It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!
page: 8share:
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
Did you just join to troll this thread?
If you're suggesting that the soot, metal and sulfur particles are the chemtrails, you'd be wrong.
If this were the case then we'd see contrails (or chemtrails) from EVERY jet ALL the time.
I've also never said that these pollutants aren't bad.
Factories and the like are worse:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Did you just join to troll this thread?
If you're suggesting that the soot, metal and sulfur particles are the chemtrails, you'd be wrong.
If this were the case then we'd see contrails (or chemtrails) from EVERY jet ALL the time.
I've also never said that these pollutants aren't bad.
Factories and the like are worse:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
Did you just join to troll this thread?
Don't call me a troll just because you have debunked yourself.
I took drummer dudes advice and looked up vehicle exhaust.
A study to characterize particulate matter emissions from 195 in-use gasoline and diesel passenger vehicles was conducted during the summer of 1996 and the winter of 1997 in the Denver, Colorado region. Vehicles were tested as received on chassis dynamometers using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS). Both PM-10 and regulated emissions were measured for each phase of the UDDS. Approximately 88% of the PM-10 collected was carbonaceous material, of which the average organic fraction was 0.7 for gasoline vehicles and 0.4 for diesel vehicles. This suggests that the organic carbon (OC) to elemental carbon (EC) split may be useful in separating light-duty gasoline from diesel PM emissions. Sulfate emission rates averaged 0.45 and 3.51 mg/mi for gasoline and diesel vehicles, indicating that the EPA's mobile emissions model overpredicts sulfate emission rates. Elements identified by X-ray fluorescence averaged between 3 and 9% of the PM-10 mass.
pubs.acs.org...
Hmm, no metals in stated in that study. Still, we need to address vehicle pollution too. Thought we did, with catalytic converters, until I read the recent thread here on ATS.
From you own OP, the jet exhaust is much, much more toxic. And there is 6000+ planes flying over the US alone at any one time.
So, the debate is about Chemtrails, which are from aircraft. Please, don't sidestep the subject by comparing them to other vehicles.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
Well cars, buses, trucks and motorbikes make chemtrails too then...
Don't confuse pollutants with the supposed poisoning done by chemtrails.
Ah, but because car, bus, truck and bike exhaust fumes pollute the air at ground level in temperatures above -35c and therefore don't form the nuclei for crystals of deadly dihydrogen monoxide, no-one notices them and we're therefore quite happy to breathe in the poisons .....
Ironic innit
Originally posted by Essan
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
Well cars, buses, trucks and motorbikes make chemtrails too then...
Don't confuse pollutants with the supposed poisoning done by chemtrails.
Ah, but because car, bus, truck and bike exhaust fumes pollute the air at ground level in temperatures above -35c and therefore don't form the nuclei for crystals of deadly dihydrogen monoxide, no-one notices them and we're therefore quite happy to breathe in the poisons .....
Ironic innit
You do realize that every droplet of visible water in a chemtrail requires a particles of soot, or metal to attach to, right?
So, 17%+ of that visible trail, which magically expands into cloud cover, is metals, which are extremely toxic to human.
Please, explain how a highly engineered machine (jet engine) is producing 17% (plus aluminum). What is wearing, that is creating all the metal in the exhaust? 17% (plus aluminum) is a HUGE amount.
[edit on 28-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]
Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Hmm, no metals in stated in that study.
From you own OP, the jet exhaust is much, much more toxic.
Perhaps you should try this study which did find presence of metals in vehicle exhaust as well as a number of toxic substances.
All exhaust is bad. It seems you're claiming that all aircraft exhaust can be referred to as chemtrails on the basis of its inherent toxicity. If so, this is not the issue we're discussing.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Hmm, no metals in stated in that study.
From you own OP, the jet exhaust is much, much more toxic.
Perhaps you should try this study which did find presence of metals in vehicle exhaust as well as a number of toxic substances.
All exhaust is bad. It seems you're claiming that all aircraft exhaust can be referred to as chemtrails on the basis of its inherent toxicity. If so, this is not the issue we're discussing.
I'm not smart enough to figure out what percentage in that study was metals. You seem to know alot about the subject, could you help me out?
Won't even be close to 17%. In fact, I'd bet it's less than 1%. But like I said, I need your help, since you posted that link.
And, again, I don't understand your logic in saying, "well, cars do it too".
Does that make it OK for airplanes or something?
Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
You do realize that every droplet of visible water in a chemtrail requires a particles of soot, or metal to attach to, right?
Not quite as simple as that of course, but every single raindrop requires a particle of soot, or metal, or dust to act as a nuclei.
So, 17%+ of that visible trail, which magically expands into cloud cover, is metals, which are extremely toxic to human.
No, that's not what the results indicated and anyway each ice crystal is maybe 10,000 times bigger than the condensation nucleai around which it original formed.
Please, explain how a highly engineered machine (jet engine) is producing 17% (plus aluminum). What is wearing, that is creating all the metal in the exhaust? 17% (plus aluminum) is a HUGE amount.
17% of what?
It's a (literally) microscopic amount.
And of course, the metals may not have originated from the aircraft engines at all.
[edit on 28-5-2010 by Essan]
reply to post by Essan
Umm, what part of the study, posted in the OP, that says, there is 12% metals, including Iron, Chromium, and Titanium, are you confused about.
Then, the "mixed metals" are around 5%. Then, there is aluminum too. Is aluminum not a metal anymore?
Let's just take Chromium for example
www.atsdr.cdc.gov...
Nice!
[edit on 28-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]
[edit on 28-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]
Umm, what part of the study, posted in the OP, that says, there is 12% metals, including Iron, Chromium, and Titanium, are you confused about.
Then, the "mixed metals" are around 5%. Then, there is aluminum too. Is aluminum not a metal anymore?
Let's just take Chromium for example
Chronic Exposure
Repeated skin contact with chromium dusts can lead to incapacitating eczematous dermatitis with edema. Chromate dusts can also produce irritation of the conjunctiva and mucous membranes, nasal ulcers and perforations, keratitis, gingivitis, and periodontitis [Cohen and Costa 1998].
When a solution of chromate contacts the skin, it can produce penetrating lesions known as chrome holes or chrome ulcers, particularly in areas where a break in the epidermis is already present. These commonly occur on the fingers, knuckles, and forearms. The characteristic chrome sore begins as a papule, forming an ulcer with raised hard edges. Ulcers can penetrate deep into soft tissue or become the sites of secondary infection, but are not known to lead to malignancy. [Geller 2001; Lewis 2004; Meditext 2005].
Lung cancer is the most serious long-term effect [Cohen and Costa 1998; Lewis 2004; Meditext 2005]. Apart from the carcinogenic potential, prolonged exposure can result in bronchitis, rhinitis, or sinusitis or the formation of nasal mucosal polyps. Besides the lungs and intestinal tract, the liver and kidney are often target organs for chromate toxicity [Rom 2007].
www.atsdr.cdc.gov...
Nice!
[edit on 28-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]
[edit on 28-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]
[
Don't call me a troll just because you have debunked yourself.
I took drummer dudes advice and looked up vehicle exhaust.
pubs.acs.org...
Hmm, no metals in stated in that study. Still, we need to address vehicle pollution too. Thought we did, with catalytic converters, until I read the recent thread here on ATS.
From you own OP, the jet exhaust is much, much more toxic. And there is 6000+ planes flying over the US alone at any one time.
So, the debate is about Chemtrails, which are from aircraft. Please, don't sidestep the subject by comparing them to other vehicles.
Oh, brother. Now imagine the contents are in one gallon of water (1 gallon JF combusting with atmospheric oxygen produces that amount), then dilute it with the atmospheric contribution of an additional 20,000 gallons of water. Now spread that around into the whole atmosphere.
It is not much more toxic, and is much more dilute. The comparison is valid as it shows what air you are breathing directly from a source at your level, and not what might finally fall to earth days later.
So unless you can prove that someone is able to harness gravity and air movement, you are not breathing in jet exhaust unless you are at an airport.
Gosh, when people start to parse words, they are graspings at straws.......
Don't call me a troll just because you have debunked yourself.
I took drummer dudes advice and looked up vehicle exhaust.
A study to characterize particulate matter emissions from 195 in-use gasoline and diesel passenger vehicles was conducted during the summer of 1996 and the winter of 1997 in the Denver, Colorado region. Vehicles were tested as received on chassis dynamometers using the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS). Both PM-10 and regulated emissions were measured for each phase of the UDDS. Approximately 88% of the PM-10 collected was carbonaceous material, of which the average organic fraction was 0.7 for gasoline vehicles and 0.4 for diesel vehicles. This suggests that the organic carbon (OC) to elemental carbon (EC) split may be useful in separating light-duty gasoline from diesel PM emissions. Sulfate emission rates averaged 0.45 and 3.51 mg/mi for gasoline and diesel vehicles, indicating that the EPA's mobile emissions model overpredicts sulfate emission rates. Elements identified by X-ray fluorescence averaged between 3 and 9% of the PM-10 mass.
pubs.acs.org...
Hmm, no metals in stated in that study. Still, we need to address vehicle pollution too. Thought we did, with catalytic converters, until I read the recent thread here on ATS.
From you own OP, the jet exhaust is much, much more toxic. And there is 6000+ planes flying over the US alone at any one time.
So, the debate is about Chemtrails, which are from aircraft. Please, don't sidestep the subject by comparing them to other vehicles.
Oh, brother. Now imagine the contents are in one gallon of water (1 gallon JF combusting with atmospheric oxygen produces that amount), then dilute it with the atmospheric contribution of an additional 20,000 gallons of water. Now spread that around into the whole atmosphere.
It is not much more toxic, and is much more dilute. The comparison is valid as it shows what air you are breathing directly from a source at your level, and not what might finally fall to earth days later.
So unless you can prove that someone is able to harness gravity and air movement, you are not breathing in jet exhaust unless you are at an airport.
Gosh, when people start to parse words, they are graspings at straws.......
reply to post by stars15k
There's alot of water in the Gulf of Mexico, trillion of gallons.
How is it that such a relatively small amount of oil can pollute such a large area?
Water, last time I checked, is not toxic to humans, unless your drowning.
There's alot of water in the Gulf of Mexico, trillion of gallons.
How is it that such a relatively small amount of oil can pollute such a large area?
Water, last time I checked, is not toxic to humans, unless your drowning.
Again, ANYONE, explain to me how a highly engineered machine like a jet engine can produce 17% metal (plus aluminum) in it's exhaust?
Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Originally posted by Essan
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread575815/pg7#You do realize that every droplet of visible water in a chemtrail requires a particles of soot, or metal to attach to, right?
So, 17%+ of that visible trail, which magically expands into cloud cover, is metals, which are extremely toxic to human.
Please, explain how a highly engineered machine (jet engine) is producing 17% (plus aluminum). What is wearing, that is creating all the metal in the exhaust? 17% (plus aluminum) is a HUGE amount.
[edit on 28-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]
If you would only clean off your reading glasses and read the pie chart you are missing a really important something.
Does the chart show water?
No. It show particulates. The percentages are not on the contrail, they are based on the particulates in the contrail. Have you ever collected a sample of water and boiled all the water out of it? What you have left is the residual particles. From the contrails tested, that is what is shown in the study. 17% of that is minute.
Then diluted with the water from combustion, then atmospheric contribution, then the atmosphere.........
Helps to know about science in order to bash it. You didn't read the charts correctly.
Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
I'm not smart enough to figure out what percentage in that study was metals. You seem to know alot about the subject, could you help me out?
Won't even be close to 17%. In fact, I'd bet it's less than 1%. But like I said, I need your help, since you posted that link.
Certainly ground vehicle exhaust would contain lower metal content.
Jet fuel can contain Fischer-Tropsch catalysts which include alumina, titania, silica, magnesium oxide, silica-alumina, and the like, and mixtures thereof. Smoke suppressants based on other metals, e.g., iron, cerium, or platinum, can also be used. Additional metallic compounds are used for corrosion inhibitors and combustion improvement which can take the form of metallic salt or organometallic compounds.
Jet fuel composition is radically different from gasoline and diesel fuels.
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
Because oil spreads out and can float, changing the oxygen exchange from the contact with air.
It also can block sunlight and change the amount of photosynthesis. As the majority (by mass) of the worlds biomass exists in the oceans, that's a really big deal.
It's also apples and oranges to the topic at hand.
Because oil spreads out and can float, changing the oxygen exchange from the contact with air.
It also can block sunlight and change the amount of photosynthesis. As the majority (by mass) of the worlds biomass exists in the oceans, that's a really big deal.
It's also apples and oranges to the topic at hand.
reply to post by stars15k
What is your deal? I thought you were on my side...I notice the three other debunkers have logged off. Are you one of them??
I'm really having trouble debating with someone that makes absolutely no sense, and can't even use quotes correctly.
The samples were taken 22 km back from point of release. 17% was metal (plus aluminum). Are you arguing with that??
Didn't Obama sign the health bill with 22 pens? I wonder what made them decide 22 km back was a good point to sample.
What is your deal? I thought you were on my side...I notice the three other debunkers have logged off. Are you one of them??
I'm really having trouble debating with someone that makes absolutely no sense, and can't even use quotes correctly.
The samples were taken 22 km back from point of release. 17% was metal (plus aluminum). Are you arguing with that??
Didn't Obama sign the health bill with 22 pens? I wonder what made them decide 22 km back was a good point to sample.
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
It's funny how people get stuck, and focused (incorrectly) on numbers, such as you are trying to do here, in order to deflect this discussion (and confuse the readers).
ALL machines, when they operate, are subjected to a degree of friction, and thus, wear and tear. They are lubricated, of course, but still....wear happens.
The way you're tossing about the "17%" (I thought it was 12%?...doesn't matter) makes it seem you are trying to give the impression that 17% (or 12%) of the engine is wearing away on each flight!?!
The percentage figures are from an EXAMINATION of the components that make up the exhaust, and the actual quantities being discussed are miniscule.
There are toxic substances in ground-based vehicle exhaust, too....as pointed out....
BUT, this distraction by shouting "HEAVY METALS", and using the 17% (or 12%) figure, is just that...a distraction. BECAUSE we are talking about extremely small amounts, here. I notice that you aren't paying attention (nor mentioning) figures such as parts-per-million, and such.
Also, you are completely IGNORING other forms of pollution that we exist in, and breathe, day in, day out, from industrial factoires ON THE GROUND. So, it isn't just fossil-fuel-buring vehicles that pollute.....
ALL of these simple facts are exagerrated by the "chemtrail" hoaxers, because they KNOW how easy it is to manipulate the ill-informed, and under-educate masses of the World, nowadays...especially using the Internet as their 'vehicle' to spread their disinfo.
It is encumbent upon those who have a sense of personal pride to take time and study, and actually learn something, rather than immediately jumping on a fake 'conspiracy' bandwagon, just because it is sold to them very cleverly. I'd think people that were fooled that easily should, after learning that fact, feel a little embarrassed, don't you?
[edit on 28 May 2010 by weedwhacker]
It's funny how people get stuck, and focused (incorrectly) on numbers, such as you are trying to do here, in order to deflect this discussion (and confuse the readers).
ALL machines, when they operate, are subjected to a degree of friction, and thus, wear and tear. They are lubricated, of course, but still....wear happens.
The way you're tossing about the "17%" (I thought it was 12%?...doesn't matter) makes it seem you are trying to give the impression that 17% (or 12%) of the engine is wearing away on each flight!?!
The percentage figures are from an EXAMINATION of the components that make up the exhaust, and the actual quantities being discussed are miniscule.
There are toxic substances in ground-based vehicle exhaust, too....as pointed out....
BUT, this distraction by shouting "HEAVY METALS", and using the 17% (or 12%) figure, is just that...a distraction. BECAUSE we are talking about extremely small amounts, here. I notice that you aren't paying attention (nor mentioning) figures such as parts-per-million, and such.
Also, you are completely IGNORING other forms of pollution that we exist in, and breathe, day in, day out, from industrial factoires ON THE GROUND. So, it isn't just fossil-fuel-buring vehicles that pollute.....
ALL of these simple facts are exagerrated by the "chemtrail" hoaxers, because they KNOW how easy it is to manipulate the ill-informed, and under-educate masses of the World, nowadays...especially using the Internet as their 'vehicle' to spread their disinfo.
It is encumbent upon those who have a sense of personal pride to take time and study, and actually learn something, rather than immediately jumping on a fake 'conspiracy' bandwagon, just because it is sold to them very cleverly. I'd think people that were fooled that easily should, after learning that fact, feel a little embarrassed, don't you?
[edit on 28 May 2010 by weedwhacker]
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
I'm not smart enough to figure out what percentage in that study was metals. You seem to know alot about the subject, could you help me out?
Won't even be close to 17%. In fact, I'd bet it's less than 1%. But like I said, I need your help, since you posted that link.
Certainly ground vehicle exhaust would contain lower metal content.
Jet fuel can contain Fischer-Tropsch catalysts which include alumina, titania, silica, magnesium oxide, silica-alumina, and the like, and mixtures thereof. Smoke suppressants based on other metals, e.g., iron, cerium, or platinum, can also be used. Additional metallic compounds are used for corrosion inhibitors and combustion improvement which can take the form of metallic salt or organometallic compounds.
Jet fuel composition is radically different from gasoline and diesel fuels.
Exactly, so I don't even know why your trying to compare the two?
You don't think all those metals are enough to make people sick, with 6000 ac overhead at any one time?
One car, holds about 20 gallons of gas. One large aircraft can hold 150,000 gallons+. Let's see (pushing calculator buttons), that's equivalent to approx 7500 vehicles per aircraft spewing 17% toxic metals over our heads.
Don't think that's affecting our health?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
ALL of these simple facts are exagerrated by the "chemtrail" hoaxers, because they KNOW how easy it is to manipulate the ill-informed, and under-educate masses of the World, nowadays...especially using the Internet as their 'vehicle' to spread their disinfo.
Why would somebody want to spread disinfo by claiming chemtrails exist? What does anybody have to gain by doing that? Did you just imply that anyone that believes this (for whatever reason) is "ill-informed" and "under-educated"?
You are trying to paint people, who believe in chemtrails, in a negative light.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is encumbent upon those who have a sense of personal pride to take time and study, and actually learn something, rather than immediately jumping on a fake 'conspiracy' bandwagon, just because it is sold to them very cleverly. I'd think people that were fooled that easily should, after learning that fact, feel a little embarrassed, don't you?
What will people learn? That not every trail behind a plane is a chemtrail? That contrails actually can form naturally?
[edit on 28/5/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]
Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Exactly, so I don't even know why your trying to compare the two?
I didn't. You asked why jet exhaust contained more metals than other forms of exhaust. Now you know.
Normal jet exhaust contains chemicals and metallic elements. Using this as a basis as proof of "chemtrails" is therefore illogical.
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
I know "chemtrails" is a hoax, a total disregard of science principles, and a sign that some people will choose to believe anything instead of learning something.
I hate code. With all the programs available, I wish we could do without. I'm also selectively dyslexic, mixing up only 4 and 7. I also have no working calender in my head. So sue me. None of that matters.
I know how to read the legend on a science chart, and what we are discussing is a science, so I guess I'm at least one up on some people. Back from the engine is still going to have water vapor as the major component. I forget the exact number, but the amount of residuals is measure in ppm. Incredibly small and less than the stuff you breath in every day while commuting.
So read the chart, crunch the numbers and figure in all the water contribution if it hadn't been sampled, as most are not. Then that ppm amount spreads out into the whole of the atmosphere. Very dilute.
You are being deliberately obtuse or .........? If you don't understand, or choose to not understand dilution you should research a bit more. You need to learn about science before you can attempt to debunk it.
I know "chemtrails" is a hoax, a total disregard of science principles, and a sign that some people will choose to believe anything instead of learning something.
I hate code. With all the programs available, I wish we could do without. I'm also selectively dyslexic, mixing up only 4 and 7. I also have no working calender in my head. So sue me. None of that matters.
I know how to read the legend on a science chart, and what we are discussing is a science, so I guess I'm at least one up on some people. Back from the engine is still going to have water vapor as the major component. I forget the exact number, but the amount of residuals is measure in ppm. Incredibly small and less than the stuff you breath in every day while commuting.
So read the chart, crunch the numbers and figure in all the water contribution if it hadn't been sampled, as most are not. Then that ppm amount spreads out into the whole of the atmosphere. Very dilute.
You are being deliberately obtuse or .........? If you don't understand, or choose to not understand dilution you should research a bit more. You need to learn about science before you can attempt to debunk it.
new topics
-
Bizarre Labour Party Tic Toc Video Becomes Even More Embarrassing
Regional Politics: 7 hours ago
top topics
-
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 14 flags -
Dr. Demento
Music: 14 hours ago, 6 flags -
Bizarre Labour Party Tic Toc Video Becomes Even More Embarrassing
Regional Politics: 7 hours ago, 4 flags -
Potter to WHU
World Sports: 12 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
Los Angeles brush fires latest: 2 blazes threaten structures, prompt evacuations
Mainstream News • 269 • : xuenchen -
Judge rules president-elect Donald Trump must be sentenced in 'hush money' trial
US Political Madness • 70 • : Vermilion -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness • 26 • : xuenchen -
Its Looking Like Schiff - Vindman - Ciaramella Conspired to Impeach President Trump.
Political Conspiracies • 188 • : WeMustCare -
Statements of Intent from Incoming Trump Administration Members - 2025 to 2029.
2024 Elections • 60 • : WeMustCare -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News • 155 • : DaydreamerX -
Gravitic Propulsion--What IF the US and China Really Have it?
General Conspiracies • 38 • : DaydreamerX -
What Is 'Quad Demic'? Mask Mandate Returns In These US States
Diseases and Pandemics • 45 • : Scratchpost -
Encouraging News Media to be MAGA-PAF Should Be a Top Priority for Trump Admin 2025-2029.
Education and Media • 93 • : WeMustCare -
Advice for any young Adult .
General Chit Chat • 18 • : Cre8chaos79