See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Video Shot by Pilot Flying Along side several Chemtrail Planes
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 13, 2010
Author: kevin604bc
Post Date: 2010-03-13 16:18:34 by wudidiz
Keywords: None
Views: 20904
Comments: 715
.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 465.
#2. To: wudidiz (#0)
There is nothing in the volume or color of the visible gases that is unusual in these trails. I've seen them many times aloft and from the ground. At one point the trails flair out dramatically, but if you look closely, you can see that this is because the aircraft is descending. If there a sinister forces involved in this at all, it may be to the extent that the chemtrail story is aimed at exciting fear at the most primitive level. It may be part of a psyop to keep the population off-balance. Have a Camel. Relax.
I really don't know how to argue with that, except that it's not condensation. I've seen them many times too in the last 10+ years.
How do you know that?
My Dad was a fighter pilot. He went on to be an airline pilot. I went to many airshows and he told me a lot about airplanes. I had a habit of always watching the sky as airplanes went by and knew my planes quite well. That's not to say I'm an expert by any means. But I knew what a contrail was from an early age. They would follow the airliners across the sky only a few lengths behind. They are condensation from engine exhaust. Therefore the name 'con-trails'. They would always dissipate quickly as contrails do. There's simply not enough condensation from the exhaust for them to remain visible for long. Beginning in the mid to late 90s these chemtrails started appearing. They increased in number much after 9/11. There's not a chance in hell that those long trails we see left in the sky by some airliners now are condensation. Simply physically impossible. I don't know how I can explain it any better really. If you honestly want to know about this with an open mind, I suggest you research it on the Internet. There's no shortage of information about chemtrails. Not all of it true of course.
I don't know how I can explain it any better really. If you honestly want to know about this with an open mind, I suggest you research it on the Internet. There's no shortage of information about chemtrails. Not all of it true of course. I was interested in planes and aeronautics from the time I was in diapers, and as well my father was pilot. Because of that I used to look at the contrails when I was a kid 30-40 years ago and was always disappointed when they were not visible. You see the air conditions have to be just right and the plane at the right altitude for them to form. A standard contrail forming from natural physical processes has only a short persistence - maybe 20 minutes - 30 tops. The Chemtrails we see today, which first began in the late 80's to early 90's are qualitatively different from a standard contrail. A standard contrail is formed from water vapor and temperature and as such quickly dissipates with temperature and time. A Chemtrail by contrast has the characteristic of persistence i.e., they will persist well beyond the 20 to 30 minutes of a standard contrail and will spread to create a thin haze. When they are really busy at it I have seen them horizon to horizon counting a minimum of 13 Chemtrails. For an uncommon phenomenon, contrails, that is rather phenomenal. Here is a website where the phenomena is thoroughly documented and explored: Clifford Carnicom
how do you tell a persistent contrail or contrail cirrus clouds from "chemtrails"?
A standard contrail looks more vaporous to begin with and as you watch the plane move across the sky you will see the trail disappearing before it makes the full circuit horizon to horizon. Only very rarely will a contrail aid in the formation of a clouds of any kind - generally they just rapidly fade. I would suggest that the "Contrail Cirrus" is a term inserted into the debate as disinformation to attempt to discredit the observers who have been blowing the whistle on Chemtrails. You will find very little if anything about "Contrail Cirrus" prior to the advent of people noticing the existence of Chemtrails.
Another point not mentioned in the quote is that Chemtrails are often laid at altitudes well below the altitude required to produce the freezing temperatures needed to form a standard contrail (temperature decreases with altitude as the atmosphere is thinner and does not hold heat). Chemtrails are often laid down at the 10,000 foot level which is well below the 33,000 foot level which the Airforce states as the minimum formation altititude.
oh. have you been up there to make first-hand observations, or are you merely quoting some loony-tunes "chemtrail" site?
I think it should be, at this point, apparent to a neutral observer that it is your intent to argue the disinformation line rather than to review the data and see what conclusion the actual observations lead to. Whenever I see some attempt to argue by use of Loaded Words such as "loony-tunes" to characterize something without examining the evidence or providing any logical justification I immediatelly call Bullshit. BULLSHIT! Examples:
in other words, you cant defend your logic, so you have to veer off into a discussion of semantics. not good
No, it is called L-O-G-I-C or otherwise known as sound reasoning. If one applies the Scientific Method then one forms a conclusion based upon evidence. Photographs are evidence. Known physical properties of contrails is evidence. Characterizations i.e., "loaded words" is NOT evidence. Therefore your argument founders on the unsoundness of the attempts to divert from the issues, avoidance of the evidence, and the use of negative language as a tool to persuade by applying a negative label. All of the foregoing methods you have used are known, and categorized, under a term in use for well over 100 years i.e., Logical Fallacies and the newer term invented to describe government, and PR Agency, tactics of seeding knowingly false data and false arguments i.e., disinformation.
...of contrails... unless "chemtrails" have been photoshopped into the picture. you've been unable to refute logical explanations of how supposed "chemtrail" patterns can occur as the result of normal air traffic. you've been unable to explain how a 747 loaded to the gills is unable to produce a "chemtrail" of retardant that's longer than five miles. you're unable to point to "chemtrail" support infrastructure that would be necessary to mount your "chemtrail" operation.
First off, you provide no link that backs your assertion. However, it doesn't take a lot of brains to understand the difference between dumping loads of dry flame retardant powder and an aerosol or fog sprayed out at a MUCH MUCH lower flow rate.
First off, you provide no link that backs your assertion. evergreen propaganda isnt good enough for you, huh?
Ok, but we're not talking about powder being dumped out of the plane to put out fires, we're talking about an aerosol or fog being released at a MUCH lower flow rate. Do you understand the difference between dumping huge amounts of powder and spraying a fine mist or fog that consists of minute liquid particles?
so such a miniscule amount of spray would create such a massive trail that it would be visible from 40,000 feet.
Oh and BTW, do you admit that crop dusters DO leave visible trails of
pesticide? Hmmm, that plane sure looks like it's a tad bit smaller
than a 747, doesn't it?
in the picture of the duster, above. please tell us what the guy is dispensing, what it weighs, and how long the swath will be from a fully loaded duster. please tell us how much water vapor is produced in one hour from the fuel burned by a 747.
Please go read up on the subject, and learn that various chemicals such as barium have been found in dust found on vehicles shortly after a day of chemtrail activity. Look up the various KNOWN and ACCEPTED info on weather modification, especially in reference to barium. Then give me some calcuations as to why you think this is impossible. I want some calculus and actual physics, not some BS about fire fighting craft dumping dry chemicals on fires.
Now, now. You're asking a shill to actually produce evidence? And calculations requiring higher math? From someone who probably can't do much more than simple Algebra? How cruel. Valid though.
you're unable to post the combustion products of jet fuel or kerosene. you're unable to explain why, if this were such a crisis, no one has gone up to sample "chemtrails" directly. it only costs a couple thousand dollars an hour to rent a lear, their climb rate is something like !0,000 feet per minute, you could be up and back in half an hour. why has no one bothered to do that?
Ok, I'll concede the fact that kerosene combustion products DO include water, but the fact is, the ACTUAL water content of the exhaust is DEPENDENT on the amount of water vapor in the air, the density of the air, and various other factors. That the combustion DOES produce water does not relate to the ACTUAL amount of water in jet exhaust. AND, water could just as easily be carried in tanks and heated, resulting in a similar amount of water concentration. Have you ever seen fog machines at concerts?
there are laws of chemistry, and chemical reactions proceed according to those laws. combustion is a chemical reaction, it conforms to laws of chemistry. please fill in the blank. a gallon of jet fuel produces _____ water upon combustion. please fill in another blank... the amount of water above, in blank one, will produce _____ cubic feet of water vapor in the atmospheric pressure found at 40,000' on a standard day.
a gallon of jet fuel produces _____ water upon combustion. please fill in another blank... the amount of water above, in blank one, will produce _____ cubic feet of water vapor in the atmospheric pressure found at 40,000 on a standard day. Just non-sequitors, since we don't even know if the chemtrails contain water in the first place. But since you appear to have the answers, why don't you go ahead and post them.
...but we for sure know that contrails, as combustion products, contain a certain amount of water. if you dont know how much water is produced by burning jet fuel, you're not qualified to discuss contrails or "chemtrails".
hmmm, that's interesting. Water is produced from burning jet fuel? So all that jet fuel that burned at the WTC towers when the planes struck them also produced water? I am asking because I don't know, seems kind of nuts to me though.
is your google broke? combustion produces water vapor, and unless it's cold enough, the water vapor doesnt condense to form water.
Really? Produces water vapor? I really wish I could still google. Maybe I will try scroogle.
OK, scroogle works. H2O is indeed produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons it appears. Learn something new everyday. :)
yup, but dont let that out... it's a secret. not only that, but a gallon of kerosene produces a gallon of water, as water vapor, when it burns. not only that, but a gallon of water, when it's vaporized, occupies thousands of cubic feet... but dont tell anyone.
But wait a minute, didn't you say it would take a 747 with tons of it to cause a 5 mile trail? Doesn't seem to be the case now does it...
Review your physics, man! In space, there is volume w-l-h. It is three dimensional in scope.
Did or did not groundresonance state the following? a gallon of water, when it's vaporized, occupies thousands of cubic feet... Now if you look at a trail, whether it's a regular contrail or a chemtrail, it is 3 dimensional, is it not? Cubic feet is a measure of volume (ie. 3 dimensional space) buck, in case you didn't know. The thing is, the LENGTH is MUCH greater than the circular cross section, where the circular cross section of a regular contrail might be say 30 feet in diameter. Since area of a circle is Pi * (radius)Squared, or Pi * (diameter/2)Squared, then 3.14 * (15)Squared is 706.5 square feet. So every 10 feet of length gives you 7065 cubic feet of water vapor, from what he claims, in the area of what he claims as "thousands of cubic feet per gallon". SO, if this were true, and since there are 5280 feet in a mile, then there would have to be 528 gallons of water per mile, or 2640 gallons in five miles. If the water comes from the jet fuel, and even IF there was a 100% conversion of jet fuel to water (which of course there isn't), then the jet would burn 2650 gallons of fuel every 5 miles. In order to fly 500 miles, it'd have to burn 265,000 gallons of fuel. Jets can fly THOUSANDS of miles, yet a 747 only holds 48,445 gallons of fuel, and only consumes about 5 gallons per mile, not 528 or more. See where this is going?
and when that fuel is burned, it produces about 50,000 gallons of water. when that water is emitted as water vapor, it occupies much more space than it does when it's in liquid form. It will take about 15,965 cubic feet of air at that temperature and humidity to hold 1 gallon of water.
and when that fuel is burned, it produces about 50,000 gallons of water. when that water is emitted as water vapor, it occupies much more space than it does when it's in liquid form. Again disengenuous and outright dishonest - through omission of key data. Natural contrails are only formed above 33,000 feet and consist of ice crystals i.e., frozen water vapor. They persist only until the ice cystals melt back into unobservable clear water vapor - which abounds in the atmosphere. 50,000 sounds like a big number, and I won't even bother to dispute it because what is relevant is that the water vapor only becomes visible as a contrail when frozen, and the conditions to do so vary with atmospheric density and temperature. A plane below the critical altitude where the water freezes into cystals flies merrily along nonetheless - and should ordinarily leave no visible contrail regardless of the amount of water vapor emitted in the exhaust as it does not freeze into reflective ice crystals. What you are doing is throwing shit against the wall hoping it will stick. Unfortunately for you, and your disinformation line, it is a slippery wall. One thing is apparent though is that you are twisting and turning in every attempt to deny what people have actually observed and photographed.
What he's saying is that you get more water by burning kerosene than the amount of kerosene itself. Like I said, perhaps instead of worrying about where to get water from, Middle Eastern nations should just burn that kerosene and drink all the water it makes.. LOL
how much does a gallon of gasoline weigh? ...say 7 pounds. how much does the co2 weigh as a combustion product of burning 7 pounds of gas? over 19 pounds? ...how can that be? well, it cant be if you're ignorant of chemistry, can it?
So you're saying you can get more water from a gallon of gas than you can from a gallon bottle of water, correct?
apparently you cant read. i said you got 19 pounds of co2, not water, from burning 7 pounds of gasoline. you get just a little less water from burning a gallon of gas than you'd get from a gallon jug of water, assuming your water supplier is honest.
You said you get 50,000 gallons of water from 48,445 gallons of kerosene, don't lie.
kerosene is not gasoline. kerosene produces more water than gasoline when it burns, not much, but some.
So you're saying I can get more water from a glass of kerosene than I can from a glass of water, eh?
yup. if your combustion is complete, and you have a good way to condense the water out of the combustion exhaust, you will get more water from burning a glass of kerosene than you would from the same glass filled with water.
yup. if your combustion is complete, and you have a good way to condense the water out of the combustion exhaust, you will get more water from burning a glass of kerosene than you would from the same glass filled with water. And the formula for that chemical equation is?
C12H26: C12H26(l) + 37/2 O2(g) [4; 12 CO2(g) + 13 H2O(g); g0;HÚ = -7513 kJ
Close but no cigar. The combustion reaction in a Jet Engine (Aviation Fuel) in general terms is: CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O Which does not account for your claim on the production of water vapor (before crystalization) as being greater than unity. However, this is all a diversion from the main point which is that it does not demonstrate how contrails are formed at altitudes under 33,000 feet since the atmospheric temperature is not cold enough to promote the rapid formation of ice cystals from the water vapor exiting the exhaust.
"unity" has nothing to do with it, seeing as how the chemical reaction is sustained by grabbing oxygen out of the atmosphere.
Still dodging and weaving. Sigh.
but really, the operative thing here is the fact that the water is expelled as water vapor, which spreads out into thousands of cubic feet as it's expelled into the atmosphere, where it condenses and freezes to form "condensation trails", aka "contrails". neat how that works, huh?
neat how that works, huh? Spoken like a true "B" Student in H.S. General Science leaving out the key component provision i.e., at a specified altitude and temperature because ALL of the conditions have to be met for natural contrails to form. Keep trying though I just love the way you wipe the drool off your chin at each misstep. Just try not to get it on the carpet. K'?
dont bother posting any more pictures of "chemtrails" unless you also post the pressure altitude, temperature and relative humidity of the air mass the airplane was flying through.
I'll post whatever I damn well please and allow the objective readers who have an open MIND to judge the available data based on their own observations. Your continually reliance on one absurdity after another is amusing though.
you guys cant post any proof of support infrastructure, you cant explain why none of your "chemtrail" fans are willing to rent a plane and take samples. you refuse to understand the chemistry involved, you cant point to increased mortality rates, you dont know what the "chemtrails" are made of, you cant explain their purpose. you cant estimate how many observed contrails are, in fact, "chemtrails", you cant explain why you cant come up with airtight, irrefutable proof of "chemtrails" existence. all you can do is post pictures of uncertain provenance, pictures completely lacking in pertinent flight data.
People used to ridicule early scientists who tried to inform the world that many diseases were caused by germs, since nobody could see them, and nobody could show motality studies of what those germs caused, since people didn't believe they existed in the first place. Try again.
you guys dont seem to have any idea of the scale of this supposed "chemtrail" operation. if the operation had any scale to it at all, wouldnt there be paper trails, too? wouldnt there be ground support equipment? wouldnt there be mechanics who installed the machinery on the airplanes? wouldnt there be lab workers who fabricated whatever it is that's supposedly being sprayed? wouldnt there be people who, out of a sense of self-preservation, would blow a whistle? and what about the people making money on this "chemtrail" industry? wouldnt they be well-served to hire a jet to take conclusive samples, witnessed by people of unimpeachable character?
These are fairly sensible questions although you might try approaching the issue with an open mind since you seem relatively new to it and uninformed about it. “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation” (most popularly attributed to Herbert Spencer) you guys dont seem to have any idea of the scale of this supposed "chemtrail" operation. It's huge. if the operation had any scale to it at all, wouldnt there be paper trails, too? There are. wouldnt there be ground support equipment? There must be. wouldnt there be mechanics who installed the machinery on the airplanes? Of course. wouldnt there be lab workers who fabricated whatever it is that's supposedly being sprayed? Probably at least some. wouldnt there be people who, out of a sense of self-preservation, would blow a whistle? Not necessarily, although some have. and what about the people making money on this "chemtrail" industry? The military industrial complex, oil industry and aluminum manufacturers (who make money off fluoride being put in water and toothpaste?) wouldnt they be well-served to hire a jet to take conclusive samples, witnessed by people of unimpeachable character? People have done that if I remember right.
seems to me you'd have real evidence of such a "huge" operation, other than photographs that give people no clue as to the altitude of the airplane, or the temperature and humidity of the air mass at that altitude. please post documentary evidence of "chemtrail" spray operations, other than normal agricultural or fire suppression operations. please post evidence of support machinery used in "chemtrail" operations, other than normal agricultural or fire suppression operations. please post verifiable testimony from mechanics who are involved in installing and/or maintaining "chemtrail" equipment on airplanes or ground support machinery, other than that used in normal agricultural or fire suppression operations. please tell us what chemicals are being sprayed, and why they're being sprayed, please post evidence of chemical fabrication labs, please post testimony from chemists involved in fabricating the chemicals used in "chemtrail" operations. please explain why people involved in the "huge" "chemtrail" industry are so unconcerned about their own well-being that they are not blowing whistles, left, right and center. the people making money of the supposed "chemtrail" operation are, in the absence of any evidence of "chemtrails" existence, people selling patent medicines to cure "chemtrail" hypochondfiacs, and people who sell website ads to people who prey on gullible "chemtrail" believers. please post evidence obtained by a "chemtrail" profiteer hiring a jet, taking samples of "chemtrails" while scrupulously following rules of evidence, and submitting those samples to a reputable lab.
Why should I?
...to prove you can? *shrug*
And what if I don't?
then i guess we'll have to assume you're full of horse pucky when it comes to "chemtrails"... *shrug*
Assume all you like.
okay
oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb...html&identifier=ADD001671
of the 85 or 90 thousands flights per day in america, how many of them are equipped with this "Powder Contrail Generation" device? what are they spreading with this device? what is the spreading of this... whatever it is... supposed to accomplish?
what is the spreading of this... whatever it is... supposed to accomplish?
why are you posting HAARP stuff into a thread about "chemtrails" when HAARP is a ground-based experiment?
You're not actually reading any of the links ARE you?
Results 1 - 10 of about 48,500 for EASTLUND HAARP
www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.html
all you got to do now is rent a jet, sample some "chemtrails", take the samples to a lab, and prove that there's anything in the samples but water vapor...
Chemtrail Content Analysis from Different Sources
sorry, you're gonna have to present evidence, taken directly from the "chemtrails". and you're gonna have to come up with evidence other than that provided by carnicom, which should be easy to do, given the supposed scale of the "chemtrail" operation.
That'd be nice and I'm surprised if someone hasn't done it yet. It should be done. I suspect you wouldn't believe the results anyway.
if every commercial airliner took samples of bleed air off the turbines, or had a connection to the pitot system that sampled the air, and if those samples were analyzed and the results published every day, then i'd be inclined to believe them. meanwhile, you guys have no proof of anything, except "proof" from people who seem to be making a living by terrorizing americans.
'groundresonance' If he doesn't just have a bad case of the dumb, he's a shill. Either way I don't give a fuck. Pardon my French.
here's the thing: in the case of 9/11, we've got reputable people coming forward, questioning the official story. none of you "chemtrail" experts seems to be able to come up with any comparably reputable people who support this "chemtrail" business. why is that? if we got reputable people with courage enough to throw the 9/11 shit back in the government's face, why dont we have reputable people with guts enough to throw "chemtrails" in the government's face? why are "chemtrails" such a loonytunes operation?
when an aircraft has to jettison fuel, how does it do it? how would you shift the center of gravity of an airplane on a test flight, other than having tanks plumbed up to pump water back and forth?
I think you may very well be right about this one.
if this "chemtrail" business is global, and it's an effort to sicken and kill... how many...? millions...? billions...? of people, dont you think there are doctors that would raise hell about the operation? have you never heard of the hippocratic oath? are you telling me that doctors are too ignorant to spot epidemic barium or aluminum poisoning? ...or are you saying that doctors are so corrupt, worldwide, that they arent raising cain?
...or are you saying that doctors are so corrupt, worldwide, that they arent raising cain? Yes and... Yes.
you think all doctors are so corrupt, as a group, that not one of them will come forward to protest "chemtrail" poisoning, supposing for the sake of argument that it existed.
Do you know of one that's come forward to protest?
what if there's nothing to protest?
There is.
that's what you apparently believe, but there doesnt seem to be any evidence. and you're so dead set on believing in "chemtrails" that you're willing to believe every doctor in the world is willing to sweep "chemtrail" deaths under the rug. that seems to be kinda unlikely, to me.
that's what you apparently believe, but there doesnt seem to be any evidence. and you're so dead set on believing in "chemtrails" that you're willing to believe every doctor in the world is willing to sweep "chemtrail" deaths under the rug. that seems to be kinda unlikely, to me. It took nearly 9 years for Architects and Engineers to begin speaking up in any volume on all of the impossibilities of the government's 911 Fairy Tale, and they are nowhere as near as dependent on the good graces of government as are Doctors. As well Doctors live in a very insular world and if it is not published in one of their journals, or told them by a Big Pharma Rep., most of them simply will not see or acknowledge anything outside of their, in many ways, limited world view.
All of what you say is true, but the websites that some of you have posted say things like "testing for barium was carried out," but it doesn't say by whom or under what auspices. The footnotes contain references to encyclopedia articles and such. That doesn't inspire much confidence. When someone like Mr. Dirt makes a positive assertion like "There were Arabs on those planes," or "The hijacker's names are on the flight manifests," I look for positive evidence to support the claim. I really don't see it here. I have an open mind, but I want to see more than what I see here. Instead of pushing the gov't shill button, you guys need to work a bit harder on presenting solid evidence.
I remember when the sky was a much clearer color of blue. Where there's no evidence, is there no crime?
Where there's no evidence, is there no crime? Yeah, on 9/12/01 and about a week or so after that. The skies were blue. There is no evidence. There really isn't. I bet you didn't notice contrails at all until someone pointed them out to you by calling them chemtrails, then you started seeing them everywhere. That's what happened to me. You didn't notice them before because they are so common. That's all right though. I used to believe in them too. I don't anymore. If your mileage varies then that's OK. There's enough out there that we do agree on.
Yawn. I know what a contrail looks like. I know what a Chemtrail looks like. Despite your protestations they are NOT the same.
I know what a Chemtrail looks like. Can you clearly show the technical differentiation in a couple of pictures or links?
If I showed pictures or videos of the twin towers disintegrating on 9/11 to someone who believes they 'pancaked' due to airplanes hitting them would it make a difference?
It looks like 2 planes at different altitudes. There are different conditions at different altitudes. I see nothing special about the pic, other than one was labeled as a chemtrail. Saying it doesn't make it so. Sometimes what I ID in the past as "chemtrails" disappeared quickly, sometimes they spread out and merged. We only remember the whiteouts and forget the times there were no whiteouts. It would be interesting to get some meteorologists input on this, as well as pilots.
Contrails (from condensation) follow the plane only a few lengths behind and dissipate quickly. Chemtrails (from sprayed mineral compounds) stay and spread across the sky into a haze. We only remember the whiteouts and forget the times there were no whiteouts. I remember when there were no 'whiteouts'. I remember a time 10 to 20 years ago when the sky was sometimes overcast with cloud cover, but never from chemtrails sprayed by airplanes.
exactly...and you explain why there are often 2-3 planes crisscrossing these (chem)trails across the sky at low altitude for hours at a time? what are they doing?..and, btw, they never dissipate and every time what began as a perfectly cloudless blue sky winds up a hazy gray.
#468. To: christine, Original_Intent, FormerLurker, all (#465)
It's refreshing and reassuring to see we're on the same page here, Christine. :-) A guy'd go nuts if there wasn't anyone else to validate this obvious observation with. I LOVE Freedom4um!!
exactly No, not exactly. Did you see this link from post 444 depletedcranium.com/are-these-chemtrail-planes-no/ It is a great page. Then there's posts 447, 449/450 This is a hoax that took on a life of its own.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: randge (#2)
There is nothing in the volume or color of the visible gases that is unusual in these trails. I've seen them many times aloft and from the ground.
#5. To: wudidiz (#4)
#6. To: randge (#5)
#13. To: wudidiz, randge (#6)
My Dad was a fighter pilot. He went on to be an airline pilot. I went to many airshows and he told me a lot about airplanes. I had a habit of always watching the sky as airplanes went by and knew my planes quite well. That's not to say I'm an expert by any means. But I knew what a contrail was from an early age. They would follow the airliners across the sky only a few lengths behind. They are condensation from engine exhaust. Therefore the name 'con-trails'. They would always dissipate quickly as contrails do. There's simply not enough condensation from the exhaust for them to remain visible for long. Beginning in the mid to late 90s these chemtrails started appearing. They increased in number much after 9/11. There's not a chance in hell that those long trails we see left in the sky by some airliners now are condensation. Simply physically impossible.
#14. To: Original_Intent (#13)
The Chemtrails we see today, which first began in the late 80's to early 90's are qualitatively different from a standard contrail.
#17. To: groundresonance, wudidiz, randge (#14)
What's the difference between a jet contrail and a chemtrail? Link to Source - "Your Life As A Human Test Subject"
According to the U.S. Air Force, jet contrails form above 33,000 feet when hot engine exhaust momentarily condenses ice crystals into pencil-thin vapor trails that quickly vanish like the wake behind a boat.
Chemtrails (CTs) look like contrails initially, but are much thicker, extend across the sky and are often laid down in varying patterns of Xs, tick-tack-toe grids, cross-hatched and parallel lines. Instead of quickly dissipating, chemtrails expand and drip feathers and mare s tails. In 30 minutes or less, they open into wispy formations which join together, forming a thin white veil or a "fake cirrus-type cloud" that persists for hours.
In August 2000, chemtrail watchers began to report "more normal" appearing or nearly invisible jet sprays. However, these reports go on to include cloud formations dripping the feathers and mare s tails just as the chemtrails do. It s our belief that the operation has adjusted the chemtrail mix as word about the phenomenon is spreading and as more and more people are looking up. Observant chemtrail watchers continue to see the "fake cirrus-type clouds" on top of and surrounding real cumulus clouds.
#19. To: All (#17)
#21. To: Original_Intent (#19)
Chemtrails are often laid at altitudes well below the altitude required to produce the freezing temperatures needed to form a standard contrail
#25. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker, wudidiz (#21)
(From "The Logical Fallacies entry on Loaded Words): Exposition:
A word or phrase is "loaded" when it has a secondary, evaluative meaning in addition to its primary, descriptive meaning. When language is "loaded", it is loaded with its evaluative meaning. A loaded word is like a loaded gun, and its evaluative meaning is the bullet.
Unloaded Loaded
Plant Weed
Animal Beast While few words have no evaluative overtones, "plant" is a primarily descriptive term. "Weed", in contrast, has essentially the same descriptive meaning as "plant", but a negative evaluative meaning, as well. A weed is a plant of which we disapprove.
Loaded language is not inherently fallacious, otherwise most poetry would commit this fallacy. However, it is often a logical boobytrap, which may cause one to leap to an unwarranted evaluative conclusion. The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in place of an argument, or when an arguee makes an evaluation based on the colorful language in which an argument is clothed, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
Loaded language is a subfallacy of Begging the Question, because to use loaded language fallaciously is to assume an evaluation that has not been proved, thereby failing to fulfill the burden of proof. For this reason, Jeremy Bentham dubbed this fallacy "Question-Begging Epithets". ...
#27. To: Original_Intent (#25)
BULLSHIT!
#28. To: groundresonance, wudidiz, randge, FormerLurker (#27)
#32. To: Original_Intent (#28)
(Edited)
Photographs are evidence.
#46. To: groundresonance, Original_Intent (#32)
you've been unable to explain how a 747 loaded to the gills is unable to produce a "chemtrail" of retardant that's longer than five miles.
#50. To: FormerLurker (#46)
(Edited)
you've been unable to explain how a 747 loaded to the gills is unable to produce a "chemtrail" of retardant that's longer than five miles.
#55. To: groundresonance (#50)
#58. To: FormerLurker (#55)
an aerosol or fog being released at a MUCH lower flow rate.
#64. To: groundresonance (#58)
#66. To: FormerLurker (#64)
#72. To: groundresonance (#66)
please tell us how much water vapor is produced in one hour from the fuel burned by a 747.
#79. To: FormerLurker, groundresonance (#72)
I want some calculus and actual physics, not some BS about fire fighting craft dumping dry chemicals on fires.
#84. To: Original_Intent (#79)
And calculations requiring higher math?
#94. To: groundresonance (#84)
#101. To: FormerLurker (#94)
(Edited)
That the combustion DOES produce water does not relate to the ACTUAL amount of water in jet exhaust.
#103. To: groundresonance (#101)
please fill in the blank.
#106. To: FormerLurker (#103)
we don't even know if the chemtrails contain water in the first place.
#108. To: groundresonance (#106)
#110. To: RickyJ (#108)
(Edited)
seems kind of nuts to me though
#123. To: groundresonance (#110)
combustion produces water vapor, and unless it's cold enough, the water vapor doesnt condense to form water.
#133. To: All (#123)
#135. To: RickyJ (#133)
H2O is indeed produced from the combustion of hydrocarbons
#140. To: groundresonance, RickyJ, burckeroo (#135)
not only that, but a gallon of water, when it's vaporized, occupies thousands of cubic feet...
#145. To: FormerLurker (#140)
a 5 mile trail?
#151. To: buckeroo (#145)
Review your physics, man! In space, there is volume w-l-h. It is three dimensional in scope.
#154. To: FormerLurker (#151)
a 747 only holds 48,445 gallons of fuel
How Much Water In Gallons Per Cubic Foot Of Air At 74 Degrees F And 40% Relative Humidity?
#163. To: groundresonance (#154)
a 747 only holds 48,445 gallons of fuel
#166. To: Original_Intent (#163)
50,000 sounds like a big number, and I won't even bother to dispute
#170. To: FormerLurker (#166)
(Edited)
#172. To: groundresonance (#170)
how much does a gallon of gasoline weigh? ...say 7 pounds.
#176. To: FormerLurker (#172)
(Edited)
you're saying you can get more water from a gallon of gas
#177. To: groundresonance (#176)
i said you got 19 pounds of co2, not water, from burning 7 pounds of gasoline.
#178. To: FormerLurker (#177)
You said you get 50,000 gallons of water from 48,445 gallons of kerosene, don't lie.
#181. To: groundresonance (#178)
kerosene produces more water than gasoline when it burns, not much, but some.
#183. To: FormerLurker (#181)
So you're saying I can get more water from a glass of kerosene than I can from a glass of water, eh?
#185. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker, wudidiz (#183)
So you're saying I can get more water from a glass of kerosene than I can from a glass of water, eh?
#187. To: Original_Intent (#185)
(Edited)
And the formula for that chemical equation is?
#194. To: groundresonance (#187)
(Edited)
C12H26(l) + 37/2 O2(g) [4; 12 CO2(g) + 13 H2O(g); g0;HÚ = -7513 kJ
#195. To: Original_Intent (#194)
(Edited)
being greater than unity.
#197. To: groundresonance (#195)
#199. To: Original_Intent (#197)
(Edited)
#214. To: groundresonance (#199)
but really, the operative thing here is the fact that the water is expelled as water vapor, which spreads out into thousands of cubic feet as it's expelled into the atmosphere, where it condenses and freezes to form "condensation trails", aka "contrails".
#217. To: Original_Intent (#214)
a specified altitude and temperature
#218. To: groundresonance (#217)
#224. To: Original_Intent (#218)
(Edited)
#226. To: groundresonance (#224)
you refuse to understand the chemistry involved, you cant point to increased mortality rates, you dont know what the "chemtrails" are made of, you cant explain their purpose.
#231. To: FormerLurker (#226)
#233. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker, Original_Intent, randge, Lod, Artisan, buckeroo, all (#231)
(Edited)
#235. To: wudidiz (#233)
(Edited)
#236. To: groundresonance (#235)
#237. To: wudidiz (#236)
Why should I?
#238. To: groundresonance (#237)
#239. To: wudidiz (#238)
what if I don't?
#240. To: groundresonance (#239)
#241. To: wudidiz (#240)
#242. To: groundresonance (#241)
#245. To: wudidiz (#242)
#248. To: groundresonance (#245)
what are they spreading with this device?
#250. To: wudidiz (#248)
patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/n...4,686,605&RS=PN/4,686,605
#252. To: groundresonance (#250)
why are you posting HAARP stuff into a thread about "chemtrails" when HAARP is a ground-based experiment?
#255. To: wudidiz (#252)
You're not actually reading any of the links ARE you?
#256. To: groundresonance (#255)
#258. To: wudidiz (#256)
#259. To: groundresonance (#258)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA has rejected offers to analyze chemtrail samples from Dr. Len Horowitz, while in Northern Idaho, and researcher Clifford Carnicom of Santa Fe, NM. But they and concerned citizens in Las Vegas, NV, Mt. Shasta, CA, and Eastern Arkansas, all managed to get independent laboratory analysis done on samples from soil, water, and the air.
The results were similar with all of them and have been reported to compare with other analysis from North American and European locations. Barium, Aluminum Oxide, Titanium, Magnesium, and BannEthylene dibromide (dibromethane) or EDB are the essential elements of the chemtrail.
Aerosol Barium salts were sprayed from planes over Panama, Libya, and during Desert Storm to make people sick and weak. Barium poisoning is worse than lead poisoning. The lungs are affected adversely. Many complaints of colds, flu, even pneumonia occur within a very few days after heavy chemtrail spraying over an area.
Aluminum causes extreme neurological disorders. Dementia, uncontrollable spasms, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's Disease can be caused by long term aluminum exposure. Breathing in those particulates over time is a definite long term hazard.
EDB or dibromethane was banned in the USA years ago from use in all auto and jet fuels. But somehow it is appearing again in samples from chemtrail residue. It is a major component of insecticides, which are nerve poisons. It affects the nervous system especially where breathing is involved. And it is very carcinogenic.
Keep in mind that these are in tiny particulate form, enabling them to be breathed into our lungs as well as settling into soil and water. Concerned citizens in several areas where heavy chemtrailing has occurred have observed a decline in water quality and erosion of plant life. Over the past few years in the USA, lung disorders have leaped from eighth to fourth as a cause of health issue fatalities.
There are even more unusual biological anomalies being discovered in chemtrail residues as well, such as desiccated blood cells which come to life along with bacterial or viral specimens. Clifford Carnicom has research papers on those. If you can handle scientific details, go to his website, which is listed at the end of this article with other URL's.
#261. To: wudidiz (#259)
Clifford Carnicom
#263. To: groundresonance (#261)
sorry, you're gonna have to present evidence, taken directly from the "chemtrails".
#267. To: wudidiz (#263)
(Edited)
I suspect you wouldn't believe the results anyway.
#269. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker, Rotara, groundresonance (#267)
This one....
#273. To: wudidiz (#269)
#276. To: All (#273)
#277. To: wudidiz (#276)
(Edited)
#278. To: Original_Intent (#277)
#280. To: wudidiz (#278)
(Edited)
#281. To: groundresonance (#280)
are you telling me that doctors are too ignorant to spot epidemic barium or aluminum poisoning?
#282. To: wudidiz (#281)
#294. To: groundresonance (#282)
you think all doctors are so corrupt, as a group, that not one of them will come forward to protest "chemtrail" poisoning, supposing for the sake of argument that it existed.
#295. To: wudidiz (#294)
Do you know of one that's come forward to protest?
#296. To: groundresonance (#295)
#297. To: wudidiz (#296)
(Edited)
There is.
#301. To: groundresonance, wudidiz (#297)
There is.
#302. To: Original_Intent (#301)
#304. To: randge, Original_Intent (#302)
#338. To: wudidiz, chemtrail believers (#304)
(Edited)
I remember when the sky was a much clearer color of blue.
#340. To: PSUSA (#338)
#342. To: Original_Intent (#340)
I know what a contrail looks like.
#344. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent, randge, PSUSA, FormerLurker, James Deffenbach (#342)
Can you clearly show the technical differentiation in a couple of pictures or links?
#345. To: wudidiz (#344)
#347. To: PSUSA (#345)
#465. To: wudidiz, PSUSA (#347)
Contrails (from condensation) follow the plane only a few lengths behind and dissipate quickly. Chemtrails (from sprayed mineral compounds) stay and spread across the sky into a haze.
Replies to Comment # 465.
#494. To: christine (#465)
(Edited)
Contrails (from condensation) follow the plane only a few lengths behind and dissipate quickly. Chemtrails (from sprayed mineral compounds) stay and spread across the sky into a haze.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 465.