Go to ...

THE TRUTH DENIED

RSS Feed

August 23, 2017

Aluminium is not a potent Chemtrails Particle


 

Sancho Panza by C. Paul Jennewein, aluminum, collection of Brookgreen Gardens, Pawleys Island, SC. Photo by David FitzSimmons.

We have often heard  that aluminium is said to be  more potent  than sulfur, however we have discovered that aluminium is only more potent  when it is combined with the application  better known as Solar Radiation Management. To be clear, what we refer to as chemtrails is not SRM (please refer to  previous article “Chemtrails are not Geoengineering”). Yes , we do understand that this is indeed hard to follow, but many of you have already connected the dots.

Perhaps this will aid our readers.

One of the most telling  references for this point  actually mentions that  aluminium as particle  is more potent than sulfur explained in the documentary ” What in the world are they spraying”. This quote is from the subtitle available at opensubtitles.org:
00:05:33:
“It is called “Geo-Engineering”. Fighting global warming by putting a chemical dust into the atmosphere and reflecting harmful radiation back into space. We take geoengineering to mean: Deliberate, large scale intervention in the Earth´s system.

There are a variety of schemes that have been discussed for geo engineering. Classic example is injecting reflecting particles into Earth orbit. Nevertheless, there might be some good reasons to think about alumina. Turns out, first of all, there has been done a lot of work on the environmental consequences of aluminum in the stratosphere.

The big deal really is that alumina has 4 times the volumetric rate of forcing small particles as does sulphur. And that means you have 4 times less surface area for the same radiative forcing. And this is a much bigger deal: You have roughly 16 times less the coagulation rate and that´s the thing, that really drives removal. So you could get away, we think, with much smaller mass levels.

So that´s why we see things like in the Hughes Aircraft patent from ’89, they talk about aluminum. And that´s why we are seeing in the surface water samples aluminum. And here is David Keith saying, that aluminum has 4 times the reflective volume surface area.”

 

Provided by http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/wiggle%203d

Aluminum

 

I don’t know why WITWATS pointed to geoengineer, David Keith in the above statement because even if what he said is true and factual, then aluminum particles would only be a relevant application  for reflecting sunlight.

A side note here to prove our theory. Please put the following words into a Google Search Engine: “using aluminum particles to reflect sunlight back into space”, and you will get a ton of websites referring to Solar Radiation Management. 

As a matter of fact, here is the TOP Google definition:m(Please notice that the definition also refers to SRM as “theoretical”, rather than an ongoing  application or experiment.)

“Solar radiation management (SRM) projects are a largely theoretical type of geoengineering which seek to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming. Proposed examples include the creation of stratospheric sulfur aerosols. They would not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus do not address problems such as ocean acidification caused by these gases. Their principal advantages as an approach to geoengineering is the speed with which they can be deployed and become fully active, as well as their low financial cost. By comparison, other geoengineering techniques based on greenhouse gas remediation, such as ocean iron fertilization, need to sequester the anthropogenic carbon excess before they can arrest global warming. Solar radiation management projects can therefore be used as a geoengineering ‘quick fix’ while levels ofgreenhouse gases can be brought under control by greenhouse gas remediation techniques.

A study by Lenton and Vaughan suggest that marine cloud brightening and stratospheric sulfur aerosols are each capable of reversing the warming effect of a doubling of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere (when compared to pre-industrial levels)”

 

With this being said, we continue make our point:

 

There are report about black chemtrails or chemtrails shadow.  It has also been my own observation that I have only seen bright reflection of sunlight from natural clouds, not from chemtrails. I  have never seen trails that brightly reflect sunlight at all, have you?  Trails seem to absorb  the sunlight, they do not reflect it. The obvious point here is that trails do a poor job of reflecting sunlight, therefore it begs the question, “Do chemtrails consist of aluminium particles at all?” Can anyone provide any proof whatsoever that they do? If indeed they are exist in trails, why don’t the contrails 4 times more reflective than natural clouds?

If chemtrails consist of aluminium, are there any proof that chemtrails 4 times more reflective than natural clouds?

 

SULFUR

The danger of sulfur additives in the environment is  higher than aluminium, because when aluminum is released into our atmosphere it immediately converts  into aluminium oxide. Aluminium will not fall down as element. “What in the world are they spraying” also mention this:
07:57 : “Jet just in a very simple way make high quality aluminum particles just by spraying aluminum vapour out which oxydize”.

The problem is, there is no valid current information as to  how aluminium oxide harms the atmosphere, and on the other hand, there seems to be more information regarding sulfur and how it impacts the atmosphere, which leads me to this:

Atmosphere, Weather, and Climate
“Despite its short lifetime, sulphur dioxide is readily transported over long distace. It is removed from the atmosphere when condensation nuclei of SO2 are precipitated as acid rain containing sulphuric acid (H2SO4). The acidity of fog deposition can be more serious because up to 90 percent of the fog droplets may be deposited. In Californian coastal fogs, pH values of only 2.0-2.5 are not uncommon. Peak pH readings in the eastern United States and Europe are 1gm-2 of SO2 annualy.”

 

Acid rain can decimate  forests.
Forest decimated by acid rain

 

Volcanic Sulfur Aerosols Affect Climate and the Earth’s Ozone Layer
“The sulfate aerosols also promote complex chemical reactions on their surfaces that alter chlorine and nitrogen chemical species in the stratosphere. This effect, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, generates chlorine monoxide (ClO), which destroys ozone (O3).”

 

Ozone layer depletion can cause severe environmental toxic effects:
Health and Environmental Effects of Ozone Layer Depletion
“Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts — a clouding of the eye’s lens. All sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal stratospheric ozone levels. It is always important to protect your skin and eyes from the sun. Ozone layer depletion increases the amount of UVB and the risk of health effects.”

 

In conclusion, although aluminium is much more potent particle for the Solar Radiation Management application, aluminium does not have the same effects when used in a  chemtrail application.

 

My point? Either we have been lead down the wrong path from the beginning in regards to chemtrails associated with aluminum, or ?  What is your observation, we invite you to comment below!

Please follow and like us:
1802

Tags: , , , , ,

23 Responses “Aluminium is not a potent Chemtrails Particle”

  1. March 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM

    NOT a Conspiracy Theory
    The question is not “Is aluminum in our water and soil?” The question is rather, if there is aluminum in our soil and water, where did it REALLY come from, AND if you don’t know CHEMISTRY, (and most of us do not) then what are the TRUE results of these additives, and sulfur looks like a big culprit.This article is being very SPECIFIC, so good idea to PAY ATTENTION to details.

    http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2013/03/11/aluminium-is-not-a-potent-chemtrails-particle/

  2. Jim
    March 11, 2013 at 4:31 PM

    The only way to know for sure is to retrieve an aerial sample, next to impossible for the average Joe.

    There are countless patents, independent samples taken from ground level, & global think tank white papers that reflect upon Alumina in one form or another. Circumstantial evidence at best. Is it enough?

    • March 12, 2013 at 8:26 PM

      One thing for sure, chemtrails are not 4 times more reflective. That effort seems useless.

  3. anne
    March 12, 2013 at 10:58 PM

    Personally I think it is salt that they are spraying combined with sulphur, wherever the chemtrails have been sprayed any rain for weeks after tastes salty, I don’t live anywhere near the coast but water from the water butt is salty and I have had all of my veggies and flowers wither and die for about 3 years now, poor growth for 10-15 years before that.

    • March 13, 2013 at 1:50 AM

      I think salt accumulate so when the salt reach certain level, the plant refuses to grow.

      For the plants, I think what fall down is much less important than what stay lingering.

  4. March 17, 2013 at 6:58 AM

    Plenty of evidence exists that “chemtrails” are a necessary part of weapons, weather mod and communications system. There is far less evidence that chemtrails are sprayed to mitigate global warming. One giant clue is that chemtrails have been deployed decades prior to and “emergency”need for deployment to mitigate AGW. Not only that – The plans and experiments to spray aerosols into the skies came long before the method became a solution to mitigate AGW. So the timeline of development does a pretty good job of exposing the big lie. THis may be one reason David Keith denies chemtrails exist. To do so would be an admission that the military is already spraying “aluminum” for a different reason and it doesn’t work because he has to sell the idea that global warming is REAL by promoting the pseudo-science that dictates a global carbon tax. Dealing with chemtrails as a weapons system to warm the climate goes a long way to making better sense of Keith’s dilemma and why the warmists are obligated to promote a lie to achieve a political solution they have embraced with more ferver than religion.

    • March 17, 2013 at 7:08 PM

      Yes. Another problem is why some chemtrails activist dare to ask us to believe in David Keith?

  5. March 17, 2013 at 7:10 AM

    The title is confusing and not a statement I can support: “Aluminium is not a potent Chemtrails Particle”. A more correct headline might be: “Aluminum in chemtrails is not an effort to mitigate global warming” (?)

    • March 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM

      No. The purpose of this article is to question the claim of “aluminium is 4 times more potent than sulfur”. The suggested title were already explained in previous article:
      http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2013/02/25/chemtrails-are-not-geoengineering/

      People think that aluminium are potent only because David Keith said so. That is a very serious problem.

    • rossmarsden
      March 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM

      This presupposes that there is Aluminium in “chemtrails”. There is not. Where on a plane would it come from? There are no tanks for it. It’s not in the fuel. Where?

      • March 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

        Why do you assume it require tanks and it is not possible to be added to the fuel?

        Do you know that a very small amount of impurity in fuel can dramatically change the balance between trails and no trails?

        But the point of this article is to doubt the significance of aluminium particle in trails.

  6. MikeC
    March 21, 2013 at 4:06 PM

    Because what is allwoed to be in fuel is public knowledge – you can look up Def Std 91-91 and find it all over the net – it is currently at Rev 7. If you find anythign othe than what is in this specification in fuel you have evidence of a crime beign commited, since civil aircraft are only allowed to use materials that meet approved specifications – and this is the specification for fuel.

    I know of no impurity that can be added to anything to affect the persistence or otehrwise of contrails – because contrail persistence relies upon the Relative humidity of the atmospehre it is in relative to ice- RHI.

    AFAIK no-one has found anything in any chemtrails because no-one has actually sampled them – although MJ Murphy says that is actually teh only way to tell what is a chemtrail and what is not. Perhaps he will spend his next fundraising effort doing this??

    • March 21, 2013 at 6:22 PM

      Creating infallible trails sample evidence is very hard. Not just the sampler credential, the sampling method must be error free too. Many fail at credential requirement, then many use very crude sampling method. That may take a lot of money and even then it may even still not infallible.

      Even if the sample can not show anything out of normal, contrails is still an environmental problem.

      Many scientist post concern about the amount of sulfur content in jet fuel. Sulfur play a great role in the visibility / creation of contrails. Sulfur existance in the sky pose problem like drought, acid rain and ozone depletion. The problem is government allow fuel with high sulfur content.

      http://www.gispri.or.jp/symp/pdf/ipccsym/sraa.pdf
      “Sulfur and soot particles emitted by aircraft, along with water vapor, trigger the formation of line-shaped white clouds called condensation trails, or contrails. Contrails have a positive radiative forcing and add to warming. These emissions may also induce greater cirrus cloud cover, which would increase warming as well.”

    • February 8, 2015 at 1:23 AM

      “AFAIK no-one has found anything in any chemtrails because no-one has actually sampled them”.

      Take a look:

      “In situ observations of contrail microphysics and implications for their radiative impact” (Michael R. Poellot, W. Patrick Arnott, John Hallett), 1999.

      http://patarnott.com/pdf/contrailMicrophysics99.pdf

      Samples of 21 contrails were collected and studied. There were no unexpected materials found, just normal jet exhaust and ice.

  7. MikeC
    March 21, 2013 at 8:32 PM

    Yep – and sulphur is part of the specification of Jet A1 – you can look it up on the net – Def Std 91-91 – I think the latest version is revision 7- IIRC 3000 parts per million.

    But putting moer sulphur into fuel won’t make more or more persistent contrails – once a contrail starts forming its own particles will act as nucleation sites for the moisture in the air anyway.

    • March 21, 2013 at 9:16 PM

      You said:
      “But putting moer sulphur into fuel won’t make more or more persistent contrails – once a contrail starts forming its own particles will act as nucleation sites for the moisture in the air anyway.”

      Please provide a link or two to the credible website that mention that. I see that kind of assumption only circulated around chemtrails debunker website. No link from contrailscience nor metabunk please.

      Different level of sulfur will change contrails property / visibility / creation.

  8. August 28, 2013 at 4:55 AM

    You are doing the only “geo-engineering” that is happening presently. You, me, and everyone else in the developing world.

    Aluminum is naturally present in household dust because it is naturally present in our soil. It is naturally present in our soil because it is naturally present in ROCK. EIGHT PER CENT BY WEIGHT OF ALUMINUM is PRESENT IN THE EARTH’S CRUST.
    Sulfur is present in all fossil fuels. Some liquid fuels are desulfurized to remove excess sulfur. Aviation represents THREE POINT FIVE PER CENT of the world’s fuel consumption. That’s ONE THIRTIETH of the problem. I look forward to your extending a THIRTY TIMES GREATER effort on the part of the rest of the sulfur pollution you are so concerned about.

    Your claims that your site is penetrated by trolls etc., and that you have answered Star Bricker’s challenges (by points 1, 2, etc.) are scandalous lies.

    Take your challenges to MetaBunk and make your case. If you have cogent arguments to make, they will prevail there. There’s no point hiding in this website.

    I’m Jazzy there. Come on over.

    • August 28, 2013 at 6:54 PM

      Just state your conclusion. What are you trying to suggest?

      How much of the thirty times greater will crawl up into the stratosphere?

      Star Bricker simply post something not backed up by science, kept avoid posting scientific link, etc. If you have it something (scientific link from NASA or academic) that support Star Bricker, post it here.

      I won’t join metabunk because I do not trust Mick West. He claim to know contrails when it is obvious his claim deny the science.

      Here is my debate against Mick West:
      http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2012/08/06/mick-west-owner-of-contrailscience-lies-once-again-please-be-aware/

      It is absurd that Mick West still suggest that contrails is not a problem.

      If you wish for free discussion, I invite you to
      http://www.davidicke.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21

      Both denier and believer can debate there without being banned as long as civilized.

    • August 29, 2013 at 6:20 PM

      I am not hiding. I won’t join Mick West website because I post two comment containing info about contrails with link to legitimate website. But those two comment never showed up. Mick West definitely filter the content. I assume there would be filtering in Metabunk too.

      I hope everyone that join Metabunk would not use the same password as your other account.

      • February 8, 2015 at 11:36 AM

        agreed. Here at TTD we moderate, just to keep the swearing off of our boards and the large amount of SPAM. Other than that, our readers do present there ideas for discussion.

    • February 8, 2015 at 11:37 AM

      Why would we need to take our statements over to medabunk? What on earth for? It is like arguing with uniformed you know what.

  9. Pissed off
    October 5, 2015 at 6:58 PM

    I seek answers .. Why my daughter age 20 has melonoma… I want the truth..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Stories From AEROSPACE & WEAPONIZING SPACE