Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,765 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 435,979
Pageviews Today: 488,918Threads Today: 44Posts Today: 1,006
01:47 AM

Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
Message Subject New Chemtrail Poll: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Poster Handle George B
Post Content
From other Thread . . .
Thread: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand. (Page 29)


Why didn't you answer this part of the question . . .

"Also why do research where you test the visibility of combustion trails from aircraft where the sulfur content is 5,000 ppm. . . .???? Seems a waste of money and time to me. . . .don't you think. . . just inquiring minds at work here. ." .
 Quoting: George B

Ask 'them'...

 Quoting: SnakeAirlines

I am asking YOUR opinion . . . I don't care about THEIR answer . . . why would you spike sulfur in jet fuel to 5,500 ppm when the maximum allowed concentration is 3,000 and the average is 300 to 800 . . . devil6
 Quoting: George B

if the maximum allowable concentration of sulfur in jet fuel is 3,000 ppm
 Quoting: George B

You keep erroneously saying that...

The 3000ppm is a DOD maximum allowable for contract buying of jet fuel...

That number has nothing to do with the civi use of fuels...

 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Apr 17;46(8):4275-82. Epub 2012 Mar 28.

Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
. sbarrett@mit.edu

". In contrast, the maximum sulfur content of aviation fuel has remained unchanged at 3000 ppm (although sulfur levels average 600 ppm in practice)."

[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
 Quoting: George B

And you conveniently ignore this from your 'abstract':

At ambient temperatures 5 K below the threshold temperature for contrail onset, the plume became visible about 10 m after the engine exit for high sulfur content, but 15 m after the engine exit for low sulfur content......The high-sulfur contrail grew more quickly but also evaporated earlier than the low-sulfur contrail.

 Quoting: SnakeAirlines

Yes. . . . it supports my assumption . . . the whole effort was to test the visibility and persistence trends of geoengineering level concentrations of sulfur compounds in jet fuel . . . which by-the-way was done in 1995 . . coffee4 Sufficient time to integrate these findings into operational process . . .


Received 22 June 1995; accepted 27 October 1995; published 20 March 1996.

Citation: Schumann, U., J. Ström, R. Busen, R. Baumann, K. Gierens, M. Krautstrunk, F. P. Schröder, and J. Stingl (1996), In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft exhausts and contrails for different sulfur-containing fuels, J. Geophys. Res., 101(D3), 68536869, doi:10.1029/95JD03405.

[link to www.agu.org]
Please verify you're human:

Reason for reporting: