in our midst.
-
So everyone is plotting? That makes it a conspiracy with hundreds if not thousands of participants. No wonder they were able to keep it secret! Your logic is faultless hooray! We have a hero in our midst.
No. It just means a minority of people are implicated in this illegal criminal activity. Your logic is distressfull.
-
1 If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.
A contrail is invisible. It doesn't create a (persistent) thick white plume. The thick white plume is caused by condensation of the aerosol.
Seriously?
You think a condensation trail (i.e. a con trail) isn't caused by condensation.
The thick white plume is an aerosol.
You don't even seem to know what the words mean.
-
Seriously?
You think a condensation trail (i.e. a con trail) isn't caused by condensation.
The thick white plume is an aerosol.
You don't even seem to know what the words mean.
Nice disinformation. I never said a contrail wasn't caused by condensation. I said that an aerosol could creates the "thick white plume". Contrails don't create artificial clouds.
-
A contrail is invisible.
Ok so people decided- "I know- we can (for no valid reason) start putting coal ash into the wake of aircraft, people won't notice because it will look just like something that's invisible."
And "It doesn't create a (persistent) thick white plume. The thick white plume is caused by condensation of the aerosol. "
OK, so what you are saying is that the chemtrail is thick + white and caused by condensation.
How do you explain (in much the same way I described above) how that would be anything other than "pretty damned obvious"?
Your whole "you can tell them apart by looking" idea falls flat at that point.
You said chemtrails are persistent- yet you labelled something that's clearly not persistent (you could see the start + end) as being a chemtrail.
None of your story makes sense.
If chemtrails don't look like contrails then people would have spotted them when they first appeared.
Nobody did.
If, on other hand, they do look the same then there's no way you can claim from a photograph that something is a chemtrail.
You have yet to come up with a sensible reason for them.
if "THEY" wanted to increase cloud cover it would be easy- just cut back on inspections of sulphur dioxide removal equipment in power stations.
Cheap simple and effective.
You have yet to show the "nozzles" you talked about .
You don't understand that coal ash in air is inevitable given that there are damned great chimneys whose job is to disperse things like coal ash into the air. You also fail to understand that coal ash doesn't look very different from run-of-the-mill dirt.
You haven'e explained how they get the dust into the planes, nor have you explained why nobody ever sees the storage tanks for this stuff- it would be pretty characteristic since it would need to be a powder delivery system and blanketed by dry gas.
You don't even seem to understand that con trails are caused by condensation which leaves trails of white foggy looking stuff- and you don't even know what an aerosol is.
In summary- as I said before-
Go away, and don't come back unless you have some evidence.
-
The last picture I posted clearly shows that the aerosol is injected using a nozzle.
Educate yourself and stop posting disinformation.
-
The last picture I posted clearly shows that the aerosol is injected using a nozzle.
Educate yourself and stop posting disinformation.
Stop lying.
The last pic you posted was almost entirely sky. A small part of it was a plane. Behind the plane was a vapour trail. there's absolutely no way that you could see any "nozzle" on that picture- you can barely see the engines.
Did you mean that the trail from the left wing was from this magic nozzle or did you mean the one from the right wing?
Come back when you have actual evidence.
-
You're either blind or unable to recognize that the chemtrail plume is coming from the rear part of the plane. On this picture two nozzles seems used to inject the aerosol into the atmosphere.
-
You're either blind or unable to recognize that the chemtrail plume is coming from the rear part of the plane. On this picture two nozzles seems used to inject the aerosol into the atmosphere.
I zoomed in on that picture.
You can see that the trails originate in "mid air" between the jets and the tail. Exactly where they should do because they are caused when the jet output mixes with the cooler air.
It's you who can't see the truth.
-
Commercial planes don't emit such thick white plume. As you suggested, it seems possible the jet fuel mix with the substance to create this plume.
-
http://www.google.com.na/patents/US20080256852
"Integrated process and apparatus for producing coal-based jet fuel, diesel fuel, and distillate fuels."
Ok, I think its possible that coal fly ash could be used as a combustion additive for military aircrafts.
Google "JP-900 jet fuel" and "The Coal-Based Jet Fuel Program".
http://www.energy.psu.edu/sites/default/files/files/JetFuels.pdf
-
Thanks for your help, Bored chemist.
-
Whatever is coming out of the back of the engines (and let's be clear- there is no reason on earth to assume it's anyhthing but CO2 and water and a bit of NOx) it's forming that cloud a little way back from the engine. That's consistent with cooling and condensation- which is exactly what you would expect form a jet engine burning jet fuel.
The only thing that needs to be mixed with the fuel to achieve this is air.
However you make unsupported statements like "Commercial planes don't emit such thick white plume. "
And then pretend that your circular argument is evidence.
The best you have managed so far is the logical fallacy pitifully referred to as "Proof by shouting".
Why not go away and come back if you find some evidence?
-
The only thing that needs to be mixed with the fuel to achieve this is air.
No. Coal-based jet fuel is based on combustion ash (JP-900).
However you make unsupported statements like "Commercial planes don't emit such thick white plume. "
True. Commercial planes uses standard jet fuel (Jet A-1).
I suppose the JP-900 is the evidence behind the "aerosolized coal-fly-ash" hypothesis.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68004
-
You cite a thread that says
"In particular, there will be none of the minerals that produce fly ash when coal is burnt in power stations, so it is not a secret plot to produce chemtrails."
and pretend that it says the exact opposite.
You are clearly trolling.
The JP900 story is a progression from the Sasol project.
http://www.sasol.com/media-centre/media-releases/sasol-produces-15-billion-barrels-synthetic-fuel-coal-fifty-years
It uses coal (not ash) to make jet fuel
The ash gets left on the ground.
It's not some daft way of getting ash into the atmosphere- coal fired power stations already do that- it's a way of making (expensive) jet fuel from (cheap) coal.
Incidentally, this thread no longer shows up in the list of recent threads, presumably because someone somewhere has realised you were dirtying up the site with your nonsense.
-
Interesting and very relevant article:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011
-
Interesting and very relevant article:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011
There's nothing new there. Ken Caldeira is a leading scientist actively implicated in the research and
development of geoengineering technology. However, at least this study suggest that the majority of "experts" are
unable to tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.
-
Interesting and very relevant article:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011
There's nothing new there. Ken Caldeira is a leading scientist actively implicated in the research and
development of geoengineering technology. However, at least this study suggest that the majority of "experts" are
unable to tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.
You're right, it's actually a conspiracy involving 2 billion people spending 17 trillion dollars per year so we can extinguish the other 5 billion people in the world and own the whole planet. It's a major pity it will involve destroying the entire biosphere, but I'm sure we can fix it for another few trillion dollars per year over a decade or two. Anything to remove those amongst us who are not supposed to live in the New World!
Oh, no! Did I just spill the beans? No matter, the atmosphere will be saturated in barium in a matter of days, and then it won't matter... bwahahaha bwahahaha BWAHAHAHAHA
psych!
-
Thank you for serving me my daily dose of naked deception... I was hoping to have a open minded discussion about chemtrails with you.
-
However, at least this study suggest that the majority of "experts" are
unable to tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.
You seem to have forgotten that you also showed that you were unable to tell the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail.
In fact it seems that nobody can reliably spot any difference at all.
That's consistent with the idea that chemtrails don't exist.
Do you have any actual evidence that they exist?
You certainly have not provided any so far, even though I have asked repeatedly.
-
You seem to have forgotten that you also showed that you were unable to tell the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail.
In fact it seems that nobody can reliably spot any difference at all.
That's consistent with the idea that chemtrails don't exist.
Do you have any actual evidence that they exist?
You certainly have not provided any so far, even though I have asked repeatedly.
Well, since you ignore photographic evidences, it's likely that you can confuse a chemtrail with a contrail. As for your usual wishful thinking that chemtrails don't exist, it's possible that the chemical composition of the aerosolized jet fuel produces a photochemical reaction making chemtrails hard to notice. However, the high altitude "thick white plumes" released from an aircraft is an undeniable evidence of clandestine geoengineering activity.
Commercial aircrafts don't emit thick white plumes, period.
So, either the aerosolized jet fuel is engineered to produces secondary organic aerosols from coal-based combustion or a synthetic additive is being added to the fuel to produces a photochemical reaction at high altitude.
-
I supplied some.
You made it clear that you couldn't tell if it was a chemtrail or not.
"Commercial aircrafts don't emit thick white plumes, period."
Yes they do.
For example the ones in various pictures in this thread.
-
I supplied some.
You made it clear that you couldn't tell if it was a chemtrail or not.
"Commercial aircrafts don't emit thick white plumes, period."
Yes they do.
For example the ones in various pictures in this thread.
Haha. Nice disinformation, sir.
I challenge you to take a picture of a flying commercial aircraft releasing a thick white plume...
Meanwhile, I believe readers will assume that clandestine geoengineering activity is real.
-
Meanwhile, I believe readers will assume that clandestine geoengineering activity is real.
Poor assumption. I think you are projecting your own beliefs on other readers.
You still have offered no significant evidence that planes are being used to spray noxious chemicals for the purpose of geoengineering, no solid explanation of the motives of those doing this, let alone who "they" are or how they are paying for such a massive undertaking, or why the rest of the world is letting it happen (believe me, if it could be shown that the US was trying to alter the atmosphere for some nefarious reason, Russia would knock our chemtrailing planes right out of the sky; and if you think that Russia and US are working together on a big secret plan, you are crazier than I thought)
In short: we still don't know from your posts who is trying to do what, and why. Furthermore, the "how" falls short on many levels (as shown by other members here): planes couldn't possibly put enough coal ash into the atmosphere to do anything substantial without there being an enormous fleet of them constantly criss-crossing the sky, carrying nothing other than toxic dust (and who is paying for that?). Coal power plants are already releasing tons (millions of tons) of particulates into the atmosphere, and people are working to reduce that, not increase it. That some people are trying to make jet fuel out of coal does not help your arguments, because the jet fuel they make has the properties of jet fuel, not coal...
Maybe if you offered something more valid, there would be something worth discussing, but as it stands this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
-
Poor assumption. I think you are projecting your own beliefs on other readers.
You still have offered no significant evidence that planes are being used to spray noxious chemicals for the purpose of geoengineering, no solid explanation of the motives of those doing this, let alone who "they" are or how they are paying for such a massive undertaking, or why the rest of the world is letting it happen (believe me, if it could be shown that the US was trying to alter the atmosphere for some nefarious reason, Russia would knock our chemtrailing planes right out of the sky; and if you think that Russia and US are working together on a big secret plan, you are crazier than I thought)
In short: we still don't know from your posts who is trying to do what, and why. Furthermore, the "how" falls short on many levels (as shown by other members here): planes couldn't possibly put enough coal ash into the atmosphere to do anything substantial without there being an enormous fleet of them constantly criss-crossing the sky, carrying nothing other than toxic dust (and who is paying for that?). Coal power plants are already releasing tons (millions of tons) of particulates into the atmosphere, and people are working to reduce that, not increase it. That some people are trying to make jet fuel out of coal does not help your arguments, because the jet fuel they make has the properties of jet fuel, not coal...
Maybe if you offered something more valid, there would be something worth discussing, but as it stands this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
It's the US who is doing geoengineering in NATO countries, including Canada. However, since the US and Canada have signed the ENMOD treaty, it is considered a clandestine activity because stratospheric aerosol injection is prohibited.
Whether Russia allow clandestine geoengineering activity would make a great thread, in my opinion:
http://yournewswire.com/putin-accuses-u-s-of-spraying-poisonous-chemtrails-over-syria/
As for the "coal fly ash" hypothesis, I believe it make sense that coal power plants have found in geoengineering a profitable way to sell coal fly ash to the US government. This criminal activity would violates the Clean Air Act I presume, but since it's a military program, I guess the US senate has no control over US military operations.
I think you need to wake up. There's plenty of photographic evidences of suspicious chemtrails over the Internet. It's only a matter of time now until the legality of clandestine geoengineering activity gets challenged.
-
I challenge you to take a picture of a flying commercial aircraft releasing a thick white plume...
Meanwhile, I believe readers will assume that clandestine geoengineering activity is real.
Pointing out the truth (and backing it up with pictures) is not disinformation.
Well, since I already posted one you presumably realise that readers (and there must be damned few still here) will recognise that- if it ever existed- there is no longer evidence for clandestine geoengineering.
You can stop trolling now.
-
Pointing out the truth (and backing it up with pictures) is not disinformation.
Unlike you, I have photographic evidences of chemtrails, and not posting disinformation. You on the other hand have no evidences that chemtrails do not exist and yet you claim I'm trolling. So, either you are clearly putting forward propaganda or I'm confusing a cirrus cloud with a chemtrail. I think you must wake up and stop the cognitive infiltration.
-
Unlike you, I have photographic evidences of chemtrails,
Well why don't you post it?
So far you have not put forward any evidence of anything.
(and saying I don't have evidence of the non-existence of something is just silly. You are the one who says they exist; so you are the one who has to provide the evidence)
-
Well why don't you post it?
So far you have not put forward any evidence of anything.
(and saying I don't have evidence of the non-existence of something is just silly. You are the one who says they exist; so you are the one who has to provide the evidence)
I already posted it here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49418.msg494974#msg494974
As far as I know, contrails don't form a high density plume from the combustion of jet fuel. So I challenge you once again to find a picture of a commercial aircraft which releases a visible and persisting plume that alters cloud composition.
Also, what is the point in contesting the existence of chemtrails ? You or a cointelpro agent are virtually the same entity in denying the reality of clandestine geoengineering activity.
-
What you posted was a picture of a plane and its contrail.
That's not evidence of chemtrails is it?
So, as I said, you have yet to post any evidence of chemtrails.
Repeating your claim that you have done so doesn't help.
"As far as I know, contrails don't form a high density plume from the combustion of jet fuel. "
Then you don't know enough.
Let me know when something changes.
-
What you posted was a picture of a plane and its contrail.
A condensation trail cannot be produced from the jet engines of an aircraft. This is a typical error or propaganda
term to confuse people on the synthetic nature of theses chemical trails.
The term "chemtrail" is correct to designate the aerosolized substance used for clandestine geoengineering purpose.
-
What you posted was a picture of a plane and its contrail.
A condensation trail cannot be produced from the jet engines of an aircraft. This is a typical error or propaganda
term to confuse people on the synthetic nature of theses chemical trails.
The term "chemtrail" is correct to designate the aerosolized substance used for clandestine geoengineering purpose.
"A condensation trail cannot be produced from the jet engines of an aircraft. "
Why not?
Burning jet fuel produces water. it's cold up there and so the water condenses.
(It's not the only mechanism but it's a perfectly reasonable one).
What stops the water formed by combustion condensing out when it meets cold air in much the same way your breath "steams" on a cold day?
The term "imaginary" is correct to designate the aerosolized substance used for clandestine geoengineering purpose.
Unless you can actually show some evidence.
-
You don't know what a contrail is. A contrail is produced from the wingtips of an aircraft. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_vortices
Furthermore calling a "contrail" a persistent high density plume is absurd. No "contrail" or wingtip vortices can persist in the atmosphere.
A "chemtrail" is the correct term to designate what the propaganda (official narrative) defines as a "contrail".
And I guess it's normal for non-scientific people to ignore the proper terminology since disinformation is omnipresent about the science of chemtrails. I'm just disappointed by your overall knowledge of basic science.
-
You don't know what a contrail is. A contrail is produced from the wingtips of an aircraft. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_vortices
Furthermore calling a "contrail" a persistent high density plume is absurd. No "contrail" or wingtip vortices can persist in the atmosphere.
A "chemtrail" is the correct term to designate what the propaganda (official narrative) defines as a "contrail".
And I guess it's normal for non-scientific people to ignore the proper terminology since disinformation is omnipresent about the science of chemtrails. I'm just disappointed by your overall knowledge of basic science.
If you are going to cite wiki, use the right page. It will take you here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail#/media/File:Sq_contrails_ybbn.jpg
where it's clear that the contrails are not at the wingtips.
You have yet to say anything that is backed up by evidence. As such, you have introduced nothing scientific.
How do you feel able to comment on my knowledge of science in these circumstances?
That's a particularly interesting question given how poorly you have grasped science- as witnessed by your postings about zeoltites.
-
If you are going to cite wiki, use the right page. It will take you here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail#/media/File:Sq_contrails_ybbn.jpg
where it's clear that the contrails are not at the wingtips.
Hahahaha. On this "Contrail" page the picture is labelled a "aviaticus cloud"...
Just pathetic disinformation.
Are you finished trolling now?
-
Please learn to read.
What I said was please use the right page.
That's this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
And it takes you to that image.
So it isn't disinformation at all. The problem is your inability to read.
Not patheit, not trolling.
Just you not doing your job.
And, as ever, you have no evidence.
Interstingly, if you google aviaticus cloud it takes you here
http://clouds.wikia.com/wiki/Cirrus_aviaticus?file=Contrail.jpg
where you can see the contrail from each of the 4 engines
-
Only a fool could believe this "cirrus aviaticus" propaganda without any scientific litterature about this "novel" cirrus cloud. The reality is that solar radiation management do alter atmospheric cloud composition.
-
Only a fool would ignore the evidence that they cited themselves.
Do you remember posting a picture of a plane?
You still have no evidence.
-
You're lying. I have said multiple times and posted photographic evidences of clandestine geoengineering activity in this thread and others as well. Why do you want to make this a confrontation ? Research on clandestine geoengineering activity is a scientific duty.
Please stop the lies. I know what a evidence is. I'm only attempting rational discussion about the synthetic nature of chemtrails... Not contrails. I'm not interested in your pseudo-scientific arguments about contrails and the water vapor.
There's no way we can win this battle unless we unite to dig in evidences and find a methodology to stop this non sense.
Bored chemist, I think you're extremely intelligent but unfortunately you need to understand why this battle do concern your attitude regarding chemtrails. Let me know if something changes.
-
This
"Bored chemist, I think you're extremely intelligent but unfortunately you need to understand why this battle do concern your attitude regarding chemtrails." doesn't make sense.
Anyway
You have posted pictures and then claimed that they are chemtrails.
But you have never posted any evidence that they are made from anything but water have you?
So you have not shown that they are anything other than contrails.
So you have not posted evidence of chemtrails.
It's not me being confrontational. I'm just asking you to back up your claim withe evidence.
You are refusing or failing to do so, then calling me a liar.
You have not posted any evidence of chemtrails
Come back when something changes.
-
This
"Bored chemist, I think you're extremely intelligent but unfortunately you need to understand why this battle do concern your attitude regarding chemtrails." doesn't make sense.
Let me help you understand why your attitude and logic regarding clandestine geoengineering activity is quackery. Your pseudoscientific voodoo doesn't help. Water vapor doesn't persist in the atmosphere to create cloud condensation nuclei or a high density plume.
Anyway
You have posted pictures and then claimed that they are chemtrails.
But you have never posted any evidence that they are made from anything but water have you?
So you have not shown that they are anything other than contrails.
So you have not posted evidence of chemtrails.
It's not me being confrontational. I'm just asking you to back up your claim withe evidence.
You are refusing or failing to do so, then calling me a liar.
You have not posted any evidence of chemtrails.
Stop lying. You're being confrontational all the time ignoring everything from scientific litterature to photographic evidences. I know what a evidence is. You don't have any regarding that theses "contrails"
are composed of strictly water vapor. Please don't tell me I don't know what water vapor is.
-
What evidence have you offered that the trails behind aircraft are anything but water (Perhaps a little impure)?
Without that you have offered no evidence of chemtrails (as distinct from contrails)
That's why I say you have not offered any evidence of chemtrails.
Let me know when something changes.
-
Since when aerosolized jet fuel can alter clouds composition? If this was the case, all jets would produces a high density plume suitable for albedo modification. Obviously this is not the case and commercial jets do not emit such cloud condensation nuclei particles. Also, water is not reflective. A contrail do not reflect sunlight.
-
"Also, water is not reflective."
No
Look at clouds.
Also, you seem to have failed to understand that the combustion of jet fuel produces water- rather more than the weight of the fuel.
So you already have a massive supersaturation so you don't need to worry about nucleation.
The different trails produced by different craft are due to different "weather" up there
So, you still have no evidence that the so called "chem trails" are anything but water.
Let me know when something changes.
-
Don't forget the basics. It's called "climate engineering" for a reason. Chemtrails are persistent and visible while contrails are not persistent or visible. The persistence of chemtrails is probably due to partial oxidation of aluminium oxides. Chemtrails will persist for several minutes independently of the weather.
See: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9116
for hints on the use of aluminium oxide nanofibers as substrate for BHA catalysts of methane.
-
Do clouds hang around for more than minutes?
Yes?
Then why say that contrails could not persist for more than minutes? They are the same phenomenon, just caused by a different stimulus...
-
Then why say that contrails could not persist for more than minutes? They are the same phenomenon, just caused by a different stimulus...
Because the proper definition of a contrail is a wingtip vortices: Wingtip vortices don't persist in the atmosphere. Likewise, commercial jets don't emit a high density plume. It is disinformation to pretend such phenomenon is attributable to contrails. Artificial clouds are produced via cloud seeding, not contrails.
-
Don't forget the basics. It's called "climate engineering" for a reason. Chemtrails are persistent and visible while contrails are not persistent or visible. The persistence of chemtrails is probably due to partial oxidation of aluminium oxides. Chemtrails will persist for several minutes independently of the weather.
See: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9116
for hints on the use of aluminium oxide nanofibers as substrate for BHA catalysts of methane.
That's just silly.
This is England. It's common for clouds to hang round all day.
They are persistent.
Why would clouds of very fine water drops condensed from jet exhaust be different?
As I said, you have not shown that the trails are anything but the water produced by combustion.
Until you do that you have no evidence that chemtrails exist, so ascribing properties to them makes no sense.
Come back when you can show that the trails are not water.
-
Chemtrails are definitely not water vapor. Here's why:
- Chemtrails exhibit "chemical clumping" behavior.
- Chemtrails are extruded from the plane.
- In addition, as the picture clearly shows, chemtrails can be switched on and off.
(https://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/chemtrails-on-and-off-exhibits.jpg)
Let me know if you're intelligent enough to admit that chemtrails existence is real.
-
The chemical clumping behavior of a powder is caused by the molecular Van der Walls force:
The clumping behavior of a powder arises because of the molecular Van der Waals force that causes individual grains to cling to one another. Actually, this force is present not just in powders, but in sand and gravel, too. However, in such coarse granular materials the weight and the inertia of the individual grains are much larger than the very weak Van der Waals forces, and therefore the tiny clinging between grains does not have a dominant effect on the bulk behavior of the material. Only when the grains are very small and lightweight does the Van der Waals force become predominant, causing the material to clump like a powder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_(substance)#Mechanical_properties
-
Putting words on a picture isn't evidence.
"chemical clumping" is something quacks have invented.
Stuff that's to do with powders isn't relevant to the gases produced by a jet engine.
The breaks in the contrail are due to the plane passing through areas where the air is at different temperatures and or humidities.
It's quite straightforward physics.
In the real world, it's this sort of thing
http://www.mountain-wave-project.com/images/data/OSTIV_MWP_Wave.jpg
and there's no need for inventing chemtrails to "explain" it.
You still have absolutely no evidence that the trails are anything except water.
-
Chemical clumping is not voodoo science. It is common for aerosols to clump together:
Climatologists typically use another set of labels that speak to the chemical composition. Key aerosol groups include sulfates, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrates, mineral dust, and sea salt. In practice, many of these terms are imperfect, as aerosols often clump together to form complex mixtures. It’s common, for example, for particles of black carbon from soot or smoke to mix with nitrates and sulfates, or to coat the surfaces of dust, creating hybrid particles.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/
As for the "breaks" in the chemtrails, you provided no reasonable evidences to support your hypothesis. The only logical reason is because the pilot can activate or disable the release of the aerosol while in flight. There's no way humidity or temperature could produces this mechanical effect.
Furthermore, if the delivery system would not be a mechanical process activated by the pilots, the aerosols would be released on the ground too... So your theory makes no sense. It is far more reasonable to assert that a chemtrail is released on-demand via a nozzle rather than from the combustion of jet engines.
Please stop the pseudo scientific voodoo now.
All you can prove is that you have very little knowledge on the chemistry of aerosols.
-
http://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/
-
...
There's no way humidity or temperature could produces this mecanical effect.
...
All you can prove is that you have very little knowledge on the chemistry of aerosols.
There's no way humidity or temperature could produces this mecanical effect. "
Yes there is- it's just that you don't know enough about aerosol science to understand it.
Which makes that last bit of your post rather funny.
Also, it only makes sense to talk about particles sticking together when there are actually particles present.
So, why don't you go away and find some evidence that the trails are anything other than water?
-
Your denial is hopeless. The pseudo-scientific voodoo you insist to believe in is a lie. The chemical clumping of chemtrails can be observed and is a hard evidence of the aggregation of the aerosol.
Why do you keep on lying and for whom do you work for?
Why do you think people have fear of chemtrails ?
It's because they know theses are not regular contrails.
So please stop the insanity. The military have carefully prepared the cognitive infiltration about this particular topic and so far I can say the brainwashing is working well for you.
-
I can see that this thread is going nowhere, and looks to be circling dangerously close to ad hominem attacks...
Congrats TK, you have gotten the last word in you win!* This thread is now locked.
*(unless you count this post, in which case I win hahahaha)