Chemtrail spraying in broad daylight for everyone to see!

reply to post by HandyDandy


What chemicals?

biofuels are chemically identical to mineral hydrocarbons - the actual mix of hydrocarbons in the fuel may differ by % points either way - but the chemicals themselves are no different at all.

Eg read wiki article or for a more technical description try
here (2.5mb pdf)

Let's say chemtrails were real. And the government didn't want people to know about it even though there was no way they could do it secretly.

Answer?

Reverse Psychology.

Make it as blatant and public as possible. People wouldn't expect the government to be so dumb as to be so up front about something like that, which leads them to believe that it's more than likely not true, and they are just all every day contrails. In the end it's actually pretty ingenious.

reply to post by OGOldGreg


Is that supposed to be some sort of evidence that it's actually happening??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

So anyway Gaul
We know I came up with my own conclusion,
with fresh air in plane cabins, with your help,
So have any filters been tested,
or has anyone become ill on a flight?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

What chemicals?

biofuels are chemically identical to mineral hydrocarbons - the actual mix of hydrocarbons in the fuel may differ by % points either way - but the chemicals themselves are no different at all.

Eg read wiki article or for a more technical description try
here (2.5mb pdf)

Why would they say that it would lessen the carbon footprint if they are both exactly the same? How can they be exactly the same yet burn different?

Water is chemically the same as hydrogen peroxide.

I doubt you'd accept a glass full of h2O2 with your dinner.



Question: Are you a believer of high fructose corn sugar being the culprit of why Americans are fat? If so, you shoot yourself in the foot as corn sugar is chemically the same as cane sugar.

So, why are Americans getting fat then?

BTW....jet fuel sometimes has chemical additives for certain situations.

Additives

The DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel, including:[8][9]
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.[10]
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.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Why would they say that it would lessen the carbon footprint if they are both exactly the same? How can they be exactly the same yet burn different?

They burn the same, and release the same amount of carbon dioxide. However, fossil fuels increase CO2, because they release carbon that has been stored underground for millions of years. But biofuels just release the carbon that the plan captured while growing. That carbon will then be re-captured by continued biofuel production, so there's no net increase.

It's a lot more complicated though, as you have to account for land use, and energy used in manufacture. Some crops and locations are a lot worse than others.

www.heatingoil.com...

Water is chemically the same as hydrogen peroxide.

I doubt you'd accept a glass full of h2O2 with your dinner.

There's a huge difference between H2O and H2O2, but aviation biofuel is only slightly different from regular jet fuel. It's a blend of a lot of different types of hydrocarbon.

reply to post by Uncinus


The point still stands that the testing of newer fuels (biofuels etc.) could be the reason why people are seeing a different pattern in the exhaust formations.

You even stated that there is less CO2 produced.

Maybe this causes the other chemicals (yes chemicals) that are produced to stay visible in the air longer?

Plus.....it's just a pet theory of mine instead of going overboard claiming nefarious evil governments are plotting to kill us all.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
[
Why would they say that it would lessen the carbon footprint if they are both exactly the same? How can they be exactly the same yet burn different?

the factor there is that the carbon for biofuels is taken out of the biosphere by growing the plants or algae or whatever to make it. Whereas carbon from fossil fuels is new to the biosphere - it has been out of "cirulation" for millions of years.

So by burning fossil fuels we increase the amount of carbon in hte biosphere, by burning biofuels we do not.

Water is chemically the same as hydrogen peroxide.

no it isn't.

I doubt you'd accept a glass full of h2O2 with your dinner.

indeed - because it is not H2O

Question: Are you a believer of high fructose corn sugar being the culprit of why Americans are fat? If so, you shoot yourself in the foot as corn sugar is chemically the same as cane sugar.

not really - the thing with HFCS is that it is much cheaper than cane sugar, so it is put into everything and prices come down, increasing consumption.

consuming that much cane sugar would have the same effect I reckon.

Also the make up of sugar and its effect on BMI is completely irrelevant to the makeup of fuel and the existence of chemtrails!!

BTW....jet fuel sometimes has chemical additives for certain situations.

Additives

The DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel, including:[8][9]
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.[10]
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.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yep - I've often quoted that standard - and none of those additives can achieve anything like what the chemtrail conspiracy postulates - Stadis 450 is often quoted as being the source of Barium - but Stadis 450 is, at most, 20% barium, and is only added to fuel at 2 parts per million initially, and up to 5 ppm to maintain its effect over time - this is a miniscule amount of barium even at the high burn rates of jet fuel.

Eg a rule of thumb I heard for a 747 is 10 tons of fuel per hour - 10,000kg. So at 5ppm stadis 450, and 20% barium, that is 0.01 kg barium per hour (I think....math isn't my strong suit anymore!!) - 10 grams??...over 550-600 miles of cruising

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by Uncinus

 

The point still stands that the testing of newer fuels (biofuels etc.) could be the reason why people are seeing a different pattern in the exhaust formations.

You even stated that there is less CO2 produced.

Maybe this causes the other chemicals (yes chemicals) that are produced to stay visible in the air longer?

Indeed maybe it is....but there's no particular reason tho think that is the case. Perhaps someone someday will study it...who knows.

Plus.....it's just a pet theory of mine instead of going overboard claiming nefarious evil governments are plotting to kill us all.

Sadly speculation with no real basis is what got us "into" the chemtrail conspiracy in the first place - people start taking what has been written as speculation and commenting on it as if it is fact - that is pretty much the entire evidential base for chemtrails - speculation reported as fact!!

But isn't the visible trail entirely water? If I'm right the water content of the trail, by volume, dwarfs all other chemicals present and is the sole reason the trail is visible at all. After all, these other chemicals are always, consistently present in the same amounts as a byproduct of jet fuel combustion even when the plane is leaving no trail at all.

Shouldn't that mean that the use of biofuels would make no difference to trail visibility?

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by Uncinus

 

The point still stands that the testing of newer fuels (biofuels etc.) could be the reason why people are seeing a different pattern in the exhaust formations.

You even stated that there is less CO2 produced.

Maybe this causes the other chemicals (yes chemicals) that are produced to stay visible in the air longer?

Plus.....it's just a pet theory of mine instead of going overboard claiming nefarious evil governments are plotting to kill us all.

There's no less CO2 produced on a per-plane basis. The exhaust emissions will be basically identical. The "less CO2 comes into it when you consider the entire effect on the planet of using biofuels vs. fossile fuels.

The only thing visible in a contrail is frozen water.

Originally posted by Uncinus
The only thing visible in a contrail is frozen water.

Incorrect.

Contrails ( /ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are artificial clouds that are the visible trails of condensed water vapour made by the exhaust of aircraft engines. As the hot exhaust gases cool in the surrounding air they may precipitate a cloud of microscopic water droplets or, if the air is cold enough, tiny ice crystals.[1]

Water droplets (not frozen water) are also visible as contrails.

Are you people postulating that the only exhaust produced from burning petroleum hydrocarbons is water?

Why do I have to get my car checked every 2 years for emissions if burning hydrocarbon fuel only produces water vapor?

BTW, I love the die hard "no there are definately not chemtrails of any sort" crowd. Someone tries to give a reasonable speculation as to why there may be a difference from the trails seen today than there were yesterday, and the die hards can't take that as a possibility because "No...No...fuel is fuel and they will burn exactly the same no matter if there is a different carbon molecule or even different percentages of the same hydrocarbon".

If they all burn the same, why do we call them by different names? Jet fuel A and Jet fuel B are totally different. And both don't just leave a cloud of water as their exhaust.

What's so deadly about airplane exhaust?

Much like the exhaust that pours out of your car, plane fuel emits pollutants (like sulfur dioxide, for example). The particles are tiny, and that's what makes them so deadly: They can easily enter the human bloodstream and cause long-term health damage.

Researchers at MIT, whose work is reported by National Geographic, used a computer model to track plane emissions through the atmosphere. They noted where the emissions were likely to fall and then linked them to human deaths.

They tabulated that around 10,000 deaths per year can be blamed on airplane pollution. Compare that to 1,000 annual deaths caused by crashes.

And most of the deaths are caused by emissions at cruising altitudes over 3,000 -- not takeoff and landing, whose emissions are monitored and controlled.

"Anything above that [altitude] really hasn't been regulated, and the goal of this research was to determine whether that was really justified," Steven Barrett, the study's lead author, told MIT's News Office.

www.aolnews.com...

Please do not sit there and tell me there are no chemicals in the trails of planes. By definition one would have to class them as chemtrails.

If you are not saying that, no harm, no foul.

I get what you guys are saying but I still believe there is something in the chemical composition in the newer fuels that is causing most (not all) of the more lingering affects of the trails seen today. That's my opinion.

reply to post by HandyDandy


Don't get me wrong, of course I understand that there are chemicals or better put, noxious gases in jet exhaust fumes but these differ from the chemicals that people say exist.

It isn't actually water from the exhaust emissions itself that causes the trails. It is the temperature difference between the hot gases and the cold air outside causing water in the air to condense. If you open your bathroom window after a shower on a cold day, you will get a stream of condensation flowing into or out of the room. This is the same effect; the cold air and the warm air colliding and causing condensation of the water.

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
but these differ from the chemicals that people say exist.

I guess I'm confused on what people are claiming the chemtrails are then. I'm not very read up on this particular conspiracy.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
but these differ from the chemicals that people say exist.

I guess I'm confused on what people are claiming the chemtrails are then. I'm not very read up on this particular conspiracy.

Do a search and you will find many many threads. Don't get sucked in!

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
Do a search and you will find many many threads. Don't get sucked in!

You mean like I did with this one.

Is the theory that some evil government entity is spraying a certain chemical intentionally into the air to kill off a majority of people? If so, I got that much.

i say chemtrails are real, first time i saw them with my own eyes i was visiting my parents in newports news. they live near an army airbase and I sat there on a clear day and watched this plane go back n forth drawing a pattern in the sky. i was shocked because it was broad daylight, how can other people not notice this. then while in the backyard this rather small unmarked white plane flew low over the house as it had just taken off from the airbase and it just didn't look right so I decided to try an watch this plane and surely enough a few minutes later the spraying began again. now I lived in Hawaii at the time and never seen any contrails such as this there and it was summer time in Virgina so the temperature wasn't much difference and the chemtrails were being spayed all over the place. Thats when i knew there was a clear difference in contrails n chemtrails, now i live in the bay area of CA and again they spray here as well, its just too obvious these aren't normal contrails. they don't do it everyday but when they are spraying you can literally pull up a chair an watch these planes draw in the sky. what it is I don't know but I truly don't believe there just contrails.

reply to post by HandyDandy


In a nutshell yes... and it infuriates me. I don't know why but it does.

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

In a nutshell yes... and it infuriates me. I don't know why but it does.

Maybe people wouldn't be so paranoid about it if our government didn't have a history of doing it in the first place?

1962: US Sprays Chemical in Oklahoma Town, Apparently Does Not Monitor Effects

Sometime between 1962 and 1973: US Performs Chemical or Biological Weapons Tests in Puerto Rico

Sometime between 1962 and 1973: US Performs Biological or Chemical Tests in Florida, Civilians Possibly Exposed

1964-1968: Nerve and Chemical Agents Sprayed on Ship Crews, Apparently without Their Consent

1965: Solider Tests Pills with Sarin, XV and '___' for Army

1965-1967: Sarin, VX Tested in Alaska

May 1967: US Tests Sarin in Hawaii, Panama

www.historycommons.org...

reply to post by HandyDandy


Yeah I understand that. I haven't looked into it but it would be interesting to know the ratio of believers in America compared to other nations. Surely people realise that this is not happening daily via commercial airliners though. I just don't get how people can be so set in a belief that it overrules common sense and scientific fact.