Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

I want to post a statement that was made by a company that is involved in making fuel for the aviation industry as well being involved in the clean up of chemical industrial waste. They clearly admit in their company brochure that they are mixing industrial toxic waste into the fuel supply.

The company website homepage
www.battelle.org...

The source file of the quote from Battelle
www.battelle.org...

Battelle scientists at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory led a cooperative effort to eliminate Department of Defense stockpiles of napalm from the Vietnam War. After three other contractors failed Battelle provided a solution that overcame safety and environmental concerns political sensitivities and public scrutiny that had followed the project since its inception. Our process not only disposed of more than 2.7 million gallons of the dangerous substance on schedule and with an outstanding safety record it also recycled the napalm and blended it with other industrial waste products to make a specification fuel with exceptionally high thermal energy value.

According to some documents I have read some semi-recent improvements have been made to jet fuel. They add special ingredients to give it a higher thermal stability. This is called the JP8+100 effect in the aviation industry. If you notice the last statement made in the quote by Battelle they state that their new fuel ( made from industrial toxic waste ) has an exceptionally high thermal energy value. This is a possible reason that the contrails using this special fuel persist the way they do. Because they have a higher thermal rating the particles in the exhaust take longer to cool off in the air drawing more moisture from the air and creating bigger clouds.

Here is a document from the Australian Governments Department of Defense explains the JP8+100 effect
www.dtic.mil...

If you go to website www.sciencedirect.com... and click the search button. You can get real scientific information about actual tests and studies currently being performed and other completed studies.

Here are some results when I searched atmospheric geoengineering

1: Geoengineering Earth's radiation balance to mitigate climate change from a quadrupling of CO2 Original Research Article
Global and Planetary Change, Volume 37, Issues 1-2, 10 June 2003, Pages 157-168
B. Govindasamy, K. Caldeira, P. B. Duffy

2: Modelling effects of geoengineering options in response to climate change and global warming: Implications for coral reefs Review Article
Computational Biology and Chemistry, Volume 33, Issue 6, December 2009, Pages 415-420
M.J.C. Crabbe

3: Tackling Regional Climate Change By Leaf Albedo Bio-geoengineering
Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 2, 27 January 2009, Pages 146-150
Andy Ridgwell, Joy S. Singarayer, Alistair M. Hetherington, Paul J. Valdes

4: Bill Gates digs deep for geoengineering
The New Scientist, Volume 205, Issue 2746, 3 February 2010, Page 7

These are just 4 of the 220 results available when searching atmospheric geoengineering on that website.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


And, as always, none of them show that commercial aircraft on normal services are being used to spray anything.

Nor military aircraft.

Nor private aircraft.

sigh.......it is NOT a secret that research is going on - but NONE OF IT matches anything like the chemtrail hoax - heck one of your quoted papers is about bio-engineering bushes to have more highly reflective leaves to bounce sunlight back into space!!

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Here's the problem, with the "chem"-trail HOAX! You demonstrate it brilliantly, with every post:

A complete, and utter lack of comprehension. You (and the other "chemmies" who promote this nonsense) read things that you simply do NOT understand, and continually misinterpret. It would be laughable, if it weren't causing so many other people unnecessary worry, and wasted efforts.

I can only guess that these "things"....videos, reports, etc that you are "finding" are not due to your individual incredible "investigating skills"...but, instead, from the many crap "chemtrail" websites that infest the Internet.

Here, you saw "napalm", and like the rest of the chemmie lemmings, jumped on it.....and took a completely ludicrous ride to "JP-8+100"!!

(BTW....NO COMMERCIAL AIRLINER uses anything EXCEPT JET- A or A1. "JP"-denoted fuels are for the military only).

As to "JP-8+100?? It is only an additive...at a 1/4000 ratio. (ONE part additive, to 4,000 parts fuel!!). It is being tested, on a limited basis, to see if it has maintenance, engine/fuel system life and cost advantages.

Also, catch ON to this:

Outside of powering aircraft, JP-8 (or JP-5) is used as a fuel for heaters, stoves, tanks, by the U.S. military as a replacement for diesel fuel in the engines of nearly all tactical ground vehicles and electrical generators, and as a coolant in engines and some other aircraft components. The use of a single fuel greatly simplifies logistics...

en.wikipedia.org...

Gee? Using it for vehicles, and other uses, burned ON THE GROUND!?? Well.....wanna try to do better "research"?


www.biodiesel.org...

...the jet fuel not only provides the propulsive energy for flight, but also is the
primary coolant for aircraft and engine subsystems. To meet the evolving
challenge of improving the cooling potential of jet fuel, the U.S. Air force,
industry, and academia have teamed to develop new and improved fuels that
offer increased heat sink and thermal stability. These advanced fuels will enable
improved aircraft design and decreased fuel system maintenance due to fuel
fouling/coking. This paper describes the development of an improved JP-8,
named "JP-8+100", that offers a 55C (100F) increase in the bulk maximum
temperature (from 325F to 425F) wetted wall temperature....

And,
www.pprune.org...

Your "sources" completely refute your "assertions". Every time. Because, the material being posted is not being understood, in proper context.

Same with the Australian MoD document. Not ONE word of "napalm" in it. I doubt you even read it at all....just "trusted" someone else, who told you it was 'smoking gun' evidence, huh??

Face it....you have been DUPED, taken for a ride, fooled, bamboozled, led down the primrose path....by this HOAX..

reply to post by weedwhacker


i never stated JP8 was being used commercially. In fact I specifically stated it was being used by the military. You're the one who seems to have a serious lack of misunderstanding of what you read.

I think your losing your mind from all the lies you've been telling. Go read what I wrote again and you will see that your statement about my statement does not make any sense. You again trying to mislead and misrepresent what I actually said. Typical dis-info propaganda tactics. How do you live with yourself ? Be honest.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

This is called the JP8+100 effect in the aviation industry.

Just wondering if you actually knew what JP8+100 was? So from what your saying is JP8+100 is made from toxic waste? Funny but I can't seem to find any other source that will back up the toxic waste is being used in jet fuel.Now what I did find is very interesting indeed.

JP-8+100 is a version of JP-8 with an additive that increases its thermal stability by 56°C (a difference of 100°F). The additive is a combination of a surfactant, metal deactivator, and an antioxidant, and was introduced in 1994 to reduce coking and fouling in engine fuel systems. Commercially, this additive is used in Boeing aircraft operated by KLM, and in police helicopters in Tampa, Florida

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe you should take a look at this... Here you will find the physical and chemical makeup of jet fuel. Namely JP5 and JP8 fuels..

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

Here's more chemtrails for you skunk boys choke on it

Isn't it great what the AF thinks of you all. Take pride fellas. You're all domino pushers.

Source: AFD-061020-88.pdf

Most of you are domino pushers

by Col. Tom Frooninckx
1st Weather Group Commander
Offutt AFB, Neb.
That's right, domino pushers. Recognize it and take pride in it. I do. Okay, what am I talking about? I'm referring to the awesome responsibility of operational weather squadrons, combat weather flights, special operations weather teams, and all other organizations producing weather information. When you provide an analysis or forecast, a chain reaction of decisions and actions occurs, and a series of events unfolds which resembles a path of falling dominos.

This ought to give you all something to HAARP on
geoengineeringwatch.org...

HAARP PATENT
( 1 of 1 )
United States Patent 4,686,605
Eastlund August 11, 1987
Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere


CONTRAIL POWDER FORMULATION Ingredient % by Weight TiO2 (e.g., DuPont R-931) 85 median particle size 0.3µ Colloidal Silica (e.g., Cabot S-101 Silanox) 10 primary particle size 0.007µ Silica gel (e.g., Syloid 65) 5 average particle size 4.5µ

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Your reputation for being able to comprehend plain english is really taking a self-inflicted battering here.

did you not note this bit?

.......and all other organizations producing weather information. When you provide an analysis or forecast, a chain reaction of decisions and actions occurs, and a series of events unfolds which resembles a path of falling dominos

You are lambasting people for making weather forecasts!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

I have something to say about it.
Why do you combine Eastlund's patent with a patent for making visible trails for aerial target practice?
www.freepatentsonline.com...

The two things are not related. Aircraft do not fly in the ionosphere.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



I commented in another thread how you have manufactured this piece "evidence" - you have linked 2 completely seperate patents as if they were the same.

Seems you are a glutton for punishment, so I'll say it again.

The "HAARP" patent is here whole patent - and it contains NO MENTION OF CONTRAILS or anything in them.

You, "sir" have just been caught manufacturing a lie - BUSTED!

Also the patent is for affecting the atmosphere about 50km - 50,000m, 164,000 feet.

Which airliners are spraying trails above 164,000 feet??!!!

reply to post by Phage


Why do all of you guys keep changing your story every time new evidence comes out? I thought you said none of this exists. Now you're all running scared and getting my posts removed again.

I made a simple mistake and accidently didn't list the second patent number. As you can see I actually didn't combine the two I put a large space in between them.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

This ought to give you all something to HAARP on
geoengineeringwatch.org...

HAARP PATENT
( 1 of 1 )
United States Patent 4,686,605
Eastlund August 11, 1987
Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere


CONTRAIL POWDER FORMULATION Ingredient % by Weight TiO2 (e.g., DuPont R-931) 85 median particle size 0.3µ Colloidal Silica (e.g., Cabot S-101 Silanox) 10 primary particle size 0.007µ Silica gel (e.g., Syloid 65) 5 average particle size 4.5µ

Just reposting this before Matty edits it to remove the evidence of his guilt........the patent listed does NOT include the bottom paragraph, which he now claims is seperated by a "large blank space" so is obviously not suposed to be included with the top one

Matty - some advice - if you've made a mistake, then just say "oops - sorry - yeah I made a mistake...." or words to that effect - dont' try to blame everyone one else for reading exactly what you wrote!!

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

No.
You didn't make a mistake (except in thinking no one would notice). You included both in a single external quote and said it was tied to HAARP.

This ought to give you all something to HAARP on
geoengineeringwatch.org...

HAARP PATENT
( 1 of 1 )
United States Patent 4,686,605
Eastlund August 11, 1987
Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere


CONTRAIL POWDER FORMULATION Ingredient % by Weight TiO2 (e.g., DuPont R-931) 85 median particle size 0.3µ Colloidal Silica (e.g., Cabot S-101 Silanox) 10 primary particle size 0.007µ Silica gel (e.g., Syloid 65) 5 average particle size 4.5µ

reply to post by Phage


You have no proof that the contrail powder is for aerial target practice and you have no proof that it can't used for other purposes. All of you have previously said that all contrails are all normal and putting powder or other particles would mess up the engine. Now who's the one really lying?

Edit:I made no claims my comment was "This ought to give you guys something to HAARP on". Which was a a humorous play on words. Hardly proves I made any claims about anything

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

You didn't even read the patent did you. (What a surprise.)
The "contrail" powder is not from the engine.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Phage

 

Why do all of you guys keep changing your story every time new evidence comes out? I thought you said none of this exists. Now you're all running scared and getting my posts removed again.

"We" havent' changed a thing. The patent for the contrail formation is well known, the patent for "HAARP" (which it actually is not, but never mind....) is well known.

And all we've done with your latest version of them is point out that htey are not linked, and, as always, the existance of a patent is not evidence that it is actually being used - hence we continue to ask for that evidence.

What has chaged about that "story"?

I made a simple mistake and accidently didn't list the second patent number. As you can see I actually didn't combine the two I put a large space in between them.

A couple of lines is not a "large space" and putting them in the same section under 1 patent number IS combining them!

reply to post by Phage


So then you admit they are spraying contrail powder ? In all your previous comments you say there is no proof they spray anything. Now once again your story changes to suit your position.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

No. I'm not saying that.
I was talking about what the patent (which you claimed has something to do with HAARP) is for.