Max Bliss debates chemtrails

[Mick West]

He was making some distinction about the part of the world where trails were seen? Any idea why?

Possibly related to his idea that all WWII contrails were due to water injection? Maybe he thinks different planes were used in the Pacific?

 

[TEEJ]

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/B_29_Hunters_of_the_JAAF.html?id=4p1pDSXzZZUC

 

[MikeC]

Possibly related to his idea that all WWII contrails were due to water injection? Maybe he thinks different planes were used in the Pacific?

to some extent they were - all B-29's were in the Pacific, all Japanese a/c were in the Pacific (obviously but you never know), later model B-17's were not used in the Pacific, most US naval a/c were not seen much in Europe, most British naval a/c not seen much in the Pacific, no Spitfire IX's served in the Pacific (they used Spit VIII's - which had the same engine but was purpose designed for it whereas the IX was a "hasty" arrangement of the uprated engine fitted to a Spitfire V airframe that just so happened to work perfectly and so more IX's were made than VIII's!), and so forth.

So while it is fairly obviously a moot point from a rational/science/evidence point of view it might pay to be aware of the differences in air fleets that did exist in case he does bring it up.

 

[TWCobra]

Max seems to be taking cherry-picking to new heights. This post from his R.E.A.L Institute FB quotes NASA's education piece on contrails.

The post triumphantly notes that NASA says there are metal particles in jet exhausts. It is true.. there are, in miniscule amounts. They come from the engine itself which is operating at high revs and temperatures. It is called "normal wear".

Max however conspicuously fails to acknowledge the following points from the same article;

1. Contrails are mainly composed of ice.

2. The persistent contrails from a small biz-jet, a Sabreliner, were measured as weighing an average of 3.1 kg/flight metre. (Jets cover an average of 15,000 metres (8 nautical miles) /minute in cruise. The maths therefore blows chemtrail theory out of the water as a contrail persisting for 3 minutes from a Sabreliner would weigh more than the max payload available in any aircraft; 134 tonnes in a 747-8 freighter). A Sabreliner itself only weighs approx 7.5 tonnes fully loaded.

3. The weight of the parts of the contrail that are not water or CO2 (SO2, soot and metallic particles) is 0.025kg/flight metre or 0.375 kg per minute of flight.

Max, you should read up on confirmation bias.

 

[Balance]

@TWCobra I read that yesterday and thought he's really scraping the bottom of the barrel by commenting on this "admission" of metal particles in the exhaust from NASA. Perhaps he'll realise all those passing road vehicles (including his own) are also commiting the same "evil crimes against humanity".

 

[TEEJ]

Max is off again dabbling in Flight Radar 24 and getting it wrong, yet again!

https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss?fref=ts

Unfortunately Max you got the wrong aircraft. The aircraft you filmed was not the Raytheon 390 Premier well to the east of you but the Cessna Citation Mustang (Registration M-IFFY) at nearly 34,000 feet.

Raytheon 390 Premier

http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-10-09/17:33/12x/PRM1/4880f27

Cessna Citation Registration M-IFFY at nearly 34,000 feet.

http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-10-09/17:03/12x/MIFFY/4880482

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hetebrij/15325349992/

Max has been busy again making videos.

https://www.youtube.com/user/MrMaxBliss

Max doing his research on Ryan Air

 

[TEEJ]

Max is unhappy with You Tube.

https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss?fref=ts

 

[Debra]

Of course it wasn't the Fascist NWO who terminated his channel, it was because he is a thief.

The REAL Institute - Max Bliss has been terminated because we received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted.

 

[deirdre]

Of course it wasn't the Fascist NWO who terminated his channel, it was because he is a thief.

The REAL Institute - Max Bliss has been terminated because we received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted.

sweet. was that on facebook, cause I'm not finding it in browser search.

 

[Debra]

sweet. was that on facebook, cause I'm not finding it in browser search.

It's here https://www.youtube.com/user/MrMaxBliss/videos

 

[NoParty]

They look at it as a badge of honor, they feel the more times they are taken down, the closer they are to the truth, they won't mention the copyright infringements that led to the take down. Max already has a new channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkVwJARa97zzXchnhyY8lwA

His facebook reaction:
View attachment 9849
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...0810995396.524896.685100395&type=1&permPage=1

Damn, and all this time I thought YouTube was exposing "the fascist NWO!"

 

[TEEJ]

It appears to be Dane Wigington making the copyright claims.

https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss?fref=ts

 

[Rico]

I saw that yesterday.

Odd. What does Dane get for flagging copyright on fellow chemtrail promoters?

 

[TWCobra]

There is a large schism in what they believe. Wigington says that Global Warming is caused by chemtrails... Bliss says that Global warming is a hoax. They have clashed about this before.

 

[TEEJ]

Bliss on Wigington.

https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss

 

[WeedWhacker]

Bliss on Wigington.

What to do (rhetorical).

train-wreck? I dunno.

Because this is NOT meant as an educational Forum....nevertheless there is NO on-going form of "geo-engineering" as proposed by either of these two gentlemen.

Reading that post though....displays HUGE mistaken beliefs, which comport with many on-going "conspiracy beliefs" that range far beyond the realm of this thread's "Posting Guidelines", and topic.

....perhaps...self-destruct mode?

 

[Mackdog]

There is a large schism in what they believe. Wigington says that Global Warming is caused by chemtrails... Bliss says that Global warming is a hoax. They have clashed about this before.

Now both may start claiming that the other is a government operative that is trying to "divide and conquer". This type of infighting is why the CT movements never get any traction (thankfully).

 

[Don von Hostas]

Now both may start claiming that the other is a government operative that is trying to "divide and conquer". This type of infighting is why the CT movements never get any traction (thankfully).

True. That, and the whole lack of any compelling evidence whatsoever. But I'm nitpicking.

 

[Ross Marsden]

There is a large schism in what they believe. Wigington says that Global Warming is caused by chemtrails... Bliss says that Global warming is a hoax. They have clashed about this before.

Not quite. Dane fully accepts AGW is valid, but believes that chemtrails/geoengineering has been deployed to mitigate the effects, but that it is being over done, or that there are further unintended effects.

Max Bliss suggests this of Dane in that capture posted by TEEJ in post #415.

 

[Trailblazer]

Dane also seems to believe that chemtrails are blocking sunlight (according to his bio he first got into the subject when his solar panels were underperforming) and yet simultaneously believes that solar radiation is "off the charts". He wants to bake his cake, have it, eat it and sell it.

 

[TEEJ]

Max has stumbled upon the ACCESS missions.

https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss/posts/10152892441205396?pnref=story

Max when will you ever learn? Ignorance really is Bliss!

 

[Hama Neggs]

Max has stumbled upon the ACCESS missions.

View attachment 10631

View attachment 10632


https://www.facebook.com/mrmaxbliss/posts/10152892441205396?pnref=story

Max when will you ever learn? Ignorance really is Bliss!

I assume that Max's mocking answer is actually the correct one.

 

[TEEJ]

I assume that Max's mocking answer is actually the correct one.

Max wouldn't understand even if he was taken up on a flight to observe contrail formation by different by-pass turbofans. The NASA HU-25C is fitted with medium-bypass turbofans.

He would probably think that the following film footage was CGI?

Note at 8:25 the low-bypass Snecma M53's of the Mirage 2000 at that specific time not producing contrails while the Airbus A340s hi-bypass are still producing.

The producers of the movie sought out assistance from the French Air Force in order to have contrails for effect.

Google translation of the French website.

"The other high temperature of the film takes place at more than 13,000 meters. He staged an Airbus A340-600, which is hiding under a Mirage 2000 piloted by a terrorist. For the sake of spectacle, it was necessary to investigate, with the help of meteorologists Air Force, the conditions of temperature and humidity favor the creation of contrails. Production has come from Los Angeles a Learjet equipped with two cameras periscope capable of flying at altitude and speed Mirage and Airbus, while performing acrobatics. Initially, Pires had imagined that the Learjet would leave in flight back over the A340 and would make a barrel to place itself under the belly of the four-engined, revealing during rotation, the Mirage hidden. A plan of hell! The direction of flight tests found too risky maneuver and've opposed."

From

http://archives.aerobuzz.fr/article147.html

In the latest NASA test footage the chase plane is a Falcon 20 fitted with medium-bypass turbofans the same as the HU-25C in the image posted by Max.

 

[Larrydalooza]

Also, in my imagination, the lower jet has just descended through the contrail at a different thrust than the jet that is intentionally trying to create a contrail. Between engine design and operating differences, in lies the explanation.

 

[Efftup]

plus also the smaller jet on the left is very close to the edge of the frame. Is it possible there ARE contrails but just forming that little bit further away? What distance behind that jet SHOULD a contrail form?

 

[Mackdog]

plus also the smaller jet on the left is very close to the edge of the frame. Is it possible there ARE contrails but just forming that little bit further away? What distance behind that jet SHOULD a contrail form?

Also I would think that the air would be warmer right behind the DC-8, which would mean that the air is not conducive for forming contrails.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Note at 8:25 the low-bypass Snecma M53's of the Mirage 2000 at that specific time not producing contrails while the Airbus A340s hi-bypass are still producing.

Yep, but the current prevailing "wisdom" in chemmie circles is that high-bypass engines CAN'T produce contrails. Ask them why they believe that and you get crickets.

 

[NoParty]

Yep, but the current prevailing "wisdom" in chemmie circles is that high-bypass engines CAN'T produce contrails. Ask them why they believe...

'cause some CT they believed said it--probably when they were first getting indoctrinated--
...and now it's stuck in there...likely forever... (It's known after all...no need to look it up now)

 

[TEEJ]

Images from flights during 2013. The HU-25 Falcon/Guardian can be seen forming contrails as it trails the DC-8.

The modified HU-25 Falcon probes the exhaust contrails from NASA's DC-8 flying laboratory as both aircraft enter a turn at about 35,000 feet altitude during the first data-collection flight in restricted test airspace over California's high desert. Image Credit: NASA / Lori Losey

During an early test flight, researchers in the HU-25 had this view of the exhaust plume from 15 kilometers behind the DC-8. Image Credit: NASA

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/access_fuel.html#.VI_6IiusWSr

Of note they were also planning to trail commercial airliners as targets of opportunity.

Also, if weather conditions permit, NASA's Guardian jet will take advantage of "targets of opportunity" and – in coordination with air traffic controllers and airliner pilots – take measurements while trailing airliners flying in the Southern California region from a safe distance of five miles or more.

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-nasa-effects-emissions-contrail-formation.html

 

[Hevach]

While I understand what they're saying perfectly, that paragraph is just the motherlode for quote mining.

 

[rezn8d]

"
US Defense Department switching to civilian-grade jet fuel
By Matt Kohlman & Joshua Mann | February 13, 2014 02:05 PM
http://blogs.platts.com/2014/02/13/us-defense-department-switching-to-civilian-grade-jet-fuel/

The US military is jettisoning its jet propellant in favor of civilian-grade jet fuel.

With testing of civilian-grade jet A with additives nearly complete, 36 military bases in the US have converted away from the military-grade JP-8. The remaining more than 230 locations are slated to convert in 2014.

"For the conversion in the continental United States, the demonstration phase of the conversion is essentially completed," said Susan Lowe, a spokeswoman for the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, the fuel-buying arm of the Department of Defense. "Virtually all DOD aviation and ground equipment has been tested and (is) ready for the use of commercial specification jet A fuel with additives."

The two main exceptions to the conversion are jet A-1, a civilian grade nearly identical to JP-8 that is commonly used by the military outside of the US, and JP-5, which is mainly used on aircraft carriers. Jet A-1 has the same flash point as jet A but a lower freezing point: jet A freezes at minus 40 degrees Celsius and A-1 freezes at minus 47 degrees Celsius. The requirement of an antistatic additive for A-1 is another major difference, while JP-8 further requires corrosion inhibitor and icing inhibitor additives.

The DoD began the initiative in 2009 with demonstrations at four Air Force locations. One market source said the additives put into the jet A bought by the military during the early testing period made it almost identical to JP-8 at first, and that few suppliers could meet the requirements. But he said the military was realizing it does not need the superior freeze point, or that it may even get the spec thrown in for free later.

The DOD bought 73.32 million barrels at a cost of $12.21 billion for jet fuel globally in 2013, a purchase similar to that of Delta Air Lines and United Airlines, the world's largest commercial airlines before the newly merged American Airlines was created.

But market sources say the addition of military demand to the civilian market will not drive prices up, because producers that usually make JP-8 for the DOD can simply make more jet A–also known as 54 grade–to offset the new demand. JP-8 producers will lose premium pricing for the special handling involved, but the jet A supply chain will gain more flexibility.

"Some places, they want to sell us JP-8 because they have a government contract," said one jet fuel buyer for a major US airline. "Now, if they do the regular 54 and additives, I think it will help us."
The Platts spot market assessment for jet A in the benchmark US Gulf Coast averaged $2.9227/gal in 2013, and US airlines paid $3.01/gallon, according to data released by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The military paid $3.73/gal for JP-8, and $3.71/gal on A-grade jet fuel plus additives, according to information provided by the DLAE. The 2-cent/gal spread would have saved the military $37.34 million if all JP-8 bought in 2013 had been jet A plus additives.

DoD savings could become more dramatic once the entire system shifts away from needing special distribution and segregated storage. Access to the civilian supply pool, Lowe said, "gives the DOD more operational flexibility and increases procurement competition to reduce fuel costs."

US refiners and blenders produced an average of 105,269 b'd of military-grade jet fuel and 1.4 million b/d of jet A in 2013. This marked a decline in JP-8 production from 2012, when it averaged 124,250 b/d. Government data showed only 75,000 barrels a day of military jet production occurred in the week ended February 7, 2014, which is only 5% of total jet fuel output in the US. Both levels are half the average since the 1993 start of data collection.

In 2013, the military spent $6.95 billion on 44.45 million barrels of JP-8 and $860.72 million on 5.53 million barrels of A-grade with additives. The biggest military buyer of the civilian-grade jet fuel was the Air Force, which spent $838.20 million on 5.38 million barrels.

Contrails, Geoengineering, and the Single Fuel Concept
http://climateviewer.com/2014/11/05/contrails-geoengineering-single-fuel-concept/

 

[TWCobra]

Jim, can you answer this question please?

How do you reconcile the requirement for Geoengineering to be carried out in the high Stratosphere, with the total inability of any current aircraft, and particularly the airliners usually filmed by chemtrail advocates, to get anywhere near the required altitudes, even without a useful load much less with one?

 

[TWCobra]

And while you are mulling that one, can you also explain how, if Geoengineering additives are in the fuel, why we never see white trails on takeoff, climb and descent?

After you have ignored that question, can you also explain how geoengineering nanoparticles can be added to commercially available fuel without altering the specific Gravity of the fuel, something that pilots such as myself are required to check after every refuelling.

Please then explain how said nanoparticles can be added without affecting the freezing temperature of the fuel, something that is also required to be known to the degree by both pilots and onboard fuel temperature sensing systems?

In your own time please...

 

[WeedWhacker]

@rezn8d ("Jim Lee") --- you posted a video that is over 45 minutes long with no specific time references and claims.

When I have the time I will attempt to address that video, and post in its "comments" section as to (what I expect I will find) its many errors.

But first, could you help out by citing one or two actual points from the video? (I presume you've already watched it in its entirety?).

 

[Keith Beachy]

"

Contrails, Geoengineering, and the Single Fuel Concept
http://climateviewer.com/2014/11/05/contrails-geoengineering-single-fuel-concept/

Why would switching to bio-jet-fuel stop contrails?

What does JP-4 have to do with the fantasy of chemtrails? JP-4 was used because it does not freeze up like other jet fuels. When we flew with JP-5 at high altitude our fuel control unit would freeze up and as we descended our engine would go sub idle, stuck, essentially off. How does switching fuels support the "chemtrail" fantasy and claims of conspiracy? When aircraft crash, the fuel can burn; even JetA burns and can blow up in flight. Why bring up flash point and leave out defined claims.

There are additives in our car gasoline - is that part of the chemtrail conspiracy never explained with facts.

 

[rezn8d]

Jim, can you answer this question please?

How do you reconcile the requirement for Geoengineering to be carried out in the high Stratosphere, with the total inability of any current aircraft, and particularly the airliners usually filmed by chemtrail advocates, to get anywhere near the required altitudes, even without a useful load much less with one?

Contrails are not geoengineering, they are the bane of the aviation industry

Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming
http://www.livescience.com/104-longer-airline-flights-proposed-combat-global-warming.html

High-altitude cirrus clouds, both natural and jet-induced, are unlike thicker low-altitude clouds, which block sunlight from reaching the surface. The thinner cirrus, which float in the sky at 20,000 feet or higher, act like a see-through blanket - letting sunlight pass in, while trapping reflected heat.

Earth Warmed by Trails of Clouds that Jets Leave Behind
http://www.livescience.com/13462-contrails-climate-change-global-warming-clouds-air-travel.html

Contrail clouds have another complex effect: They use up water vapor that normally could go into the formation of natural cirrus clouds, according to Kärcher and Burkhardt.
...
"Assuming a steady growth of air traffic, then contrails would remain for some time the most important aviation-related warming. If, on the other hand, aviation volume is decreasing, then carbon dioxide would become more important relative to contrail cirrus,"

NASA to study the effects on emissions and contrail formation of burning alternative jet fuels
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-nasa-effects-emissions-contrail-formation.html

Understanding more about contrail formation is important because they are considered an essential variable in discussions about climate change.

While it is known that contrails are ice particles that form when water vapor from jet exhaust condenses and freezes on some source of nuclei, there are a number of different models to suggest what the source of the nuclei might be, Anderson said.

The source could be soot from the jet engine exhaust, so the use of alternate fuels might reduce contrail formation. The source could be from the sulfur that is present in jet fuels, so a low-sulfur or non-sulfur fuel might make a difference. And still other models suggest that just the presence of normal background aerosols in the atmosphere is enough to trigger contrails.

"It could be any or all of those things. Some people say there's so much water vapor in the exhaust of an aircraft that any particles at all will seed the formation of ice," Anderson said.

To help test at least one of those possibilities, for ACCESS II the DC-8 will fly with both a low sulfur and high sulfur grade of JP-8 jet fuel.

thought you might enjoy this:

On The Climate response to Cirrus Cloud Seeding
https://ams.confex.com/ams/95Annual/webprogram/Paper268699.html

Trude Storelvmo, Yale University, New Haven, CT; and W. R. Boos and N. Herger

Climate engineering, the intentional alteration of Earth's climate, is a multifaceted and controversial topic. Numerous climate engineering mechanisms (CEMs) have been proposed, and the efficacies and potential undesired consequences of some of them have been studied in the safe environments of numerical models. Here, we present a global modeling study of a so far understudied CEM, namely the seeding of cirrus clouds to reduce their lifetimes in the upper troposphere, and hence their greenhouse effect. Different from most CEMs, the intention of cirrus seeding is not to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth's surface. This particular CEM rather targets the greenhouse effect, by reducing the trapping of infrared radiation by high clouds. This avoids some of the caveats that have been identified for solar radiation management, for example the delayed recovery of stratospheric ozone or drastic changes to Earth's hydrological cycle. We find that seeding of mid- and high latitude cirrus clouds has the potential to cool the planet by about 1.4K, and that this cooling is accompanied by only a modest reduction in rainfall. Intriguingly, seeding of the 15% of the globe with the highest solar noon zenith angles at any given time yields the same global mean cooling as a seeding strategy that involves 45% of the globe. In either case, the cooling is strongest at high latitudes, and could therefore serve to prevent Arctic sea ice loss. With the caveat that there are still significant uncertainties associated with ice nucleation in cirrus clouds and its representation in climate models, cirrus seeding appears to represent a powerful CEM with reduced side effects.

 

[rezn8d]

And while you are mulling that one, can you also explain how, if Geoengineering additives are in the fuel, why we never see white trails on takeoff, climb and descent?

After you have ignored that question, can you also explain how geoengineering nanoparticles can be added to commercially available fuel without altering the specific Gravity of the fuel, something that pilots such as myself are required to check after every refuelling.

Please then explain how said nanoparticles can be added without affecting the freezing temperature of the fuel, something that is also required to be known to the degree by both pilots and onboard fuel temperature sensing systems?

In your own time please...

No I won't explain any of that as I clearly don't believe any of this is geoengineering, it's pollution.

BETZ LABORATORIES INC/BETZ DEARBORN -- SPEC-AID 8Q462 -- 6850-01-432-7761
http://www.hazard.com/msds/f2/cdg/cdgcf.html

============= Composition/Information on Ingredients =============

Ingred Name:HEAVY AROMATIC NAPHTHA (SOLVENT NAPHTHA) <---------------- CARCINOGEN
CAS:64742-94-5
RTECS #:WF3100000
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED

Ingred Name:1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE (SARA 313) <---------------- CARCINOGEN
CAS:95-63-6
RTECS #:DC3325000
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED
OSHA PEL:25 PPM
ACGIH TLV:25 PPM; 9596

Ingred Name:TRADE SECRET INGRED 561,TSRN 125438-5273P. <---------------- TRADE SECRET
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED

Ingred Name:TRADE SECRET INGRED 428, TSRN 125438-5266P. <---------------- TRADE SECRET
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED

Ingred Name:NAPHTHALENE (SARA 313) (CERCLA) <---------------- CARCINOGEN
CAS:91-20-3
RTECS #:QJ0525000
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED
OSHA PEL:10 PPM
ACGIH TLV:10 PPM/15 STEL; 9596
EPA Rpt Qty:100 LBS
DOT Rpt Qty:100 LBS

 

[rezn8d]

@rezn8d ("Jim Lee") --- you posted a video that is over 45 minutes long with no specific time references and claims.

When I have the time I will attempt to address that video, and post in its "comments" section as to (what I expect I will find) its many errors.

But first, could you help out by citing one or two actual points from the video? (I presume you've already watched it in its entirety?).

I not only watched the video, I made it. Tune in and learn something.

 

[rezn8d]

Why would switching to bio-jet-fuel stop contrails?

What does JP-4 have to do with the fantasy of chemtrails? JP-4 was used because it does not freeze up like other jet fuels. When we flew with JP-5 at high altitude our fuel control unit would freeze up and as we descended our engine would go sub idle, stuck, essentially off. How does switching fuels support the "chemtrail" fantasy and claims of conspiracy? When aircraft crash, the fuel can burn; even JetA burns and can blow up in flight. Why bring up flash point and leave out defined claims.

There are additives in our car gasoline - is that part of the chemtrail conspiracy never explained with facts.

I cite those explosive incidences as they were quotes from the Colonel who proposed the switch to JP-8 during the NATO single fuel concept conversion between 1988-1996. The year the conversion was complete, the chemtrail conspiracy began.

These are not coincidences.

ps. I spoke with Mick West on the phone for 45 minutes prior to releasing all of this. He knew nothing of the NATO Pipeline Committee, the Single Fuel Concept, or any of this, so quit acting like none of this is a surprise to you. K?

 

[MikeC]

If they are not coincidences what is the link?