• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chemtrails again

Swing Dangler said:
You agree then their are ongoing chemical dispersion operations taking place to either control the weather or combat global warming?
Click to expand...
Try to realize that most people here see through your attempts to conflate known and relatively small-scale attempts at weather modification, and investigations into contrails' effect on climate, with some sort of massive, secret "dispersion operations taking place to either control the weather or combat global warming". They are not the same thing, and we've seen this tactic many times before.

I will ask you the same thing I asked tippit: Where is your evidence for such a massive, secret campaign? How exactly would you distinguish such from ordinary contrails?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Just a quick sanity check, EMH: should we infer that you're undecided on chemtrails? Or did you mis-type the words "Swing, chemtrails are a totally insane idea"?

Dave
Click to expand...

No, I am not undecided on chemtrails. Sorry for the accidentally noncommittal language. Here's a better, more direct way to put it:

The chemtrail myth is full of :rule10

I've been shown no evidence exists that the government sprays the skies at all. Swing referred to a document - "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" - that discusses the desireability (from the Air Force's point of view) to try and modify weather, but as we know from Northwoods, there's a huge gulf between discussion and actual implementation, not to mention the fact that this paper reads like a "pie-in-the-sky" proposal rather than an actual operational document (I'll let the AF folks here discuss that if they want). And Tippit's discussion about how some contrails are different than others are simply unsupported.

The reason I put together that clumsy statement that way was partially because I was just doing it off the cuff, but also because I was transitioning to the idea of talking about jet exhaust "contrails" as polluting (i.e. "... dunno if chemtrails are deliberately sprayed chemicals, but I grudgingly guess you can say they're jet exhaust if you ditch the other parts of the fantasy... and quit calling it a plot...). If that was the direction the discussion was going, then yes, it's a concern. An everyday, mundane concern about pollution rather than an "OMIGOD CHEMTRAILS" level of alarm, but a concern nonetheless. Turns out the discussion went elsewhere (back to the conspiracy myth... imagine that), but I felt I had to allow for it.

No, I'm not going woo on us. And c'mon... If I went off the deep end, you think I'd use this as my fantasy of choice?? :eye-poppi
 
Swing Dangler said:
Chemicals sprayed from jets that happen to land on the human population. I don't think it is deliberately done to the population. IMHO it is for weather control or to combat global warming.
Click to expand...
If this were true, "they" would be trumpeting their successful resolution of the climate change issue in every news media available. "They" wouldn't be keeping it secret.

Remember, voters like it when you do good things! Especially when there's no taxes needed to pay for it. (Apparently these climate control "pellets" are free).

Or do you think "they" are spraying "pellets" to make the climate change issue worse? Because that is something "they" would definitely keep secret. Suicidal (omnicidal?) bureaucrats are relatively disliked by the electorate.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
An everyday, mundane concern about pollution rather than an "OMIGOD CHEMTRAILS" level of alarm, but a concern nonetheless. Turns out the discussion went elsewhere (back to the conspiracy myth... imagine that), but I felt I had to allow for it.
Click to expand...
And at the university in my town, the curriculum in the atmospheric chemistry department includes consideration of jet exhaust. That would be all jet exhaust--not just the ones creating visible trails.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
SO what do these chemicals do?
Click to expand...

Red chemtrails burn the eyes, green obscures the vision and causes discomfort, blue induces sleep, yellow paralyzes, and black blinds, sometimes on the span of several weeks.

*wonders if anybody will get the reference*
 
robinson said:
Yep, but they are regulated now, and instead of lead and other serious crap we only get a mild dose of carcinogens from cars and trucks.
Click to expand...

Aircraft are just as regulated in that regard. It's not like they're burning old school leaded gasoline in aircraft. Turbine engines don't knock like gasoline piston engines do, and don't require fuel additives to support some arbitrarily high compression ratio to get their efficiency. The fact that they still burn quite a lot of fuel per passenger mile is another issue, but it's not fundamentally different from people driving cars.

(well, except that aircraft leave contrails that change how much light hits the earth, and they put their pollution directly into the mid to upper-ish atmosphere, for what that gets 'ya.)

If somebody wants to foot the bill to have themselves hurtled across the country at five hundred miles and hour, thirty thousand feet in the air, it's not much different from someone driving an incredibly powerful and fuel-hungry car to get places. There exist emissions standards for both classes of vehicle. I am, admittedly, unsure as to how they stack up in comparison.

If you think it's the government's job to regulate how much stuff somebody can burn to get from place to place, then by all means, vote for someone of like mind, or run for office yourself. It is, of course, more or less a good idea; as it really shouldn't take that much fuel to get from place to place. regulating such, however, does cost people convenience and/or entertainment.
 
Actually, passenger planes burn between 0.020 and 0.045 liters per seat per kilometer, depending on type. A fairly fuel-hungry car (10km/l), like your average SUV, burns 0.025. So, provided all seats are full, planes are slightly worse than cars, but if a single person wants to get across a continent, it is certainly better to take a plane than driving alone in a car, provided the plane has most seats occupied.

Taking a train would, of course, be by far the best option, pollution-wise (about four times better).

Hans
 
http://www.areco.org/FuelEssay.pdf

Aviation is responsible for emissions of nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide,
naphthalene, benzene, benzo[a]pyrene, formaldehyde and dust particles to mention but a
few. These chemicals may affect the body in various ways depending on the mode of
transmission, for example, naphthalene may dissolve from the air into the lacrimal
secretions of the eye. The eye may be a target organ as a result of its external position in
the organism and direct exposure. Exposure of the eye to naphthalene may damage the
lens and trigger the process of cataract formation. Naphthalene is also toxic to the lung
when inhaled. It is metabolised by cytochrome P-450 in Clara cells (non-ciliated
bronchiolar epithelial cells) to a cytotoxic epoxide intermediate. This epoxide is then able
to bind to DNA forming an adduct which distorts the macromolecular structure of the
DNA and hence its ability to function correctly. This change causes carcinogenicity of
the pulmonary cells.
Another common pollutant of combustion of aviation fuel is nitrogen dioxide. This has
been said to be found in the air in increased levels up to a 20 mile radius away from most
major airports. Nitrogen dioxide can cause peroxidation of cellular membranes causing
direct damage to cells of the respiratory tract as airbourne particles. This damage to the
cellular membranes in the upper airways (trachea or bronchi) can cause a change in
permeability and extensive oedema. When this is coupled to the irritant affect of sulphur-
dioxide and dust particles, also present in aviation fuel pollution, lung function may be
compromised. If considering a patient with an underlying condition such as a child with
asthma, lung function may be dangerously compromised. The sulphur-dioxide and dust
particle irritants may cause an allergic asthmatic response causing IgE mediated
inflammation and sympathetic constriction of the airways. A Swedish study looked at the
effect of NO2 exposure
and wheezing rhinitis and found a link between increased NO2 levels
over a day care centre and the symptoms suffered by the patients living there (Pershegan et al 1995).

This would suggest that people living in the surrounding area of
an airport with increased levels of NO2 due to the combustion
of aviation fuel would also suffer more frequent symptoms of
wheezing rhinitis than the general population.

It as been noted that in addition to the obvious effects on the lung of airbourne pollutants
there are also many systemic effects seen in people exposed to air pollution such as that
created by combustion of aviation fuel. The American Heart Association carried out
research to try and find an explanation for general extrapulmonary effects of pollution by
particulate matter. Pollution by particulates has been consistently associated with
increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the mechanisms responsible
for this have never been well exemplified.

In this experiment the American Heart Association labelled carbon particles with 99m Technetium .
Radioactivity was detected in the blood at 1 minute and reached a maximum concentration between 10 and 20 minutes
and remained at this level until 60 minutes.
Gamma camera images showed substantial
radioactivity over the liver and other areas of the body. This seems to account for the
hepatotxicity and other systemic toxicity caused by some pollutants. The pollutants seem
to be taken up in the lung where the majority of the pollutants cause cytotoxic damage, eg
benzo[a]pyrene and napthylene and then pass rapidly into the circulatory system due to
the fact that the lungs receive 100% of the cardiac output. Pollutants, notably carbon
particles as in this experiment, and other membrane permeable airbourne pollutants are
then free to pass into vascularised organs, for example the liver and kidneys. This goes
some way to explain the systemic effects of some airbourne pollutants.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I guess I killed another thread.

I'm watching full sky contrails form today. The weather is right for them. It is noon, and already an overcast is forming.

The military traffic is filling in one altitude, the commercial traffic another. Cross traffic is at another altitude, and it is making a pattern, again, the pilots are either avoiding the contrails, or the wind is blowing them.

For someone who is ignorant of physics, it could look like a deliberate event. It is not.

It is just air traffic.
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
.......
For someone who is ignorant of physics, it could look like a deliberate event. It is not.

It is just air traffic.
Click to expand...
Just shhhhhh! I am sitting on a gross of Kinoki[SIZE=-1] Foot Pads[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]®[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] and I think I have found the perfect target market. [/SIZE]
 
robinson said:
I guess I killed another thread.

I'm watching full sky contrails form today. The weather is right for them. It is noon, and already an overcast is forming.

The military traffic is filling in one altitude, the commercial traffic another. Cross traffic is at another altitude, and it is making a pattern, again, the pilots are either avoiding the contrails, or the wind is blowing them.

For someone who is ignorant of physics, it could look like a deliberate event. It is not.

It is just air traffic.
Click to expand...

Chemtrails not pollution! Have you missed the point?

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/index.htm

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/How_To_Stop_Chemtrails.htm

If you like to comment on chemtrails learn more and try again.

Start a pollution thread in science or something, but this is about CTs of chemtrails made up by idiots; some to sell books to idiots and some pure dumb.

You did not kill the thread you are not discussing the OP! You posted off topic pollution junk for politics, or science, or who noes…
 
robinson said:
Oh please.
Click to expand...
But wait, the paper you cited, it has potential. Oh please? You may of found some nut case environmentalist (but even so, you could start your own thread how some people exaggerate their case to get their ideas; this is a kind of CT; oh yea). But still, most your posts ignore the primary topic of the OP. Pure nut case chemtrail stuff, nozzles and spraying to control the world; or make money selling the DVDs, and books to total idiots. Oops, better hide mine.

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/How_To_Stop_Chemtrails.htm

You know the more I read your web site you posted, the more they sound like the chemtrail guys. At least you tried to talk about chemtrails and found a group who is kind of like the nuts.
 
Don't be dumb. Pointing out the real reason for contrails, how they work what they are like, as well as explaining what is in them, is debunking the CT about chemtrails.

Which is on topic, and effective.
 
Tippit said:
I'm not going to get into your pedantic argument about what a contrail should or shouldn't look like. It's obvious to me when a plane is spraying, and when it isn't.

Contrails don't linger for hours, and then dissipate into long hazy trails forming large grid patterns. I actually stood outside and observed multiple planes flying in criss-crossing patterns, they were obviously not commercial planes even though they were at very high altitude, because we don't usually get much air traffic here.

In contrast, I saw a contrail a week or so later, and it was no longer than perhaps 20-30 lengths of the plane itself, and quickly dissipated under the same conditions.

I made a photobucket of this spraying, it's important to realize that the skies were clear blue before the planes began.

http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/Tippit_photos/Chemtrails/

I'm not contending they're spraying some sort of mass depopulation agent, I'm saying, they're spraying something and I haven't given any consent.
Click to expand...
Oh, gawd. Tippit, contrails have been existing ever since we started using high altitude planes, which means the middle 1930ties. During WW2, the skies over Europe were zebra stribed with contrails from the bomber streams. These days, you see them in every corner of the world. How'z that for a conspiracy? Worldwide and 60+ years.

The time a contrail lasts depends on the conditions of the moment at the altitude where it is. You may see two planes that seem to fly in the same altitude at the same time, and one makes a lasting contrail, the other only a short one. But only a small change in altitude may make all the difference.

It gets worse, however: Actually spraying an aerosol (or a powder, for that matter) doesn't look like that at all. Stand on a high place, back to the wind and spray from a spray-can (hair laquer is cheap and relatively harmlss), downwind. Do you see a long white stribe drifting towards the horizon? No, you see a fan of quickly dispersing mist. Actually much more like the thing you agree are contrails.

Chemtrail article here (shameless plug): http://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic/contrails.htm

Hans
 
robinson said:
Contrails, Chemtrails, either way you don't want to breathe them.
Click to expand...
However, that is mainly because they tend to form at 30,000 ft, at temperatures below -50 deg C. You don't want to try to breathe there at all.

Hans
 
Swing Dangler said:
Chemicals sprayed from jets that happen to land on the human population. I don't think it is deliberately done to the population. IMHO it is for weather control or to combat global warming.

Why do you think there would not be chemical spraying operations to combat global warming or in attempt to control or modify the weather as per the U.S. Airforce Force Multiplier paper?

I'm curious as to why the opposition to such operations?
Click to expand...

Because they have not told us about them, and they could not be kept secret. Look at this little calculation:

Area length (km) :4000
Area width (km) :2000
Coverings pr. week:1
Track spacing (km):3
Effectivity:0,50
Flight speed (kph):900
Operative days/year:300
Hours per shift:10
Shifts per day:2
Aircrew size:3
Ground crew size:7
Fuel consumption (l/km):16
Kilometers per annum:277333333
Flight hours:308148
No. of planes:51
Manpower:2157
Total fuel (tons):3697778

This is the logistics for spraying just the US, once a week. It would require a medium-sized airline. Only, this stuff goes on over the entire planet. You couldn't hide an operation like this for ten minutes. You couldn't even get through the planning phase before somebody spilled the beans, and the media would be all over you.

Hans
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom