Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Some past weather modification experiments

I thought we were talking contrails/chemtrails?

But for the record, if you want weather modification:

www.skyhidailynews.com...&ParentProfile=1067

So maybe it's them damned skiers we should be blaming?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew


www.eutimes.net...

A shocking report prepared for Prime Minister Putin by the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) states that one of the United States top experts in biological and chemical weapons was brutally murdered after he threatened to expose a US Military test of poison gas that killed hundreds of thousands of animals in Arkansas this past week

Ahhh, falling for another hoax are you. "Sorcha Faal" takes in you chemmies all the time, and is a known hoaxster. Its not that you care though, you just blindly repost anything you find that will support the chemtrail religion

reply to post by firepilot


What you posted is a fine example of a confirmation bias. There is absolutely zero doubt that Sorcha is a known hoaxer yet here we saw the ramblings of this known hoaxer offered up as proof the "chemtrail" hoax.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by firepilot

 

What you posted is a fine example of a confirmation bias. There is absolutely zero doubt that Sorcha is a known hoaxer yet here we saw the ramblings of this known hoaxer offered up as proof the "chemtrail" hoax.

I wonder how many hoaxes they have fallen for, in this thread alone. And to think that they are the ones who call people sheep and sheeple, for not believing in those hoaxes too

Originally posted by 1beerplease
Removed By Staff

Nope, the only people making money on this issue, are certain people who manufactured the chemtrail hoax and continue peddling products for it, or jumped on the bandwagon.

For example, look at the acrimony between Alex Jones and Len Horowitz, and it was totally over money, and product sales. They used to just endorse each other products and make as much money as they can, but its gotten pretty nasty between some of these snake oil salesman.

web.mac.com...

Len Horowitzs marketing director, and girlfriend, accuses the owner of the aircrap site, Anthony Hilder, of being a CIA agent, and accuses Ted Gunderson, of being with the Church of Satan, and of trying to kill someone
www.sherrikane.com...

Things must not be happy in chemtrail land. Everyone of these people have been spreading the chemtrail hoax, but Len was one of the very first to do it. And they all have financial stakes in it too, so dont bring up us debunkers and money, its the chemtrail side that has the money involved.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

www.eutimes.net...

A shocking report prepared for Prime Minister Putin by the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) states that one of the United States top experts in biological and chemical weapons was brutally murdered after he threatened to expose a US Military test of poison gas that killed hundreds of thousands of animals in Arkansas this past week

Oh dear - as has been pointed out dear old Sorcha Faal doesn't actually exist - a search for the name here on ATS (or on Google) will tell you everything you need to know or you can just go straight here so you don't make this mistake again - www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are plenty of mistakes you make that you never respond to challenges to let alone admit.....but even you can probably easily give up on this one

Anything that starts with "A shocking report prepared for ..." and followed by the name of some Russian government ministry, is automatically a Sorcha Faal hoax. This person writes plenty of hoaxes, and the ones about chemtrail invariably draw in some chemmies each time

reply to post by dplum517


one problem with the chemtrails issue is that the technology has changed.

the methods or dispersal, what is being dispersed, and how it acts with the atmosphere are entirely different from the early days of jets spraying a criss-cross pattern.

we have to assume that spray patterns and technologies changed and upgraded either because they improved from the early days of jet dispersal, OR the powers that be didnt want the public to become more aware, so the technologies became more stealthy. thats scary, since it would imply the situation is potentially catastrophic.

Originally posted by mainhitman
reply to post by dplum517

 

one problem with the chemtrails issue is that the technology has changed.

the methods or dispersal, what is being dispersed, and how it acts with the atmosphere are entirely different from the early days of jets spraying a criss-cross pattern.

How do you figure this? No-one ever established what it was that was being "sprayed", and no-one knows what it is that is "currently" being "sprayed" - at least no-one who believes in chemtrails that it.

we have to assume

NO. WE. DON'T.

that spray patterns and technologies changed and upgraded either because they improved from the early days of jet dispersal, OR the powers that be didnt want the public to become more aware, so the technologies became more stealthy. thats scary, since it would imply the situation is potentially catastrophic.

It is only scary if you ASSUME stuff that there is no evidence for in the first place.

A Framework to Prevent the Catastrophic Effects of Global
Warming using Solar Radiation Management (Geo-Engineering)
SUPPLEMENT TO
Testimony Before the
United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, D.C.
Submitted to the Record
October 3, 2007
thehardlook.typepad.com...

I agree with the OP, and I think regardless of your opinion or stance on chemtrails, you should also agree with the OP.

I think the debate about whether they are real or not can take place on another thread.

This thread is saying that chemtrail discussion deserves its own forum, how could you disagree?

People talk about speculation and facts, hell what would this board be if speculation were disallowed, or any post with more speculation than fact was moved to skunkworks, the board would be pretty empty.

As I see it, regardless of the topic about 95%, atleast, of the topics on here are nothing but speculation.

Theres no undeniable proof about pretty much any aspect of 9/11 and it has its own forum, the same goes for UFO's. Like someone said on the first page....

I think this most certainly belongs with the speculative topics. At least until all the believers get some air samples in a verifiable way and have them tested by competent labs, which would be easy to do if you are right.

Based on that logic, pretty much no forum should exist here. Regardless of how many people have seen, photographed, or experienced oddities concerning UFO's there's no sticky here about a guy who took his piece of alien craft to get analyzed by competent labs.

Like I said, regardless of your opinion on chemtrail, they deserve their own forum space. I don't see how nonbelievers would be against it, at the least, it would clear up other forums from chemtrail "nonsense". I didn't honestly believe having verifiable proof was the criteria for forum creation, I figured it was the amount of interest in the topic. Regardless of your beliefs, theres no denying huge interest in the topic.

BARIUM RELEASE SYSTEM
United States Patent 3751913
www.freepatentsonline.com...

ORIGIN OF THE DISCLOSURE

The invention described herein was made in the performance of work under a NASA contract and is subject to the provisions of section 305 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Public Law 85-568 (72 Stat. 435; 42 USC 2457).

This invention relates generally to a chemical release system and relates in particular to a system for releasing barium in the vapor phase so that it can be ionized by solar radiation and also be excited to emit resonance radiation in the visible range. The ionized luminous cloud of barium then becomes a visible indication of magnetic and electric characteristics in space and allows determination of these properties over relatively large areas of space at a given time compared to rocket borne or orbiting instruments. For example, a geomagnetic field line could be illuminated by the present invention from pole-to-pole.

Presently, barium release systems are used to create ion clouds in the upper atmosphere for the study of geophysical properties of the atmosphere. These known systems utilize a solid chemical system using a thermite mixture of barium and copper oxide as the heat-producing reaction and an excess of barium to be vaporized. This system is launched by a suitable rocket and, at a predetermined time, the ingredients are ignited and released from a canister through a burst diaphragm and nozzle. The resulting barium cloud gives a brilliant color that can be observed and studied from earth to give indications of wind currents and the like. This known system of barium release has proved effective but is inherently of low efficiency in producing barium vapor yielding, in practice, only from 2 to 4 percent of the total chemical weight when actually up to 48 percent is available. In addition, the barium-copper oxide mixture is a fire hazard when mixing and pressing into the canister and must be done under inert atmospheric conditions which proves time-consuming and costly in operation. Also, little, if any, ionization takes place in this known system due to the initial heat generating reaction.

It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a new and novel barium release system for atmospheric and space studies.

Another object of the present invention is a system for releasing barium in the vapor phase so that it can be ionized by solar radiation and excited to emit resonance radiation in the visible range.

Another object of the present invention is a novel chemical mixture for releasing a good yield of free atoms and barium ions.

A further object of the present invention is a binary liquid hypergolic chemical release system in which barium is formed as a vapor at the time of release.

The foregoing and other objects are attained in one aspect of the present invention by providing a liquid fuel, in which barium salts are dissolved, and a high energy oxidizer which spontaneously ignites the fuel on contact. The barium release is accomplished by impinging fuel and oxidizer jets in an open-ended combuation chamber which expels the reaction product gases or plasma and which includes the desired barium neutral atoms (Ba° ) and barium ions (Ba + ) as individual species.

A more complete appreciation of the invention and many of the attendant advantages thereof will be readily apparent as the same becomes better understood by reference to the following detailed description when considered in connection with the accompanying drawings wherein:

FIG. 1 is a schematic representation of the fuel and oxidizer tanks connected to an open-ended combustion chamber in a launch rocket for release of barium according to the present invention; and

FIG. 2 is a plot of triangular coordinates which defines the barium nitrate- barium chloride-hydrazine mixtures of the present invention.

Aluminum soap demisting agent in jet fuel

www.patentstorm.us...

oai.dtic.mil...

Accession Number : ADD003645

Title : Aluminum Soap Demisting Agent in Jet Fuel.

Descriptive Note : Patent,

Corporate Author : DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WASHINGTON D C

Personal Author(s) : Adicoff,Arnold

Report Date : 30 NOV 1976

Pagination or Media Count : 2

Abstract : Compositions of matter comprising a mixture of a jet fuel and an aluminum di-acid soap of a saturated carboxylic acid having from 8 to 20 carbon atoms are disclosed. The compositions of matter are useful as fuels for jet aircraft. (Author)

Descriptors : *Patents, *Aluminum soaps, *Fuel additives, *Jet engine fuels, Saturated hydrocarbons, Carboxylic acids, Chemical composition, Mixtures

Subject Categories : FUELS

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Further evidence that experiments of aircraft putting substance in the air as a method to control climate is here:

Geoengineering: Scientists Debate Risks Of Sun-Blocking And Other Climate Tweaks To Fight Warming

"By most accounts, the leading contender is stratospheric aerosol particles," said climatologist John Shepherd of Britain's Southampton University.

The particles would be sun-reflecting sulfates spewed into the lower stratosphere from aircraft, balloons or other devices – much like the sulfur dioxide emitted by the eruption of the Philippines' Mount Pinatubo in 1991, estimated to have cooled the world by 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) for a year or so.

Engineers from the University of Bristol, England, plan to test the feasibility of feeding sulfates into the atmosphere via a kilometers-long (miles-long) hose attached to a tethered balloon.

Shepherd and others stressed that any sun-blocking "SRM" technique – for solar radiation management – would have to be accompanied by sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions on the ground and some form of carbon dioxide removal, preferably via a chemical-mechanical process not yet perfected, to suck the gas out of the air and neutralize it.

reply to post by AllSeeingI


Are you engaging in SPAMMING these Boards??

I saw this EXACT same post, in another "chem"-trail thread.

SAME response (re-phrased):

READ the article properly! Show where, in it, it supports your wild claims that they are "currently" using "aircraft" in full-scale experiments, real-world.

READ it, don't just skim it. Then, IF you find them, post your proofs.....

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Same advice to you.....READ your stuff more thoroughly, before posting it just based on "headlines".

LOOK....at your "barium release" invention patent. What does the word "rocket" mean to you?? DO you understand the science behind that specific device, and those specific experiments?? (Very small-scale experiments, BTW).


The other one?? An anti-misting agent in Jet fuel....that happens to incorporate a tiny amount of aluminum. You probably have MORE ALUMINUM, by volume, in your under-arm antiperspirant, depending on what brand you buy and use!!!!


Anti-misting kerosene fuel. ("AMK"). Your patent reference, there....did you NOTE THE DATE???? Looky, looky again. Some years later, in 1984, a large-scale test was conducted to determine the REAL-WORLD effectiveness of AMK. An actual jet crash, with the fuel onboard, to test it out.

BUT, the AMK is hard to utilize, properly:

The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with Jet-A fuel, forms anti-misting kerosene (AMK). AMK had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.

......


AMK cannot be introduced directly into a gas turbine engine due to several possible problems such as clogging of filters.....

(WHICH is part of what I HAVE BEEN SAYING, for months!!)

....The AMK must be restored to almost Jet-A before being introduced into the engine for burning. This restoration is called "degradation" and was accomplished on the 720 using a device called a "degrader". Each of the four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-7 engines had a "degrader" built and installed by General Electric (GE) to break down and return the AMK to near Jet-A quality.

en.wikipedia.org...


SHOW any proof of such equipment ("degraders") currently installed on regular commercial passenger airliner engines. FINID a pilot or mechanic, out of the hundreds of thousands, who is aware of such things. Over two decades flying jets, here.....NO SUCH THINGS are installed on those jets I flew.

EVERY ONE of your "links" is misunderstood, by YOU. In your frenzy to "believe" this non-existent "chem"-trail baloney.


More on AMK:

www.airliners.net...


Aluminum Soap De-Misting Agent in Jet Fuel

"....comprising a mixture of a jet fuel and an aluminum di-acid soap of a saturated carboxylic acid having from 8 to 20 carbon atoms are disclosed."

"8 to 20 ATOMS"???!!! Well, those carbolic acid molecules seem to be more CARBON than aluminum. Gee.....what's carbon good for, again? Oh, yeah. It BURNS, as a component of many fossil fuels.....



The patent, again...from year 1976!:

www.wikipatents.com...


NOTE the percentages mentioned.....form "0.1 to 1 percent" of total fuel volume. This, according to the inventor, to (hopefully) make the fuel less prone to leakage, in tank ruptures, and misting and unwanted fires, in accidents and crashes.

Still.....it needs "something" (an 'amine', it says) to be added to the fuel, just before being introduced into the combustion process. That "degrader" as mentioned before.

BUT.... is this material currentlyin modern Jet-A1 fuel? Let's take a look:

en.wikipedia.org...

The DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel, including:

• Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, e.g., AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;
  
  
• Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as the active ingredient, is an example
  
  
• Corrosion inhibitors, e.g., DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;
  
  
• Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) agents, e.g., Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense.
  
  
• Biocides are to remediate microbial (i.e., bacterial and fungal) growth present in aircraft fuel systems. Currently, two biocides are approved for use by most aircraft and turbine engine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs); Kathon FP1.5 Microbiocide and Biobor JF.
  
  
• Metal deactivator can be added to remediate the deleterious effects of trace metals on the thermal stability of the fuel. The one allowable additive is N,N’-disalicylidene 1,2-propanediamine.

Where's the aluminum? Where's WALDO??

Where is the logic, reason and common sense??


OH, yes....antipersperants:
en.wikipedia.org...


Well, folks......there you have it, we might start another "conspiracy"......the myth of "chem"-trails was started by the companines that make antipersperants, in order to deflect attention away from THEM, as the cause of illnesses......(about as ridiculous as the whole "chem"-trail hoax, isn't it???)

reply to post by AllSeeingI


Thanks for that article, I read another one that was linked to yours. Check it out.

uk.ibtimes.com...

Past attempts at modifying the weather in our favour, from primitive rain dances to modern day cloud seeding, have met with a combination of failure, ridicule and suspicion. Fears of military applications of nascent technologies led to the Environmental Modification Treaty (ENMOD), enacted in 1978. This banned weather modification for hostile use, but allowed for further research for peaceful purposes.

Now the Royal Society is joining TWAS (the academy of sciences for the developing world) and the Environmental Defense Fund in convening the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI). Its aim: to foster international dialogue and cooperation on the issue, to ensure that any research that may be done is safe, transparent and responsible.

A problem for those who want to have a serious discussion is that 'geoengineering' often calls to mind the most outlandish interventions. For this reason many people have dismissed the whole concept as a 'bad thing'. But are there useful alternatives to the term?

Sensible discussion should, in the very least, start by dividing the techniques into their two main categories: those which aim to remove excess quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (so tackling one of the prime causes of global warming), and those which aim to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface (so reducing global surface temperatures without tackling the cause of their rise). The former are sometimes referred to as 'carbon-negative' strategies; the latter as 'global dimming'. The Royal Society favours the (arguably more precise) terms, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). While these have been quite widely adopted by the specialist academic community, there aren't many signs of them replacing 'geoengineering' in the public and the media.

WORLDWIDE EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
AFFECTING THE U.S. MILITARY
BY
THE MILLENNIUM PROJECT
FOR
U.S. ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE SCIENTIFIC SERVICES PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED BY BATTELLE
JUNE 30, 2010
www.aepi.army.mil...

List of Experts in Nanotechnology Ethics Published
The ObservatoryNano project has published Experts NanoEthics and Ethical, Legal and Social
Aspects of Nanotechnology [sic], a comprehensive list of personnel in the field. According to the
announcement, it "includes senior academics and consultants, experienced in nanoethics or
ethical, legal and social aspects of nanotechnology from different countries in Europe and the
rest of the world … [,and in] addition, a list of junior experts including PhD students and young
professionals". Each entry includes complete contact information and a note on area of expertise.
[December 2009. Military Implications, Source
332
ObservatoryNANO 2nd Annual Report on Ethical and Societal Aspects of Nanotechnology
Meridian Nanotechnology and Development News reports that the ObservatoryNANO project
has published a report on nanobioethics that includes discussions of the ethical, legal and societal
aspects of nanotech for health, medicine, nanobiotechnology, nanotech for agrifood, and on
nanotechnology and animal testing. [May 2010. Military Implications, Sources
333
Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies
The EU and the US have undertaken a collaborative research project, Regulating
Nanotechnologies in the EU and US: Towards Effectiveness and Convergence, to investigate the
regulatory challenges raised by nanotechnologies and to assess the effectiveness of existing
approaches. A conference, Transatlantic Regulatory Co-operation: Securing the Promise of
Nanotechnologies, will be held September 10-11, 2009, in London, to discuss recommendations
from the project, and to consider new ideas for the future. A subsequent, shorter meeting on the
same subject will be held at the Wilson Center in Washington on September 23, 2009.
Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies Towards Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation
report by the international collaborative project Regulating Nanotechnologies in the EU and
U.S., is a comprehensive state-of-the-art overview of aspects related to nanotechnology:
environment, health and safety risks; and key regulatory frameworks, issues and challenges––
including relevant national and international institutions—in the U.S., EU, and internationally,
with specific focus on chemical, food, and cosmetics regulations. The report highlights that
although “No efforts have been undertaken as yet to create a formal, treaty-based, international
framework for nanomaterials regulation,” in the future such an international framework treaty
might be needed, given the globalization of nanotechnology developments. It concludes that the
EU and the US should play a greater role in developing an international nanotech regulatory
framework. Commenting on the report, some experts expressed that nanotechnology and
biotechnology would need a complex and flexible regulatory system, due to their unknown
evolution and often absence of data. [August 2009, September 2009. Military Implications,
Sources
334
A study published in Nature Nanotechnology and reported by Nanowerk News found that public
perceptions of nanotechnology do not follow previously seen patterns for new technological
developments, and concludes that “Given the potential malleability of perceptions, novel
methods for understanding future public responses to nanotechnologies will need to be
developed.” [September 2009. Military Implications, Sources
335

More Geoengineering reports

www.mendeley.com...

www.dtic.mil... SEARCH - geoengineering

reply to post by weedwhacker


You said aluminum was "impossible". YOU SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL WHAT YOU POST !!!

You are the one who is wrong not me.

EDIT
Your cut and paste skills need improvement. You're not representing the facts correctly.

The point was not that AMIK was causing chemtrails. The point was that you said Aluminum in jet fuel was "IMPOSSIBLE"

READING COMPREHENSION 101 PLEASE

"almost" Jet -A and "near" Jet-A quality

.The AMK must be restored to almost Jet-A before being introduced into the engine for burning. This restoration is called "degradation" and was accomplished on the 720 using a device called a "degrader". Each of the four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-7 engines had a "degrader" built and installed by General Electric (GE) to break down and return the AMK to near Jet-A quality.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Where's Waldo?

I think you must be Waldo, you're definitely lost.

www.nano.gov...

Reactive metal nanoparticles less than 100 nanometers in diameter were developed in this work as fuel additives. The metal nanoparticles react with dissolved oxygen to remove it from the fuel. The small size ensures that the particles can be suspended easily for compatibility with fuel system pumps and filters, and the very high surface area of the nanoparticles enhances chemical reactivity

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE:
NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS
www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Im still reading through the thread and all the material you posted but I just wanted to say thanks for keeping this thread alive and defending. Looks like we came out on top since there is indeed a new forum for all this stuff.
Step forward.