Is ATS Supporting Ignorance Concerning Chemtrails? I think so.

reply to post by weedwhacker


comment on the information where have you done that
all i see is comments on the information source claiming that it is fake therefore again my point is valid try looking at it objectively [if that is possible for someone as closed minded as you]give me reasons why the answers in your eyes are wrong to the questions posed after all you accuse us of not looking at the science why not use that science to disprove his answers?
I bet you can't or you won't either way you prove my point

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

comment on the information where have you done that

you didn't say he hadn't commented "on the information" - you just said he hadnt' comment

all i see is comments on .......[/qauote]

so you acknowledge that he DID comment - and you've changed your story because you didn't like the outcome.

no great surprise - the chemtrail story keeps changing too

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


and again we have another [expert] and still we have no real comments on the answers given in that post come on show me the scientific prof that you all babble on about to discredit the information rather than the source can you?

reply to post by djcarlosa


Do you ever admit you were wrong?

What was your point again??

Was it this post you thought contained "scientific information"? www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dont' see any there........ Just a bunch of unsupported assertion without any backing evidence at all.

PS thank you for the title of [expert] - I guess compared to chemmi "evidence" my constant repetition of proveable science does make me an axpert (and it's constant because hte sceince doesnt' change - only the chemmie story changes). But in the real world I'm just an enthusiastic amateur

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


so take each answer and give me the science that shows that the answers are wrong disprove what he says about the delivery system the reason he gave as to why they are doing it.how it is possible to be a world wide project how is his answer wrong?
you can't or you won't instead you sidestep it with the finesse you usually find in a politics.
step up or shut up

reply to post by djcarlosa


What answers? I dont understand what you are asking.

some guy, now apparently deceased, says some stuff exists or has happened, and there's no evidence other than this "article" to support the assertions.

what is there to prove wrong?? No facts have been offered - no verifiable evidence, no studies - his comments about polymers are just basic science, his comments about delivery systems contain nothing that can be checked for accuracy....

He can't be asked where he saw this stuff, what his evidence is.......

What is it you think he said that is checkable??!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


sidestepped again i see if i where to come up with those same answers as to the how and why you would spend hours attacking me with website after website to prove me wrong so why not look at it that way imagine[you can i take?]that i am given you this information to prove that i am right break it down prove me wrong.
come on put up or shut up
You expect us to swallow what you have to say with out question with web sites that we have no idea who wrote the material contained within.

reply to post by djcarlosa


I'm asking you, quite politely, do say exactly what it is that you think I (or someone) needs to comment on.

That's not sidstepping at all.

This is the 3rd time I've made that simple request.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


1.why are they doing it?
Its to reduce the amount of uv radiation reaching the earth's surface.
2.how can it be a worldwide project?

Personally I am against the move for globalization, and yes, there is potential to use the Shield to speed up the process of globalization, there are several countries that are involved in this project: European Union Nations, USA and Russia are the largest contributors to the project, many of the allied nations and UN Members participate to one extent or another. The material (chemical spray as you may call it) comes from all of these nations.

To insure that the chemicals are not tampered with, they are mixed and sprayed over random nations. This means that chemicals produced in the USA has a good chance of being sprayed over Russia, England and the USA. This random spray of material means that no nation would be certain that their chemicals will be sprayed over a nation which they have issues with. Russian planes may be seen in USA skies, but so too will USA planes be seen in Russian skies. The canisters used are sealed in a third nation that has no idea where its canister is going. Participating nations have their observers at every station where canister loading is done. All of this to insure that the shield is not used as a weapon. To further insure that the shield is not used as a weapon, non participant nations are sprayed by participants who must spray in order to get enough material to maintain their nations shield. It is understood that not spraying is as much a military offense as shooting at them.

Without the shield, UV poisoning would cause great death. The threat is a common one, which has brought nations together in defense. The natural outcome of having a common enemy is to strengthen international ties - a step toward globalization

3.how can such a project be implemented [ie no. of planes worldwide]

No. Several types of craft are used. Commercial jet airliners are used and they are not diverted from their flight paths to do so. How the canisters and the spraying is done on this kind of craft is unknown to me exactly. I do have my suspicions. I know best that which is my field; this is not to say that we do not talk around the water tank. So I know more than just my area and am able to think the matter through to its logical end.

I do know that even all the commercial jetliners in use are not enough to insure complete coverage all of the time. My computer models require knowing how much material needs to be sprayed. Certain conditions cause wide areas to suddenly (over hours) open up in the Shield. Then and only then is mass spraying done - and would be done with the most logical craft, a tanker.

Why not spray more from individual jetliners? That is one of the problems. Jetliners do not carry much material (100 to 500 gallons) because the material has to be spread out thinly.

Look at the kinds of material being used, aluminum, barium, titanium, etc. Most are highly reflective; in some instances the material is an absorber of gasses. In the case of reflection the desire is to reflect X amount of heat and X amount of UV while still maintaining acceptable (nominal) levels of UV and heat reaching the planet's surface.

Life requires a certain amount of both UV and Heat too much will kill - so will too little. The apparent amount looks like a lot more than what is actually being sprayed per volume of air it is covering. Most of the whitening of the sky is not the material per se, but the collection of water vapor, which forms into suspended ice crystals. The introduction of the material causes the water vapor to collect like rain collects on individual particles of dust.

Too much material would cause a "mud fall" of sorts where the naturally occurring water vapor would precipitate carrying the material with it.

Spraying is done in such away as to "layer" the material through a volume that will allow an acceptable level of UV and heat through along with all the other wavelengths of light. Photosynthesis is the foundation of life on our planet.

Only when all the material is removed in a local area does it require a massive spray, this is usually in the front of a weather system, or after a heavy period of precipitation. Then a tanker is flown, fully loaded.
4.how can this be kept a secret?

All those who know are expected to remain silent. All of those who suspect are either faced with trying to prove the virtually unprovable or are faced with good enough reasons to remain silent. I would assume that this situation is worldwide and could be considered one of the dangers of this project.

It was presented to me as a matter of national security. I can see the reasons why there is a desire to repress the information not that spraying is taking place but the hard little fact that we are facing a period of human history which might be the end of civilization.

i would like you to prove to me why the answers given are scientifically wrong after all there are 4 answers to questions often asked of us chemmies

Wow. Just wow.

So far the only source I have found that isn't a "chemtrail" site had this to say about polymers:

Abstract
Exposure of poly(DL-lactic acid) (PDLLA), and related polymers, to supercritical CO2 (scCO2) at or below, physiological temperatures leads to very effective plasticization and liquefying of the polymers. The phenomenon arises from the high solubility and interaction of the scCO2 in the polymer. Under these unique conditions, temperature and solvent labile molecules can be mixed efficiently into the liquefied polymer. This liquefied polymer/drug/CO2 mixture can then be sprayed into a collecting chamber, and during this process particles of drug-loaded polymer are formed. This process is very different from rapid expansion and antisolvent based techniques that have been previously reported. In this article, we describe a method of controlling particle size during the spray process by introducing a backpressure of N2 in the collecting chamber. This backpressure dynamically regulates the loss of CO2 from the issuing polymer/CO2 mixture, leading to control over sprayed particle size. In situ observation of the viscosity of the plasticized polymer indicates that a backpressure of 68 bar or greater is necessary to ensure the production of fine particles. The influences of backpressure and saturation temperature on particle size for the sprayed products are discussed in terms of observed PDLLA/CO2 mixture viscosities. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 93: 1083–1090, 2004

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see anything regarding "chemtrails," Nothing about planes, spraying from planes etc.

reply to post by GringoViejo


i have stared your post but only because i see you looking into the items he gave as prof of the project i would be interested in uv levels for the last 50 years if you find a site with that information please post a link as most sites i have visited that information is unavailable comes up with error 406
manythanks

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

1.why are they doing it?
Its to reduce the amount of uv radiation reaching the earth's surface.

the question presupposes that there is something being done in teh 1st place.

It has never been established that there IS anything "being done", therefore anything that askes "why" or "who" is necessarily begging the question of whether anything is being done.

therefore your question is completely meaningless until you can establish that ther is somethnig being done.

2.how can it be a worldwide project?

Ditto.

Had you phrased this "How COULD it be a worldwide project?" then there could be reasonable speculative discussion.

but you chose not to.

3.how can such a project be implemented [ie no. of planes worldwide]

No. Several types of craft are used. Commercial jet airliners are used and they are not diverted from their flight paths to do so. How the canisters and the spraying is done on this kind of craft is unknown to me exactly. I do have my suspicions.

Exactly - he has no evidence only suspicions. Unless you are going to provide some checkable evidence ther is nothing here that can be examined.

All those who know are expected to remain silent.

Well I would have to know, and no-one has ever told me to be silent - and I have never seen anything that supports his ropositions.

Let me say this again - his idea of tanks, etc on airliners could not POSSIBLY exist without me knowing about it - and millions of other mechanics worldwide.

And I have never seen anything that remotely supports his idea.

All of those who suspect are either faced with trying to prove the virtually unprovable

completely false from his own article - he has described the existence of polymers, of large qwuantities of materials on board airliners - these have to be made, transported, held on board aircraft in some way - this is all easily proveable.

i would like you to prove to me why the answers given are scientifically wrong after all there are 4 answers to questions often asked of us chemmies

they aren't "scientifically wrong" because they are not science - they are hearsay. I have given such answers as to why they are wrong as hearsay that I am able to give.

If you want scientific proof for or against somethign then come up with some science in the first place.

reply to post by djcarlosa


I don't know about the "project," but here is a use for polymers on planes, which is used as a coating.
soar.wichita.edu...

If you take a look at the "abstract" and the "theory" it shows what they are usually testing using polymers. Can't copy and paste it, or I would.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You know what i have to say that was a great way to dismiss the questions and i love the way you cut out small lines from the whole to try and discredit the whole post.
Secondly i would like to say that having read what the guy answered to the question posed to him i have to say that not only can i understand the reason for it the reason why its denied and although i may not feel that this is the best option to solve the problem we face when you look at the 20 year till we are all extinct without the shield is a real eye opener.

Originally posted by GringoViejo
reply to post by djcarlosa

 

I don't know about the "project," but here is a use for polymers on planes, which is used as a coating.

ther are lots of uses for polymers on planes - piolymers are nothing more than a material made up of large molecules - acrylic paints are polymers, plastics are polymers, as is epoxy resin, rubber and the old bakelite.

To say planes use polymers is as useful as saying that rain is wet

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Yes, I know. Rayon, nylon, dacron, etc. all polymers.

I was trying to narrow it down to "testing" or "projects" which so far have all dealt with anti corrosion testing from the few searches I've done so far.

reply to post by GringoViejo


thanks for t he link but as its late here i have it bookmarked and will read with fresh eyes if you have any luck on groundlevel uv figures for the last 50 years its the one item i'm having awful trouble locating that information

reply to post by djcarlosa



How about here - data-portal.ecmwf.int... - Daily European data back to 1957 - radiation is one of hte parameters, although I don't know when it starts to be measured

New Zealand seesm to have a UV-atlast that goes back to 1960 - www.niwa.co.nz...

There are worldwide figures going back to 2002 at www.temis.nl...

None of this was hard to find.......

Originally posted by GringoViejo
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Yes, I know. Rayon, nylon, dacron, etc. all polymers.

I was trying to narrow it down to "testing" or "projects" which so far have all dealt with anti corrosion testing from the few searches I've done so far.

Yeah well there's a lot of testing that's gone on - for example carbon fibre has had an awful lot of testing done in the last 25 years.....

the original post is so non-specific that I think you're wasting your time tryng to tie it down to anythnig - it's simply not clear enough to be analysed in any menaingful manner.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Very true. I haven't been able to find anything close to the "shield" thing in anything I've read.

Go figure...