Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


This is one of the most repugnant changes i have been witness too,,, and now i have Lucille Ball doing government landscape maintenance telling me nothing is possibly out of the ordinary...


PRICELESS!!!!!!!!!

Yes,the whole I am a pilot,and I know "EVERYTHING"shtick is very very old.The whole," I will speak down to anyone that disagrees with me" is even older. Hell, I know pilots also that are open and honest about the things they have seen. Even if Chemtrails arnt real,the whole aspect of our Governments doing tests on us,without the citizens prior knowledge,should be MORE than enough evidence to question the above subject.If you cant agree that those things have happened,but are willing to dispel the thought of chemtrails, You are beyond denying ignorance. You are just plain Ignorant.

Quick question:

How much would it actually cost, just to fly a plane to create all these "chemtrails", assuming a 747-400 at MTOW, flying for maybe 10 hours, in back and forth straight lines for maybe 200 miles each, at constant altitude of maybe 35,000 ft?

Should be an interesting figure, especially to extrapolate for an entire country/the EU, with enough planes to do it.

I mean, fuel capacity of a 747-400 is 216,000 litres, (Edit) according to some website I just found, currently at 283.8 cents/gal. Resulting in a price of $162,000 to fill a 747. Add in the supposed chemicals, that would be a lot of money to do this. Since, you know, a dedicated aircraft would only make a loss....

reply to post by apex


Just a thought,but could their be something added to a planes fuel mixture to create chemtrails?

Aviation fuels consist of blends of over a thousand chemicals, primarily Hydrocarbons (paraffins, olefins, naphthenes, and aromatics) as well as additives such as antioxidants and metal deactivators, and impurities. Principal components include n-octane and isooctane. Like other fuels, blends of Aviation fuel used in piston engined aircraft are often described by their Octane rating.


Cigarettes:

Chemicals In Cigarettes

The chemicals in cigarettes and tobacco smoke make smoking harmful. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 different chemicals.

Smoke is smoke,right? Just a thought.

Maybe, but it would be difficult.

First up, you have the temperatures. The combustion chambers go up to some huge values, more than 1,500 C, IIRC. I don't think any organic compound can possibly survive that, and add in a lot of oxygen as well, you'll be hard pressed to have a useful compound survive through it.

Second, it would need to be of a really low percentage of the fuel to not affect the engine performance in some way. This obviously reduces the amount you can put in, and say 99.9% is fuel, how can we believe that 1/1000th of the amount of water vapour being produced causes a lingering effect, while without it there is none?

Tied in to both, if you have a substance that is highly stable, but there isn't much of it, the amount of energy being released in combustion may be enough to surpass the activation energy and allow it to burn/react. Now my chemistry knowledge is possibly lacking nowadays, but if the chemical is there for nucleation of water to occur on it, it might need to be reactive enough, and have 'hydrogen bonds' (or dipoles, I think) in order to work.

Last of all, it may also need to be larger than single molecules, in which case you might be putting something similar to sand or volcanic ash through the engine, which obviously isn't great.

reply to post by apex


I figured it would be very difficult to do,if not almost impossible. Its good to think outside the box though. I think that would be the only way it could be done,without having anyone know about it. How often is fuel tested ?Has their been studies on the Fuel being used that you know of? Outside Government data ? I dont know anyone personally that tests automobile fuel,or jet fuel.

reply to post by firepilot


Sorry op, I just cannot seem to stay away from this subject. I apologize for wanting to get back in the conversation.

Firepilot
I believe that I posted this link way earlier in the thread. If you look through the site you can find all kind of information.

Aerial cloud seeding is the process of delivering a seeding agent by aircraft, either at the cloud base or cloud top. Top seeding allows for direct injection of the seeding agent into the supercooled cloud top. Base seeding is the release of the seeding agent in the updraft of a cloud base.

Weather Modification, Inc., has been modifying and operating aircraft for cloud seeding and atmospheric research operations since 1961. We maintain and operate a fleet of more than 35 twin-engine aircraft in various configurations that meet the needs of every client.
Weather Modification, Inc., uses several models of aircraft in our own operations, although we can adapt our equipment to virtually any type of aircraft for specific customer needs. Weather Modification, Inc., has the following aircraft types in service and available at this time:

www.weathermodification.com...
I noticed that the first snipit above said that top seeding allows for direct injection of the seeding agent into the supercooled cloud top. I noticed in the second paragraph snipit above that the company uses several models of aircraft in our own operations, although we can adapt our equipment to virtually any type of aircraft for specific customer needs. I found this interesting in my quest for information.


While I have been looking for the maximum altitude that cloud seeding occurs, I have found a Learjet that has high altitude cloudseeding operation capabilities.

Lear 35A twin fanjet, equipped for high altitude atmospheric measurements and/or cloud seeding operations

Here is the listing for the max altitude for the Learjet.

Ceiling (ft MSL) 45,000 ft

faesr.ucar.edu...


I am still looking for the maximum altitude for cloud seeding operations, and what has been the highest altitude cloud seeding operation ever done. I am still researching this topic. I will post the information above because it is taking me a long time to look this info up with the kids running around...lol

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


You can't use that as 'evidence'. The additive is designed to operate under certain conditions and injected when required. Have you never added Redex to your petrol tank? There is a whole world of difference between an engine enhancement additive and your belief that 'barium, aluminium, etc are being pumped out of the engines'. You 'chemtrailers' really do crack me up!

TJ

reply to post by sonnny1


Unfortunately, I don't know the specifics of fuel composition. And, since I can't freely get on an airport or airbase, I can't really get a sample, either .

Turbofans unfortunately are rather complicated, and fluid mechanics is a right pain to work out. I know roughly how they work, and know benefits of different bypass designs, but my knowledge is more of an overall area, rather than specialisation.

reply to post by tommyjo


Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States -- from flame retardants in furniture to household cleaners -- nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials under a little-known federal provision.



Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals. In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.

Chemicals

Anything is possible,if you dare to look outside your personal box........

reply to post by apex


Thanks for the info regardless. I am glad for those who at least LOOK into any subject with a inquisitive,and informal eye,then closed. Star for you.

reply to post by sonnny1


I'm not sure about chemtrails but it's a PROVEN FACT that the Government has exposed many people to dangerous chemicals and drugs without their consent or knowledge..

I believe them capable of anything...

reply to post by backinblack


I found this study on aerosol cloud seeding.

Aerosol cloud interactions are extremely complex (e.g. IPCC AR4)
Nevertheless: The short lifetime of aerosols, the short response time of clouds to aerosol perturbations, the fact that the perturbation is to existing components of the natural system, the strong influence on climate, cost --> make cloud seeding interesting to consider as a means to geo-engineering
Assuming that this model provides insight into forcing of the climate system:
Extra-tropical clouds might play a role in the geo-engineering
Response will be non-local
Feedbacks are very important
Pristine clouds more susceptible --> Southern Hemisphere easier to brighten
Changing CDNC at higher altitudes could also play a role in forcing
Study suggests that seeding perhaps 25% of the globe would counteract much of the forcing associated with a doubling of CO2 --> quite strong local radiative forcing
Response of coupled system important to explore (feedbacks, ocean circulations, ocean ecosystems, land/ocean precipitation redistribution

www.ucar.edu/governance/meetings/oct08/followup/head_and_chairs/ph il_rasch.pdf

There is too much info on this site. Can someone help me find out if it legit or not? I am looking for factual info, if it is not please let me know.

reply to post by backinblack


Absolutely. Thats why I like bringing up the whole UFO subject into this also. Pilots claim that they see objects,structured objects at 30000 feet. Sometimes, Radar doesnt see what they see.They have no proof also. Does it mean that those pilots are delusional? It bothers me that debunkers,who claim to know ALL,in their above job field,cant see this. Maybe its their inside info,the many long hours,and their jobs have consumed them,that keeps them in their private,little boxes,never to see the sun.The whole premise that it CANT be,is wrong. The line between skeptical,and outright claim of knowing all,and trying to feed everyone THEIR line of thought, is quite blurred. Its sad,really.

reply to post by liejunkie01


I wouldnt know. I am sure someone will come along to either debunk the site,or claim it as factual.Regardless,kudos to you for looking into it. Im going to read it,and see what it says myself.

well this is some good reading www.pnl.gov... i do not see were this has to with chem trails?

reply to post by bekod


Looks like hes done his OWN studies.........

Study

The Carbonaceous Aerosol and Radiative Effects Study (CARES) took place in the central California region, to the northeast of Sacramento, from June 2-28, 2010. This field campaign was designed to increase scientific knowledge about evolution of black carbon and secondary organic aerosols from both urban/man-made and biogenic sources.


Not spraying anything.....

reply to post by liejunkie01


You're not the first to completely misread a source of information on this thread.

The site you linked to is for atmospheric and aerosol research, it doesn't do cloud seeding, although it could be fitted out I guess.

Anyway, you and every other chemtrailer who has linked to such a plane has completely missed the opportunity presented here.

An aircraft, with a ceiling of 45,000 feet designed to test aerosols (particles in the air).

This is the perfect craft for testing chemtrails, hell it's the sort of craft that has been used to take samples of normal contrails before.

I proposed this in a thread a while back and got called the usual names.

I provided links to studies showing what is in normal contrails as a base line and links to research aircraft application forms.

Fact is, the chemmies don't want to put their money where their mouth is, or too afraid to be proven wrong, either way it's the ONLY way to prove their existence.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Yes,they are actually testing the man made/and organic emissions around the study area. No seeding,no chemicals being dumped. Nonetheless ,interesting study,and I am going to delve into it. I dont know why someone would take this site as "proof" to chemtrails existing,cause so far as to what Ive seen,it shows nothing of the sort.

and then this all i can do is show what is out there, like i have said before some is open to the GP and some is still restricted, or classifide, www.greatdreams.com... do a search on the bill S. 517

reply to post by Chadwickus


I do not think I would classify myself as a chemtrailer. I think that the chemtrailer's are confusing cloud seeding and man intentionally destroying mankind. I am only looking for the proven information regarding such topics. This is where I differ from chemtrailers.

I have been looking into what the definition of a chemtrail is and all I find is second hand information that can be labeled as speculation. I have it on google right now.

I am not being dumb here but, I see so many people talking about different ideas for chemtrails. Can someone please give me a definite explanation of a chemtrail? if not definite, what is the accepted definition? I only want to clarify what exactly are we debating here.