Busting a hoax before it happens... - Fake ash cloud created for new plane equipment tests

reply to post by luxordelphi

I think I've made my point. $2.6 billion was lost because airspace over Europe was shut down for 3 days. The motto "Never Again!!" prompted eco-terrorism tests and will in future "OKAY" flights through volcanic ash. There's really not much more to it than that.

And why was it shut down for those three days, oh that's right because of the volcanic ash in the air.

Now if they had a camera that would let them know where this ash is and it can be avoided then the air traffic would have been able to resume.

You talk about it being all about the money, well guess what genius if they don't fly they don't make money, so why not find a way to keep passengers safe and and the profits coming in.

Look a dead passenger can't fly on a plane that can't fly so they have to keep them both safe. Is that hard to understand?

You seem to be arguing just to argue, why?

reply to post by luxordelphi


Could you please explain what horrible affects this test has done and how you came to that conclusion?
I am not interested in the financial aspects, but more of the detrimental affects to the eco-system.

Thanks

Metaphysique
really? and since when is the OP the authority beyond all appeal and dispute here?

or you for that matter?

the op is [re]setting the goalposts and defining the terms.

that's not how it works, except for religious fanatics of course.

and no, you did not think gaul, you lapped up unquestioning.

I'm not sure how the OP could be moving the goalposts in his OP. He "set" the goalposts, but did not "move" them -- i.e., he wanted to give an explanation as to what this video is about before other nefarious people potentially re-purpose the video in an attempt to claim it is something else ("Leaked video of black ops chemtrails!" or something like that).

The OP made a statement that the material being released in that video is volcanic ash for the purpose of testing the ash's effect on plane engines (ash can be a real problem, and could cause engines to fail in-flight).

How has he moved the goal posts? He hasn't changed his assertion as to what he thinks the material being released is, nor what purpose he maintains that the material is being released.

reply to post by luxordelphi

This dangerous test was not about the safety of planes and passengers. During the eruption of E., airspace was closed. The ash was determined to be the kind that will sandpaper a windshield and melt and coat the inside of an engine. Nobody crashed. No one was endangered. Because the air space containing this fine ash was closed.

Here you may like this...

www.newscientist.com...

Do you still think it isn't about the safety of plane and passengers?

network dude
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Could you please explain what horrible affects this test has done and how you came to that conclusion?
I am not interested in the financial aspects, but more of the detrimental affects to the eco-system.

Thanks

Yes. There are problems with the ash from E. that go beyond what was reported for public consumption. Initially it was thought that snow melt had created a composite effect and triggered explosive behavior from a volcano that had not behaved that way in the past.

Then when G. erupted under the same snow melt conditions and was not explosive, it was back to the drawing board. It was then determined that there was another, deeper magma chamber which (supposedly) contained the requisite silica for explosion and that this had somehow made its' way to the surface for the initial explosion. It's an explanation, certainly, but leaves a lot unexplained.

The ash (ash here is not like fireplace ash - it is primarily silica, sand) was very tiny and jagged. It remained tiny and jagged even when immersed in water for some time. When it got together and created larger clumps (there is safety in larger clumps because they are not so respirable) it was still subject to breaking apart again into the very tiny jagged pieces.

The best way to understand this is with asbestos. The tiny pieces and the shape of the pieces are so detrimental to health that there is no safe level of exposure. That means that even one tiny piece is too much.

The ton of ash that was dumped into the Bay of Biscay was from E. and contained these jagged tiny pieces because that is what the test was set up to measure.

reply to post by luxordelphi

When a volcano erupts it throws out a lot of ash. At short notice this ash can be very harmful to the environment, but on the long term the ash layer, which contains many useful minerals will be converted to a very fertile soil. The main good effect that volcanoes have on the environment is to provide nutrients to the surrounding soil. Volcanic ash contains minerals that are beneficial to plants, and if it is very fine ash it is able to break down quickly and get mixed into the soil.

source

I guess the main good effect that volcanoes have on the environment is to provide nutrients to the surrounding soil. Volcanic ash often contains minerals that are beneficial to plants, and if it is very fine ash it is able to break down quickly and get mixed into the soil.

Perhaps the best place to look for more information about this would be to look up references about some of the countries where lots of people live in close proximity to volcanoes and make use of the rich soils on volcanic flanks. These would include Indonesia, The Philippines, Japan, Italy, etc.

source

And lastly:

Silica sand is one of the most common varieties of sand found in the world. It is used for a wide range of applications, and can be purchased from various suppliers throughout the world. Silica sand is used in industrial processing, to make glass, as fill, and to create molds and castings.

source

Could you please explain this away for me?

reply to post by network dude


Really the main mystery about the Eyjafjallajokull explosion, to me, was where did the extra silica come from. But you bring up a good point - a point which leads to another mystery - the mystery of why the powdery ash from Eyjafjallajokull didn't break down and because of that stayed suspended so long. The answer to that is conjecture but here is a link which is not a study (like the one I previously put up) but is an article on the ash.

Iceland Volcano Ash Pics Vindicate Airspace Shutdown

Last comment first:

The research shows that volcanoes don’t always play by the rule book, says Andronico.

So this is a clue that there was something unusual about the 2010 explosion of Eyjafjallajokull.

The studies came hot and heavy because the shutting down of airspace (and the attendant loss of revenues) had to be justified to quell corporate outcry.

The most detailed visual study yet of volcanic ash from last year’s Icelandic eruption reveals just how sharp, abrasive and potentially dangerous the particles were.

Stipp and her colleagues dunked the ash particles in water, as might happen in a flood, and watched as tiny bits of salt washed away.

The researchers kept washing the ash, but even after being stirred around in water for two weeks it kept its sharp edges, Stipp says. “The particles remain extremely sharp even after they’ve been grinding against each other.”

Ash that was produced right after Eyjafjallajökull exploded on April 14 was more abrasive than the sample collected 12 days later, and was also smaller and more powdery, the team found. Many of the explosive ash bits glommed onto larger particles — suggesting that scientists may have underestimated the fraction made of particles less than 10 micrometers across, a limit often used to mark a breathing hazard.

Another upcoming study supports the idea that Eyjafjallajökull’s ash clumps together. In a paper to appear in Geology, Jacopo Taddeucci of Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology and colleagues describe ash from the final days of the eruption in May 2010. Even then, Eyjafjallajökull was spitting out both sharp, dense fragments and more fragile, irregularly shaped ones, says team member Daniele Andronico, also at the Italian institute.

Ash sometimes clumped together in aggregates, the team found. On hitting the ground, these aggregates broke apart into a cloud of smaller particles, dropping more particles than expected.

Silica that doesn't absorb water is a manipulated (made in the lab) item as a part of, for instance, a substance called zeolite (I think that's the right name.) This substance is made from rice husk ash, in part, which is 95% silica. It is used in, for instance, concrete (today's advanced concrete as in advanced composite) partly because of this non-absorption property. I think that was your thought - if silica is so common, where's the danger. Some of it, today, is not common and has uncommon properties when mixed with other uncommon substances.

reply to post by luxordelphi


There are plenty of articles and papers about the properties of E's ash - some of them note the nature of eth ash changed over the days of the eruption.

There is no "one size fits all" for volcanic ash -

The types of minerals present in volcanic ash are dependent on the chemistry of the magma from which it was erupted. Considering that the most abundant elements found in magma are silica (SiO2) and oxygen, the various types of magma (and therefore ash) produced during volcanic eruptions are most commonly explained in terms of their silica content. Low energy eruptions of basalt produce a characteristically dark coloured ash containing ~45 - 55% silica that is generally rich in iron (Fe) and magnesium (Mg). The most explosive rhyolite eruptions produce a felsic ash that is high in silica (>69%) while other types of ash with an intermediate composition (e.g., andesite or dacite) have a silica content between 55-69%.

the biggest use of zyolites is in production of laundry detergents.

There is also an active use of it making money from chemtrail and other CT beleivers

reply to post by luxordelphi


What I kept seeing was how the ash was actually great for the environment in the sense that it was like a natural fertilizer of compost. It was harmful to humans as it covers the area and can cause roofs to collapse. But the long term affects were positive. And I know you use silica sand to strip paint using a sand blaster, mainly because silica sand is the most abrasive.

It almost seemed as if you thought the ash they sprayed was toxic or something. It was a very small amount compared to the ash that was deposited in the air by that volcano. I was just trying to understand your outrage over it. I guess I still am. But thanks for answering my question.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


No. I looked it up. It wasn't zyolite, it was, as I said, zeolite.

What had happened was that I was on the hunt for the missing silica from this volcano and came across this:

The ash of Eyjafjallajokull

If you look at the images toward the bottom of the article, you will see a component of this ash magnified many times. The author of this article wonders what this could be. It looked familiar in a vague sort of way. And I found that familiarity here:

Untitled

And here is a further description of what this zeolite is:

Rice Husk Ash

Rice husk ash (RHA) is a good alternative source for the production of zeolite since it contains more than 95% silica. The content of silica and carbon in rice husk were varied depending on combustion temperature, thus varies the properties of zeolite produced...

So...are you saying that chemtrail advocates changed the name of zeolite to zyolite and introduced it into the Eyjafjallajokull ash? Trying to stay with you here as you leap between absurdities because I understand the frustration that drives this.

(The concrete connection I'll leave for another time!) (Although you might start thinking of concrete falling from the sky - like in Russia - from cloud seeding efforts.)

reply to post by luxordelphi


no - I just misread what I was reading - sorry.

The reference to soap production is for zeolite, not zyolite.

And because I made that mistake I wondered if there is any connection between zeolite and chemtrails - and guess what!!??

and here for chelation

and on yt -



And at Chemtrailsdetox

and many more

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Just be quiet and take my money!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


And again, remind me who stands to gain by pushing the chemtrail hoax?

Perhaps we should offer some "detoxification" products to cleanse potential chemtrails from the system. We could re-label some vitamin C tablets and triple the price. And it actually would be beneficial. Early retirement?