WW2 propeller planes chemtrail debunking site

[largejack]

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/below-600.jpg&imgrefurl=http://contrailscience.com/&h=450&w=600&sz=63&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=MAzn1FigfOLymM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcontrail%2Bscience%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den %26sa%3DG


Do these pictures look genuine to you. I wouldn't have thought that pre-jet airplanes could create contrails of this magnitude. What do you all think?

[the_real_jazzroc]

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/below-600.jpg&imgrefurl=http://contrailscience.com/&h=450&w=600&sz=63&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=MAzn1FigfOLymM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcontrail%2Bscience%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den %26sa%3DG
Do these pictures look genuine to you?
They look genuine to me. I have seen hundreds of them - in monthly magazines from 1946, aviation magazines from the mid-fifties and onwards. They keep turning up these days in car boot sales as the generation who did these deeds in their early twenties is dwindling, and their personal effects are coming onto the open market.

I wouldn't have thought that pre-jet airplanes could create contrails of this magnitude.
A B-17 bomber weighs sixty tons. It is powered by four supercharged eighteen-cylinder radial piston engines each delivering 2,000bhp and capable of maintaining that sixty tons at 27,000ft and 250mph for hundreds of miles. They burn petrol (octane) which has the formula C8H18. The hydrogen in the octane burns to STEAM. At 27,000ft the air temperature is -40. The STEAM turns to ICE. This may sublime to water vapor (and apparently disappear) if the air is not already saturated with water vapor, but as it sublimes it is raising the humidity of the air. If a thousand bombers pass through the same stratospheric layer, it WILL saturate, and the trails WILL remain. This happened sufficiently often to cause a stir, especially when the bombers collided in the whiteness, which they occasionally did.

What do you all think?
Perhaps you ought to check with what is already on public record, rather than go casting about for opinions from others who, like you, don't know very much.

Check out "A WORLD WAR TWO PERSISTENT CONTRAIL STORY" here (http://jazzroc.wordpress.com). (You have to scroll down 95% - almost at the end!)

[truthseeker1980]

If someone takes conversational exception to the term "chemtrails" while discussing the curiously lingering and spreading of "contrails" in an otherwise blue sky, then ask them, "Are you aware that the government admits to the deployment of aerosolized particulates of known toxicity over America for training in military applications and other purposes? At that point, dismissing the existence of chemtrails as "conspiracy thinking" will be reduced to illogically denying that the government is openly exposing us to dangerous chemicals because we reject the term "chemtrails."

By Carole Pellatt

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20080112.htm

from aritcle.
The substance being released from military aircraft is called "chaff" and started being used during World War II to jam enemy radar. Chaff is used today and is mentioned openly in many reports. Chaff has been sprayed upon us in military exercises since the 1940s.

So they have admitted to spraying the skies since the 1940's.

[the_real_jazzroc]

curiously lingering and spreading of "contrails" in an otherwise blue sky
It only seems that way to you because you understand nothing of the properties of the atmosphere you live in.

aerosolized particulates
Cloud-seeding (harmless) or ionospheric radio-imaging (harmless). Tiny quantities!

CHAFF is not an aerosol. It is as poisonous as christmas-tree tinsel, which is essentially what it is. (Short and very thin strips of Aluminum metal)

denying that the government is openly exposing us to dangerous chemicals
Would be the logical thing to do.

Chaff has been sprayed upon us
CAN YOU "spray" tinsel?

So they have admitted to spraying the skies since the 1940's
Is preposterous. Get a life, and raise the quality of mine. Learn ANY science.

Keep away from christmas trees....

[truthseeker1980]

Again Jazzy Jeff and the fresh prince you are deviating from the point, one minute you are saying it's just water vapour that for some reason freezes a lot more now, because there is more water in the atmosphere and you can see a halo around the sun and now you say it's tinsel.

You get a life and make your mind up, one minute they are contrails next you sort of admit it and say's it's only tinsel. Come on, some consistancy wouldn't go a miss.

[the_real_jazzroc]

Again Jazzy Jeff and the fresh prince you are deviating from the point, one minute you are saying it's just water vapour that for some reason freezes a lot more now, because there is more water in the atmosphere and you can see a halo around the sun and now you say it's tinsel.

You get a life and make your mind up, one minute they are contrails next you sort of admit it and say's it's only tinsel. Come on, some consistancy wouldn't go a miss.
You are the one with a consistency problem. We have been talking about THREE things.

1) Contrails - they are just ice from passenger planes. It doesn't "freeze a lot more now". It ALWAYS froze. Nowadays with more saturated skies it just doesn't get to sublime back into water vapor so easily.

2) Aerosols - cloud-seeding and radio-imaging. These are discontinuous "squirts" in small quantities and bear no relationship to the size of the Earth.

3) Chaff - aluminized "tinsel". Also discontinuous "bursts" in small quantities and bear no relationship to the size of the Earth.

None of the above can be characterized as "poisonous". Pepper is more poisonous: you may scatter it on your food for every meal, and it's a known carcinogen.

Without science or logic you are obviously having difficulties making sense of the world.

No matter what you read about science (and I'm led to believe that you're not reading mainstream science at all) the majority of scientists are only concerned with truth - the Nobel Prizes see to that.

Therefore until you catch up with them in scientific matters it makes sense to take what they say on trust. If they lie, other scientists find them out - and receive prizes.

[largejack]

The question at the end of this is 'could they spray chemicals out of planes?' and the obvious answer would be 'of course'. Many of us have witnessed the Red Arrows spraying different coloured streams behind them. Second point is 'would they be prepared to use them and have they used them?' I think that is the point we should be considering. The mainstream media has kept very quiet about it (as they always do) but they have admitted to spraying since the 1940s. These are the same people who knowingly expose their own military to depleted uranium and contaminate the land, killing and deforming thousands, if not millions of people, for God knows how long; and I believe the stuff has a half life of several million years.

Forget the science and all the intricacies, I think they would and I think they do!

[truthseeker1980]

You are the one with a consistency problem. We have been talking about THREE things.

1) Contrails - they are just ice from passenger planes. It doesn't "freeze a lot more now". It ALWAYS froze. Nowadays with more saturated skies it just doesn't get to sublime back into water vapor so easily.

2) Aerosols - cloud-seeding and radio-imaging. These are discontinuous "squirts" in small quantities and bear no relationship to the size of the Earth.

2) Chaff - aluminized "tinsel". Also discontinuous "bursts" in small quantities and bear no relationship to the size of the Earth.

None of the above can be characterized as "poisonous". Pepper is more poisonous: you may scatter it on your food for every meal, and it's a known carcinogen.

Without science or logic you are obviously having difficulties making sense of the world.

No matter what you read about science (and I'm led to believe that you're not reading mainstream science at all) the majority of scientists are only concerned with truth - the Nobel Prizes see to that.

Therefore until you catch up with them in scientific matters it makes sense to take what they say on trust. If they lie, other scientists find them out - and receive prizes.

NO and again you are twisting what all of us on here are saying about chemtrails.
Ever thought of becoming a politician?

Something is being sprayed in the skies, be it poisons or not, the fact of the matter is if you look up at the sky on most days then you will see what you say are contrails, but what we call chemtrails as we know the difference.

I haven't watched any chemtrail video's, I haven't seen a chembow (whatever one of those is), like i have said time and time again, I know the difference between a bonefide contrail and what we call a chemtrail. I have even seen one plane laying a contrail and one a chemtrail in the same area of sky at the same time.

So one day you are saying nothing is being sprayed in the skies, that all of us are mad it's just water vapour from the jet engines which freezes, with some two bit explanation about seeing a halo around the sun. I know what a contrail is and what i see in the sky is not a contrail.
Like you admit in an earlier post, water has always frozen in the sky way before aeroplanes were even invented.

BUT when you see something which you cant give an explanation of, you say well yes they are spraying but it's not poisonous. So are you admitting that they are spraying something?

The argument is not whether the stuff they are spraying is dangerous or poisonous, just that they are spraying something in the skies.

What is it you are arguing about then?

Whether Chemtrails are contrails, or whether Chemtrails are only tinsel and the other aerosols they have admitted spraying since the 1940's, which you say is ok because they are not dangerous?

[the_real_jazzroc]

Forget the science and all the intricacies, I think they would and I think they do!
Then for you there can be no distinction between dreams and reality.

You are then completely vulnerable to enemies you might have. You become easy to defeat.

Science forces the rest of us to ask "How might that be possible?" By logic it is possible to AVOID BELIEF and KNOW what is true. It also is a TOOL by which one might defend oneself.

Faced with the NWO as an enemy (and you won't find me disagreeing with you here) my response would be (in fact is!) to withdraw (following Sun Tzu) and not play the enemy's game.

Don't use his buck, don't buy his oil, don't eat his food. Let's see how long he lasts....

[cruise4]

Re. those photos, all I can say is i spent all my years as a kid out and about from dawn to dusk and I saw no chemtrail looking contrails back then. Now I see them as commonplace. Something has changed. Fuel composition? Atmosphere?

The thing is we admit we don't know. We admit there is a possibility they are spraying noxious chemicals on us. We believe we have every right to hold such a view as they certainly inflict harm in many other ways. So why would they miss this particular trick out.

Bottom line: You can't prove they aren't and we can't prove they are.

So why are you here peddling this stuff? That's the bit I don't get.

[the_real_jazzroc]

NO and again you are twisting what all of us on here are saying about chemtrails
You say what you say. I'm not twisting anything you say. I'd suggest it is your pre-twisted preconceptions are giving you that impression. I'm giving it to you straight.

Ever thought of becoming a politician?
Not since I experienced practical politics, no. I could never get myself a strong enough stomach antacid.

we call chemtrails as we know the difference
You know absolute dick. And that's a fact. It seems you're SCARED of the science of the atmosphere. Here's a check (no-one's answered this so far): if you watch the Sun rise in the East and set in the West, is your conclusion that the Sun goes round the Earth? Why not?

I know the difference between a bonefide contrail and what we call a chemtrail
Yes, so I've heard. You apply a set of simple logical checks (like the Sun check) and then you KNOW whether it's a "chemtrail" or a contrail.

I have even seen one plane laying a contrail and one a chemtrail in the same area of sky at the same time.
Hmmm, that's the one where you KNOW one plane is the same height as another from SEVEN MILES BENEATH. For me that's a dildo test, and YOU passed as a grade A dildo.

So you are saying nothing is being sprayed in the skies
Passenger jet engines are NOT spraying, they are SIMPLY FUNCTIONING. They make highly non-dangerous water (and CO2).

Crop sprayers spray crops with insecticides and herbicides. Not a world-shattering event exactly.

Light aircraft release silver iodide smokes to seed cumulo-nimbus clouds and produce rain. Not a world-shattering event exactly.

Remote drone aircraft release metal aerosols over a battlefield in Iraq. Not a world-shattering event exactly.

An ionospheric experiment with radar-imaging using HAAARP and a cloud of Barium. Not a world-shattering event exactly.

Fighters and bombers (mostly the US) release chaff bursts of tinsel strips to divert missile attacks.

Only the insecticides and herbicides are REALLY poisonous - but they are sprayed at zero feet, hopefully on still days. The barium clouds are so small and high that by dilution they're harmless.

So are they "spraying" (in the way that YOU mean)? NO, dildo, they ain't.

that all of us are mad
Quite mad.

it's just water vapour from the jet engines which freezes
Exactly so.

with some two bit explanation about seeing a halo around the sun.
Your pre-twist is showing. The halo and other artefacts visible round the sun can be caused ONLY by ice, and NEVER if it is impure.

I know what a contrail is and what i see in the sky is not a contrail
You do not know cock. Your conclusions are bull-feathers.

Like you admit in an earlier post, water has always frozen in the sky way before aeroplanes were even invented.
Yes indeed. Contrails ARE cirrus clouds. The only difference is that they are laid in a powerful WAVE VORTEX which is an artefact generated by WING LIFT.

BUT when you see something which you can't give an explanation of
And start to talk - you MUST be a "chemtrailer"!

you say they are spraying but it's not poisonous
Only the crop-spraying is poisonous. That you should travel MILES to avoid.

So are you admitting that they are spraying something?
To all intents and purposes they are NOT. Admissions should be your department: you're the one baselessly insisting that innocent people are murdering others. Go on admit it. You'll get less time...

The argument is not whether the stuff they are spraying is dangerous or poisonous, just that they are spraying something in the skies
Passenger aircraft SPRAY NOTHING. Crop-sprayers spray poisons on the ground. Pops and farts of barium aerosols and chaff aren't "spraying".

Whether Chemtrails are contrails
Chemtrails don't exist at all.

Chemtrails are only tinsel
CHAFF is tinsel. Chemtrails don't exist at all.

other aerosols they have admitted spraying since the 1940's, which you say is ok because they are not dangerous?
Pops and farts of barium aerosols and chaff aren't "dangerous". Crop-sprayers ARE dangerous (except they're spraying at ground level, and mostly it falls on the ground).

Get it into your head, bozo. Chemtrails don't exist at all. Check it out:

1) The so-called chemtrail products don't pass through the engines because they would be filtered out.
2) If you remove the filters the engines would stop straight away: that kerosine/air flame is DELICATE.
3) There is NO ROOM in the wings for spare TANKS OF POISON LIQUID AND DEVILISH SPRAY DEVICES. You can SEE they aren't there (and you aren't seven miles away either!)
4) The TOILET is not the area to stuff this kit either: to produce any effects at all you'd need thousands of gallons of stuff.
5) There's NO special personnel, tanks, equipment, or even anyone making a buck by telling all.
6) Large tanks of Barium and Aluminum would DEFINITELY NEED STIRRING: because you are a brainless bozo you have NO IDEA how difficult that is - especially ON a plane.

There's much, much more on this list, but I'm not getting paid to teach boneheads - go and educate yourself.

Get this over and done with. Breathe deeply - we'll forgive you (as if we care!)

[largejack]

For Fecks sake get over yourself:rolleyes:

[the_real_jazzroc]

For Fecks sake get over yourself:rolleyes:
Yeah, I think the way you tell each other and us lies, and slander innocents as mass-murderers, while doing bugger-all in the way of anything useful to help anyone who is sick, is just peachy.

You're just nice, harmless people, after all....

[largejack]

How much are they paying you for this as I have to say you are doing a crap job:D WTF are you doing on the David Icke Forum full of open minded people. Once a mind is open it does not close again. I am off now to do some research on Common Purpose

[cruise4]

(as if we care!)

Good... Bye ;)

Whatever they are we want them stopped because they are ruining the environment whether noxious or not.

[the_real_jazzroc]

Whatever they are we want them stopped because they are ruining the environment whether noxious or not.
Whatever you are I want you stopped because you are ruining my environment whether you're aware of it or not.

You're another version of a petty gangland graffiti "artist" who smears his daubs around the corner and up back-alleys, lending an air of filth to the world. Who wants them? No-one. Who needs them? No-one. How are they going to end up? - Petty hoods with a grudge against society. No different from you.

Your readiness to believe will leave you unprepared for the future, which won't be as you expect. In fact, without an understanding of science, nothing will be as you expect.

"ruining my environment" - you say. Well science can put a number to it: on average the dimming due to aviation has reduced the Solar radiation that reaches the ground by 0.1%. (It's a small number because the Earth is LARGE.)

In fact, a decrease that small is generally regarded as INSIGNIFICANT.

Get used to it.

[eyepod]

Well science can put a number to it: on average the dimming due to aviation has reduced the Solar radiation that reaches the ground by 0.1%. (It's a small number because the Earth is LARGE.)

In fact, a decrease that small is generally regarded as INSIGNIFICANT.

Get used to it.

Full Article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

NARRATOR: September 12th 2001, the aftermath of tragedy. While America mourned, the weather all over the country was unusually fine. Eight hundred miles west of New York, in Madison, Wisconsin a climate scientist called David Travis was on his way to work.

DR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater): Around the twelfth, later on in the day, when I was driving to work, and I noticed how bright blue and clear the sky was. And at first I didn't think about it, then I realised the sky was unusually clear.

NARRATOR: For 15 years Travis had been researching an apparently obscure topic, whether the vapour trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the climate. In the aftermath of 9/11 the entire US fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: It was certainly, you know, one of the tiny positives that may have come out of this, an opportunity to do research that hopefully will never happen again.

NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small but detectable change to the climate. But what he observed was both immediate and dramatic.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

NARRATOR: One degree in just three days no one had ever seen such a big climatic change happen so fast. This was a new kind of climate change. Scientists call it Global Dimming. Two years ago most of them had never even heard of it, yet now they believe it may mean all their predictions about the future of our climate could be wrong.....

[the_real_jazzroc]

JazzRoc:

"ruining my environment" - you say. Well science can put a number to it: on average the dimming due to aviation has reduced the Solar radiation that reaches the ground by 0.1%. (It's a small number because the Earth is LARGE.) In fact, a decrease that small is generally regarded as INSIGNIFICANT.

One degree in just three days /blah / it may mean all their predictions about the future of our climate could be wrong.....

That's known as a CATEGORY ERROR, Eyepod. TV programs are full of them.

That eye needs a monocle....

[eyepod]

JazzRoc:

"ruining my environment" - you say. Well science can put a number to it: on average the dimming due to aviation has reduced the Solar radiation that reaches the ground by 0.1%. (It's a small number because the Earth is LARGE.) In fact, a decrease that small is generally regarded as INSIGNIFICANT.



That's known as a CATEGORY ERROR, Eyepod. TV programs are full of them.

That eye needs a monocle....

Considering the majority of the surface area of the planet is uninhabited your average is not a particularly useful measure for those that live in the most dense air traffic areas on the planet.

[the_real_jazzroc]

Considering the majority of the surface area of the planet is uninhabited your average is not a particularly useful measure for those that live in the most dense air traffic areas on the planet.
Ah, a cogent response. Many's the time I've looked over the A4 and watched passenger planes with their undercarriages and big flaps out, trailing vortices as they landed at one minute intervals in thoroughly wet air....

Well, NOW they are big fan-jets, aren't they? And they DO have a way of dumping a hundred pounds of water for every mile of flight, eh?

So why live close to Heathrow? You remind me of people that move close to airports, then complain of the noise...

But I also recall that Britain has on average quite a breeze blowing from the southwest, so it's not as if it is a continual problem, is it?

It is unlikely that at any time even in the remote future that planes are not going to release water in the air - as peak oil changes to NO oil, "they" will crack coal and/or use hydrogen - and planes will still be releasing the same amount of water.

But, as ever, it'll be clean - for "chemtrails" don't exist.

[eyepod]

So why live close to Heathrow? You remind me of people that move close to airports, then complain of the noise...

But I also recall that Britain has on average quite a breeze blowing from the southwest, so it's not as if it is a continual problem, is it?

It is unlikely that at any time even in the remote future that planes are not going to release water in the air - as peak oil changes to NO oil, "they" will crack coal and/or use hydrogen - and planes will still be releasing the same amount of water.

But, as ever, it'll be clean - for "chemtrails" don't exist.

I live about 7-8 miles south(ish) of the airport, primarily because it's a nice area, easy to get to work and I grew up in the area. For a time I also worked at the airport itself.

Yes we get alot of air traffic but you don't tend notice it much and besides I have always been a bit of plane fan. Also the planes tend to be those that have just taken off and therefore have not reached sufficient height to be forming chem/con trails. But there is certain amount of high flying traffic coming from west and north which can form the disputed trails.

Listening to your argument you would think planes are the greenest machines on the planet. At the very least do they no longer spew kerosene exhausts anymore - are their trails just purely (no pun intended) water and daisies?

[the_real_jazzroc]

Also the planes tend to be those that have just taken off and therefore have not reached sufficient height to be forming chem/con trails.
They have THROTTLE LEVERS and TANK SWITCHES. What's burnt at ground level is what's burnt at 35,000 ft. A kerosine/air flame goes out if CRAP passes through it. There are NO subsidiary nozzles in engines or wings. Both engines and wings are SEALED. The fuel lines, valves, and injectors are protected from particulates with low-micron full-flow FILTERS. METALS in liquid form would require STIRRERS, which tanks don't have. Hence, "spraying" isn't possible.

But there is certain amount of high flying traffic coming from west and north which can form the disputed trails.
Dispute if you like, but only contrails exist.

Listening to your argument you would think planes are the greenest machines on the planet.
The fuel consumption of a 500-seater twin turbofan beats 500 cars by quite a bit over a 4,000-mile journey. Combustion flame research was a deadly serious business when I was young. Twin-spool turbofans were the BIG revolution...

At the very least do they no longer spew kerosene exhausts anymore - are their trails just purely (no pun intended) water and daisies?
They ARE kerosine-burning engines - but their uncombusted particulates are WAY DOWN.

Kerosine burns to form STEAM, CO2, traces of CO, SOX, NOX, soot. These add up to 0.3%, and help form the contrails by "seeding" their ice crystals.

Three hundred million tons of aviation kerosine are burnt annually, and are definitely the cleanest form of combustion after methane, propane and butane cooking and heating gases.