Aluminium content dissent
- Thread starter HappyMonday
- Start date
Curiosity
Member
"You cannot explain how a mind-commanding system which relies on locally-applied electromagnets can possibly be operated remotely as a weapon (of "suggestion"). The answer is it cannot."
Try doing some research. Here's how the Army defined their "Voice to Skull" microwave weapon:
Maybe they used Frey's research on the Microwave Auditory Effect. Sharp and Grove successfully transmitted words via microwave decades ago.Nonlethal weapon which includes (1) a neuro-electromagnetic device which uses microwave transmission of sound into the skull of persons or animals by way of pulse-modulated microwave radiation; and (2) a silent sound device which can transmit sound into the skull of person or animals. NOTE: The sound modulation may be voice or audio subliminal messages. One application of V2K is use as an electronic scarecrow to frighten birds in the vicinity of airports.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/05/army-removes-pa/
The microwave auditory effect, also known as the microwave hearing effect or the Frey effect, consists of audible clicks (or, with modulation, whole words) induced by pulsed/modulated microwave frequencies. The clicks are generated directly inside the human head without the need of any receiving electronic device. Sharp and Grove developed 'receiverless' wireless voice transmission technologies for the Advanced Research Projects Agency at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, in 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect
Well, shucks. So the answer isn't "it cannot." And it didn't even "crisp" the scientists involved or go over 10mW/cm². I wonder if they've made any developments in this field in the past 40 years. Research is critical in debunking, gentlemen. Asserting things to be impossible, based on nothing, is not a service to yourselves or anyone.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Which is why I didn't base it on nothing.
The effects of a remote microwave device are easily prevented by means of a Faraday Cage, which need be no more than graphene gauze, these days. Any such weapon could easily be detected (by a sweeping scanner/receiver*) and then circumvented, and that's the reason why such devices don't get past the test phase. Yes, it works, but, no, it's useless, except for a once-only bash. That was said of chaff, of course, and it's still used. But people aren't missiles with unintelligent radar systems, and aren't so easily fooled.
Truthers already have the defense sorted out, of course, although the present version leaves gaps in its defense, and the wrap-around version would make one easy to distinguish in street riots...
* I worked on such a detector, er, thirty-two years ago. For a very brief period. The man that employed me then is doing eighty years in Los Angeles jail right now, last time I heard.
Last edited:
Jazzy
Closed Account
Sorry. I quite forgot.
Are you recommending Tin Foil Hats, as a defense?
Jazzy
Closed Account
Only for those with anything to lose. That would be those that didn't need confirmation. If you need it, then you don't.Are you recommending Tin Foil Hats, as a defense?
mikam molecule
New Member
Water injection has been used for many years for brief augmentation of the thrust of jet engines and more recently, water injection is used to control the formation of NOx in gas turbines.. http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~kenneth-weston/chapter9.pdf
Some turbocharged diesel engines also use water injection to enhance power and efficiency. http://www.methanol-injection.co.uk/info.php
It would make perfect sense for modern jet engines to inject waste water from the sewerage onboard system to enhance engine performance and/or fuel effeciency (for free) while getting rid of unneeded onboard weight and waste. Urea and methane would act as an additional fuel source and the chemical agents in the flushing water may be specially formulated to help create aerosols for high altitude cloud seeding. Even solid sewerage and toilet paper could be injected and atomised as additional fuel with negligible harm to the environment, other than cloud seeding. Aircraft designers, engineers and technicians would consider the strategy to be quite ingenious and treat the subject as “tricks of the trade” to keep the public ignorant of the “dirty details.” So this possible cloud seeding strategy has the perfect disguise as well.
Some turbocharged diesel engines also use water injection to enhance power and efficiency. http://www.methanol-injection.co.uk/info.php
It would make perfect sense for modern jet engines to inject waste water from the sewerage onboard system to enhance engine performance and/or fuel effeciency (for free) while getting rid of unneeded onboard weight and waste. Urea and methane would act as an additional fuel source and the chemical agents in the flushing water may be specially formulated to help create aerosols for high altitude cloud seeding. Even solid sewerage and toilet paper could be injected and atomised as additional fuel with negligible harm to the environment, other than cloud seeding. Aircraft designers, engineers and technicians would consider the strategy to be quite ingenious and treat the subject as “tricks of the trade” to keep the public ignorant of the “dirty details.” So this possible cloud seeding strategy has the perfect disguise as well.
Water injection uses clean water for a very brief periods of time. It creates a lot of black soot. It would not help with cloud seeding of any form. It's an inefficient power boost.
Injecting sewage into a jet engine is not something that is going to happen.
solrey
Senior Member.
No, anybody who knows aircraft even a little bit would consider the strategy to be quite ludicrous. Good god man, you can not just dump stuff into a jet engine like it was a garbage disposal.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Then why do they still have to truck away the sewage at airports?
Yes, you could build a toaster powered by nuclear energy, too.
This idea doesn't really "make perfect sense" if you have worked on gas turbines as I have. If you think that aircraft manufacturers and designers, airline operators, regulatory agencies, inspectors and mechanics keep "tricks of the trade" secret abut complex installations on internationally flown airplanes you don't know much about the industry.
Pretty harebrained idea to accomplish what ordinary water from combustion does already. The name Rube Goldberg comes to mind.
mikam molecule
New Member
Some recent research says that aerosol particles that seed high altitude clouds contain carbon (soot) and unspecified "minerals" found in the water dropless they collected and analysed. The links I posted indicate that many types of combustion engines inject water. As a materials engineer I can't think of any reason why a very small amount of water, urea, methane and perhaps a specially formulated disinfectant and soluable colourant would be harmful to the last stage of the combustion chamber or the exhaust guides. If water injection creates soot in the exhaust gas then that would contribute cloud seeding. Only extremely small additions of chemicals that liquify or solidify at lower temperature than steam are needed. Can anyone provide facts and credible sources of information to prove that modern jet airliners do NOT have water injection facilities in the engines or exhaust?
Jazzy
Closed Account
Modern airliners have thrust reversal mechanisms built into the backs of their turbofan engines, which would preclude make very problematic the use of injectors before them, and using them after the RM would make them apparent for inspection. If they were to be fitted, then that is where you would find them - in plain view.
Nozzles which pass a liquid carrying a fibrous material don't work very well when they are raised to 1100 deg C. The part between valve and nozzle would bind up with fibre as the liquid boiled away. Are you really a materials engineer?
Nozzles which pass a liquid carrying a fibrous material don't work very well when they are raised to 1100 deg C. The part between valve and nozzle would bind up with fibre as the liquid boiled away. Are you really a materials engineer?
mikam molecule
New Member
I am a materials and corrosion engineer. There are too many factor involved in this debate to make a definite statement about what is possible or not. I don't believe injection nozzles would be positioned in plain view because they would be eroded away by the combustion gases within hours. There are also cooling air streams built into the engines. Water could be injected into the cooling streams. Physics and chemistry work very differently under extremely fast dynamic conditions compared with relatively static or laboratory physics and chemistry. I don't know enough on the subject but trying to think outside the square to solve this mystery without being stupid or resorting to science fiction as some do. It's obvious the vapor clouds behind modern jet aircraft are lasting longer then decades ago and if fuel additives were responsible why aren't there at least a few whistle-blowers telling us. We have virtually zero military or experimental aircraft flying in NZ where I live but we still see all these chemtrails. They must be hiding the cloud seeding chemicals somewhere in the commercial aircraft. Rather than speculating about this can we hear from someone who works on these engines?
mikam molecule
New Member
I believe there would be as many if not more problems for jet engines (especially the turbine blades) if cloud seeding chemicals were added into the fuel e.g. erosion corrosion of the blades, solid deposit formation in recessive locations.
cloudspotter
Senior Member.
What makes you say that? There may be a lot more of them but are they actually lasting any longer?
Belfrey
Senior Member.
Mikam, this is the main claim behind the whole "chemtrails" idea, and it's completely baseless. Before you go into trying to reverse-engineer how one could install an injection system on a plane, you should examine this part closely. How long do you think vapor clouds used to persist?
solrey
Senior Member.
I'm one of the (former) aircraft mechanics on this forum and I also have a degree in aerospace technology. Like I said, you can't just go dumping stuff into a jet engine like it was a garbage disposal. Urine contains a high concentration of minerals so it wouldn't be long before mineral deposits would destroy the engine. Then there is the fact that over the course of routine maintenance any unauthorized or unexpected equipment would be quickly discovered. Like others have said, you have yet to establish that persistent contrails are lasting longer than in the past. Here's a hint... airplanes in WWII would sometimes leave contrails that lasted for many hours.
blargo
Member
I am also a former jet engine mechanic. I worked on several turbo fan jets in my time. The turbine is already replaced more often then most other parts and you will not want to add anything that could cause its lifespan to decrease. Anything that could combine/blend with the turbine over time could cause balance issues that would cause an increase to damage to bearings that need perfect balance. If you are talking about waste going through the combustion chamber how do you prevent metal? I cannot tell you how many times I saw a small screw take out most of a compressor and a good chunk of the turbine. No airline would ever allow something that could take out an engine, all it would take is some kid to drop a penny in the the toilet.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Can you just hear the executives of airline companies in charge of safety, reliability, inspection and insurance liability issues being asked to put unauthorized equipment dumping sewage (or anything else) in their plane's hot gas path?
"What the hell do you want me to sign off on?"
Planes get flown around, have to land unannounced at airports and get worked on by mechanics who can't all be 'in on-it'.
BTW, I was formerly a field service engineer for General Electric gas turbines, and know a bit about them.
You seem to have accepted the premise of contrail non-persistence, and to the credit of the folks from Down Under you have come to understand that commercial flights are leaving these persistent trails. Much better at finding a solution to the conundrum most here in the US refuse to address and actively cover up.
One of you needs to become an A&P mechanic and have a look at just one of the planes you have documented leaving the persistent contrails. It will all be over for you, but when you show your story you will be called a shill and the Borg will just go on.
Sad, that, eh?
"What the hell do you want me to sign off on?"
Planes get flown around, have to land unannounced at airports and get worked on by mechanics who can't all be 'in on-it'.
BTW, I was formerly a field service engineer for General Electric gas turbines, and know a bit about them.
You seem to have accepted the premise of contrail non-persistence, and to the credit of the folks from Down Under you have come to understand that commercial flights are leaving these persistent trails. Much better at finding a solution to the conundrum most here in the US refuse to address and actively cover up.
One of you needs to become an A&P mechanic and have a look at just one of the planes you have documented leaving the persistent contrails. It will all be over for you, but when you show your story you will be called a shill and the Borg will just go on.
Sad, that, eh?
MikeC
Closed Account
I worked on F-27 Friendships back in the late 70's and early 80's that DID have a water-methanol injection system. At various times I worked on engine overhaul, base maintenance (ie heavy maintenance in a hanger - typically 1-2 week stripdown checks) and for 1 year I worked in a fuel component shop overhauling burners, fuel pumps and the water methanol metering units - and a PITA they were I can assure you!!
the WM was injected in the compressor to cool down the incoming air - cooling it down makes it denser and hence there is more oxygen in a given volume - this means you can burn more fuel and generate more power.
since then I have been a planning engineer, quality assurance engineer, internal quality assurance auditor, and have worked for a national regulation authority - no modern aircraft have water injection any more.
Nor do they have any ability to dump sewage in flight under any circumstances - not even an "emergency release" (sic!
)
MikeC
Closed Account
Why "must" they be doing this?
mikam molecule
New Member
Research indicates that increased high level cloud formation in recent decades is partly the result of more aircraft traffic and more atmospheric pollution. That might be the only cause of increased high level clouds. But there are two odd things here. 1. Climate data indicates that global cloud cover has increased on average by about 20% in the last 40 years (reports don’t say if this is high or low altitude) and there seems to have been a steeper increase in that trend from about 15 years ago as if by some clever human intervention. 2. Solid and liquid aerosol particles (atmospheric pollution) are generally limited to lower altitudes where cloud seeding traps the particles and they return to earth as precipitation. But most people observe contrails at high altitude. Steam and other gases reach high altitudes by convection currents and the natural jet stream currents but without additional aerosol particles the added moisture just means bigger droplets of water or ice for the same number of seeds. More cloud seeding indicates more aerosol particles. I don’t know that atmospheric pollution has increased significantly from about 15 years ago so there must be considerable more aerosol particles reaching high altitudes in the last 15 years. If seeding chemicals are routinely being sprayed into the atmosphere from specially fitted cargo planes then it would have been obvious to the thousands of people involved in doing this – the spray equipment designers and manufacturers, aircraft fitters, the pilots, chemical suppliers, transport companies, government officials who manage the schedules, contracts, budgets etc. Among these hundreds of thousands of people all round the world we should expect to find a whistle-blower with solid proof. Where are they? If there is no other sly strategy for introducing chemicals into the exhaust gas stream under the disguise (plausible cover) of some other onboard aircraft system as I suggested then I guess this whole subject is just conspiracy theory with no basis in reality.
O_O
Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Belfrey
Senior Member.
Source, please?
Jazzy
Closed Account
The use of passenger aircraft has increased significantly from 15 years ago.
If aviation doubles every dozen years, and the planes are all burning kerosine and dumping that weight of water and more into the sky, there is bound to be a change in cloud conditions, wouldn't you think?
You can see the exponential nature of air travel here.
In 1994 a paper was published on sky conditions over the Pacific Rim. It was discovered at that time that 17% of the high troposphere was supersaturated.
Supersaturated conditions cause the aircraft engines to emit dense and accumulating trails of ice crystals.
Perhaps now the atmosphere's supersaturation is 18% these days, eh?
It could hardly be less...
Last edited by a moderator:
justanairlinepilot
Senior Member.
As an airline pilot that you are dead wrong!!! I know my airplane like the back of my hairy palm, and I'm going to tell you there are no stupid ass nozzles or tanks in commercial aircraft to spray some sort of chemical into the air. If you knew anything about lift vs. weight ratios with aircraft you'd know that every pound counts. We have fuel programs that limit how much 'liquid' we carry so we don't burn too much fuel getting to our destination. we don't tanker shit we didn't need. As a captain, I am responsible for EVERYTHING on my aircraft. If I don't know about it I could be fired. So, again, you're dead wrong.
MikeC
Closed Account
I am an licenced aircraft maintenance engineer.
You don't see any chemtrails - you see contrails, and they have been part of domestic civil aviation in New Zealand since 1968 when NAC brought the first 737's to fly here - I was raised in Chch and remember watching the contrails from Wellington - Dunedin flights span the sky - and still be there an hour later when the return flight went back to Wellington.
Then in 1976 I stared working on those aircraft - I worked on the engines - I even overhauled fuel pumps and injectors for the fuel systems.
There was nothing on them except what was required to make a jet engine run.
Since then I have worked as a maintenance engineer, planning engineer and quality assurance engineering for Ansett NZ and also a maintenance organisation, and I have worked with the New Zealand CAA.
The whole chemtrail hoax is exactly that - a hoax.
Shir Panjshir
New Member
Hi Mike.
Actually at the end of some runways we do get elevated levels of metals and toxins, I was involved with some of the first clean-up of the soil at end of certain runways in 1992. However the toxins were not from "bizarre secretive = (illuminati) jet fuel ingredients" they were from the planes that were used for crop dusting, so this included lots of toxic elements to kill bugs and other pests to plants. The planes/pilots would often dump their remaining load just before landing, which resulted in some pretty damn contaminated soils.
I just joined the group today. I had commented on a video of Megan going on about how the government is using mind control on us. hehe jk it was her normal ramblings on chemtrails and TSA. I had left a brief informative reply to the video and of course the nuts came out of the wood work saying I work for the government and I am trying to hide stuff. So I went to see if I could find out if Megahan was even a vet or not and what her credentials are. (in 2007 I helped debunk and shut down over 15 fake military personas online and one Fake NYC cop ID - so I know about fakers). The people's web sites I shut down were harassing military personnel and their families during the Surge in 2007)
I have been an industrial hygienist and environmental consultant specializing and certified in hazardous waste from asbestos to nuclear. However my area of expertise does not train people in atmospheric sciences, aviation fuel, or airplanes.
I know of a few nuts in my field who also believe the YouTube nonsense. But that is nothing. I know one guy who actually owns a company like mine, doing the job Meghan did. actually believed that the US governments lead-paint regulations was so that they could spy on us better. He believed that the lead in the paint was apparently getting in the way of the US governments survey of citizens, esp the ones with tin foil hats. So even people who can pass a test to become a industrial hygienist can be crazy as a loon.
Luckily I grew up with a father who owned several airplanes, I am also a pilot, and am very close friends with 2 test pilots. one from the 1960-70s other from late 1990s. My father worked in aerospace repairing and designing machines for aerospace companies like Northrop, Douglas, Douglas, and Lockheed. (oh btw way cool video someone posted with Bob Hover doing a roll and pouring Ice Tea. While my Dad was never a fan of Hoover (my Dad is a tea totter) I always thought he Bob was a great pilot, even if his drinking did get him into trouble a few times.
If anyone is interested I am also a member of a group on facebook called VORTEX voices of reason to explain "X".
They debunk chemtrails, UFOs and other nonsense.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/vortex.voices/
I also do a Blog on counterinsurgency under my other pen name "Ian Bach"
Hope we see ya all there as well. We have some AMAZING guys who if you tell them what you "think you saw" tell them when, where, and what, and chances are they will find out what you really saw. - Ian Bach
Having said all that (sorry for long post)
I have not seen anyone here pointing or linking to any of the companies that do weather modification.
I also am not sure why so many of the Chem trail gang always talking about aluminum.
here is what the top companies use for weather modification
""What are the most commonly used seeding materials?
The materials used in cloud seeding include two primary categories, tied to the type of precipitation process involved. One category includes those which act as glaciogenic (ice-forming) agents, such as silver iodide, dry ice and compressed liquid propane or carbon dioxide, which are appropriate in cloud systems where the precipitation process is primarily cold(colder than freezing). Of the ice-forming materials, the most commonly used is silver iodide. The second major category is focused on cloud systems where thewarm (coalescence) process predominates. In those environments, hygroscopic (water attracting) materials such as salt, urea and ammonium nitrate can be utilized. Of the hygroscopic materials, the most commonly used are salts.""
http://www.nawcinc.com/wmfaq.html
Also I do not see anyone pointing out that weather modification is done "in the clouds" not in clear skies.
it would be a pointless effort to try and seed clear skies.
- Ian Bach
Last edited:
Similar threads
