Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,378 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 510,119
Pageviews Today: 676,467Threads Today: 127Posts Today: 2,713
04:39 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject New Chemtrail Poll: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Poster Handle George B
Post Content
From other Thread. . . . . .


...


You have proven they don't accept any answer that is not politically correct for them to make . . .
 Quoting: George B


Of COURSE you know better than real scientists...

laugh
 Quoting: SnakeAirlines


It is not the first time scientists have had blinders on . . . I would point to the struggle Physicians had accepting the role of germs and the need for hand washing and sterile techniques between treating patients . . .


Thread: New Chemtrail Poll: Do you believe in Chemtrails? (Page 238)

The study had painstakingly gone on for three years, compiling large amounts of data. Through the death of a friend and mentor, an insight came to him that helped him solve the riddle. It was common practice for students and doctors to go to the delivery wards just after completing autopsies for research or classroom studies.  Sanitary conditions were primitive, for this was before germ theory was developed.  Often, physicians did not wash their hands between autopsy and delivery.  As a result, they were carrying an invisible particle of infection on their hands from the cadavers to the mothers.  In other words, the doctors were inadvertently introducing into the mother’s body the infection that would kill her.  This would also explain the discrepancy between the two divisions:  midwives did not do autopsies.

Semmelweis ordered the doctors and students in his division to adopt a
hand-washing technique employing a chlorine solution before they delivered any baby.  The change had an immediate impact.  In 1848, the first full year of hand-washing techniques were applied; and deaths fell dramatically, moving in line with rates from the other division and rates reported for home births.  The mortality rate after hand washing dropped from 1 in 10 to 1 in 100.

While this was a major break-through, do you think the medical world and work immediately celebrated?  No.  In fact, Semmelweis was not reappointed to his position the next year.   Even worse, it was so divisive
that his division discontinued the hand-washing practice after he was not reappointed, and the mortality rate among mothers returned to their much-higher rates.  It would be almost 20 years before it was shown how Semmelweis’ “invisible cadaver particles”—caused putrefaction in dead
bodies and hospitals began to adapt the practical strategies of minimizing infection.

[link to justpeaceumc.org]
 Quoting: George B



From the Thread above. . . .

I have never been on the "chemtrail" bandwagon, and still call them contrails, but I don't believe them to be pure clean water vapor.

Do contrails contain aluminum, aluminum oxide, and other minerals and chemicals? Of course they do, in trace amounts. You can't have an aluminum aircraft with mostly aluminum engine parts not exhausting small amounts of aluminum through engine wear. Of course, the same thing is true of modern automobiles with aluminum engine parts.

Finding aluminum in tree bark is hardly conclusive proof that it fell from the sky. It could have been blown in by a storm front from a nearby open pit mine, the nearest highway, a local factory, et cetera...

When I start hearing from a multitude of airline mechanics about unknown
tanks, hoses, and external nozzles on the aircraft they work on, I'll reconsider this subject.
 Quoting: Rabid_Wolf


Ask Noble why the maximum standard for sulfur compounds in jets fuel is 3,000 ppm when the fuels delivered supposedly everyday to aircraft averages 300 - 500 ppm . . Also ask why research was conducted to see how fuel as high as 5,500 ppm was tested in aircraft to test the engine performance and exhaust visibility characteristics . . .this was done around 1995. . . .by-the-way the maximum standard is still 3,000 ppm while all other standards for fuel have been lower to the double digits. . .
.coffee4
 Quoting: George B


Ask Noble why the maximum standard for sulfur compounds in jets fuel is 3,000 ppm when the fuels delivered supposedly everyday to aircraft averages 300 - 500 ppm . . Also ask why research was conducted to see how fuel as high as 5,500 ppm was tested in aircraft to test the engine performance and exhaust visibility characteristics . . .this was done around 1995. . . .by-the-way the maximum standard is still 3,000 ppm while all other standards for fuel have been lower to the double digits. . . .coffee4
 Quoting: George B


I don't need to ask about that one.

Fuel is cheaper with higher sulfur content in it. Removing the sulfur from the fuel drives up the price.
Domestic (US) crude oil can have up to 2.5% sulfur content which needs to be removed during the refining process.

(Humans do really stupid shit to save money)
 Quoting: Rabid_Wolf


2.5% is roughly 2,500 ppm. . . Still a far cry fro 5,500 ppm tested. . . Also, you have just demonstrated how refineries could just pass through 2,500 ppm to airlines cheaper than removing it . . . What an incentive to cooperate or look the other way when necessary . . . coffee4
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:



News