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: 1087
Comments: 85
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: lead.and.lag (#0)
It probably helps to have an oxygen supply feeding it at 500 miles an hour.
the temperatures inside a jet engine would eliminate the possibility of "chemtrail" bugs surviving combustion and reaching the atmosphere. so "chemtrail" bugs would not be put into jet fuel.
And your point? What requires that they be added to the fuel? They use misters/aerosolizers on the trailing edge of the wings or control surfaces.
..................... If a man has nothing that he is willing to die for, then he has nothing worth living for.
so you're saying those big white plumes coming from the engines are not "chemtrails"... good enough
At 1.2 tons of air sucked in each second, that could be a vaporized unicorn that is seen coming out of the exhaust. They are white you know.
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
Evergreen Aviation Admits to Chemtrail Contracts with USAF -video www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/meteorology evergreen-aviation-admits-tochemtrail-contracts-with-usaf.html how many supertankers does evergreen have? do they have enough of them to account for all the "chemtrails" observed? is there any evidence that evergreen has operated a supertanker on a weather modification contract?
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
And why is a supertanker required. You are attempting to assert a premise and have me accept it. I was born at night but it wasn't yesterday. Evergreen has long been associated with the government - and appears to have CIA linkages. So, why don't you ask them about the contract? I'm sure they'd be more than forthcoming. Don't you think they would be if they had a classified above ridiculous contract? you are incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question. please post a link to the evergreen press release, especially including the "question and answer" portion of the press release, most especially including the part where evergreen admits it can control weather, and create hurricanes and earthquakes. please.
wow that is a good video.
As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
Evergreen Link Happy reading.
actually wudidiz posted it on an earlier thread. I though I would share it again so the unicorn herder could look at it.
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
probably why i didn't see it. As Gary Lloyd said, "When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."
http://www.rense.com/general53/chemsd.htm
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
please post a link to the evergreen press release, especially including the "question and answer" portion of the press release, most especially including the part where evergreen admits it can control weather, and create hurricanes and earthquakes, as per the article from "forbidden knowledge" that you attemped to post a link to.
meanwhile, where do the "chemtrails" come from? they're clearly coming from the engines, despite what Give Me Liberty said.... i guess it could be, if the bugs are coming from the trailing edges of the wings and control surfaces, that what we're seeing coming from the engines are not "chemtrails" at all.
must be fairy dust
It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
if "chemtrail" enthusiasts are so dead certain that they can tell the difference between a "chemtrail" and a contrail, but they're looking at the stuff coming out of the engines while the "chemtrail" stuff is coming from the wings and control surfaces, we seem to be in a bind.
meanwhile, if a ton of air is going into the engine every second, that means a ton of something or other is coming out of the engine every second... at least a ton of something, because we add fuel to the air as it goes through the engine.
maybe it's time to ask ourselves how many cubic feet a ton of exhaust gases occupy at, say, 35,000 feet.
they're clearly coming from the engines, despite what Give Me Liberty said.... i guess it could be, if the bugs are coming from the trailing edges of the wings and control surfaces, that what we're seeing coming from the engines are not chemtrails at all. Go, ahead feel free to continue to promote your assigned cover story. Of course it never occurred to you that there might be multiple delivery systems - some routed through the engine exhaust and other elements routed through the fuel venting system and/or the attached to the plane's sewage system as has been reported by a couple of mechanics. Of the other tactic you are following is to try make it all so complex sounding that people conclude that it is not understandable. The basics are really simple: Contrails form only at 33,000 feet and above under specific temperature and humidity conditions. Chemtrails are observed emanating from planes as low as ten thousand feet - too low for contrails as the air is too warm at that level. There are multiple photos and comparisons available online contrasting chemtrails and contrails. Contrails generally fade after about 20 minutes and often less. Chemtrails are persistent i.e., they persist for hours forming cloud cover and eventually if the spraying is heavy enough they haze over the entire sky. The phenomena has been looked at pretty thoroughly by a lot of independent and amateur researchers all of which have concluded that there is some there, there. However, you are not interested in people providing information which you could easily search for and find yourself. You are interested in attacking and denigrating anyone who relies on anything other than the official spin. Yawn. What a ridiculous demand. We both know that CIA connected companies don't give press releases about top secret compartmentalized programs. The admission was inadvertent, and is documented online. Do your own research. it is pretty simple... a ton of fuel and air go into the engine every second, and a ton of comubustion gases are expelled into the atmosphere every second. what are those combustion gases composed of?
Burned fuel exiting at high speed. Any other obvious questions intended to throw up smoke? you cant post evergreen's assertion that they can cause hurricanes and earthquakes, because that assertion was added by the writer on the doofus site you posted as a reference. all we got to decide now is whether you are a fool for being sucked in, or you're deliberately trying to fuck people's minds up.
for those who didnt take chemistry, the basic components of combustion products are co2 and water vapor. in fact, jet fuel produces a gallon of water for every gallon of fuel burned. in another fact, fuel consumption is about a gallon per second for many of these airliners.
After a few seconds. we got to remember here that air is about 78% nitrogen, which is an inert gas, which means it is not burned, which means it is not a "combustion product". it's still nitrogen as it's expelled out the exhaust.
No, I encourage people to think for themselves and not accept anything unexamined. I have no burning compulsion that requires that people agree with me. However you're still doing a great job of conforming to: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation So far on this thread you have compiled an impressive list: You began with a Strawman: 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. Then you have proceeded through several others: 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. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.' 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Please feel free to let me know if you think I've missed any. After a few seconds. I was being generous. Authentic Contrails, on rare occasions, have persisted that long, but you are right it is rare and they are usually gone within about 1 to 3 minutes. so we got a ton of stuff being shot out the tailpipe of a jet every second... 78% nitrogen... how much combustion product? ...how much water and how much co2?
the basic question is this: how much space does a gallon of water occupy if it's turned into water vapor at 35,000 feet? what happens if the outside air temperature and humidity are right, and the water vapor freezes?
you got to assume that the water vapor, when it's uniformly mixed with a ton of nitrogen and co2, is gonna occupy a lot of space at 35,000 feet. and you ought to remember that a ton of this stuff is being expelled every second.
I know you can't see the vid, but I watched it and the contrail is going past some power lines so it's apparent that the contrail dissipates after 3 or 4 seconds. I timed it with "1 one thousand, 2, one thousand... so it's not precise. Sorry for interrupting your argument with the troll. Not a problem. He's getting boring anyway. Same tactics over and over - no imagination - strictly by the talking points manual. Actually I have seen that video - I did take the time to watch it when it was posted by someone else about a year ago or so. While the ones in there do disperse very quickly I have seen them around here - parallel to chemtrails where they would last for several minutes - but they inevitably fade out, and seeing the two side by side really does underscore the difference. yes, indeed. and the pilots were reporting their altitude to you, along with the air temperature and humidity... they were both at the same altitude, the temperature and humidity were the same,so there can be no mistake at all.
they were flying identical airplanes, with idenentical loads... identical power settings and airspeeds to go along witht he identical altitude, temperature and humidity.
yes, indeed. and the pilots were reporting their altitude to you, along with the air temperature and humidity... Why yes, we were in telepathic communication the entire time. Wonderful view up there. Which is of course no more ridiculous than your trollish attempt to once again confuse the issues. One does not have to have precise technical specifics to observe what is going on over one's head. Your childish attempt at sarcasm, compounded with the fact that at no time have you ever presented anything beyond your own personal opinions and insults of others, carries such great weight that I am just stricken. Oh, Boo Hoo. Boo hoo hoo. Woe is me. you are saying that you knew, for certain, that those aircraft had the same engines, they were at the same altitudes, in the same humidity, same temperature, with the same power settings. or are you saying that those factors dont matter when it comes to contrails forming?
the question becomes, how did you know all that stuff without being in contact with the pilots?
Yeah, I guess that's right. I suppose the length of time they take to dissipate is dependant on conditions. But they do dissipate and disappear. They don't stay up there and spread out into a haze across the sky. Chemtrails do. And the government wants us to believe a few trash can fires bought the WTC towers down.
God is always good!
Are you insane? maybe, but not about this... i admit, though, that i should have said "a ton of air and seven pounds of fuel go into the engine every second, and a ton of combustion gases and nitrogen are expelled into the atmpsphere every second." sorry i confused you.
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.
I must say that I see precious little evidence and much subjective speculation behind the assertions with regard to the existence of chemtrails. A video that asserts "this is X" and "the other is Y" just doesn't get it. I don't believe the "19 Arab hijacker" hypothesis either and for the same reason. I don't see the evidence that puts the nineteen clowns in the seats of the 911 airliners. In fact, what we need here is more than just evidence. We need a testable hypothesis with regard to the problem. I'm not certain what that might be in this case.
A video that asserts "this is X" and "the other is Y" just doesn't get it. I don't believe the "19 Arab hijacker" hypothesis either and for the same reason. I don't see the evidence that puts the nineteen clowns in the seats of the 911 airliners. In fact, what we need here is more than just evidence. We need a testable hypothesis with regard to the problem. I'm not certain what that might be in this case. The problem of course is that it is a not fully explained phenomena. However there have been multiple hypotheses as to why it is being done. More on that in a moment. We can define the phenomena qualitatively and by comparison. Normal contrails are an understood phenomena and they are nothing more than the condensation of water vapor from engine exhausts into ice crystals, and occurs with both jets and propeller driven aircraft. We know that they form only under specific conditions and circumstances i.e., above 33,000 feet, a specific humidity range, and at temperatures well below freezing. We also know that being ice crystals that they are subject to melting. We can observe that they do and generally fairly rapidly. That is why a contrail dissipates - the sun hits the crystals and they warm just enough to disperse, and thus they cease acting to reflect light i.e., their density decreases, the crystals melt and dissipate thus no longer are they visible. In short, they rapidly disappear. By contrast we can look at the phenomena called chemtrails and immediately we can begin to define the differences between them and the well understood phenomena of contrails. Without a discussion of their physical composition the first two variances from a normal contrail that stand out are altitude of formation and persistence. Ground observers have recorded chemtrails being formed at altitudes well below that at which contrails are known to form - or even be possible - as the temperature and humidity are not conducive to their formation much below about 33,000 feet. By contrast knowledgeable ground observers have seen them formed at altitudes as low as ten thousand feet. While the trolls and shills will try to confuse and dispute that as obviously observers without a lot of money equipment cannot measure that directly since, I am not aware of many private hobby radar stations, but there are records of flight paths and altitudes called flight plans which seem to confirm the estimates. As well a ground observer can tell qualitatively whether a plane is higher or lower simply by its apparent size, and if you live under a flight path, as I do, you learn other cues such as engine noise. The lower the louder. The other primary qualitative characteristic observed is persistence. Whereas a normal contrail will fade quickly - normally in the range of a few seconds to a maximum of about 20 minutes chemtrails seem to persist for hours. I live in an area that has seen repeated sprayings and I have seen them running in parallel rows from horizon to horizon as well as extending in time coincidence horizontally from horizon to horizon. The trails rather than dissipating as a normal ice crystal contrail does instead will persist all day gradually spreading until there is a continuous haze from horizon to horizon in all directions. I have seen trails laid down in the morning persist, gradually spreading, all through a long spring day. That is not the behavior of a normal contrail both in terms of the observed phenomena's behavior and the sheer quantity of it. While samples have been understandably hard to come by a few have been collected and their chemical composition analyzed. Interestingly some labs, particularly those associated with government contracts, are reluctant, and have been known to refuse, to analyze the samples. All manner of strangeness has been found in these few samples but two that seem to consistently stand out are aluminum and barium. Aluminum, it has been suggested hypothetically, may have to do with its reflectivity or conductivity. However, when you do not know the reason or rationale behind an action that apparently involves undefined, or even unknown to the general public, technology then it is difficult to do much more than hypothesize. Since I don't intend this to be an exhaustive treatise I would simply suggest reading through the Chemtrail Archive at Rense, or at Clifford Carnicom's website. I must admit that I find your dismissive statement: "A video that asserts "this is X" and "the other is Y" just doesn't get it," a bit irksome. Both because I generally respect your opinion and because it suggests a snap judgment bereft of study of the available data, and there is a lot of data that has been accumulated over time. The video though does illustrate the qualitative difference between the two phenomena. Of course it is not exhaustive but it is not intended to be, but it does establish the observed differences. So, for what its worth, and I claim no special expertise in the area, I can see and observe the phenomena. From what I have seen an observed, combined with what I have learned from other reports, there is very definitely some sort of secret spraying program with some not clearly defined but real purpose. Whether it is for weather control, depopulation, HAARP, or all of those is an unknown. We can observe the phenomena exists, and we can look at the small amount of physical data and analysis and conclude that our lying eyes are telling the truth. There is something strange going on in the sky. Why? Because leadnlag says so? We need nothing more than our own eyes and the knowledge that contrails don't stay in the sky for anywhere near as long as chemtrails do. They didn't between 1950 to 1990, so why should they now? The answer is, they don't. Don't need a scientist to tell me that anymore than I need a scientist to tell me the wtc was blown to smithereens with some sort of explosives. Do you? Airplanes don't make clouds. They just don't. It's not necessary for a govt sponsored scientificist to say it. If an airplane looks like it's making clouds, it's because it's shooting some sort of shit out of it and leaving it to float in the sky. Engine exhaust does not make clouds or a haze that fills the sky. Ever. Not in the real world.
Sorry, and I respect your opinions also. The problem with the video is that there is nothing dispositive to, let's say, a novice viewer on this topic. It's extraordinarily difficult to establish altitudes, temps, humidity and so forth. It's also hard to establish that the two trails in question are qualitatively different simply from what is seen in the video.
Amen, anyone with an IQ in the triple digits, a desire to study the facts and an open mind will know that the official story is a load of crap. It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
Just observe the phenomena. One dissipates rapidly, and one does not. This is only one video. If you look at the extensive Rense archives or at Clifford Carnicom's site the photography and analysis are extensive. And as wud points out this phenomena did not appear to exist prior to about 1990. What changed at that point in time? The planetary atmosphere? Or what was being dispersed by aircraft? Physical phenomena operating on known principles does not itself change overnight. Therefore we can logically infer that something else did change. What changed at that point in time? The planetary atmosphere? We had aliens from planet pop-tart come to our planet and alter our atmosphere, come on man get with the program... it's obvious ;) It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination. Voltaire
BOTH OF WHICH DISSIPATE QUICKLY AND DO NOT CLOUDY UP THE SKIES ALL DAY!! How do you explain the crap remaining in the sky for hours after the plane is out of sight......Peak Vapor Trails? " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
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? Oh, das rite, cuz dere id mo pepo in da air........dat an Peak Vapor Trail fenomonon. " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
LOL! Do I detect a note of sarcasm young lady? ;-) 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. -------------------------------------------------------- Me? Sarcasm? " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
Ice crystal clouds can persist for many hours. Who's to say that contrails cannot? In fairness, I haven't seen what you all are seeing. It's been years since I've lived in an area where there are consistent "trail" phenomena of whatever kind. I remember seeing these things for years in the mid-West and on the East Coast. Not so much in the Middle East where I lived for a time. And here in Houston, well, the troposphere is significantly higher than where I grew up. I'm fairly close to a major purported approach, so the aircraft are much to low in my vicinity to cause trails of any kind. I do see military aircraft at great altitudes here from time to time. You can tell that they are military (or perhaps NASA) aircraft because I often see them engaged in extended and sometimes extreme climb maneuvers. I've been keeping an eye out from trails here ever since this subject became common on 4um. Really though guys. I respect y'all very much, but I haven't observed what you all have observed first hand. There's really not a lot that I've seen online that is convincing to an average disinterested viewer. And then I have to ask myself: "Convincing of what?" What is the hypothesis? Let me give it a crack. "Large civilian and/or military aircraft are being employed to spread tons of material throughout our airspace. The material forms into trails similar to condensation trails, but are much more persistent than condensation trails. They are known as "chem trails" because they contain the chemicals ___________, and _________, and ___________." Am I getting warm?
Well, alright, I'll let it slide this time since you are normally such an Attaboy! Slide in that extraneous irrelevant little bit of hate so that you can dirty up the thread and distract from the topic. I haven't observed what you all have observed first hand It would completely defy GLOBULL WARMING. lol How can you have ice when the planet is so hot? How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? lol Fair enough, Sweetie. But I observe it regularly first hand, even my kids note it when chemtrails are taking over a blue sky day. They were spraying continually on Christmas day......are we to believe that there was more air traffic on Christmas day and that the temperature in Northern Nevada was so cold as to merit no dissipation? We cannot buy either scenario. Vapor trails always dissipated in MT and it was MUCH colder. The satellite pictures of it moving over the span of a day are solid observation too. All ties into HAARP coming on line as to be observable from a point in time for this phenomenon. Coincidence? I don't think so. " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
Best not to feed it.
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? -------------------------------------------------------- I'll take your word for it, hon'.
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). bigger engines, more efficient engines (which produce more water), more air traffic, the internet, and art bell have nothing to do with anything. neither does alex jones ranting for years about "chemtrails", nor does a deliberate attempt to discomboulate the american public, which seems to be more than willing to be discombobulated by egomaniacal radio personalities.
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. -------------------------------------------------------- that's been discredited here, already. the pipes and tanks were rigged inside the airplane for center of gravity tests... the water in the tanks was pumped fore and aft to determine CG limits.
Makes sense. A tail heavy plane is not a stable plane. -------------------------------------------------------- PSUSA, without the "2", posted on the thread that explained the function of the pipes and tanks, a showed the falsified photos used by the chemmies.
I remember that pic. I was wondering how I could find it again, if someone posted it as "evidence" of chemtrails, since I did ask for proof. There is no search bar here. Congrats to the person that originally figured out it was fake, and produced the original. -------------------------------------------------------- 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. " If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11 "Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
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. -------------------------------------------------------- What it comes down to is that I've been on this planet long enough to remember a time BEFORE CHEMTRAILS were visible in the skies. I had long seen CONTRAILS, both as a child, and later as a US Marine at a Marine Corps Air Station where we had jets. I've seen high altitude formations of F4 fighters leaving contrails, I've seen cargo aircraft leaving contrails, and I've seen commericial aircraft leaving contrails. I know what contrails are, and have known about them and seen them for a very long time. HOWEVER, CHEMTRAILS did not begin to appear in the skies till the mid 90's (as far as my own personal experience). When I first saw them I said to myself, "WTF are they spraying up there", as it was obvious what I was seeing were NOT contrails, but some sort of dispensed aerosol that lingered, spread out, and caused the sky to become grey. In regards to the images you posted, yes, even old propeller driven aircraft produced CONTRAILS due to the hot exhaust hitting cold air. The pattern in the last picture was obviously caused by fighters engaging in dogfights. HOWEVER, I can be pretty certain that they did NOT persist, linger, spread out, and turn the skies grey, since water vapor simply turns back into its original state once it returns to its original temperature. Water vapor MIXED with chemicals behaves differently, and that is what people see in the form of CHEMTRAILS. And the obvious crisscrossing of planes that turn around at high altitude (or even fairly LOW altitude) and overlap existing plumes at 90 angles is not a normal or standard flight pattern, especially when 2 or more such aircraft are seen turning around and deliberately creating such patterns in the sky. I once saw several such aircraft at a relatively low alitude creating such a criss cross pattern, and brought it to my neighbor's attention to get his opinion. He thought there was some sort of airshow going on, yet, there was no air show that day. That is close to my own experience. I have been a plane watcher and aviation fan since I was a kid. Like you I know what a contrail looks like. I didn't really begin to notice the chemtrails myself until I started hearing about them in the late nineties and saw a few photos online in 2001 or 2002. What really made me set up and take notice was when they started in earnest here about 2003. I remember stepping out one morning in the late spring and I looked up and there they were regularly spaced in uniform parallel from horizon to horizon in what would otherwise have been a clear blue sky. The puffy cloudy trails had, by their sheer quantity, likely been going up since sometime around dawn. After that I noticed several more major sets, but none quite so dramatic as that first. I went instantly from wondering about it to knowing about it.
You "once" saw this. This doesn't happen just once. What you saw was unusual. If it was typical then you might be on to something. HOWEVER, I can be pretty certain that they did NOT persist, linger, spread out, and turn the skies grey, since water vapor simply turns back into its original state once it returns to its original temperature. That is not what the pics show. If these pics were color instead of B&W, with modern aircraft, they would be considered as proof of chemtrails, because it's the same kind of phenomena. And the obvious crisscrossing of planes that turn around at high altitude (or even fairly LOW altitude) and overlap existing plumes at 90 angles is not a normal or standard flight pattern, especially when 2 or more such aircraft are seen turning around and deliberately creating such patterns in the sky. I never saw any such thing, even when I was a believer. --------------------------------------------------------
#2. To: All (#0)
#3. To: lead.and.lag, intotheabyss, FormerLurker, All (#2)
so "chemtrail" bugs would not be put into jet fuel.
#4. To: lead.and.lag (#2)
(Edited)
#5. To: Give Me Liberty (#4)
They use misters/aerosolizers on the trailing edge of the wings or control surfaces.
#6. To: lead.and.lag (#5)
#7. To: lead.and.lag, Give Me Liberty, intotheabyss (#5)
#8. To: Original_Intent (#7)
(Edited)
Evergreen Aviation Admits to Chemtrail Contracts with USAF
#9. To: lead.and.lag (#8)
#10. To: lead.and.lag (#8)
#11. To: Original_Intent (#10)
(Edited)
You are attempting
#12. To: intotheabyss (#9)
#13. To: lead.and.lag (#11)
#14. To: farmfriend (#12)
#15. To: intotheabyss (#14)
actually wudidiz posted it on an earlier thread.
#16. To: lead.and.lag (#11)
#17. To: Original_Intent (#13)
Evergreen Link
#18. To: All (#17)
(Edited)
#19. To: lead.and.lag (#18)
#20. To: All (#18)
(Edited)
#21. To: All (#20)
#22. To: All (#21)
#23. To: lead.and.lag, intotheabyss, FormerLurker, farmfriend, All (#18)
meanwhile, where do the "chemtrails" come from?
#24. To: lead.and.lag (#17)
please post a link to the evergreen press release,
#25. To: All (#22)
#26. To: lead.and.lag (#25)
what are those combustion gases composed of?
#27. To: Original_Intent (#24)
What a ridiculous demand.
#28. To: All (#27)
(Edited)
#29. To: Original_Intent (#23)
Contrails generally fade after about 20 minutes and often less.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#30. To: All (#28)
#31. To: lead.and.lag (#27)
#32. To: wudidiz (#29)
Contrails generally fade after about 20 minutes and often less.
#33. To: All (#30)
#34. To: All (#33)
#35. To: All (#34)
(Edited)
#36. To: Original_Intent (#32)
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#37. To: wudidiz (#36)
Sorry for interrupting your argument with the troll.
I know you can't see the vid, but I watched it and the contrail is going past some power lines so it's apparent that the contrail dissipates after 3 or 4 seconds. I timed it with "1 one thousand, 2, one thousand... so it's not precise.
#38. To: Original_Intent (#37)
seeing the two side by side really does underscore the difference.
#39. To: Original_Intent (#37)
#40. To: lead.and.lag (#38)
seeing the two side by side really does underscore the difference.
#41. To: Original_Intent (#40)
#42. To: Original_Intent (#40)
#43. To: Original_Intent (#37)
I have seen them around here - parallel to chemtrails where they would last for several minutes - but they inevitably fade out
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#44. To: lead.and.lag (#0)
#45. To: lead.and.lag, All (#25)
a ton of fuel and air go into the engine every second, and a ton of comubustion gases are expelled into the atmosphere every second.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#46. To: FormerLurker (#45)
(Edited)
Are you insane?
#47. To: RickyJ (#44)
And the government wants us to believe...
#48. To: Original_Intent, lead.and.lag, All (#40)
#49. To: randge, wudidiz, FormerLurker, farmfriend, intotheabyss, christine, abraxas, ratcat, Lady X, all (#48)
I must say that I see precious little evidence and much subjective speculation behind the assertions with regard to the existence of chemtrails.
#50. To: randge (#48)
In fact, what we need here is more than just evidence. We need a testable hypothesis with regard to the problem. I'm not certain what that might be in this case.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#51. To: All (#50)
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#52. To: Original_Intent (#49)
I must admit that I find your dismissive statement: "A video that asserts "this is X" and "the other is Y" just doesn't get it," a bit irksome.
#53. To: wudidiz (#50)
The answer is, they don't. Don't need a scientist to tell me that anymore than I need a scientist to tell me the wtc was blown to smithereens with some sort of explosives.
#54. To: randge, wudidiz (#52)
#55. To: Original_Intent (#54)
And as wud points out this phenomena did not appear to exist prior to about 1990.
#56. To: lead.and.lag (#28)
for those who didnt take chemistry, the basic components of combustion products are co2 and water vapor.
#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.
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#58. To: PSUSA2, BSUSATOO, wudidiz, intotheabyss, abraxas, all (#57)
#59. To: Original_Intent, PSUSA2, lead.and.lag, wudidiz, intotheabyss (#58)
after about 1990 - we have more B-17's in the air.
#60. To: abraxas (#59)
#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.
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#62. To: Original_Intent (#60)
Do I detect a note of sarcasm young lady? ;-)
lol....
#63. To: abraxas, Original_Intent, All (#56)
BOTH OF WHICH DISSIPATE QUICKLY AND DO NOT CLOUDY UP THE SKIES ALL DAY!!
#64. To: abraxas (#62)
Me? Sarcasm?
.
#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.
#66. To: randge (#63)
Ice crystal clouds can persist for many hours. Who's to say that contrails cannot?
#67. To: Original_Intent (#65)
Slide in that extraneous irrelevant little bit of hate so that you can dirty up the thread and distract from the topic.
#68. To: Original_Intent (#65)
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#69. To: abraxas (#66)
#70. To: PSUSA2 (#68)
#71. To: Original_Intent (#70)
(Edited)
My only observations are in regard to the radically increased quantity observed, and photographed, beginning in about 1990 (
#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.
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#73. To: PSUSA2 (#72)
(Edited)
As for the mysterious pipes and tanks, a source for this would be nice.
#74. To: lead.and.lag (#73)
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#75. To: PSUSA2 (#74)
#76. To: lead.and.lag (#75)
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#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.
#78. To: randge (#69)
#79. To: Original_Intent (#77)
(Edited)
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#80. To: PSUSA2 (#79)
#81. To: Original_Intent (#80)
As for the Airframe Mechanics I did not tout it as definitive -
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
#82. To: lead.and.lag, Original_Intent, wudidiz, All (#46)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#83. To: PSUSA2, All (#68)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#84. To: FormerLurker (#82)
#85. To: FormerLurker (#83)
I once saw several such aircraft at a relatively low alitude
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself... Robert Ingersoll
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest