Cloud seeding with nano particles? - just ask your kids.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Thank you for your contribution to this thread. Exhaustive quoting is frowned upon on ATS and so I supplied a link which I see you were able to navigate.

Testing done between 1975 and 1980 would not include the current generation of nanos. They are being manufactured and utilized in everything from cosmetics to clothing to health supplements to rocket fuel etc. Those studies were the old; this is the new. When you nano something it's properties do not remain the same as the original or even a micro from the original. They are different and unpredictable. Studies from times in the '60's have no bearing on these created nanos.

Regarding the Weather Modification Inc. Offices: looked like a movie set with some reality check and continuity issues.

The text book PDF can be pulled up from ProudBird's post on page one.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Regarding the jet fuel and the text book being wrong:

The text book is beyond my scope in this thread to correct or question. It is what it is and says what it says.

that's pretty evasive of you - you were the one quoting the text as "evidence"!!

We already know that nano particles are produced by jet engines, and the problems of burning oil entering airconditioning systems on aircraft get publicity every now & then too.

It's pollution - it's bad for you whether it is from jets or cars or smokestacks.

It's not "chemtrails".

If you want to discuss pollution that's fine - but it would probably make it easier to talk about if you didn't associate it with chemtrail junk!

edit on 26-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Here's the quote again from the text book:

The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".

Seems pretty straight forward to me: putting something into the fuel would add particles and provide sunscreen. That's perfectly understandable. Sounds pretty chemtrailish to me. Particles providing sunscreen.

I am discussing pollution - what do you think chemtrails are? I have discussed in this thread a number of different forms of pollution and chemtrails - nano fuel additives, nano kerosene, nano sunscreen and nano silver iodide. The silver iodide nano is the only one in question because it comes prepackaged or pre-tubed or however and so we're not sure what it is that's causing rain, snow, lack of rain, decreasing hail size and getting rid of fog.

I am discussing manufactured nano for specific uses and not nano as a byproduct of pre 1980 activities.

reply to post by luxordelphi


I think chemtrails are a fantasy invented by people fond of hearing their own voices and/or out to scam people into buying thir products, and perpetuated by the gullible, foolish, and lazy.

I've already told you that he caption in the book is simply wrong about how jet engines run - and unless you can actually find any evidence of something being "put into the fuel" to make sunscreen then it is, at best, pure speculation, at worst mischievous or deceitful scaremongering.

You've said above that the book is beyond you to question - in which case why do you quote it as if you know it is authoritative, and why do you argue against those for whom it is NOT beyond question when its errors are pointed out??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I think chemtrails are a fantasy invented by people fond of hearing their own voices and/or out to scam people into buying thir products, and perpetuated by the gullible, foolish, and lazy.

I think chemtrails every time I look at the sky.

I've already told you that he caption in the book is simply wrong about how jet engines run - and unless you can actually find any evidence of something being "put into the fuel" to make sunscreen then it is, at best, pure speculation, at worst mischievous or deceitful scaremongering.

I didn't write the caption. The person I linked to who pointed it out didn't write the caption. A bureaucrat wrote it. Bureaucrats do what they're told. I didn't speculate about sunscreen; just presented what is being presented to children in order to explain the sky. It's kind of similar to the many ever more convoluted fantasies we are told to explain the sky.

You've said above that the book is beyond you to question - in which case why do you quote it as if you know it is authoritative, and why do you argue against those for whom it is NOT beyond question when its errors are pointed out??

I don't write text books. I don't edit text books. I'm not in that loop. I presented evidence of particles from jet exhaust that amazed those testing it. I presented evidence that nano particles are being used in weather modification. I don't consider anything virtual authoritative and am highly skeptical of propaganda machine information which text books are. I am also skeptical of hard copy that wasn't produced before the mid-'90's. There are a lot of fairy tales to explain current heavenly sights. Most of them are in the science books of our time.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Here's the quote again from the text book:

The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".

Seems pretty straight forward to me: putting something into the fuel would add particles and provide sunscreen. That's perfectly understandable. Sounds pretty chemtrailish to me. Particles providing sunscreen.

Your reading comprhension sucks. Jet engines do put things into the air. It's called exhaust. The item from the book talks about having more exhaust. It's been pointed out by people with more aviation experience than myself that this is incorrect.
The proper comprehension is that a richer exhaust would produce more particles than a cleaner burn. Not that something is added. It's something that a 4th grader would be able to understand and why reading comprehension has it's own sections in scholastic testing.
"Chemtrailish"??? Really?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
What's new (but not really) is nano particles being used to seed clouds. Nano particles are super super tiny and can go places that no other particles have ever gone. Our bodies have a lot of mechanisms to fight invaders but these are just too small and can get into the brain and organs. Nano particles are so strange that they don't behave like the normal size or even micro size particles made of the same stuff. They are completely different and unpredictable and unknown. It's just all one big giant experiment to see what happens.

What is new is not nano-particles being used to seed clouds, but the use, overuse, and incorrect use of the adjective "nano". Nano is simply a description of a size (it means 1 billionth, or 10 to the -9th), like saying something is so many pounds, ounces, or grams. While there are manufactured uses of those particles now, and the technology to produce them enmass and finely tuned to the correct size (and configuration of molecules, like buckyballs), particles in the size classification "nano" have always been there. Before we began labeling them "nano" we all just said "very, very small."

Luxordelphi, a few threads started by you recently have been based upon information that was later shown, in an entirely fair and objective manner, to be either incorrect, or not what you (had been led to?) believe.

I am curious, Does this recent track record not make you wonder 'what if this whole theory is actually misplaced'?

I am struggling to find fault with the corrections posted by others, but the faults in the original material you are sourcing are being made obvious quite quickly.

If this does not at all shake your belief in the Chemtrail theory, can you give something tangible as to why?

Talking about these nano particles and what they may or may not do is all interesting speculation, but given that the root of all Chemtrail theory is simply the long white lines in the sky, and you yourself say that all you need to convince you is to look upwards, can you explain that in plain terms and without any cryptic allusions?

What is is that you see when you look up that is not normal, that is not what he rest of us are seeing?

Before complicating the theory with theoretical possibilities would you strip it right back to its roots and try to provide a building block that everything else can sit on?

From my perspective even that basic tenet is completely missing. Enlighten me. You may not convince me, but I may 'get' your position.

I didn't write the caption. The person I linked to who pointed it out didn't write the caption. A bureaucrat wrote it.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Bureaucrats do not write textbooks. The pages given your attention are not part of the curriculum, they are an extra section, designed to deal with new topics and critical thinking. It discusses many options and plans to deal with the problem. It's not teaching about "chemtrails", it doesn't show "chemtrails", and given it's a science book, nothing within it's covers (and I have the entire book) goes along with the supposed "chemtrail" indoctrination agenda.
It teaches about science, not pseudoscience.
It uses facts, not conjecture.
It invites kids to learn and think for themselves, not blindly accept some theory formulated on the internet for people who have decided to do neither.

reply to post by luxordelphi

I think chemtrails every time I look at the sky.

Thats your problem right there. Confimation bias is not confirmation, no matter how much faith you have.

It's kind of similar to the many ever more convoluted fantasies we are told to explain the sky.

Oh, please, by all means elaborate. I'm all ears.

I'll even help you out and supply some "convoluted fantasies" told to us, my apologies if you actually made the video though.

reply to post by ZombieJesus


I love this video even more than the "Sprinkler Rainbow Conspiracy" lady (who I've researched a bit and know she has a problem, and isn't just parroting drivel). I've got the 1905 book of clouds with all these listed, and have been told by no less than 5 people that the book is faked.
The people who haven't studied or remembered science in school also seem to not realize that Orwell wrote fiction. Thought-provoking fiction, but still fiction.

reply to post by stars15k


Ahh, the rainbow lady, I remember that, but seeing that she does in fact have problems I'll refrain from stating anything regarding her.

I can't believe that you have had 5 people claim the Cloud book is faked. So the "chemtrail" conspiracy started just 2 years after the first succesful manned flight? The reasons you have stated above is why I have been avoiding chemtrail threads.

Cognitive dissonance just gets to exhausting to argue with, at least for me.

reply to post by waynos


Thanks for taking 8 paragraphs to say nothing. If I could remember the quote from Horace about being brief so as not to weigh down the tired ears I'd give it to you. I am curious too. Why not just let the thread die if everything has been so satisfactorily proven? Or disproved?

And just to clue you in: looking up would be considered tangible. Your 8 paragraphs would be considered intangible.

I started this thread to discuss lab created nano particles being used as jet fuel or at least as a lead-in to that. I started it because 'green bio-jet fuel' sounds like a tree huggers' dream, but the truth leads down a long dark hole. Bio-fuels were not cost efficient before the introduction of lab created nanos. To the other poster who trivialized the impact and implication of this technology: how about down to one atom? How about an invisible cloud of that stuff descending on you and entering your brain?

Why don't you all look up the tests that have been done and the ongoing flights from the air force and commercial sector using green bio-jet fuel? A fuel that requires no engine modifications of any kind. The technology is, in the scheme of things, even in the human scheme of things, brand new. It is impacting our earth, our climate, our soil, our water and our sky in ways that are not understood and unpredictable.

Am I the best person, the most qualified person, to talk about this and bring forward a discussion - no. But I am the one doing it.

Dear Detractors: timing is everything. Next time wait till I finish posting and then your comments should make more sense. Good luck!

reply to post by ZombieJesus


Same here. This is the first "chemtrail" commentary I've made in months. Contrary to believer's contention otherwise, I'm just a housewife from Indiana. With a brain geared toward logical scientific thought. And a finely tuned, always on bulls#!+ometer.
It was getting ridiculous....nothing new ever was introduced by believer's, they just keep rehashing the same old theories, stories, and inaccuracies. It was getting boring.
And I have all kinds of more productive things to do.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
[
I didn't write the caption. The person I linked to who pointed it out didn't write the caption.

But you choose to use it as evidence - you believe it, support it and propagate it to try to prove your own point.

A bureaucrat wrote it. Bureaucrats do what they're told.

where did you ge that bit of "evidence" from??

the authors are:

Deborah White; Stephen Haberer; Bob Ritter; Alan J Hirsch; Jim Wiese; Ted Gibb; Steven White; Nancy Dalgarno Alldred.

- from here

You will find these people also authoring other science texts - eg Nelson Science & Technology 7 - Nelson being a private publisher of educational texts in Canada..

Seems to me the evidence points to the authors are private contractors/authors engaged by various organisations - what is your evidence they are "Bureaucrats", and/or that they "take orders" from someone, and who that "someone" may be, and for whatever it is you think else is going on with this 1 text out of all those that exist covering this subject...???

I don't write text books. I don't edit text books. I'm not in that loop.

Again - you present them as evidence, then you cannot beg off responsibility for supporting the content as accurate without actually saying so.

I presented evidence of particles from jet exhaust that amazed those testing it.

which speaks to the ignorance of those amazed rather than any conspiracy

I presented evidence that nano particles are being used in weather modification.

Which has been known about for at least 45 years - and and "nanoparticles" have been made by engine exhausts since engines existed, and nano particles are also created by "nature" - from volcanic eruptions, from blowing dust - the atmosphere is loaded with nano-particles (5mb pdf dpownload) and always has been, in vastly greater ammounts than weather modification (cloud seeding) creates.

And of course weather modification/cloud seeding particles are designed to become the nucleus of precipitation - so they try to get as many of them as possible to create large drops/stones/flakes that dall from the sky, thus no longer being blown in the atmopshere at all!!

I don't consider anything virtual authoritative

all your own evidence has been "virtual" - why do you consider IT "authoritative"???!!!

There are a lot of fairy tales to explain current heavenly sights. Most of them are in the science books of our time.

Most of them are on chemtrail fantasy sites - 1 textbook has 1 reference - that does not make "most" of anything!!

Cloud seeding with nano particles? - just ask your kids.

Please post to the topic.

ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by waynos

 

I started this thread to discuss lab created nano particles being used as jet fuel or at least as a lead-in to that.

i thought it was about "nano-particles" in cloud seeding??

& the fuel thing came about later because of that textbook so is a bit incidental......

I started it because 'green bio-jet fuel' sounds like a tree huggers' dream, but the truth leads down a long dark hole. Bio-fuels were not cost efficient before the introduction of lab created nanos.

My apologies for contributing to the thread hijack into fuel instead of cloud seeding - but AFAIK jet biofuels make no particular use of nano technology, and are still not actually cost effective at all wikthout tax advantages - see Aviation biofuel. If hte price of oil continues to increase they will become cost effective - but the production process being used to create them do not rely in any nano-technology that I can see, & have all been in use for decades - cracking, Fischer-Tropsch, etc.

the growing of the algae itself may use some forom of nano-technology - I don't know - but it is a long way from the fuel itself.

Why don't you all look up the tests that have been done and the ongoing flights from the air force and commercial sector using green bio-jet fuel? A fuel that requires no engine modifications of any kind.

Because it is not chemically different from "normal" jet fuel in any way - it is the same hydrocarbons as you get from out of the ground - nothing "nano" about it.

The technology is, in the scheme of things, even in the human scheme of things, brand new. It is impacting our earth, our climate, our soil, our water and our sky in ways that are not understood and unpredictable.

Growing algae to make hydrocarbons may be new technology - but the algae themselves are age old and "merely" adapted to our purpose and "farmed" - their product is fuel - which is NOT "new technology"

Am I the best person, the most qualified person, to talk about this and bring forward a discussion - no. But I am the one doing it.

and showing a particularly poor understanding of what you are talking about I am sorry to say - you are doing little or no research yourself, no critical thinking whatsoever - you are parroting lines others have created, and imagining things that make no sense and/or are easy to explain.

You have been polite and well tempered - thank you for that - but, seriously, you could apply more critical thinking to your concepts & save yuorself a lot of angst.