The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What are the consequences of being sprayed with barium and aluminium?  (Read 14109 times)

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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
« Last Edit: 12/08/2016 11:37:49 by tkadm30 »
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Thanks for your help, Bored chemist.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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?
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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).
 
Quote from: Bored chemist
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   
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: 13/08/2016 14:13:17 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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.

 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
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!
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
Thank you for serving me my daily dose of naked deception... I was hoping to have a open minded discussion about chemtrails with you.





 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile

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.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


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.


 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: 21/08/2016 21:41:44 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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.

 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile


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)
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware
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.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
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.
 

Offline tkadm30

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 922
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • IsotopeSoftware

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?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length