Is Barium in Jet Fuel?
- Thread starter Classified
- Start date
F4Jock
Active Member
Post 32 and others imply you think the documents provided are dual edged, some saying yes. others no.
lotek
Active Member
we aren't really a team either. to postulate we are uniformly attacking you in an attempt to fortify your opinions in a 'me vs them' fashion is unfounded. your claims are simply uniformly uninformed and incorrect in a blanketing fashion, thus the appearance of this to you perhaps? the items you claim as evidence are self acquitting in nature.
and as an aside, barium is not the chemical boogyman you think it to be, even if it were to be applied in the manner you so baselessly think it is being done so in. the shit is everywhere. and it does not behave in the manner that it has been spun to you as. your ideas on this were no doubt provided to you by someone as evidence to support a large hoax, climate modification or similar.
i find it important to point out that there are many tax documents freely available showing these people to be making tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars off of feeding you and others like you this bad information. all the while, none of us are paid to be here, there are no ads here, and we are selling no products here. i spent my day fire roasting turkey and pineapple, not the kind of thing the cia or epa puts you on their payroll for. your opinions on the subject come from isolated sources with other large ideas to push, while ours come from basic educational or occupational materials.
would you be receptive to agenda-free, beginner friendly, free online course material on the subjects of barium, atmospherics and ground water contamination study techniques? perhaps after reviewing these materials you would not feel so easily attacked by others more familiar with the subject than you?
and as an aside, barium is not the chemical boogyman you think it to be, even if it were to be applied in the manner you so baselessly think it is being done so in. the shit is everywhere. and it does not behave in the manner that it has been spun to you as. your ideas on this were no doubt provided to you by someone as evidence to support a large hoax, climate modification or similar.
i find it important to point out that there are many tax documents freely available showing these people to be making tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars off of feeding you and others like you this bad information. all the while, none of us are paid to be here, there are no ads here, and we are selling no products here. i spent my day fire roasting turkey and pineapple, not the kind of thing the cia or epa puts you on their payroll for. your opinions on the subject come from isolated sources with other large ideas to push, while ours come from basic educational or occupational materials.
would you be receptive to agenda-free, beginner friendly, free online course material on the subjects of barium, atmospherics and ground water contamination study techniques? perhaps after reviewing these materials you would not feel so easily attacked by others more familiar with the subject than you?
F4Jock
Active Member
Since you brought up the profit motive:
Who Stands to Profit?
A question much asked by 9-11 truthers, who point to gold allegedly being removed from the World Trade Center, investigative files being destroyed, a pretext for invading Iraq or declaring martial law, etc.
A few months ago I agreed to be on a truther talk show (I'll try almost anything once. Almost.) and the commercial breaks were a revelation. There were endless spiels for crank medical remedies and nutritional supplements, investment schemes that ranged from shady to crazy, newsletters for conspiracy cults, and wacko theories on how to avoid taxes. One former truther who became disillusioned said he would no longer help the movement sell T-shirts and DVD's. It's a lot more than just T-shirts and DVD's. Look at the Web sites, the newsletters, listen to the talk shows and look at who's bankrolling them and advertising on them. Truther sites are to conspiracy thinkers what televangelists are to lonely Christians: a place to send money to buy a feeling of participation and fulfillment.
Classified
New Member
Id like to point out that you claimed that "since there is no other source....it really can only be seen as a mistake".
Well this is another source, which you claim is just a copy and paste. However it does not change that your claim is wrong. There are 2 sources.
http://www.idph.state.ia.us/idph_un...&TOCId={8492EFB9-2A47-4C9F-A419-B34DACF88624}
Next you post a study showing trace amounts of barium in jet exhaust, then claim that barium is everywhere so it is not a concern.
You do understand how ridiculous you sound right?
Maybe you should contact the government and inform them of the "mistake" before people start believing that it is used for jet fuel?
MikeC
Closed Account
It does not matter how many "sources" make a claim if it cannot be shown to be actually true - and your 2nd link does not work.
the 2nd "source" mentioned says that it "can be" from jet fuel - but provides no back up evidence to say how or why. When looking for evidence of how or why barium "can be" from jet fuel I find there is no such evidence.
I do not know whether the 2nd link is a cut and paste of the first or not (or vice versa) - but I know it is not actually a "source" - it is a statement for which we do not actually know the source - and the only potential "source" appears to be the info Mick offered from 1960!
A "source" would be a study, or a specification or a regulation or something similar that required barium to be in jet fuel, or showed that it was present in a chemical analysis or some other information that backed up these statements.
the 2nd "source" mentioned says that it "can be" from jet fuel - but provides no back up evidence to say how or why. When looking for evidence of how or why barium "can be" from jet fuel I find there is no such evidence.
I do not know whether the 2nd link is a cut and paste of the first or not (or vice versa) - but I know it is not actually a "source" - it is a statement for which we do not actually know the source - and the only potential "source" appears to be the info Mick offered from 1960!
A "source" would be a study, or a specification or a regulation or something similar that required barium to be in jet fuel, or showed that it was present in a chemical analysis or some other information that backed up these statements.
lotek
Active Member
Quoted For Truth.External Quote:
a source is not a link. by your standards, the google link to this thread would count as a source now.
would you be receptive to agenda-free, beginner friendly, free online course material on the subjects of barium, atmospherics and ground water contamination study techniques? perhaps after reviewing these materials you would not feel so easily attacked by others more familiar with the subject than you?
MikeC
Closed Account
?? Are you intending this for me or Classified?
Classified
New Member
I am asking questions about barium in jet fuel. I have never claimed to know anything about the subject. I am posting government data with jet fuel being a source of barium, and am being told by debunkers that it is an "error".
After doing so I was accused of not trusting the government, and that my ideas come from isolated sources pushing larger ideas.
It appears to me the only people pushing ideas are you, and others in this thread, explaining where my questions came from, without knowing one thing about who I am or where my questions came from.
Quite an unbiased debunking team you've got here Mick.
MikeC
Closed Account
"We" are not unbiased at all - whatever gave you that idea?
"we" are firmly biased in favour of verifiable evidence, science, and testable facts, and firmly biased AGAINST supposition, assertion, gish galloping, goal-post-shifting and other techniques that dodge around actual evidence! Or at least I am - I thinks others are too, but I haven't actualy asked!!
You came here asking about barium in jet fuel - and you were given answers supported by evidence, which you promptly dismissed or argued about based on nothing much at all other than an apparent wish to not believe and or be argumentative.
"We" have no obligation to treat your lack of belief as justified or important, and yet various peole have taken time out of their lives to inform you and give you information you previously lacked.
And then all you do is seek to insult "us".
Sorry if you do not like the answers - but they remain true whether you do or not, and whether you are grateful for the opportunity to improve you knowledge or not.
"we" are firmly biased in favour of verifiable evidence, science, and testable facts, and firmly biased AGAINST supposition, assertion, gish galloping, goal-post-shifting and other techniques that dodge around actual evidence! Or at least I am - I thinks others are too, but I haven't actualy asked!!
You came here asking about barium in jet fuel - and you were given answers supported by evidence, which you promptly dismissed or argued about based on nothing much at all other than an apparent wish to not believe and or be argumentative.
"We" have no obligation to treat your lack of belief as justified or important, and yet various peole have taken time out of their lives to inform you and give you information you previously lacked.
And then all you do is seek to insult "us".
Sorry if you do not like the answers - but they remain true whether you do or not, and whether you are grateful for the opportunity to improve you knowledge or not.
Classified
New Member
"Almost" only counts in handgrenades and horseshoes.
Also Cairenn, maybe you can explain to me now why you said "contrails will NOT affect the weather", then you posted a study showing a temperature drop during the 9/11 groundings in this thread-
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/95...e-Orange-quot-conclusions-amp-recommendations
Last edited by a moderator:
No team of mine, they are just people who post here.
I've made every attempt to be as accurate as possible about how much barium is in jet fuel, and if barium is currently added, and if it ever was, and how the CDC datasheet ended up mentioning jet fuel.
I care only for truth and accuracy here.
MikeC
Closed Account
It does not show a temperature drop. It shows an increase in the diurnal range - the difference betwen the hottest part of the day and hte coolest part of hte night. The average temperatures did not change.
And there is some discussion about whether that effect was due to the absence of contrails or not in the first place:
External Quote:
Last edited by a moderator:
Cairenn
Senior Member
It shows a very MINOR change, one that is meaningless to the average 'weather consumer' . I need to know if I need to bring my umbrella, wear long sleeves, put on sunscreen, let the faucet drip over night. A tiny change is not important in those, since that is the type of differences one will see over a city naturally.
I posted that to show you that con trails would not be causing a warming, since you had been insisting that they did.
The government does make mistakes. The city of Dallas almost outlawed all mammals from the city. (and reptiles, and marsupials and apes--I guess the mosquitoes and butterflies could have stayed). The oil company study for an oil spill in the Gulf that included walruses, was approved of my the government several times. It was simply a problem caused by the oil companies doing a C&P of their Alaskan plans.
That is why one must always double check anything that is a simple C&P. Or copy and print, as it seems that Iowa did. Most likely the person writing that did not have even have a chemistry background.
I posted that to show you that con trails would not be causing a warming, since you had been insisting that they did.
The government does make mistakes. The city of Dallas almost outlawed all mammals from the city. (and reptiles, and marsupials and apes--I guess the mosquitoes and butterflies could have stayed). The oil company study for an oil spill in the Gulf that included walruses, was approved of my the government several times. It was simply a problem caused by the oil companies doing a C&P of their Alaskan plans.
That is why one must always double check anything that is a simple C&P. Or copy and print, as it seems that Iowa did. Most likely the person writing that did not have even have a chemistry background.
lotek
Active Member
no one has accused you of not trusting the government enough... just that you are adding suspicion to something where none is warranted. the fact that it cant be found really beyond that one pdf goes to show it to be an artifact of the pdf.
combined with the total lack of any other supporting evidence one can only logically assume it to be an error until otherwise shown to be something else. the idea of barium in fuel has been covered many times here, would you like to be linked to the various talks here on it or official data on the subject?
my supposition as to why you are asking about barium is a guess, but there's only two reasons someone comes to this site asking about barium.... and im pretty familiar with both.
your lack of experience or first hand knowledge on the matter leads me to believe you have picked this up from one of this sources, or else you would not have come here trying to use innocuous pdf's as proof of a plot or some such, youd have had more complex fodder to dissect.
a note: roads and parking garages test very high for arsenic lead, and other heavy metals, does that mean they are fuel additives or are being sprayed from cars?
keeping in mind i have a good idea where you are going with this, may i ask what you think this barium would be put there to do?
The other posters originally did make errors in the absolutism in which they spoke regarding temperature effects, however this in the end is a zero impact situation, sort of like butterflies and the wind. they are correct, it does not really matter. but i must point out to them not to let you obscure the thread by leading it off on a tangent as is the method typically employed here to avoid ever having to form conclusions on the initial subject. both seem to have corrected thier statements.
btw, i think you are perceiving much more hostility than we truly are exhibiting.
combined with the total lack of any other supporting evidence one can only logically assume it to be an error until otherwise shown to be something else. the idea of barium in fuel has been covered many times here, would you like to be linked to the various talks here on it or official data on the subject?
my supposition as to why you are asking about barium is a guess, but there's only two reasons someone comes to this site asking about barium.... and im pretty familiar with both.
your lack of experience or first hand knowledge on the matter leads me to believe you have picked this up from one of this sources, or else you would not have come here trying to use innocuous pdf's as proof of a plot or some such, youd have had more complex fodder to dissect.
a note: roads and parking garages test very high for arsenic lead, and other heavy metals, does that mean they are fuel additives or are being sprayed from cars?
keeping in mind i have a good idea where you are going with this, may i ask what you think this barium would be put there to do?
The other posters originally did make errors in the absolutism in which they spoke regarding temperature effects, however this in the end is a zero impact situation, sort of like butterflies and the wind. they are correct, it does not really matter. but i must point out to them not to let you obscure the thread by leading it off on a tangent as is the method typically employed here to avoid ever having to form conclusions on the initial subject. both seem to have corrected thier statements.
VERY important.^^ may we not talk of it again?External Quote:
btw, i think you are perceiving much more hostility than we truly are exhibiting.
TWCobra
Senior Member.
Do jet engine exhausts glow green at night? If not then I suggest there is no barium in the fuel?
Seriously.. with one look at the MSDS and the precautions you need to follow to handle it, why would you want this pyrophoric metal in jet fuel?
http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/online-catalog/46-barium
Seriously.. with one look at the MSDS and the precautions you need to follow to handle it, why would you want this pyrophoric metal in jet fuel?
http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/online-catalog/46-barium
Classified
New Member
Last edited by a moderator:
justanairlinepilot
Active Member
Classified...come on man...really?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Why ask questions here at all?
Why do this sort of "research" on line at all?
Why haven't you simply one down to an airport facility where they will most certainly sell you jet fuel and get an analysis done to determine what level of barium you find?
I'm serious. I have been hearing these claims for fifteen years. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of products and probabl millions have been spent in pursuit of this mythical barium in jet fuel.
Classified, doesn't it give you pause that NO CHEMTRAIL BELIEVER HAS EVER PRESENTED A LAB ANALYSIS?
How do you explain this?
I happened to be speaking to a major figure in the movement yesterday, a person who has both spent and taken in tens of thousands of dollars on this and asked them the same question.
I was told, "I am not interested."
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Eggs contain barium. Quite a lot of it, in fact. Far more than jet fuel ever would. When you burn the eggs, does it hurt?
Brazil nuts? Don't even ask.
Brazil nuts? Don't even ask.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Actually, when you get the jet fuel analyzed, send in a sample of the finest organic soybean oil you can find for the same analysis. You will be amazed!
Insofar as lab analysis goes, I am seriously considering sending in two identical aliquots of ordinary mineral water to Basic Labs and asking for an analysis of aluminum, barium, and strontium for each. I am wondering just how accurate those guys really are.
I bet that especially at the lower levels, they are 100-200% different, especially for aluminum. And they are taking in many thousands of dollars on this hoax.
Insofar as lab analysis goes, I am seriously considering sending in two identical aliquots of ordinary mineral water to Basic Labs and asking for an analysis of aluminum, barium, and strontium for each. I am wondering just how accurate those guys really are.
I bet that especially at the lower levels, they are 100-200% different, especially for aluminum. And they are taking in many thousands of dollars on this hoax.
MikeC
Closed Account
no - I think he has a point - clearly there is barium in jet fuel - the OP was "why is ther Barium in jet fuel?"
And the answer is because there is Barium in pretty much everything - it is a common element on earth, and ther are at least trace elements of it in anything that comes into contact with atmospheric dust - from that dust!
I think it is important to answer the question that was asked - most of us were busy answering the question we thought was asked - which was "why is barium added to jet fuel?" For which the answer is: it is not added - any that is in there is from background sources.
That said his stupid graphic is just bovine excrement - it is an outright lie. Mick did not "debunk(s) barium in jet fuel by admitting barium is in jet fuel" at all.
So there is a lesson here for "us" (including me because I went straight to additives) - answer one question at a time - do not answer a similar but different question that "we" know the answer to.
Classified was also guilty of completely ignoring the sensible answers that were offered.
And the answer is because there is Barium in pretty much everything - it is a common element on earth, and ther are at least trace elements of it in anything that comes into contact with atmospheric dust - from that dust!
I think it is important to answer the question that was asked - most of us were busy answering the question we thought was asked - which was "why is barium added to jet fuel?" For which the answer is: it is not added - any that is in there is from background sources.
That said his stupid graphic is just bovine excrement - it is an outright lie. Mick did not "debunk(s) barium in jet fuel by admitting barium is in jet fuel" at all.
So there is a lesson here for "us" (including me because I went straight to additives) - answer one question at a time - do not answer a similar but different question that "we" know the answer to.
Classified was also guilty of completely ignoring the sensible answers that were offered.
Belfrey
Senior Member
I would also like to point out that in the exact same way, barium is found in trace amounts in ordinary gasoline. See Petrochemical Series - Simplified analysis of trace elements in gasoline with the Thermo Scientific iCAP 6000 Series ICP:
J
Joe
Guest
Its In PPG automotive paint . http://buyat.ppg.com/rep_pafpainttools_files/Pghpaints/msds/97-161.PDF You need to find a material safety data sheet on it to prove it .
Ha, I hadn't even noticed that graphic. I think I'll just shrink it a bit, so context is preserved.
The thread is about if Barium is in jet fuel. The evidence indicates that it's not added to jet fuel, but occurs (like all naturally occurring metals) in normal trace amounts of under 0.2 ppm (200 ppb). That's all.
The thread is about if Barium is in jet fuel. The evidence indicates that it's not added to jet fuel, but occurs (like all naturally occurring metals) in normal trace amounts of under 0.2 ppm (200 ppb). That's all.
F4Jock
Active Member
Cartrails???
Classified
New Member
So barium is not added to jet fuel, it naturally occurs in jet fuel at 200 ppb.
So, the US uses 200 billion gallons of jet fuel annually with a barium presence of 200 ppb. Is that correct?
So, the US uses 200 billion gallons of jet fuel annually with a barium presence of 200 ppb. Is that correct?
MikeC
Closed Account
If I am reading Belfry's table above correctly it shows 0.01mg/Kg -and if my math is correct that is 10ppb - 1 mg/Kb would be 1 part per million, 0.001mg/Kg would be 1 part per billion.
where did the 200 billion gallon figure come from?
The BTS page on fuel use by scheduled carriers shows about 10.4-10.8 billion gallons per annum for 2011 and 2012 - down from over 13 billion in the earlier 2000's
to anticipate your next question - multiplying the figures out, 1 US gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.02 Kg (jet fuel has a specific gravity of about .8, 1 US Gallon of water weighs about 3.79kg) , so 10.5 billion gallons (as a round number) weighs about 31.84 billion Kg, so at 10ppb the annual jet fuel "production" of Barium comes to about 320 kg of barium per annum - a bit less than 1 kg/day on average, spread over the entire area serviced by US scehduled carriers - which includes most of the North Atlantic ocean as well as all the Continental USA and fairly large swathes of the Pacific and South America and Canada, etc - in fact pretty much all around the world - albeit probably mostly concentrated over the continental USA.
According to Wiki the 48 contiguious states + DC comprise an area of 8,080,464.3 km2 - so barium is being "spread" at a rate of something approximating 1/10,000,000kg per square km per day - probably a bit more than that.
Feel free to correct my quick and dirty math if it's wrong!
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Yes, Classified, show us the math on this. You will need the average amount of barium in crust and the total crustal material lofted naturally. Mike has done this for jet fuel. You show us the figures for Mother Earth.
F4Jock
Active Member
If I remember my prior research correctly it varies from 10 to 3500 ppm. making the entire argument fatuous, especially on a windy day. I'll recheck and edit if I'm incorrect.
EDIT: Normal soil barium levels vary from 2 to 360 ppm with levels as high as 3000 ppm.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Classified? How do you respond?
Similar threads
