Aviation fuel additives

rezn8d

Jim Lee
That's my question too.

There appears to be more than one person entirely unaware of what the purpose of mucous membranes is, and also how cell membranes are constructed. How sad.

I was just told that you (Jazzy, not Jay) in fact are Jay Uzi.

Truth or fiction?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Jim, you made the claims about me personally. Be a man, don't run away.
A real man doesn't start rumors or pass them on.
I demand to know if you made this up yourself, or who is putting out these false rumors.
If there is substance, shw whatever they showed you otherwise retract your unsupported claims about me.
Jay

You said:

He went on a Quixotic crusade by building a website, just knowing "If I build it, they will come."
His field of dreams has turned into a nightmare.
After visiting here and having some discussions, he realized that he had been duped.
We've seen the denial, the anger, and now the bargaining.
Hope the depression doesn't last too long for you, Jim.

This statement alone ensures that for many moons to come you will regret your arrogance, your assumptions, and the stupidity of posting this statement online.
Demand all you like, I like it that way. Watch your mouth, if your concern is for your job, and you are not a criminal, then why are you posting here and what are you worried about?

You don't care to understand my motives because you and your kind here are not motivated by spreading kindness and understanding, you work through division and skillful wordplay.
I see through your trickery, and the complicit nature through which your community manipulates every conversation, only focusing on that which they can easily defeat while ignoring any evidence with which one might be moved to get up off the couch and give a fuck about ANYTHING important.

You watch your mouth little man, you don't know me, you don't care to, and your words have repercussions.

[note]
I love every one of you, regardless of your twisted ways and obvious side agendas. I forgive you for the unkindness you've shown me, and pray that in the future you show more compassion, and try to advance your agenda with patience and friendly discussion free from petty insults and underhanded stabs in the back. I hope that your misguided attempts to set the record straight help you to realize that you too do not have it all figured out, and that at some point in the future you find something to stand for that benefits people as opposed to creating more division.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Jim, the only agenda I have is the TRUTH. Something you seem to dodge a lot. It is YOU and your blind faith in a conspiracy theory that is divisive.

Now would you please answer Jay's questions? Or should he seek legal redress against your LIES?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Nope, not buying it.

You owe Jay an answer.
Put up, or withdraw the defamatory statement and apologise.

Jay confirmed he is not a criminal, and I am inclined to believe him. He debunked the statements made by others as to his current status as a "criminal" and is henceforth not a criminal?
Unless you, Ross Marsden, know Jay personally, and are willing to vouch for him, then neither you, nor I, nor any reader here will know whether Jay or the individuals who claimed Jay is a criminal will ever know, now will we?

Let's get back to the topic....

I owe him no apology, grow up.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If he doesn't, Jay should get a lawyer and sue Jim for defamation. Jay should not allow that sort of lies to persist.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
So we are clear, the reason I care about chemtrails is obvious:

1. There are very few "clear facts" about aviation fuel.
2. There is little to no public health effect testing results published in any of the MSDS sheets I am reading
3. Contrails have a positive radiative forcing (not counting high cirrus) and therefore fits the description of the intent of geoengineering SRM.
4. Your community seems complicit in covering up concerns and controlling public perception regarding all things aviation (among other topics).

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation

Then debunk these two:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/techdirproj/43/

Collective Knowledge on Aviation Gasolines

Jonathon David Ziulkowski, Purdue University


Abstract

The problem being faced is that there exists little data in a collective location surrounding aviation gasolines. In recent years it has been observed that most involved in the general aviation community are unaware of efforts and solutions underway to replace current leaded aviation gasoline. The point of this research was to collect and distill the history of aviation gasoline, some alternatives and their shortcomings, and indicate where the industry is headed. This information is divided into ten different chapters which is compiled into a book for students in the Purdue Aviation Technology Department. Following successful completion as a graduate project, the information will also be compiled in a formal textbook.


Keywords: avgas, 100LL, SwiftFuel, gasoline, aviation, general aviation, GA
Date of this Version: 7-10-2011
Department: Aviation Technology
Degree: Master of Science


Content from External Source
And this:
http://www.lead.org.au/lanv12n2/lanv12n2-11.html

Timeline of leaded aviation fuel
By Robert Taylor, Researcher for The LEAD Group Inc, Australia, 23rd December 2011
1921 - TEL (Tetra-ethyl lead) added as an anti-knock agent to gasoline by Thomas Midgely.
1922 - Army experiments with TEL in airplane fuel but does not adopt it.
1923 - Leaded gasoline (blended at a petrol refinery) for automobiles sold.
1926 - US navy successfully experiments with adding TEL directly to fuel.
1930 - US army certifies fuel with up to 3ml/gallon of TEL additive.
1934 - British aviation fuel standards allow up to 4 ml/imperial gallon of TEL.
1939 - First jet powered aircraft flight. Jet fuel does not contain lead.

1937 - Ten of fourteen types of aviation gasoline in the USA contain TEL. Unleaded fuel is only used in low-performance engines but most fuel is still unleaded.
1942 - Introduction of super-chargers increases the importance of TEL. Super-charged planes use a minimum 100/130 grade gasoline which contains up to 3 ml/gallon while higher performance super-charged planes use 130/145 grade which contains up to 8 ml/gallon.
1947 - US ASTMD910 aviation fuel standard for piston engined aircraft first applies. The standard only permits the absence of TEL in low-performance fuel. Majority of low performance fuel unleaded.
1954 - Majority of low performance US fuel contains TEL.
1970 - US passes Clean Air Act.
1971 - Introduction of 100LL (low lead) aviation gasoline with a limit of 2 ml/gallon of TEL. Quickly becomes dominant fuel type due to similarity to 100/130 grade.
1981 - Hjelmco oil releases unleaded aviation gasoline that can be used in low-performance aircraft after a break-in period using 100LL. It is only certified for use in Europe and Japan.
1993 - Ethyl Corporation ends manufacture of lead anti-knock compounds with the closure of its Canadian plant; instead markets additives purchased from the Associated Octel Company Limited (later renamed “Innospec”), the world’s only remaining producer of AvTEL (TEL for aviation fuel).
1995 - Ban on use of leaded gasoline in automobiles in USA.
1998 - Unleaded 82 UL (unleaded) is approved for some low performance aircraft. But it is unsuitable for high performance aircraft which consume the bulk of leaded fuel.
2006 - US NGO Friends of the Earth petitions US EPA over aircraft lead emissions.
2008 - EPA lowers air standard for lead from 1.5 to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter.
2011 - Friends of the Earth announce they will sue the EPA over aircraft lead emissions. Plans announced to develop 100 VLL (very low lead), with a lower level of TEL than 100LL. US company Swift Fuel obtains US certification for UL102, an unleaded fuel suitable for higher performance aircraft. As of 2011, however, no unleaded fuel is certified for all aircraft using 100LL.
Suggested Reading
AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) “Issues related to Lead in Avgas” AOPA online http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/reglead.html
Desrosier, Walter & France, Mike (2011) “Beyond 100LL: Next Steps in Addressing Leaded Aviation Gasoline” 2011 ACI-NA Environmental Affairs Conference June 27, 2011
http://www.aci-na.org/static/conferences/enviro%202011/Monday/W.%20Derosier%20-
%20Leaded-Avgas-Next-Steps-2011.pdf

Ells, Steve (2011) “Avgas Alternatives” Flying Feb 15, http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/modifications-maintenance/avgas-alternatives?page=0,0
Epstein, Curt “EPA begins ruling process to phase out leaded avgas” AIN [Aviation International News] Online September 2010 http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2010-08-27/epa-begins
-ruling-process-phase-out-leaded-avgas

Ziulkowski, Jonathon David (2011) “Collective Knowledge on Aviation Gasolines” Perdue University Report/Thesis http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/techdirproj/43/

Content from External Source
http://www.balticoilcompany.lt/uplo...BENZINAS-AVGAS-100LL-kokybes-sertifikatas.PDF

2013-05-07_03-33-49.png

British Joint Service (Fuel) Designation:
http://s04.static-shell.com/content...eroShell-Book/aeroshell-book-10dbjsdspecs.pdf



Scope of list
This list comprises the British Joint Service Designations which cover aviation fuels, engine
oils, hydraulic fluids, greases and allied products.
Interpretation of list
The Joint Service Designations are allocated to grades which meet British Specifications (or
those U.S. Specifications which have been adopted by the U.K.) and are supplied to the
British Services. Hence only British Specifications are shown. However, in some cases the
British Ministry of Defence uses U.S. Specifications and these are included for completeness.
Where an asterisk* appears in the last column of the list, the AeroShell grade recommended
does not necessarily meet all the clauses of the official specification, but is the nearest
product marketed by Shell.
For easy reference, obsolete specifications are shown in both the current and superseded
specification columns. In the former case, a suitable comment is made, namely, “OBSOLETE
- superseded by...
Content from External Source
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
You DO owe him an apology and a retraction. Let's see it.

He cast the first stone, I apologize only after him.
Chivalry is dead and demands like this fall on deaf ears.

Your community has nothing left to debunk and is defeated. Continue to quibble 'bout Jay's feelings and skirt the issue, which is, aviation chemicals, lines in the skies, and dirty lies being promulgated by your community.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
You guys are a community. I, Jim Lee, an individual person, interested in pollution, and have little care for the conspiracies. I am not a "chemtrail conspiracy" afficianado.

aluminum and barium are in the exhaust per IPCC reports...

IPCC Special Reports on Climate Change - Complete online versions
Aviation and the Global Atmosphere

3.2.3. Soot and Metal Particles

3.2.3.2 Metal Particles
Content from External Source

Aircraft jet engines also directly emit metal particles. Their sources include engine erosion and the combustion of fuel containing trace metal impurities or metal particles that enter the exhaust with the fuel (Chapter 7). Metal particles-comprising elements such as Al, Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni, and Ba-are estimated to be present at the parts per billion by volume (ppbv) level at nozzle exit planes (CIAP, 1975; Fordyce and Sheibley, 1975). The corresponding concentrations of 107​ to 108​ particles/kg fuel (assuming 1-mm radius; see below) are much smaller than for soot. Although metals have been found as residuals in cirrus and contrail ice particles (Chen et al., 1998; Petzold et al., 1998; Twohy and Gandrud, 1998), their number and associated mass are considered too small to affect the formation or properties of more abundant volatile and soot plume aerosol particles.
Content from External Source


You were saying? For those who don't know, Al is aluminum and Ba is barium.

Barium is from additives like DINNSA among others...


Not surprisingly, UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) only makes casual mention of these metal particles, and fails to provide any information as to their role in atmospheric aerosol formation. source
King Industries committed two sponsoring four chemicals as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program. These chemicals include diisononylnaphthalene (CAS No. 63512-64-1); dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid (CAS No. 25322-17-2); dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, calcium salt (CAS. 57855-77-3); dinonylnaphthalene and sulfonic acid , barium salt (CAS. 25619-56-1). As part of King Industries‘ commitment, Exponent has assembled available data and prepared a test plan to Develop additional screening level data on human health effects, environmental fate and effects, and physicochemical properties of the dinonylnaphthalene category.



Since we seem to forget what STADIS 450 is...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
We have facts you have a conspiracy theory and pure nonsense. Why are you not as concerned over what is in automotive fuel? There is a lot more of it used and since it is used close to folks, they are exposed to it a lot more.

No lies from us, just a defamation of character from you and buddies.

Do you understand the purpose of a MSDS? It doesn't seem like you do.

It is not Jay's feeling, it is the character assignation you did on him.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I was just told that you (Jazzy, not Jay) in fact are Jay Uzi. Truth or fiction?
Fiction.

My name at Contrailscience was JazzRoc. It's my name as a musical composer. My YT account name is beachcomber2008. It used to be JazzRoc there, too.

That's it, sunshine. No sock puppets, gossip, manipulation or lies. [...]

Why all this crap about pollution? Everyone here is aware of it, most more thoroughly than you. Pollution is caused by humans - we know this. In fact it is caused by most humans, including you.

There is nothing creative about browbeating us for our pollution as if we insist on it, meanwhile (apparently) pretending that you don't yourself pollute.

[...]

Apologize to Jay while your presence here stands, and before it fades.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
You are not really interested in pollution. You may get some folks to believe you, but I don't. I have read you posts elsewhere and your posts tell a different story.

I have watched while you changed your story, and while you lied on other sites about us.

If I said what I think of you, I would land in the cooler.

I hope that Jay sues you, that is the ONLY thing that might get your attention.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231009004956a
Despite the progress made on modelling aviation's impacts on tropospheric chemistry, there remains a significant spread in model results. The knowledge of aviation's impacts on cloudiness has also improved: a limited number of studies have demonstrated an increase in cirrus cloud attributable to aviation although the magnitude varies: however, these trend analyses may be impacted by satellite artifacts. The effect of aviation particles on clouds (with and without contrails) may give rise to either a positive forcing or a negative forcing: the modelling and the underlying processes are highly uncertain, although the overall effect of contrails and enhanced cloudiness is considered to be a positive forcing and could be substantial, compared with other effects. The debate over quantification of aviation impacts has also progressed towards studying potential mitigation and the technological and atmospheric tradeoffs. Current studies are still relatively immature and more work is required to determine optimal technological development paths, which is an aspect that atmospheric science has much to contribute.
Content from External Source
We are done here, you guys fail miserably at debunking and grasp at your imagined attack on Jay. I said some people told me he was a criminal, he said he wasn't, end of story. He said I made my websites for attention, and that I was in a state of denial, among other things.

Jay attacked me first, I responded. If you can't take the heat...

Your responses are beyond pathetic. Your debunks are gone, and you are left with straws.

Wrong on contrails
Wrong on chemtrails

Yeah I just did it on em... no debunks, just personal attacks and pathetic attempts to skirt the issues.

If ya gonna troll --DO IT RIGHT
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
You REPEATED it, and now you refuse to correct it. YOU spread the story. You REFUSE to accept the blame for what YOU choose to repeat. You have attacked members of this group on your other sites. Even to imply that they agreed with you when they didn't.

And now you admit that you believe in chem trails and the conspiracy.

I got a bad feeling about you from the first post of yours that I read. I felt that you came here for only one reason, and that was to cause trouble. It seems I was right.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
You REPEATED it, and now you refuse to correct it. YOU spread the story. You REFUSE to accept the blame for what YOU choose to repeat. You have attacked members of this group on your other sites. Even to imply that they agreed with you when they didn't.

And now you admit that you believe in chem trails and the conspiracy.

I got a bad feeling about you from the first post of yours that I read. I felt that you came here for only one reason, and that was to cause trouble. It seems I was right.

If you're feeling bad now, you're gonna be down right nauseous when you see the timeline I'm making... won't be long
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Only your 'disciples' will care. Folks that are are willing to look for facts will see you for what you are.

Make it up, it will be as full of misinformation, misstatements and outright lies as your other posts.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Only your 'disciples' will care. Folks that are are willing to look for facts will see you for what you are.

Make it up, it will be as full of misinformation, misstatements and outright lies as your other posts.

Probably best to let Jim get on with informing the world that jet fuel is a pollutant now. He's not interested in this discussion.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
Content from External Source
You suffer from that extensively, Jim.

Even that last post..... the disregarded the meaning of the following words..

may give rise to either a positive forcing or a negative forcing:

You totally ignored these...
the underlying processes are highly uncertain

and these...
a limited number of studies have demonstrated an increase in cirrus cloud attributable to aviation although the magnitude varies:

You only see what you want to see and if you think you have made any original points in your diatribes... sorry... you didn't.

"Jet fuel pollutes!!!" Persistent contrail may have a positive forcing on climate change!!!!!" ...........Well duh!:confused:

Thats it? Thats you undebunkable position? That is the demonstration of how much smarter you are than the rest of humanity?

You have no aviation or met qualifications. Chemtrails are a hoax.

[...] Why don't [...] apologise?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Probably best to let Jim get on with informing the world that jet fuel is a pollutant now.
Well, it always was, wasn't it?

It doesn't matter that the 3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted.

The other 96.5%? There's nothing there to interest Jim. All those trucks, cars, trains and tankers. All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions. They are OK.

He's not interested in this discussion.
Whether aviation threatens health? Not really, is he?

If it goes wrong, it can really threaten your health. Crashes are frequently fatal.

Otherwise, a modern turbofan passenger jet pollutes many times less than the cars and trucks it replaces.

So aviation is GOOD for your health, at least until all the world's cars and trucks stop running fossil fuels.

Isn't that it? I think we're done here. What a waste of time this thread has been.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
So we are clear, the reason I care about chemtrails is obvious:

3. Contrails have a positive radiative forcing (not counting high cirrus) and therefore fits the description of the intent of geoengineering SRM.




By that definition agricultural waste burning, shipping, biomass burning and industry in general "fits the intent of geoengineering SRM".

All of these have will soon have from 2 to 26 times more impact on radiative forcing than aviation. I guess a government conspiracy that involves getting farmers to burn more spoiled hay and orchard waste to cool the planet is not as exciting and thrilling as one that involves covertly adding minute quantities of secret chemicals to jet fuel additives.




emissions1.jpg


On that note... I'm curious about the quantities we're dealing with here. It seems we know the composition of most jet fuel additives. Of the ones we don't, what are the amounts being put into the atmosphere? Are we talking about a few pounds per day? per year? tons? megatons?

Put another way, if regular jet plane emissions have a radiative forcing of only -6 mWm-2​, then what percentage of that is due to the secret chemicals to the jet fuel additives?
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Well, it always was, wasn't it?

It doesn't matter that the 3.5% of the world's emissions (which is the part aviation fuel plays) is by far the most efficiently combusted.

The other 96.5%? There's nothing there to interest Jim. All those trucks, cars, trains and tankers. All those chemical plants, brickworks, cement manufacturers, by the thousands and millions. They are OK.


Whether aviation threatens health? Not really, is he?

If it goes wrong, it can really threaten your health. Crashes are frequently fatal.

Otherwise, a modern turbofan passenger jet pollutes many times less than the cars and trucks it replaces. So aviation is GOOD for your health, at least until all the world's cars and trucks stop running fossil fuels.

Isn't that it? I think we're done here. What a waste of time this thread has been.

Simply trying to avoid another outburst Jazz. They're unseemly, and don't serve any purpose for forwarding the discussion.

Jim has shown that jet-fuel is a pollutant, and believes this buries Metabunk in the process. What more is there to say?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
You don't care to understand my motives because you and your kind here are not motivated by spreading kindness and understanding, you work through division and skillful wordplay.
I see through your trickery, and the complicit nature through which your community manipulates every conversation, only focusing on that which they can easily defeat while ignoring any evidence with which one might be moved to get up off the couch and give a fuck about ANYTHING important.

Other than the part about skillful wordplay, you've looked in a mirror and described any chemtrail forum I have EVER visited and been blocked from.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
He cast the first stone, I apologize only after him.
Chivalry is dead and demands like this fall on deaf ears.

Your community has nothing left to debunk and is defeated. Continue to quibble 'bout Jay's feelings and skirt the issue, which is, aviation chemicals, lines in the skies, and dirty lies being promulgated by your community.

I think the issue is whether or not there are tons of barium aluminum and other additives sprayed into the air deliberately by "them", using commerical aircraft, to poison us/change our weather. You have moved the goalposts considerably.

We are done here, you guys fail miserably at debunking and grasp at your imagined attack on Jay. I said some people told me he was a criminal, he said he wasn't, end of story. He said I made my websites for attention, and that I was in a state of denial, among other things.

Jay attacked me first, I responded. If you can't take the heat...

Your responses are beyond pathetic. Your debunks are gone, and you are left with straws.

Wrong on contrails
Wrong on chemtrails

Yeah I just did it on em... no debunks, just personal attacks and pathetic attempts to skirt the issues.


You're flailing all over the place now, pretty soon you're going to announce you're leaving aren't you?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1005KRK.PDF

Characterization of Emissions from Commercial Aircraft Engines during the Aircraft Particle Emissions eXperiment (APEX) 1 to 3

You really should be able to figure out everything you need to know about aircraft exhaust from that. What the ground crew at airports are exposed to. What you are breathing when you are sitting on the tarmac in Philadelphia 50th in line for take off and your plane's bleed air is sucking exhaust from the planes in front of you into the cabin. What the total atmospheric loading is by all commercial traffic given an annual fuel consumption. etc...
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
The problem being faced is that there exists little data in a collective location surrounding aviation gasolines. In recent years it has been observed that most involved in the general aviation community are unaware of efforts and solutions underway to replace current leaded aviation gasoline. The point of this research was to collect and distill the history of aviation gasoline, some alternatives and their shortcomings, and indicate where the industry is headed. This information is divided into ten different chapters which is compiled into a book for students in the Purdue Aviation Technology Department. Following successful completion as a graduate project, the information will also be compiled in a formal textbook.

There's nothing to debunk. Leaded gasoline was banned for automobiles in the 1990s. Aviation gas still has lead in it. It's not secret and environmental advocates are trying to for EPA to step in.

That's not jet fuel though. That's the stuff used by piston driven planes, choppers, etc...
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
3. Contrails have a positive radiative forcing (not counting high cirrus)

Such has not been disputed here.

and therefore fits the description of the intent of geoengineering SRM.

Intent? Intent implies that the contrails are a deliberate. I saw in Dutch's documentary that he thinks that the FAA is being directed by NASA and NWS to route planes to make more contrails. I see no evidence for such in my travels, in tracking flights, or in the appearance of contrails. Contrails I see here in Florida occur along the same flight corridors every time and occur only as dictated by the weather. If you guys have any actual evidence that flights are deviating in a pattern that makes more contrails or that there is some other mechanism that they are using to make more ice clouds I'm sure you'll be happy to share.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
4. Your community seems complicit in covering up concerns and controlling public perception regarding all things aviation (among other topics)

People insisting that persistent contrails are deliberate geoengineering are complicit in covering up concerns. While people are tilting at that windmill they are missing real problems.

For example, a couple of guys I know in Brevard County Florida are really concerned about chemtrails but side with the Tea Party folks that took over our state government regarding water quality standards. Indian River Lagoon (and many other water bodies in Florida) are impaired by excessive phytoplankton growth. This is wiping out submerged plant cover and wrecking billion dollar fisheries. In the St. Johns River we have dissolved oxygen depletion when the algae blooms collapse. Our state government wants to re-write water quality standards so that these impaired water bodies qualify as "in compliance". Earth Justice sued EPA to force EPA to enforce the Clean Water Act in Florida. EPA lost and was ordered by the court to enforce standards that DEP was failing. That's in appeal. A Florida Congressman joined with Congressmen from WVA to try to strip EPA of regulatory authority on the state level. The chemtrail believers that I know want EPA kicked out of Florida because they think EPA is just carrying out Agenda 21. They complain about NWO/Agenda 21 when someone proposes regulations on fertilizer use. They blame all the problems on The Powers That Be and those white lines in the sky and won't acknowledge that the run-off from all those lawns, sod farms, cattle ranches, golf courses, etc... is turning IRL into pea soup.

I'm not covering anything up.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Rezn8d (Jim Lee) has been banned for one year for

A) Accusing another member of being a criminal and refusing to retract this
B) Repeated instances of being otherwise impolite.

Jim, you may appeal this via email at: metabunk@gmail.com

Lifting of the ban is contingent upon you explaining and retracting your "criminal" statement and apologizing to Jay, and promising to be polite.

Attempting to register another account, including via anonymous proxy, will result in a lifetime ban.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Seriously, what the hell was that all about? What does he actually 'have' that wasn't common knowledge to the more informed among you already? How can he claim anyone lied about or covered up anything? His self-congratulatory triumph while completely failing to actually make any valid point while being convinced he has made a fatal blow is very bewildering.
What a lot of unnecessary antagonism.
 

M Bornong

Senior Member.
I'm pretty sure that Jim manipulated this entire thread from the start for what he feels will be his gain.

Untitled.jpg
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I'm pretty sure that Jim manipulated this entire thread from the start for what he feels will be his gain.

Untitled.jpg

Mick changed the ban to two weeks. Given this evidence it is pretty clear he is trolling. If he doesn't apologize to Jay in three posts then the year ban should be reimposed IMO.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
I'm pretty sure that Jim manipulated this entire thread from the start for what he feels will be his gain.

Untitled.jpg

It really doesn't come across as surprising though.

He has a bit of a following on his website and seems to have spent a lot of effort to keep his "community" moving. On top of that, according to his website, he is unemployed and seem to have set up quite a donation system to get some cash flowing. So, no matter how much gets debated on this forum and no matter how valid the data is to debunks his claims, he won't consider it. In which case, whether his ban is two weeks or a year, it really won't make a difference.

It does seem a little bit bewildering how he claims his victory by linking this thread though. He was not only unable to back up his claims, he even changed his claim from chemtrails to a concern for pollution. It would be a bit of a facepalm for me even if I were on his side.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Back to the original point - it appears you can buy the GE Additive SPEC-AID 8Q462 right off the internet - so if you are truly concerned about the secret additives buy some, get it tested for content!

Also according to the military spec for JP8+100 there are 3 approved additives - 8Q462 and 8Q462W, and also Aeroshell performance additive 101.

Aeroshell note that 101 was actually developed by GetzDearborn - now GE Getz (see page 44 of the linked booklet on aviation fuels).

the MSDS for 101 is available online and has no "proprietary" ingredients - it is made up of:
  • 50-80% "Heavy Aromatic Naptha",
  • 5-10% each Napthalene and "BUTYLATED HYDROXTOLUENE/2,6-DI-TERT-BUTYL-P-CRESOL",
  • 1-5% "MINERAL OIL, PETROLEUM DISTILLATE, SOLVENT DEWAXED (SEVERE), HEAVY PARAFFINIC", and
  • <3% "DIMETHYL SULFOXIDE"

So perhaps there are actually no unknowns at all??
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I'm very disappointed in Jim. When I grew up in Texas young women ran the rumor mill and young men learned to be responsible. I'm going to think about this overnight.
 

lotek

Active Member
For the record, "aviation gasoline" IS NOT jet fuel... its a TOTALLY different product, used by totally different planes, in totally different amounts at totally different altitudes.

I also enjoy how he still ignores that you can find out whats in it if you look well enough... or take them for a gcms/nmr/lc...

Jim i am still interested in any response you have. You should be able to get a hold of me. And in standard internet socialite manner, i know you will still be reading this.
 

M Bornong

Senior Member.
Seriously, what the hell was that all about? What does he actually 'have' that wasn't common knowledge to the more informed among you already? How can he claim anyone lied about or covered up anything? His self-congratulatory triumph while completely failing to actually make any valid point while being convinced he has made a fatal blow is very bewildering.
What a lot of unnecessary antagonism.

Hey Pete, I think that in Jim's mind, he can now claim persecution from the "ultimate" debunkers, and claim that these same "Debunkers don't know What in the World are they spraying."

mick.jpg
http://terraforminginc.com/chemtrails/chemtrail-timeline.html

After having a little time to think about my previous post,
Attachment 2627
Content from External Source
, I'm fairly certain that this was his agenda all along. I will give Jim some credit, he is an intelligent person, and he figured out the exact buttons to push.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
..., I'm fairly certain that this was his agenda all along. I will give Jim some credit, he is an intelligent person, and he figured out the exact buttons to push.

A Machiavellian ploy to manipulate a plastic victory.
Oh well, whatever. He'll get his hollow fame.
 
Top