Chemtrails, not by Jack White.

[Jack White]

I am reposting this image here because when I tried to edit it in

the hamster thread, it got messed up. I was not allowed to

delete the incorrect image and replace it with the typo fixed.

Jack

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THE CORRECTED IMAGE POSTED IN DUPLICATE.

By Mod (Burton): Removed extra attachment. Also deleted the other posts in the Hamster thread as they are repeated here.

I DEMAND THAT MY POSTINGS BE REINSTATED ON THE OTHER THREAD.

THEY WERE DIFFERENT MESSAGES, RESPONDING TO THE HAMSTER

THREAD. THIS IS CAPRICIOUS AND PREJUDICIAL ABUSE OF MODERATION

POWER. THERE IS NO RULE THAT I CANNOT POST THE SAME IMAGE IN

TWO THREADS WHERE THE SUBJECT IS DIFFERENT AND THE TEXT IS

DIFFERENT. THIS IS YET ANOTHER INDICATION OF BURTON'S VENDETTA

AGAINS JACK WHITE.

[Dave Greer]

QUOTE:

2. Jet engines today are more powerful than older models. This means they burn more fuel and consequently have much more water vapor in the exhaust.

UNQUOTE.

Is this the scientific explanation?

Migod, with that much WATER VAPOR IN JET FUEL, how does it burn? The CHEMTRAILS that I see cannot

be CONDENSED MOISTURE FROM JET FUEL! The volume is TOO IMMENSE!

I always thought that the hot exhaust meeting the cold air CONDENSED MOISTURE IN THE ATMOSPHERE

TO FORM CONTRAILS.

I may have to research the chemistry of CONtrails. I cannot believe they are from WATER in the fuel.

Jack

Jack

It's not just water vapour in the exhaust, it's also water in the atmosphere that condenses in the hot stream of gases. Having said that, water is indeed one of the primary products produced when hydrocarbons are burnt in air.

More info:-

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html

"Contrails form when hot humid air from jet exhaust mixes with environmental air of low vapor pressure and low temperature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

"Contrails or vapor trails are condensation trails and artificial cirrus clouds made by the exhaust of aircraft engines or wingtip vortices which precipitate a stream of tiny ice crystals in moist, frigid upper air. "

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html

"Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.

The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles. "

[Jack White]

QUOTE:

2. Jet engines today are more powerful than older models. This means they burn more fuel and consequently have much more water vapor in the exhaust.

UNQUOTE.

Is this the scientific explanation?

Migod, with that much WATER VAPOR IN JET FUEL, how does it burn? The CHEMTRAILS that I see cannot

be CONDENSED MOISTURE FROM JET FUEL! The volume is TOO IMMENSE!

I always thought that the hot exhaust meeting the cold air CONDENSED MOISTURE IN THE ATMOSPHERE

TO FORM CONTRAILS.

I may have to research the chemistry of CONtrails. I cannot believe they are from WATER in the fuel.

Jack

Jack

It's not just water vapour in the exhaust, it's also water in the atmosphere that condenses in the hot stream of gases. Having said that, water is indeed one of the primary products produced when hydrocarbons are burnt in air.

More info:-

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html

"Contrails form when hot humid air from jet exhaust mixes with environmental air of low vapor pressure and low temperature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

"Contrails or vapor trails are condensation trails and artificial cirrus clouds made by the exhaust of aircraft engines or wingtip vortices which precipitate a stream of tiny ice crystals in moist, frigid upper air. "

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html

"Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.

The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles. "

Thanks for CONFIRMING what I said. CONtrails are formed basically by CONDENSATION OF MOISTURE IN THE AIR.

That is why the volume of a CONtrail is so miniscule.

The volume of CHEMtrails on the other hand is released in huge quantities from tanker planes and is unrelated to

mositure condensation in the atmosphere.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Yes, yes, Jack. Just take a pill and calm down, okay?

[Dave Greer]

I've heard of trainspotting, but apparently it's possible to go contrail spotting too. Here's a handy cut out and keep guide to their formation.

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resourc...ion_English.jpg

[Matthew Lewis]

Thanks for CONFIRMING what I said. CONtrails are formed basically by CONDENSATION OF MOISTURE IN THE AIR.

That is why the volume of a CONtrail is so miniscule.

The volume of CHEMtrails on the other hand is released in huge quantities from tanker planes and is unrelated to

mositure condensation in the atmosphere.

Jack

Wrong Jack. Contrails can constitute large or small volumes depending on the conditions they are formed in. "Chemtrails" are mythical. As mentioned before, more water vapor in the exhaust means more water vapor for the moisture already present in the air to condense upon.

](A contrail) forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. [/b]When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.

And as mentioned by Dave Greeer

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html

"Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.

The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles. "

If I didn't know better I would think you were being deliberately obtuse.

[Jack White]

Source: JonesReport - Aaron Dykes

Related: Global Warming Engineered By Chemtrails?

Local news station KSLA in Shreveport, Louisiana investigated a strange substance found by a man from the Arkansas-Lousiana-Texas border, which the man collected on the ground from a chemtrail overhead. He noticed the crisscrossed cloud-like lines in the sky as well as the unusual residue it left behind on vehicles after descending in a "haze."

KSLA’s Jeff Ferrell noted that these chemtrails "do not fade away like a normal contrail."

KSLA ran the substances through a lab and found high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.

The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a "hallmark of chemtrails." KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or "more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA." The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were "very unusual," but commented that "proving the source was a whole other matter" in its discussion with KSLA.

KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that "short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems." The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.

Wikipedia warns about Barium’s highly reactive nature and potential harm to health:

Barium is a soft silvery metallic alkaline earth metal… never found in nature in its pure form due to its reactivity with air. It is also highly reactive with water or alcohol, producing hydrogen gas.

Its various compounds have a number of industrial uses including x-ray imaging, rat poison, battery technology, lighting and electricity.

All water or acid soluble barium compounds are extremely poisonous. At low doses, barium acts as a muscle stimulant, while higher doses affect the nervous system, causing cardiac irregularities, tremors, weakness, anxiety, dyspnea and paralysis.

Unlike other heavy metals, barium does not bioaccumulate.[1] However, inhaled dust containing barium compounds can accumulate in the lungs, causing a benign condition called baritosis.

Barium acetate could lead to death in high doses. Marie Robards poisoned her father with the substance in Texas in 1993. She was tried and convicted in 1996.

KSLA also put aerosolized-chemical testing in its historical context, citing a voluminous number of unclassified tests exposed in 1977 Senate hearings. The tests included experimenting with biochemical compounds on the public. KSLA reports that "239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969."

On screen representations included ‘Operation bacterium’, ‘1949 germ bombs’ (explosive munitions tests with pathogens), ‘1950 "first" open-air tests’ with biological agents (coast of Norfolk, VA) and the ‘1950 spraying of San Francisco’ (the first large-scale aerosol test using Bacillus globigii(also known as Bacillus subtilis) and Serratia marcescens, both similar to B. anthracis (a causative agent of anthrax). These examples were only the beginning of a long chronological list.

While B. subtilis is not, for example, considered a human pathogen (according to Wikipedia), it has "proven highly amenable to genetic manipulation, and has therefore become widely adopted as a model organism for laboratory studies." Thus, it was utilized as a "biowarfare stimulant" during Project SHAD, a series of chemical and biological warfare tests carried out by the DoD in the 1960s now only partially declassified.

Furthermore, a 1994 report issued by Senator John D. Rockefeller exposed the fact "hundreds of thousands of military personnel were subjected to secret biological experiments over the last 60 years." The tests involved mustard gas, nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens and drugs used during the Gulf War.

Even more shocking, KSLA reports that secret biochemical experimentation was allowed by law"until nine years ago", but is still permitted in at least in some instances. See:

PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.

KSLA’s probing report left open the question of whether biochemical testing was currently underway, but raised a number of disturbing parallels and reason for suspicion.

Another mainstream report in Germany highlights contemporary activities by military aircraft involving chemtrails. Meteorologist Karsten Brandt has correlated patterns of heavy artificial cloud-cover with the areas of known military jet exercises in Germany during 2005 and 2006. For Brandt, the pattern clearly indicates the manipulation of meteorological maps and strongly suggests weather modification programs, used possibly in conjunction with disguising aircraft in radar systems, among other potential implications and applications.

Still another report in Los Angeles by NBC 4 reported on a "sticky yellow slime" left behind from chemtrails in parts of California, which is possibly connected with a rise in respiratory illness, nosebleeds and eye infections– though this is denied by official sources, including the local air force unit.

However, Rosalind Peterson of California Skywatch, who NBC 4 interviewed, claims to have test results that support a sharp spike in barium oxide and aluminum since the early 1990s, including in the water supply. For NBC 4, it is a case of geoengineering– putting a cloud of aerosolized dust supposedly meant to combat global warming by reflecting harmful radiation back into space– in other words, seeming to confirm the use of some form of chemtrails.

While the report remains skeptical, it does concede the application of weather modification. Official sources, however, deny the existence of chemtrails, claiming that locals are seeing long-lasting contrails– and nothing more.

[Matthew Lewis]

So they collect something on the ground and somehow assume it came from a perfectly normal trail in the sky? This is some of your funniest stuff yet Jack!

"Chemtrail" believers want to have it both ways. On the one hand they say that the "chemtrails" are staying up in the sky too long, spreading out and forming clouds (which is something normal contrails have been known to do for over 60 years) and on the other hand they want us to believe they are at the same time falling out of the sky immediately to be picked up on the ground. Can you not see the contradiction here Jack? Got any more humor for us?

[Evan Burton]

I don't think that story is totally correct, either. I looked up that citation about being allowed to conduct tests on civilians (Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1520) in the 1988 version of the United States Code and this is what I got:

The Secretary of Defense may not conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on civilian populations unless local civilian officials in the area in which the test or experiment is to be conducted are notified in advance of such test or experiment, and such test or experiment may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date of such notification.

it was the same in the 1994 version of the code. I'll see if I can find the 1977 version.

Someone may want to check me on this, because I am not familiar with searching through US laws.

[Charles Drago]

So they collect something on the ground and somehow assume it came from a perfectly normal trail in the sky? This is some of your funniest stuff yet Jack!

"Chemtrail" believers want to have it both ways. On the one hand they say that the "chemtrails" are staying up in the sky too long, spreading out and forming clouds (which is something normal contrails have been known to do for over 60 years) and on the other hand they want us to believe they are at the same time falling out of the sky immediately to be picked up on the ground. Can you not see the contradiction here Jack? Got any more humor for us?

Matthew's presentation of photographic and other anecdotal evidence documenting persistent contrails dating back at least to WWII is impressive. There can be little doubt that such formations are at first glance strikingly similar to the lingering, "cloud"-forming con/chemtrails noted the world over today.

Matthew's derisive dismissal of Jack White's previous post, however, is troubling in substance as well as tone.

I am not aware of any in-depth scientific comparisons of historical and contemporary persistent contrails that support the conclusion that what is being observed today are, in Matthew's words, "perfectly normal trail in the sky" or in any meaningful ways similar to the dogfight contrails captured in posted photos. All we have from would-be chemtrail debunkers is the decidedly non-scientific "persistent" bromide.

I am also struck by what may be Matthew's innocent misreading of the report cited by Jack. Nowhere therein is it suggested that, as Matthew would have it, chemtrails are "falling out of the sky immediately." (emphasis added) Thus his "'[c]hemtrail' believers want to have it both ways" conclusion is is shown to be based on at least one false assumption (another is that all chemtrails would be expected to exhibit identical compositions and air-to-ground descent characteristics), and thus qualifies as sophistry.

Could the barium and other dangerous substances alleged to be fallout from chemtrails originate elsewhere? Of course. That jury remains out. Serious investigations are called for. What's with the rush to judgment?

Matthew's silence on established precedents for government testing, via aerosol spraying, of biological agents on an unsuspecting population dating to the late 1940s reflects what I would suggest -- and I mean this with no disrespect -- is an unsophisticated and uninformed appreciation of deep political structures, agendas, and methods. His mocking of Jack White -- the straw man of choice for disinformationalists who regularly prowl these cyber-pages -- is at best cheap and unsavory.

I haven't the slightest idea what "chemtrails" are. Yet. But anyone who does not acknowledge the needs for an open-minded approach to this issue and impartial scientific analyses of its components by definition raises some very large red flags.

Charles

[Charles Drago]

I don't think that story is totally correct, either. I looked up that citation about being allowed to conduct tests on civilians (Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1520) in the 1988 version of the United States Code and this is what I got:

The Secretary of Defense may not conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on civilian populations unless local civilian officials in the area in which the test or experiment is to be conducted are notified in advance of such test or experiment, and such test or experiment may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date of such notification.

it was the same in the 1994 version of the code. I'll see if I can find the 1977 version.

Someone may want to check me on this, because I am not familiar with searching through US laws.

Evan,

In this case it is not the letter of the law, but rather the spirit, that must be the focus of our attention.

Charles

Edited January 11, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Matthew Lewis]

I am also struck by what may be Matthew's innocent misreading of the report cited by Jack. Nowhere therein is it suggested that, as Matthew would have it, chemtrails are "falling out of the sky immediately." (emphasis added) Thus his "'[c]hemtrail' believers want to have it both ways" conclusion is is shown to be based on at least one false assumption (another is that all chemtrails would be expected to exhibit identical compositions and air-to-ground descent characteristics), and thus qualifies as sophistry.

I have read these reports before as well as many others. The people involved collect samples on the same days as "chemtrail" sprayings neglecting the fact that particles released at high altitudes would likely stay aloft for days if not weeks. There is also a problem of concentration. If something is sprayed at high altitudes and spends time spreading out and dissipating in the upper atmosphere, how is it then found in any measurable concentration on the ground let alone clumps which some reports I have read would have you believe? It is highly likely that it is from another source.

Matthew's silence on established precedents for government testing, via aerosol spraying, of biological agents on an unsuspecting population dating to the late 1940s reflects what I would suggest -- and I mean this with no disrespect -- is an unsophisticated and uninformed appreciation of deep political structures, agendas, and methods. His mocking of Jack White -- the straw man of choice for disinformationalists who regularly prowl these cyber-pages -- is at best cheap and unsavory.

I haven't the slightest idea what "chemtrails" are. Yet. But anyone who does not acknowledge the needs for an open-minded approach to this issue and impartial scientific analyses of its components by definition raises some very large red flags.

Charles

I am well aware that there has been government testing via aerosol spraying. What I am also aware of is that any such spraying would be done at low altitudes (less than a few thousand feet) in order to aim correctly, have it reach the target in any decent concentration, and so that it is not rendered inert by long exposure to sunlight on the way down. Spraying at high altitudes like the "chemtrail" supporters would have you believe would run into all of these problems.

[Charles Drago]

Thank you once again, Matthew, for your civil and informative response.

I'm admittedly doing a bit of intellectual scurrying here: One of many theories regarding "chemtrails" postulates that the spraying is done at high altitudes by design, and that heavy metals and/or other particulate residues that make it to the ground are like greenhouse gases: unfortunate but unavoidable harmful after-effects of well-intended processes (weather modification? anti-missile defense? communications experiments? cooling efforts?).

What is being collected may originate with prior "chemtrail" sprayings, and so would have the time to reach the ground.

And until we know exactly what, if anything, is being sprayed, it is just as likely that currently unknown components can make it to the surface as it is that they would be diluted/dissipated at altitude.

[Jack White]

Thank you once again, Matthew, for your civil and informative response.

I'm admittedly doing a bit of intellectual scurrying here: One of many theories regarding "chemtrails" postulates that the spraying is done at high altitudes by design, and that heavy metals and/or other particulate residues that make it to the ground are like greenhouse gases: unfortunate but unavoidable harmful after-effects of well-intended processes (weather modification? anti-missile defense? communications experiments? cooling efforts?).

What is being collected may originate with prior "chemtrail" sprayings, and so would have the time to reach the ground.

And until we know exactly what, if anything, is being sprayed, it is just as likely that currently unknown components can make it to the surface as it is that they would be diluted/dissipated at altitude.

Thanks, Charles, for your intelligent response.

Nobody knows for sure what is going on, except those doing it or those covering for them.

Anyone who claims to know is a fool or worse.

Making observations about what is occurring, however, draws draws passionate claims that

the observations are not valid. This says more about the protesters than the observers.

Jack

[Jack White]

Interesting happening a few minutes ago. My wife came home after being out several

hours. She said, COME OUT WITH YOUR CAMERA...THERE ARE LOTS OF BIG BIRDS

ON THE ROOF.

I went out quickly with my camera; on the roof and in a nearby tree were 16

AMERICAN BUZZARDS. They are birds about halfway between the size of a crow

or raven and a turkey...black with an ugly head and some white banded wingfeathers.

There were five in a nearby tree, two on the balcony railing, and nine on our roof.

I snapped a photo of the ones in the tree, but by then, all the birds got spooked

by my moving around to get a good view. In moments they had all flown high into

the sky where I usually see them. I had never seen a buzzard closeup before, and these

were only about 20 feet away. Only later did I notice several dissipating CHEMTRAILS

in the sky. I don't think they got in the one photo I took, but will look when I have time.

Jack

Edited January 12, 2008 by Jack White