LISTEN LIVE OR CALL IN » CLICK HERE!
Most Popular
Stop Smart Meters Australia
Today's show features an interview with a representative of Stop Smart Meters Australia, an organisation which is opposing the introduction of electricity smart meters which are currently being rolled out in homes throughout Victoria.
From the petition:
Victorian Citizens are being forced to have Smartmeters installed without consultation or choice, in total disregard for what they believe are their human rights:
- to protection from hazards to their health and safety;
- to choose what is installed in their homes;
- to protection of their economic interests;
- to protection of their privacy;
- to access to adequate information to enable the right to making informed choices according to individual wishes and needs.
There are many concerns regarding smart meters including;
- health issues, including radiation;
- additional cost on households,
- the additional costs of time of use tariffs would impose on households;
- the accuracy of smart meters and the inability of households to check energy consumption levels;
- that installers of smart meters may not be appropriately qualified;
- individuals making it known that they did not want a smart meter installed at their property, or wanted their meter removed being totally disregarded
- problems with wiring, the possibility of fires developing and the loss of appliances following installation and consumers rights for replacement of their assets and appliances
- insurance concerns
- privacy of data collected and concerns over hacking of the system to name the main concerns
Our show also contains more coverage of the ongoing controversy over the use of tasers by police.
Related Links
- Hamas military chief assassinated in Gaza strike
- Police urged to make Taser training harder
- Police should face action over Roberto Laudisio Curti's death: coroner
- No action against police in QLD Taser-related death
- Israel strikes Gaza, calls up reservists, ready to ‘expand’ operation
- Angry owners blame smart meters as costly gadgets blow
- Fire investigators probe link between smart meters and house fires
Chris Emery on recent film projects
The Crew of Free Mind Films, creators of "A Noble Lie". Clockwise from left: Austin Green, Holland Vandennieuwenhof, Chris Emery and James Lane.
My guest in the 2nd hour of today's show is Chris Emery, co-producer of the award winning documentary "A Noble Lie", which exposes the US government's involvement in the 1995 Oklahoma bombing. Our discussion includes some recent news covered in the show as well as Chris's latest news regarding his speaking engagements, film awards and plans for a new documentary on the subject of the CIA "MK Ultra" mind control experiments.
In the first hour we bring you a range of news stories affecting Australia and the world. Topics covered include the US presidential elections, the introduction of smart meters in Victoria and ongoing fallout over the taser death in Sydney of Roberto Laudisio Curti.
Related Links
- Having dispatched Romney, Obama faces Iran, Syria
- Save the date: Victorian Smart Meter Forum
- Stop Smart Meters Australia | Fighting for your financial & physical health, privacy, and safety in Australia
- Peace prize winner condemns NSW Taser use
- Police brutal during Taser death arrest: witness
- Higher power bills flagged in energy white paper
Halloween Special with Josh Jackson
In tonight's show we bring you a menagerie of weirdness as we plough through the many bizarre themes which dominate the news on this Halloween night.
We look at recent developments in the Julian Assange case, with a Parliamentary Briefing on the case now in progress.
In the 2nd hour am joined once again by Josh Jackson, and our special subject is that of "security" - what does it really mean and do large scale security measures end up creating more problems than they solve?
Chemtrails Revisited
In today's show I spend a good deal of time talking about why I don't subscribe to the theory that there is a global campaign of aerosol spraying (aka chemtrails) going on.
In the 2nd hour I am joined by Josh Jackson, who chimes in with his views regarding the alleged spraying.
This discussion is not presented as expert evidence, it is merely the opinion of 2 ordinary guys with a basic level of education, a willingness to look at facts and to let evidence, rather than belief, shape our opinions.
World Roundup with Damon Crowe
Our first hour guest in today's show is Damon Crowe. Our discussion ranges through many issues affecting the world today, with an emphasis on the warped psychology of the manipulators who run our global financial systems.
In hour 2 we bring you a shocking story of medical tyranny from Australia. The cases we describe illustrate the degree to which the government, child protection services and public hospitals are colluding to strip parents of their basic rights. These authorities routinely remove children from loving and caring families, causing severe emotional distress and compounding medical problems.
The effects of these catastrophic policies will be long lasting and clearly as damaging as anything we heard of in a past era. The stolen generations have never ended. They have simply been packaged differently.
Related Links
Introducing Aussie Beach TV
We are all familiar with the way in which the corporate oligarchies who run planet earth use sex to sell us their junk products.
But what about the idea of using sex to sell us something we really need - such as real news and information about what's going on in the world?
Enter Jack Russell, creator and presenter of Aussie Beach TV:
"Aussie Beach TV" is a new independent, alternative, citizen media project hosted by the most beautiful girls in Australia. You will find us on the streets and beaches of Australian towns, communicating with the Australian public on a daily basis. We are currently auditioning girls to become street/beach reporters and camera girls at YOUR VENUE!
Are you sick of the corporate controlled, mainstream media feeding you spin, lies and disinformation? Aussie Beach TV are dedicated to bringing you the news that gets swept under the rug. We vow to show you the other side of the coin and to go to the streets and beaches of Australia and ask real Aussies what they think and feel.
My conversation with Jack ranges through some of the hot topics (and hot girls) which form the substance of this innovative and well produced news and current affairs show.
My 2nd hour guest is Ian Crane, an ex-oilfield executive who now lectures, writes and broadcasts on geo-politics and the New World Order.
Ian will shorlty be embarking on a speaking tour through Australia and New Zealand, and you can find more information about his tour dates here.
I hope you enjoy the show!
Chemtrails brownshirts renew threats against TNRA
I have once again received an ominous threat, allegedly from the group "Anonymous", and once again because of my sceptical response to claims about the existence of a global aeorsol spraying campaign known as "chemtrails", and because I insist that such claims must be supported by evidence in order to be taken seriously.
These latest threats follow on the heels of threats made last week:
I hope you know about zombie trojans and how to check for them. Buckle up boys the ride is about to get bumpy
So, because I follow the basic principals of empirical research and science, I am now branded an enemy by so called "hacktivists" who hide behind anonymity, preach about freedom of speech, and terrorise independent blog editors.
The most ironic and Orwellian part of all this is that, while on the one hand they threaten to shut down or "deface" my website, on the other hand they accuse me of censorship, all because a few posts have been deleted and a few IP addresses have blocked. They of course neglect to mention that I have allowed a mega thread on the subject to continue for many months, and that I have asked people from both sides of the argument to actually come on my show and have a debate.
If this is the calibre of the frontline of chemtrail activists, then what does that tell you about the whole movement? Think about it.
Here is the latest message, in full:
Hello truthnews.com.au,
We are anonymous and you should by now realise your troubles are much bigger than any single issue like "Chemtrailers". Until now "media" has been exempt from attack. As exemplified by upcoming actions towards Julian Assange the leakpimp, many have reconsidered this position.
Is hacktivism and distributed denial of service violence? What then a temporary defacing or data theft? When you posted onto Facebook "I'm screwed" & "They have stolen all my data" with the thread "Thugs have threatened to shut down TNRA" was that a lie, request, prediction or mistake? Time will tell.
Truth News censorship is bad for truthful debate. You censor others but are outraged it could happen to you. We found amusement in you advocating get off face book 'via' face book. Webmaster excuses aside, it's double standards.
Do you understand the difference between physical violence & digital activism? Are you ready for a lesson? You would be foolish to underestimate the importance of this message. Our rage is greater than your outrage! Stand corrected and retract, otherwise all your bases are belong to us.
We Are Anonymous
We Are Legion
We Do Not Forgive
We Do Not Forget
A journey into Truth
In tonight's show we plunge into the deeply confusing realm of philosophy with the objective of understanding the nature of truth itself. In philosophy this type of investigation is sometimes called Epistemology, or the study of knowledge.
During the show we look at 2 major philosophical debates which touch on the theme of defining truth and relate them back to some of the content matter covered on TNRA.
The first debate we look at is Realism Vs Nominalism:
Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognizing it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object. The ancients called such a circle in explanation a diallelon. And actually the logicians were always reproached with this mistake by the sceptics, who observed that with this definition of truth it is just as when someone makes a statement before a court and in doing so appeals to a witness with whom no one is acquainted, but who wants to establish his credibility by maintaining that the one who called him as witness is an honest man. The accusation was grounded, too. Only the solution of the indicated problem is impossible without qualification and for every man. - Emmanuel Kant
The second debate we look at is Rationalism Vs. Empiricism:
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I believe that an understanding of the philosophical problems and arguments over the very meaning of truth are essential if we are to make any progress in our struggle to restore integrity to media and politics. Those who are in the business of mass deception have exploited the insights of philosophy in their efforts to re-engineer the human psyche.
In order to turn the tables on propagandists the information warrior must become equally familiar with this territory - a difficult but rewarding challenge.
Thugs have threatened to shut down TNRA - we must be doing something right!
Some of the fanatical chemtrail believers are posting threats on this website, eg:
Hereward as a computer whatever I hope you know about zombie trojans and how to check for them. Buckle up boys the ride is about to get bumpy
These threats are of course pathetic and indicative of a major chip on the shoulder. I doubt the author is even capable of "walking the talk", but I'm flattered nonetheless that he thinks TNRA is important enough to warrant such an attack.
These threats are purportedly coming as a result of my sceptical position on chemtrails, believe it or not!
The fact that chemtrailers are willing to entertain the idea of using violence against TNRA should indicate to you that there is something amiss with the whole chemtrails movement.
I believe "chemtrails" is quite likely a psyop, similar to the 9/11 "no-planes" meme, designed to sew discord and division among the community of truth seekers by injecting absurd and empirically unsound claims into general discussion.
I believe the fundamentally evil intent of those promoting "chemtrails" is exposed in these threats against me, simply for taking a sceptical position (ie: asking for evidence).
These are the classic bully tactics of fascists, who use a mix of deception, violence and mob mentality to destabilise their opposition.
This is not in the spirit of the truth movement. These guys have been outed by their own hand.
I hope this will prompt all our regular listeners to reconsider what I have been saying about chemtrails all along, to ask the hard questions, and honestly look at both sides of the argument.
Let it be known that I will, at my discretion, ban people who are persistently rude, persistently off-topic in a spammy way, expose privileged personal information, make libelous accusations, or (most pertinently) use threats in lieu of argument and evidence to make their point! If you are already banned it's because you fall into one of these categories. If you email me and promise me not to do it again I may lift the ban. The ball is in your court.
Related Links
Interview with Jan Irvin
Jan Irvin is the author of The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity, host of the podcast show Gnostic Media, and webmaster of Trivium Education, a website which teaches the ancient arts of Aristotelian Logic, and Classical Rhetoric.
General Grammar, Aristotelian Logic, and Classical Rhetoric comprise the first three rules-based subjects of the 7 Liberal Arts and Sciences. As these disciplines are learned and practiced together, they form the overarching, symbiotic system for establishing clarity and consistency of personal thought called the Trivium.
General Grammar
(Answers the question of the Who, What, Where, and the When of a subject.) Discovering and ordering facts of reality comprises basic, systematic Knowledge
Formal Logic
(Answers the Why of a subject.) Developing the faculty of reason in establishing valid [i.e., non-contradictory] relationships among facts, systematic Understanding
Classical Rhetoric
(Provides the How of a subject.) Applying knowledge and understanding expressively comprises Wisdom or, in other words, it is systematically useable knowledge and understanding
In the 2nd hour of today's show, Chris Tolland interviews Irvin on his research and insights in many subjects.
In the first hour of today's show Chris joins us for a relaxed discussion on life, the economy and politics in Australia.
I hope you enjoy the show!
Recent Comments
Leonard Clampett said:
“The water resulting from the steam emitted is the same as
was there prior to the passing of the aircraft”
No. This is your central error.
New water is generated during the burning process. As you say: “Matter only changes form”.
Burning is one of the ways for oxydation. The fuel molecules are cracked up by heat (that’s why you need heat to start a fire), the freed atoms are reacting with oxygen from the air around.
Even a campfire from dry wood generates water.
I called water “hydroxide” to highlight the fact that it’s just oxydized hydrogen. The correct name would be “dihydrogen-monoxyde” as the molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
By Josh on 2012 12 08 - 18:16:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
By jolly Josh, You have confirmed that you are for entertainment purposes only and senseless argument is your conduit.
Hydrogen, H2, is not carbon. Some rockets use liquid hydrogen, LH2, and liquid oxygen LOx. The resultant mixture causes decomposition of those elements. Decomposition does not create water, any water present upon exhaust was there in the beginning in a different form. There can be no increase in volume or weight from any burned fuel considering starting point. Matter only changes form and does not add or subtract anything to the universe from any reaction. Energy is never lost only its state is altered. Alteration of a state is not creation of new matter. To put it as simply as possible for you, any water resultant by way of a rocket burning fuel in space was taken there, not made out of what little is there by way of matter in space and the weight and volume of the resultant matter will exactly equal the weight and volume of the initial ingredients. Quite apart from this is the fact that your points regarding rockets in space can be forgotten as whatever is emitted by a rocket exhaust will be instantly dispersed as it merges into billions of cubic kilometres of nothingness, so let’s dispense with that rocket/space nonsense.
The ratio of fuel to air mixture for a jet engine at sea level is about 58.82 to 1, i.e. 1 tonne of fuel mixed with 58.82 tonnes of air, will emit 59.82 tonnes of hot gas which will contain a proportion of water that existed in the mixture in the first place. There will not be any gain in weight of the resultant. Hence, the weight and volume of the input of fuel and atmospheric air that is exhausted by an aircraft engine exactly equals the weight and volume of what went into it in the first place. What part of physics do you not yet understand? Over-unity does not come into these equations.
The same applies to aircraft in our atmosphere. Whatever water results from their passing was there and not taken there by the aircraft. Compression/pressurisation of the atmosphere is what you seem to mistake for additional matter. The water resulting from the steam emitted is the same as was there prior to the passing of the aircraft and the balance, as I have explained to you previously, of the atmosphere will be the same moisture content as soon as the merging of matter takes place.
As you have postulated, the sum of the emissions is equal to the sum of the input. In other words, what comes out is equal in weight and volume to what went in. What goes in comes out, but in a different form and is no greater than what went in. Get it yet? To claim otherwise is to claim over-unity which certainly does not happen in aircraft engines no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise.
The best place to go for a definition of hydroxide is the Encyclopaedia Britannica which puts paid to your claim that hydroxide, which is part made up of metals, is simply water or water vapour because some hydroxides are only sparingly soluble in water. You couldn’t actually claim that water is soluble in water could you, because soluble means to be able to be dissolved in another substance? But then, with your determination to back the government genocide ……….
As you are so well versed in over-unity make believe, I have a huge moneymaking proposition for you. I will set up a cat farm producing cat pelts for sale to China where they make all kinds of items of apparel from the skins. I will feed rats to the cats and feed the rats on the cat carcases. So, all we need to do is feed and slaughter, skin, process and ship the skins. As rats die the other rats can consume them as well which will mean no cost for feed of any kind. We can make an absolute fortune from the trade and all I need from you is the start-up finance and I can almost guarantee you will get a fortune from the mark up in the trade. No crap. No spin, only the truth. We could sit back and make huge money. That is, of course, if entropy does not come into the equation.
For the following, see above.
Josh Anonymous said:
“The net mass of the elements involved does not change, it all adds up.”
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 08 - 16:02:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett, when I said:
“Why can’t fuel burn in outer space?”,
you replied:
“it does burn as rocket propellant but it is hydrogen that is burning, not a carbon based fuel.”
Rockets burning hydrogen also take their oxygen with them.
There is no burning without oxygen.
You also said:
“The air flows THROUGH the engine, the aircraft does not take it on board.”
I never claimed that, nor did I claim an aircraft would somehow carry water along with the fuel.
The air is compressed and then the oxygen contained in it reacts with the fuel.
Once more (I am at a loss how to put it ever simpler):
-> In goes air - from the outside
-> In goes fuel - from the aircraft’s tanks
xx Combustion: hydrogen and carbon both react with oxygen
<- Out goes carbondioxide
<- Out goes hydroxide (which is H2O, or water - as vapour of course)
The chemical formula I posted before shows that there is an equality of the number of atoms going in and out which is what the laws of nature are requiring. The net mass of the elements involved does not change, it all adds up.
However, if you just compare the mass of fuel in and the mass of water out, the relation is 1 to 1.3 ...
By Josh on 2012 12 08 - 05:41:28
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
OK Josh, you are slowly getting there, and I may be able to carry you across the line of understanding if you keep up the good work, because there was a smidgeon of knowledge oozing out of your last post, although I suspect that it may have accidentally come from your subconscious which cannot help but expound what you actually believe. So you are making headway, it seems, although it is a toss up as to whether or not you just argue for the sake of it or are really believing the kinds of things you postulate.
Josh Anonymous said:
“No, supersaturation does not depend on pressure increase. It happens because a lack of condensation nuclei (solid particles). It’s a scientific fact.”
Josh, that is just plain bullshit and you must know it. Firstly let me iterate that there is no such thing supersaturation in the free atmosphere at any altitude. You need to get your head around this point otherwise you cannot advance your knowledge. There is no such thing as more than 100% humidity in the free atmosphere. Got it yet? No matter how many nuclei of any kind are present in the free atmosphere they, or their lack, cannot cause an increase in pressure to do what you claim. You the go on to broach the subject of compressors, but ..... Nuclei are what condensate clings to in order to create ice crystals, larger rain drops and hail. The moisture builds up on the nuclei. Supersaturation means that there is more moisture in a parcel of air than can be absorbed under natural conditions, i.e. in the free atmosphere, and to increase the amount of moisture requires a containment of the air in order to be able to make it absorb more water vapour, to force it in, as in how carbonated soft drinks have CO2 forced into the container they occupy to cause a supersaturation of the liquid with the gas which, when you open the container, releases as bubbles of gas. Ergo, equilibrium returns when you rip the top of a stubbie and the CO2 escapes. You are making progress because you appear to follow that all the water vapour is already up at altitude and is not carried up their by an aircraft. Hence, the engines do not “make” water because the exhausted water vapour is an accidental result of the combustion process from the air that is drawn into the engine air intake. Engines do not create water, and certainly no more water vapour than is drawn into the engine will be exhausted. Bear in mind the most basic point that water cannot be compressed, only vapour can be and only to the point of 100% humidity because it then becomes water. The temperature in the combustion chamber, and inter-stages, allows for an increase in vapour content but also reduces any vapour to steam to be exhausted.
You seem to have understood that the aircraft does not carry water into the upper atmosphere from the ground, and that each engine has a series of compressors, axial and centrifugal, to compress (read pressurise), the air that is drawn into the engine intake from the free atmosphere. I can give you a gold plated, diamond encrusted, solid platinum guarantee that no turbine engine will even come to life without its compressors working. Ergo, there can be no supersaturation in the free atmosphere and as soon as the exhaust gasses are emitted from the engine they expand to reach the same pressure as the surrounding ambient atmosphere almost instantly. So out the window goes your theory, and, if you have ever been involved in an explosive decompression situation you would know exactly how fast the pressure balance is reached.
Josh Anonymous also said:
“The additional weight comes from the intake of air, the oxygen in it.”
No Josh, you don’t seem to get it, there is no additional weight at all. The air flows THROUGH the engine, the aircraft does not take it on board.
Josh Anonymous also said:
“Why can’t fuel burn in outer space?”
Well, Josh, it does burn as rocket propellant but it is hydrogen that is burning, not a carbon based fuel. Duh?
Josh Anonymous also said:
“To complete your thought experiment: let’s assume there is no outside air. As a consequence, your 747-800 would have to carry 70 tons of oxygen in addition to the fuel.”
Well, Duh again, if there was no outside air, as in space, there would be no flight. Simple, Eh?
Got it?
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 07 - 21:06:42
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett said:
“You would have to increase the atmospheric pressure that altitude to above ambient”
No, supersaturation does not depend on pressure increase. It happens because a lack of condensation nuclei (solid particles). It’s a scientific fact.
You also said:
“how an aircraft weighing about 300 tonnes was able to produce another 70 tonnes of weight by some magical means.”
Again (for the fourth time, I think):
The additional weight comes from the intake of air, the oxygen in it.
Why is it that a considerable part of any combustion engine (jet or piston) is dedicated to collecting and compressing outside air?
Why can’t fuel burn in outer space?
To complete your thought experiment: let’s assume there is no outside air. As a consequence, your 747-800 would have to carry 70 tons of oxygen in addition to the fuel.
Got it?
By Josh on 2012 12 07 - 16:45:39
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Josh, for a fleeting moment or two I suspected that you had discovered some common-sense which just isn’t common any more. I’ll explain to you in simple terms so you can follow. Atmospheric pressure is measured at the bottom of a column of air stretching to the top of the exosphere, right up through the troposphere, the tropopause, the stratosphere, the the mesosphere, the thermosphere to the exosphere.
This column of air measures 1013.2 Mb/hPa or 29.92 inches of Mercury in the International Standard Atmosphere. To pressurise the atmosphere up where contrails are normally formed you would have to increase the atmospheric pressure that altitude to above ambient. How can that be done except by increasing the amount of air above the contrail formation altitude. It actually can’t be done, which is what you do not seem to grasp.
What is it that you do not yet understand? You see there is nothing to ask a meteorologist, and the chemical engineer, far from confirming what you have been saying all along, could not tell me, as I pointed out in my last post, how an aircraft weighing about 300 tonnes was able to produce another 70 tonnes of weight by some magical means.
i.e. you seem to be claiming that the aircraft would have weighed 370 tonnes if it kept al the exhaust emissions on board.
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 07 - 10:22:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Leonard Clampett said:
“About supersaturation, Have you been able to discover any scientific evidence, not Internet crap, that confirms that we can have more than 100% humidity in the free atmosphere or have you given up?”
Did you read any of the papers at all? The abstracts, at least?
Scientific papers are printed in scientific journals (which is the moment of introducing new findings in all fields of science). They are then scrutinized by fellow scientists.
Only because some of them are available on the Internet does not make them ‘crap’.
How much more scientific evidence than scientific studies about contrail formation would you accept?
Do I really have to list the scientific journals the linked papers were published in?
If you can ask an engineer about combustion (who confirms what I have been saying all along), why not ask a meteorologist about supersaturation?
By Josh on 2012 12 07 - 06:10:40
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
For Hereward and Josh,
Take a look at this short video and at about the 1 minute 30 second point you will see what happens to carbon dioxide gas, which is about 1.5 times heavier than air, when it is allowed to go its own way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_f3SkxTWxc
Cheers,
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 06 - 17:03:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
So, Josh, You need to understand that you are not just a messenger, you are a carrier and promoter of denial of government sponsored chemtrails.
Dealing with your spurious web-sites, and all they claim, I choose to speak with people who can give me solid information. Yesterday I spoke with a Fuel Technology Chemical Engineer (we engineers tend to stick together because all systems need design input from engineers) from one of the big oil companies at some length. He was left with some queries to ponder. He told me he believed that a tonne of Avtur/Jet-A1 burned produces about 1.5 tonnes of water. I asked if this was from oxidisation and he agreed it was. I asked if this was much the same process, except at high temperature (about 700 degrees Celsius), used in fuel cells and he agreed that it was. The difference being that fuel cells use cold fusion to extract hydrogen gas, using the electrolysis process, which is burned and then returns to its natural state upon exhaust and mixing with the ambient atmosphere where the necessary atoms are attracted and exchanged and the natural balance returns at reformation. (I have a hydrogen gas producer fitted to our car so I do not entertain any claims they don’t work, and treat such claims with the contempt they deserve, and make my claim without fear of intelligent contradiction). Hence the Universe maintains equilibrium, as it always does, because for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.
I am left to figure out the following. We take a Boeing 747-800, as an instance, and we fill it full of a carbon based fuel. This fuel is burned and gives use enough energy to lift 300 tones to, say, 45,000 feet and thrust it along at some 0.85 for hours on end. It turns each tonnes of fuel into 1.5 tonnes of water (H2O). That is 140 tonnes of fuel becomes 210 tonnes of water if we burn every drop. Not only that, we also exhaust many tens of tonnes of CO2. CO2 is 1.5 times the weight of air and immediately comes under the unforgiving force of gravity and begins to descend to, and be absorbed by, either the earth or water it lands upon. Ergo, the CO2 tax you and I have been saddled with has no scientific basis whatsoever despite the claims by the IPCC “experts” who are paid to espouse total crap at our expense.
So not only do we magically create 50% more in weight from a carbon based fuel but the CO2 and other exhaust gasses as well. All this whilst also getting the benefits of high speed travel. Bloody marvellous, what?
Just to recap on your thesis. Our aircraft magically creates weight from a magic process. Luckily it does not retain the exhaust gasses otherwise it would weigh an extra 70 tonnes, plus the CO2, upon landing. This must be why we need to be so careful in filling out the TOLD card prior to landing.
This system, and how it works, has obviously been suppressed by the oil companies, otherwise we could have used it years ago to improve our lot. Imagine burning the water instead of the fuel to get the water. Why would we bother with the fuel?
One other thing Josh, you may have not yet figured it out, but if, as you claim, ice crystal in contrails gather moisture from the surrounding atmosphere, in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics (entropy), without the required up-drafts found in
Cb’s, as they gained weight they would descend and melt. This would be if they could overcome the natural balance of integrating with the surrounding atmosphere not unlike the ice cubes in the swimming pool comparison. All this apart from the fact that a trivial amount of water exhausted into tens of cubic kilometres of surrounding atmosphere as a craft passes by at about 900 kilometres per hour or about 15 kilometres per minute.
At 11,000 metres (where the air temperature is about -50 degrees Celsius) the speed of sound is approx 86% of that in air at 20 degrees Celsius, that is about 1063 km/h 0.85 x 1063 km/h = 904 km/h
Have you worked on the photographs from Tuesday of the chemtrail being sprayed near Brisbane?
I note that the truth has become to exude from your subconscious as it always will. Estimating range requires a stereoscopic image and our eyes are stereoscopic. 164 meters is not 1,000 metres and you need to be able to perceive detail of some kind at that distance in order to dope the sights. The chemtrail shown in the photographs taken from our home were large enough for us to see the detail required which would not have been had they been at your wished-for 30,000 feet.
About supersaturation, Have you been able to discover any scientific evidence, not Internet crap, that confirms that we can have more than 100% humidity in the free atmosphere or have you given up?
Cheers,
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 06 - 10:43:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
“A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it’s going to get.”—Ian Williams Goddard
“Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy
“Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among people.” (August 1765) John Adams
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
Said to have originated in a statement of Irish orator John Philpot Curran in 1790: “It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”
By Leonard Clampett on 2012 12 05 - 15:30:24
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.