See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Inside the typical commercial jet engine, the fuel burns in the combustion chamber at up to 2000 degrees Celsius.
Source:
stanford
URL Source: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/ ... rojects/jet-airplanes/how.html
Published: Jan 7, 2012
Author: standford.edu
Post Date: 2012-01-07 23:14:01 by lead.and.lag
Keywords: None
Views: 2436
Comments: 85
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 81.
#44. To: lead.and.lag (#0)
And the government wants us to believe a few trash can fires bought the WTC towers down.
with contrails, it's probably not a matter of what the government wants us to believe... it's more a matter of what is, and what has been since the 1920s.
NASA is In On It. Don't you understand? THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!!!!!11111111!11!! Why do you think they know so much about outer space? Because they're ALIENS!!! Even their fighter escorts were spraying!11111111111!!!!1
Geee, I guess that explains the massive uptick in the number of observed incredibly persistent trails after about 1990 - we have more B-17's in the air. Where did you say they were based at?
Interesting way of looking at things. I mean distorting things. I thought WW2 for us happened in 1941 - 1945, not 1990 - ? But anyone that wants to waste their time on chemtrails, knock yourselves out. The kikes are happy for the distraction. And, it's a sexy topic. Here's another one.
Attaboy! Slide in that extraneous irrelevant little bit of hate so that you can dirty up the thread and distract from the topic.
Here are some more. They're probably spraying barium. The bombs were a distraction, the real damage was caused by the spraying. It's all very hush-hush, top secret, etc. The Good Aliens, flying foo-fighters, tried to stop them, to no avail. Here is a link, in case you think I made that term up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter And another. Perhaps it was shopped?
Oh, that's fine. I have never denied the existence of contrails, and even grant they are formed by non-jet engine exhaust. That however, has no bearing upon current observations taken since the early 90's nor the few samples that have been analyzed. As well are the handful of reports from Airframe Mechanics reporting unaccounted for tanks and pipe runs in aircraft. I have not now, nor barring more information, claimed to know exactly what the chemtrails are or their purpose. My only observations are in regard to the radically increased quantity observed, and photographed, beginning in about 1990 (which incidentally, just FYI, was long after WWII).
My guess is, is that this 90's business is the result of the internet. People spread it all over, and it took on a life of its own. Get a bigshot VIP CT to mention it, and it takes off from there. The increase could be the increase in air traffic. Nothing more, nothing less. Or it could be the result of more people paying attention to a phenomena that, thanks to the conspiracy theorists, while it was always there, it was attributed to .gov shenanigans instead of them being simple contrails. As for the mysterious pipes and tanks, a source for this would be nice. I used to believe in them myself, due in part to CT bigwigs mentioning them. The total lack of evidence turned me off.
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact. 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
I figured this would happen. I said: My guess is, is that this 90's business is the result of the internet. People spread it all over, and it took on a life of its own. Get a bigshot VIP CT to mention it, and it takes off from there. Then you said" Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. I said that " my guess is..." That is not a rumor. You asked, I answered. Therefore " Avoid discussing issues" is bullshit. You are the one that brought up the issue, and I whipped it out and pissed all over it. I said: As for the mysterious pipes and tanks, a source for this would be nice. I used to believe in them myself, due in part to CT bigwigs mentioning them. The total lack of evidence turned me off. Then you said: 4. Use a straw man. Are you a strawman? Did I use you? Do you work nights as a scarecrow? You are the one that said, in post 70 that "As well are the handful of reports from Airframe Mechanics reporting unaccounted for tanks and pipe runs in aircraft". You brought it up, not me. Proof would be nice. A lack of proof is telling. Your distracting is telling. But, I'm bored. Slapping you around is a fun past-time on occasion. This is one of those occasions.
Given that you have been consistently on the losing end of our exchanges I can understand - unless you are a masochist too. And there is a simple way to avoid my pointing out of your logical fallacies and disinformation tactics - don't rely on logical fallacies and disinformation tactics. Hint: They only work against people unfamiliar with them. As for the Airframe Mechanics I did not tout it as definitive - but only one apocryphal piece of data. My position does not rely on it, as we both know and trying to use it as an attack point conforms very nicely to: 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
Neither did I tout my guesses on why this is even a worthy topic and how it came about. I claimed no "truth", therefore I said they were guesses. I used that word, "guess". To me it is as surreal as trying to convince someone that 2+2 does not equal 5. But my guesses do make more sense than your "evidence". There has been no evidence presented by the chemtrail believers. All you have is "the government is evil, I see what looks like aircraft spraying, therefore they are trying to kill us all". Presenting evidence would remove all doubt. Then agents like us would be out of work. We'd be stuck sitting in bars, reliving the good old days. So, you want to stick it to the man? Prove it. But I understand why this is. To look into it, the science behind it, would remove the sexiness from the topic. It's so much easier to believe in such huge conspiracies because that takes no thought at all. Your eyes don't lie, right? Seeing is believing, right? Not if you don't know what it is you're seeing.
There are no replies to Comment # 81. End Trace Mode for Comment # 81.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#47. To: RickyJ (#44)
And the government wants us to believe...
#57. To: lead.and.lag (#47)
with contrails, it's probably not a matter of what the government wants us to believe... it's more a matter of what is, and what has been since the 1920s.
#58. To: PSUSA2, BSUSATOO, wudidiz, intotheabyss, abraxas, all (#57)
#61. To: Original_Intent (#58)
Geee, I guess that explains the massive uptick in the number of observed incredibly persistent trails after about 1990 - we have more B-17's in the air.
#65. To: PSUSA2 (#61)
But anyone that wants to waste their time on chemtrails, knock yourselves out. The kikes are happy for the distraction. And, it's a sexy topic.
#68. To: Original_Intent (#65)
#70. To: PSUSA2 (#68)
#72. To: Original_Intent (#70)
That however, has no bearing upon current observations taken since the early 90's nor the few samples that have been analyzed.
#77. To: PSUSA2 (#72)
My guess is, is that this 90's business is the result of the internet. People spread it all over, and it took on a life of its own. Get a bigshot VIP CT to mention it, and it takes off from there.
As for the mysterious pipes and tanks, a source for this would be nice.
I used to believe in them myself, due in part to CT bigwigs mentioning them. The total lack of evidence turned me off.
#79. To: Original_Intent (#77)
(Edited)
#80. To: PSUSA2 (#79)
#81. To: Original_Intent (#80)
As for the Airframe Mechanics I did not tout it as definitive -
Replies to Comment # 81.