Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,886 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,138,992
Pageviews Today: 1,817,972Threads Today: 569Posts Today: 12,246
03:46 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.

 
Noble (OP)

User ID: 17975050
United States
06/23/2012 02:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Hehe, sure...paranoid loser.

It's basic science...which can't be faked...stupid.


The trails will form where the atmospheric conditions dictate they should. And I have seen nothing to suggest the trails are anything more than contrails. Neither have you..
 Quoting: Noble


Again, there are problem's with this argument. Science can be "faked".

For example, it was once thought by scientists that proteins held the secrets to heredity. This was still believed despite experiments in the 20th century providing proof that DNA was the link to heredity.

Or, as an even better example:

The Solar System... it was once thought that Earth was the center of the Universe. In fact, that was the current "science" for about 1500 years or so. Many tried to suggest otherwise, but I imagine they were "suntards", right? Even when Copernicus' Heliocentric Model was introduced the idea was still resisted. Enter Galileo, another "suntard" supporting Copernicus and resisting TPTB's (Then, maybe still, the Catholic Church) agenda. The Church then retaliated against Galileo for his work Dialogue, which they felt supported the "suntard" ideas of Copernicus.


So, if the world got lied to for 1500 years or so with "fake science" and was held from the truth of the "suntards", then who's to say that your Contrails haven't been "Chemtrails" all along as suggested previously?
 Quoting: CriticalThinking


No, water vapor from hydrocarbon combustion will always act in a certain And very predictable way given the atmospheric conditions.


Prove that the trails aren't contrails.

Last Edited by Noble on 06/23/2012 02:37 PM
Favorite Karma:


12/21/2012 "Can you admit you are a shill?"

No, I can't. Because that would be a lie.

Can you admit that you are a gullible loser?
got my wings
User ID: 17003920
United States
06/23/2012 02:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
[youtube] [link to www.youtube.com]
There is strong enough evidence everywhere when you stop looking the other way. Payed counter intel shrill sounds like the paranoid one. Better wear depends 'cause when you finally wake up you might shit yur panties.

buttbuttbuttbuttbuttbuttbuttbuttbutt
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/23/2012 03:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
[youtube] [link to www.youtube.com]
There is strong enough evidence everywhere when you stop looking the other way. Payed counter intel shrill sounds like the paranoid one. Better wear depends 'cause when you finally wake up you might shit yur panties.

buttbuttbuttbuttbuttbuttbuttbuttbutt
 Quoting: got my wings 17003920


It's "paid" stupid...and you idiots haven't even shown a need for anyone to be paid to disagree with you paranoid losers. All you have proven is that chemtards are poorly educated in the subjects of science, aviation, geology and chemistry.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18345296
United States
06/23/2012 03:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Chemtrail History and Information - Alan Watt [Full]



[link to www.youtube.com]
CriticalThinking

User ID: 3977931
United States
06/23/2012 03:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Hehe, sure...paranoid loser.

It's basic science...which can't be faked...stupid.


The trails will form where the atmospheric conditions dictate they should. And I have seen nothing to suggest the trails are anything more than contrails. Neither have you..
 Quoting: Noble


Again, there are problem's with this argument. Science can be "faked".

For example, it was once thought by scientists that proteins held the secrets to heredity. This was still believed despite experiments in the 20th century providing proof that DNA was the link to heredity.

Or, as an even better example:

The Solar System... it was once thought that Earth was the center of the Universe. In fact, that was the current "science" for about 1500 years or so. Many tried to suggest otherwise, but I imagine they were "suntards", right? Even when Copernicus' Heliocentric Model was introduced the idea was still resisted. Enter Galileo, another "suntard" supporting Copernicus and resisting TPTB's (Then, maybe still, the Catholic Church) agenda. The Church then retaliated against Galileo for his work Dialogue, which they felt supported the "suntard" ideas of Copernicus.


So, if the world got lied to for 1500 years or so with "fake science" and was held from the truth of the "suntards", then who's to say that your Contrails haven't been "Chemtrails" all along as suggested previously?
 Quoting: CriticalThinking


No, water vapor from hydrocarbon combustion will always act in a certain And very predictable way given the atmospheric conditions.


Prove that the trails aren't contrails.
 Quoting: Noble


Another point and comment completely ignored like a childish fool.
lala

Noted: Don't expect a broken record to do anything else but repeat meaninglessly.

1doh1
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/23/2012 03:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Hehe, sure...paranoid loser.

It's basic science...which can't be faked...stupid.


The trails will form where the atmospheric conditions dictate they should. And I have seen nothing to suggest the trails are anything more than contrails. Neither have you..
 Quoting: Noble


Again, there are problem's with this argument. Science can be "faked".

For example, it was once thought by scientists that proteins held the secrets to heredity. This was still believed despite experiments in the 20th century providing proof that DNA was the link to heredity.

Or, as an even better example:

The Solar System... it was once thought that Earth was the center of the Universe. In fact, that was the current "science" for about 1500 years or so. Many tried to suggest otherwise, but I imagine they were "suntards", right? Even when Copernicus' Heliocentric Model was introduced the idea was still resisted. Enter Galileo, another "suntard" supporting Copernicus and resisting TPTB's (Then, maybe still, the Catholic Church) agenda. The Church then retaliated against Galileo for his work Dialogue, which they felt supported the "suntard" ideas of Copernicus.


So, if the world got lied to for 1500 years or so with "fake science" and was held from the truth of the "suntards", then who's to say that your Contrails haven't been "Chemtrails" all along as suggested previously?
 Quoting: CriticalThinking


No, water vapor from hydrocarbon combustion will always act in a certain And very predictable way given the atmospheric conditions.


Prove that the trails aren't contrails.
 Quoting: Noble


Another point and comment completely ignored like a childish fool.
lala

Noted: Don't expect a broken record to do anything else but repeat meaninglessly.

1doh1I
 Quoting: CriticalThinking


I understood the point just fine...I just see no evidence that chemtards understand the science, and that anyone is making trails that look like contrails in an attempt to deceive anyone.

It's just paranoid belief...nothing more.
got my wings
User ID: 17003920
United States
06/23/2012 03:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
I could really care less if I misspelled a word. My families health and future health does not rely on how I spell. I don't give a crap WHAT you think about me, really. There is a mass of people looking up and making phone calls to local government in my community. We have been bombarded with this shit in our sky far too long and the shit you spout is just as toxic. Do you sit behind game controls much? Worthless POS.
[link to www.thebiggestsecret.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/23/2012 03:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
I could really care less if I misspelled a word. My families health and future health does not rely on how I spell. I don't give a crap WHAT you think about me, really. There is a mass of people looking up and making phone calls to local government in my community. We have been bombarded with this shit in our sky far too long and the shit you spout is just as toxic. Do you sit behind game controls much? Worthless POS.
[link to www.thebiggestsecret.org]
 Quoting: got my wings 17003920


It's not just about a misspelled word. It's about a general level of ignorance you display.

You have no evidence that the trails on the sky have impacted the health of ANYONE. Just more paranoid ignorance on your part.

You are just too stupid to know you are stupid.

Keep making phone calls...seems SOOOOOO effective so far....


What a loser...
CriticalThinking

User ID: 3977931
United States
06/23/2012 04:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
...


Again, there are problem's with this argument. Science can be "faked".

For example, it was once thought by scientists that proteins held the secrets to heredity. This was still believed despite experiments in the 20th century providing proof that DNA was the link to heredity.

Or, as an even better example:

The Solar System... it was once thought that Earth was the center of the Universe. In fact, that was the current "science" for about 1500 years or so. Many tried to suggest otherwise, but I imagine they were "suntards", right? Even when Copernicus' Heliocentric Model was introduced the idea was still resisted. Enter Galileo, another "suntard" supporting Copernicus and resisting TPTB's (Then, maybe still, the Catholic Church) agenda. The Church then retaliated against Galileo for his work Dialogue, which they felt supported the "suntard" ideas of Copernicus.


So, if the world got lied to for 1500 years or so with "fake science" and was held from the truth of the "suntards", then who's to say that your Contrails haven't been "Chemtrails" all along as suggested previously?
 Quoting: CriticalThinking


No, water vapor from hydrocarbon combustion will always act in a certain And very predictable way given the atmospheric conditions.


Prove that the trails aren't contrails.
 Quoting: Noble


Another point and comment completely ignored like a childish fool.
lala

Noted: Don't expect a broken record to do anything else but repeat meaninglessly.

1doh1I
 Quoting: CriticalThinking


I understood the point just fine...I just see no evidence that chemtards understand the science, and that anyone is making trails that look like contrails in an attempt to deceive anyone.

It's just paranoid belief...nothing more.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17975050


So, those that believed something other than what scientists believed at the time held paranoid beliefs too?

Sun-Centered universe = Paranoid belief?
DNA transfers heredity = Paranoid belief?
Pluto is/is not a planet = Paranoid belief?
Germs spread infection = Paranoid belief?
The world is round not flat = Paranoid Belief?
Man in space = Paranoid Belief?

The list can go on and on, but here is a good one...

Many scientists believed that heavier-than-air flight was impossible for how long? Even after the Wright Brothers' flew their first flight there was skepticism, and their work was thought to be a hoax. The irony? Those that believed heavier-than-air flight was impossible had evidence to prove them wrong right above their heads. All they had to do was look up. Birds.
got my wings
User ID: 17003920
United States
06/23/2012 04:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
These links are for people who do care and want info. Trolls need not apply. Have a nice day! blwkss
[link to globalskywatch.com]

[link to aircrap.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5689211
United States
06/23/2012 04:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
maybe that which they intended to keep hidden from the eyes of the public

has at long last arrived

I did hear alot of high altitude movement ongoing when the chemtrails fog/soup was thickest

oft as not
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5689211
United States
06/23/2012 04:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
I still don't understand why anyone even responds to the shills in this regard tho

just a waste of energy

doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks

only they are delusional enough to believe it might
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/23/2012 06:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
...


No, water vapor from hydrocarbon combustion will always act in a certain And very predictable way given the atmospheric conditions.


Prove that the trails aren't contrails.
 Quoting: Noble


Another point and comment completely ignored like a childish fool.
lala

Noted: Don't expect a broken record to do anything else but repeat meaninglessly.

1doh1I
 Quoting: CriticalThinking


I understood the point just fine...I just see no evidence that chemtards understand the science, and that anyone is making trails that look like contrails in an attempt to deceive anyone.

It's just paranoid belief...nothing more.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17975050


So, those that believed something other than what scientists believed at the time held paranoid beliefs too?

Sun-Centered universe = Paranoid belief?
DNA transfers heredity = Paranoid belief?
Pluto is/is not a planet = Paranoid belief?
Germs spread infection = Paranoid belief?
The world is round not flat = Paranoid Belief?
Man in space = Paranoid Belief?

The list can go on and on, but here is a good one...

Many scientists believed that heavier-than-air flight was impossible for how long? Even after the Wright Brothers' flew their first flight there was skepticism, and their work was thought to be a hoax. The irony? Those that believed heavier-than-air flight was impossible had evidence to prove them wrong right above their heads. All they had to do was look up. Birds.
 Quoting: CriticalThinking


When you prove that te trails are anything more than contrails, I'll admit you chemtards were right all along...so far, ya got nothing.


And the misunderstandings above have nothing to do with paranoia...stupid. Chemtards are paranoid losers because they believe their own people are spraying them with chemicals as part of a covert program. I guess that distinction is too much for you to grasp. I'm not surprised.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/23/2012 06:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
I still don't understand why anyone even responds to the shills in this regard tho

just a waste of energy

doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks

only they are delusional enough to believe it might
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5689211


I have no doubt thatc chemtards are incapable of accepting my words as anything more than propaganda....because you are all paranoid losers.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/23/2012 06:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
These links are for people who do care and want info. Trolls need not apply. Have a nice day! blwkss
[link to globalskywatch.com]

[link to aircrap.org]
 Quoting: got my wings 17003920


Ya got anything from people who have actually studied atmospheric science and aviation?!

I didn't think so.
dharmachatra
User ID: 15177330
United States
06/23/2012 06:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
To declare that there is no evidence that chemtrails are dangerous is to ignore the evidence, which is immense. The evidence varies in quality, some of it is even worthless and does not constitute actual evidence; nonetheless evidence abounds, much of it persuasive.

In response to the argument that contrails can expand like chemtrails under certain atmospheric conditions: sounds plausible. Except: how do you explain a commerical airliner flyover in which the contrail dissipates rapidly, followed quickly by another aircraft flyover in which the chemtrail expands for hours? Same atmospherics, remarkably different results.

And by the way, insulting people who disagree with you does not constitute an argument.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/23/2012 07:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
To declare that there is no evidence that chemtrails are dangerous is to ignore the evidence, which is immense. The evidence varies in quality, some of it is even worthless and does not constitute actual evidence; nonetheless evidence abounds, much of it persuasive.

In response to the argument that contrails can expand like chemtrails under certain atmospheric conditions: sounds plausible. Except: how do you explain a commerical airliner flyover in which the contrail dissipates rapidly, followed quickly by another aircraft flyover in which the chemtrail expands for hours? Same atmospherics, remarkably different results.

And by the way, insulting people who disagree with you does not constitute an argument.
 Quoting: dharmachatra 15177330


No, contrails dont expand like "chemtrails". The trails we all see, no matter how they behave, are contrails. I see no evidence to the contrary. The planes you were referring to could be at slightly differing altitudes, have different engine types, sizes or power settings. There are many variables. Differences in atmospheric conditions can take place in mere feet...which is why clouds have edges...think about it.mif the amount of water vapor from one jet isn't pushing the air past saturation, that doesn't mean the next one won't.

I never said that insult anyone as part of my argument...it's just a bonus.
Noble (OP)

User ID: 17975050
United States
06/24/2012 07:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Ok, so STILL no evidence that the trails are anything more than contrails....got it...thanks for trying chemtards!
Favorite Karma:


12/21/2012 "Can you admit you are a shill?"

No, I can't. Because that would be a lie.

Can you admit that you are a gullible loser?
Rabid_Wolf
Professional Bacon Wrangler

User ID: 18216529
United States
06/24/2012 08:43 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/24/2012 09:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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


Right..but they aren't part of an INTENTIONAL program to release these trace elements into the air...any more than ANY engine on the planet is being used to do so. Of course it's not just water vapor...there are trace amounts of elements in any process which involves friction. There are also combustion gases.

Aluminum is also a natural part of our soil...as bauxite.

I agree about the mechanics also. The fleet would ave to be so huge for this to be global. It would be impossible to keep it quiet. The supposed whistleblowers, so far, have been unreliable...and have been shown to have very limited knowledge of aviation and aircraft mechanics. They have been nothing but deceptive chemtards.
George B

User ID: 1509033
United States
06/24/2012 11:15 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/24/2012 11:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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 George why he jumps to conclusions about sulfur levels in fuel.

And then ask George why he jumps to conclusions instead of contacting these researchers directly.

And ask Gearge if he completely understands how elements can migrate between layers of the atmosphere...up AND down...and why thats important as it relates to the spread of natural elements in the air.


Then ask George why he's a paranoid doofus.


Then ask George why he is so prone to jumping to conclusions...even though he claims to be a man of science.
Rabid_Wolf
Professional Bacon Wrangler

User ID: 18216529
United States
06/24/2012 11:55 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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)

Last Edited by Rabid Wolf on 06/24/2012 11:57 AM
George B

User ID: 1509033
United States
06/24/2012 12:12 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
George B

User ID: 1472857
United States
06/24/2012 12:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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 George why he jumps to conclusions about sulfur levels in fuel.

And then ask George why he jumps to conclusions instead of contacting these researchers directly.

And ask Gearge if he completely understands how elements can migrate between layers of the atmosphere...up AND down...and why thats important as it relates to the spread of natural elements in the air.


Then ask George why he's a paranoid doofus.


Then ask George why he is so prone to jumping to conclusions...even though he claims to be a man of science.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17975050


"And ask Gearge if he completely understands how elements can migrate between layers of the atmosphere...up AND down...and why thats important as it relates to the spread of natural elements in the air."

What do you want to know Noble. . . .aerosols and particulates while suspended will tend to go from higher concentrations to lower
concentrations. . . . Will be carried by up and down drafts, prevailing winds, jet streams, frontal systems, etc. . . .the tropopause forms a barrier to some extent but does not keep sulfur compounds from migrating into the troposphere below from the stratosphere above and vise versa . . . coffee4

So Noble how does the migration of substances between atmospheric
layers prevent the existence of an intentional covert aerosol injection program??????grinning

Last Edited by George B on 06/24/2012 02:05 PM
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
George B

User ID: 1472857
United States
06/24/2012 12:58 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
C - Atmosphere
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/24/2012 04:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
Hey George, if sulfur is responsible fo the look of the trails, why do they stop and start?!

Is the pilot varying the mixture? Is he/ she switching tanks back and forth? Why are some trails long..while others are short?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/24/2012 04:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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 George why he jumps to conclusions about sulfur levels in fuel.

And then ask George why he jumps to conclusions instead of contacting these researchers directly.

And ask Gearge if he completely understands how elements can migrate between layers of the atmosphere...up AND down...and why thats important as it relates to the spread of natural elements in the air.


Then ask George why he's a paranoid doofus.


Then ask George why he is so prone to jumping to conclusions...even though he claims to be a man of science.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17975050


"And ask Gearge if he completely understands how elements can migrate between layers of the atmosphere...up AND down...and why thats important as it relates to the spread of natural elements in the air."

What do you want to know Noble. . . .aerosols and particulates while suspended will tend to go from higher concentrations to lower
concentrations. . . . Will be carried by up and down drafts, prevailing winds, jet streams, frontal systems, etc. . . .the tropopause forms a barrier to some extent but does not keep sulfur compounds from migrating into the troposphere below from the stratosphere above and vise versa . . . coffee4

So Noble how does the migration of substances between atmospheric
layers prevent the existence of an intentional covert aerosol injection program??????grinning
 Quoting: George B


It doesn't...but it could explain how natural sulfur finds its way through the
layers...without being injected intentionally,
Rabid_Wolf
Professional Bacon Wrangler

User ID: 18216529
United States
06/24/2012 04:47 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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
 Quoting: George B


Um.... you left out a zero there:
1% = 10,000ppm
10% = 100,000ppm
100% - 1,000,000ppm

That would be 25,000 ppm.

Last Edited by Rabid Wolf on 06/24/2012 04:49 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17975050
United States
06/24/2012 06:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chemtrails? Doubtful. Things chemtards don't (or can't) understand.
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
 Quoting: George B


Um.... you left out a zero there:
1% = 10,000ppm
10% = 100,000ppm
100% - 1,000,000ppm

That would be 25,000 ppm.
 Quoting: Rabid_Wolf


chuckle

News