See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: CONTRAIL vs CHEMTRAIL 101
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 11, 2008
Author: truthseeker1922
Post Date: 2010-03-18 15:43:02 by wudidiz
Ping List: *Black Ops - Psyops* Subscribe to *Black Ops - Psyops*
Keywords: None
Views: 1718
Comments: 101
. Subscribe to *Black Ops - Psyops*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
#2. To: wudidiz (#0)
Here we go again. What was the relative humidity, temperature and pressure at the two different altitudes presented in this idiotic video?
It's obvious that the chemtrail is at a MUCH lower altitude than the contrail formed by the high altitude aircraft. I'd approximate the chemtrail to be between 7000 and 12,000 feet, whereas the aircraft leaving the contrail would be at around 35,000 feet. Being that there is no way in hell the temperature between 7000 to 12,000 feet would be anywhere close to the -35 C to -45 C temperature range, I'd say it'd be impossible for that chemtrail to actually be a contrail.
You're guessing. What some here are saying is that you cannot guess and hope to come to a correct conclusion. You have no way of knowing the altitude of anything, or of any conditions out there. We don't have to prove they don't exist. You have to prove that they do. Pics or vids without specific information are not proof.
Use a bit of logic. Compare the width of the contrail left by the high altitude aircraft (commercial aircraft cruise at ~ 35,000 feet) with that which is apparently a chemtrail. The contrail left by the high altitude jet is about a wingspan in width. If you look at the width of the larger chemtrail, it's about 5 times the width. So if it's 5 times the size, then it'd be 1/5 of the higher aircraft's altitude, which would be 35,000 feet / 5 = 7,000 feet in altitude. See, it's not rocket science PSUSA, and it does NOT involve simply taking a guess either.... PS: I estimated the altitude to be from 7000 to 12,000 feet, since the chemtrail may have expanded thus be wider than a normal contrail as left by the high altitude aircraft. I allowed for expansion to be up to about 1 3/4 the width.
All you are guessing is altitude. That is not even a factor in contrails.
All you are guessing is altitude. A) Do or do not commercial aircraft (airliners, cargo planes) cruise at approximately 35,000 feet? Even if the higher flying aircraft were at 40,000 feet, the lower altitude trail would be at 8,000 feet, still nowhere close to a valid altitude for contrails. That is not even a factor in contrails. So now you're trying to say that altitude is not a factor? Well let me fill you in on something. -35 C (-37 F) is a pretty normal temperature for 35,000 feet, but NOT for 7,000 to 12,000 feet. The temperature at that altitude is normally about 0 C (32 F), only about 70 degrees Fahrenheit too hot than the temperature necessary for MAYBE leaving a contrail...
So by the video you can tell it is at cruising alt? NOt climbing or descending? B) Do you think the larger trail is the same size (as seen visually in the sky) as the smaller one? I can't tell. So now you're trying to say that altitude is not a factor? Well let me fill you in on something. -35 C (-37 F) is a pretty normal temperature for 35,000 feet, but NOT for 7,000 to 12,000 feet. The temperature at that altitude is normally about 0 C (32 F), only about 70 degrees Fahrenheit too hot than the temperature necessary for MAYBE leaving a contrail... 35,000 feet is 6.6 miles. Go to your nearest airport, measure out 6.6 miles out from the airport, where you can still see the runway (LOL!) and try and see a plane at that distance with only your Mk1 eyeballs. Let me fill you in on something. Temp depends on where you are and the time of year. All you have is another silly video. You have no further info on what is shown. If you people want to believe in chemtrails, OK. But when you start trying to convince others, you will meet resistance.
So by the video you can tell it is at cruising alt? NOt climbing or descending? If it were any less than about 30,000 feet the temperature would be too warm for contrails to form. I was using a standard crusising altitude to take a conservative view, where it COULD have been lower than 35,000, but it would make it even MORE impossible for the larger trail to be a regular contrail if that were the case. In other words, if it were at 30,000 feet, then the lower chemtrail would be at 6,000 feet in altitude rather rather than 7000. It does NOT reach -35 C degrees at 6,000 OR 7,000 feet (a value given for 100% humidity BTW, the actual temperature would need to be more like at least -42 C). 35,000 feet is the standard cruising altitude, but if you take an airliner's MAXIMUM altitude to be about 40,000 feet, then the chemtrail would still only be 8,000 feet high. So it doesn't matter if it was climbing or descending, the minimum and maximum values STILL put the chemtrail far below possible contrail formation altitude. I can't tell. You can't tell that one trail is wider than the other? Perhaps that's your problem, you can't see. The higher trail is about 1/5 the width of the lower trail in terms of relative size in the sky, and that is quite obvious to anyone who looks at the image. Do you have problems judging relative sizes, such as the difference between a bowling ball and a golf ball side by side? Perhaps that's why this all seems perfectly normal to you, your perception is warped. 35,000 feet is 6.6 miles. Go to your nearest airport, measure out 6.6 miles out from the airport, where you can still see the runway (LOL!) and try and see a plane at that distance with only your Mk1 eyeballs. Are you trying to say that airliners are too high in the sky to see when they are at cruising altitude? Seems like you need to have your vision checked, since ANY plane leaving a contrail is at LEAST 30,000 feet in altitude, and I ALWAYS can see the plane leaving a contrail, however faint, in the sky. In fact I saw a squadron of fighter jets flying in formation between destinations leaving contrails once, so they were at least 30,000 feet high, and I could STILL make out the shape of the plane even though a fighter jet is MUCH smaller than an airliner. I think we're beginning to find out why you can't tell a contrail from a chemtrail, you're legally blind. Temp depends on where you are and the time of year. To a point. -42 C (-43.6 F) is NOT an air temperature that you'd find at altitudes less than 30,000 feet unless you were in the Artic or Antarctic regions. I don't think people seeing chemtrails in Texas, Arizona, or even New England states are experiencing Arctic conditions to be honest. All you have is another silly video. You have no further info on what is shown. All YOU have is lack of common sense, poor vision, and the inability to think through a problem. I have shown you that it is virtually impossible for the lower altitude trail to be a contrail. If you can't understand the reasoning, or refuse to, then that's your problem, not mine.
What kind of plane made the persistent contrail? You cannot even tell if it was a 1, 2, or 4 engine plane. It could easily be higher than you think. How about the one that you say is above? What can you tell me about that plane? He has both used zoom-in and increased the speed of the one aircraft visible. Why? Either that, or he got video of the Aurora and should expect a call from the NSA any time... Are you trying to say that airliners are too high in the sky to see when they are at cruising altitude? Seems like you need to have your vision checked, since ANY plane leaving a contrail is at LEAST 30,000 feet in altitude, and I ALWAYS can see the plane leaving a contrail, however faint, in the sky. How do you know it is at cruise alt.? It takes time to climb that high. "ANY plane leaving a contrail is at LEAST 30,000 feet in altitude" Really? You got that info where? That has the stench of BS to me... All you have is a video. You have no other info. None. All you are doing is you are trying to figure out the variables by watching this video that was manipulated by zooming in and out, and video speed, when you can't know what values to plug in. I have shown you that it is virtually impossible for the lower altitude trail to be a contrail. If you can't understand the reasoning, or refuse to, then that's your problem, not mine. You assign it a lower altitude. How low is it? How do you call that "reasoning"?
What kind of plane made the persistent contrail? You cannot even tell if it was a 1, 2, or 4 engine plane. It could easily be higher than you think. Would it matter? I was referring to contrail formation, not how many engines the plane had. However, if you REALLY want to know, only an idiot would think there's only one engine, since there are two streams of vapor. Regardless, the fact is contrails were formed, and the aircraft is above 30,000 feet, more than likely 35,000 feet or so. How do you know it is at cruise alt.? It takes time to climb that high. Because for one, the aircraft was leaving contrails, so it was over 30,000 feet. For two, it doesn't matter if it were climbing or descending, as long as it was over that altitude. For three, judging from it's horizontal velocity it was traveling level, since if it were descending or climbing it's horizontal velocity would be diminished. Really? You got that info where? That has the stench of BS to me... For one, the temperature is not cold enough at lower altitudes. Look it up genius, find me a chart of air temperatures at varying altitudes located over a temperate area where the air temperature is -42 C or less at an altitude less than 30,000 feet. All you are doing is you are trying to figure out the variables by watching this video that was manipulated by zooming in and out, and video speed, when you can't know what values to plug in. I was simply working from the posted main image of the video on this thread. It's apparent to any with a brain that the higher jet is higher than the lower chemtrail, and the contrail is about 1/5 the width of the lower chemtrail. You assign it a lower altitude. How low is it? How do you call that "reasoning"? Did you graduate elementary school? Objects of similar size will appear larger when they are closer. If you see two objects of equal size, and one is 5 times larger than the other, then that object is 5 times closer. Given a distance for the further object, X, the closer object would be 1/5 X in distance. If the smaller object is 40,000 feet away, then the closer object is 8,000 feet away. You're welcome for the math and science lesson.
I must really be getting under your skin here... You don't even know what time of year this vid was taken, or where it was taken. There is only a hint, when brush was shown. It still could have been winter, and who knows where. You are making the mistake of thinking the atmosphere is incapable of any variation in temps, and you are making the mistake of not knowing at what altitudes the planes are at. I was simply working from the posted main image of the video on this thread. It's apparent to any with a brain that the higher jet is higher than the lower chemtrail, and the contrail is about 1/5 the width of the lower chemtrail. Interesting, in that you didn't see the plane that laid down your "chemtrail". You have no idea how long it was there, and what wind forces were working to disburse it. Again, you are trying to get more info out of that video than what is shown. Science will not help you do that. In fact, if you send this entire thread to a scientist, he will tell you the same thing. Unless he is in a bad mood. Then he might not be so nice about it, if he bothers to answer at all.
Given that you are claiming the lower trail to be a contrail, it would thus have to have similar characteristics as a regular contrail. Even WITH expansion, say spreading out to twice it's original size, the end result given for even a 40,000 foot altitude for the higher altitude jet contrail would result in 2/5 * 40,000 = 16,000 feet high, STILL too low to form a contrail. A scientist would tell you how dumb you are for ignoring simple easily observable facts.
#24. To: FormerLurker (#23)
Perhaps. That doesn't mean that your math isn't BS. You are plugging in numbers that are your best guess, but you are still guessing. I'll see of I can find a meteorologist to answer these questions. Unless, that is, you think that THEY have gotten to all meteorologists...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: PSUSA (#2)
#5. To: FormerLurker, all (#4)
#6. To: PSUSA (#5)
(Edited)
You're guessing. What some here are saying is that you cannot guess and hope to come to a correct conclusion. You have no way of knowing the altitude of anything, or of any conditions out there.
#8. To: FormerLurker (#6)
#9. To: PSUSA (#8)
(Edited)
B) Do you think the larger trail is the same size (as seen visually in the sky) as the smaller one?
C) Since it's obvious to all but the most brain dead that the larger one IS larger than the smaller one, is not the larger one approximately 5 times the width of the smaller one?
D) If it is 5 times the width, would it not be a valid assumption that it would be approximately 1/5 the altitude of the smaller contrail?
#17. To: FormerLurker (#9)
A) Do or do not commercial aircraft (airliners, cargo planes) cruise at approximately 35,000 feet?
#18. To: PSUSA (#17)
#19. To: FormerLurker (#18)
You can't tell that one trail is wider than the other? Perhaps that's your problem, you can't see. The higher trail is about 1/5 the width of the lower trail in terms of relative size in the sky, and that is quite obvious to anyone who looks at the image.
#20. To: PSUSA (#19)
(Edited)
#21. To: FormerLurker (#20)
For one, the temperature is not cold enough at lower altitudes. Look it up genius, find me a chart of air temperatures at varying altitudes located over a temperate area where the air temperature is -42 C or less at an altitude less than 30,000 feet.
#23. To: PSUSA (#21)
Again, you are trying to get more info out of that video than what is shown. Science will not help you do that. In fact, if you send this entire thread to a scientist, he will tell you the same thing. Unless he is in a bad mood. Then he might not be so nice about it, if he bothers to answer at all.
Replies to Comment # 23. A scientist would tell you how dumb you are for ignoring simple easily observable facts.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 23.