Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Earth Changes / Global Warming / Chemtrails / Weather Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 26-10-2014, 07:22 PM   #721
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nanny nutty View Post
You will never convince me that I am seeing harmless vapour trails. I have seen these planes at work on numerous occasions. On one particularly hot and sunny day I witnessed six or seven of them flying from different directions,passing directly above my flat,belching out their thick,double trails,clouding the sky and blocking the sun. The very fact that governments deny all knowledge of such aircraft should be reason enough to suspect that whatever is happening overhead is not in our best interests.
Well I'm not convinced they are chemtrails. All this has been done to death on this forum, but again:

1) They could be just commercial aircraft doing their thing and you live near a flight path?

2) Like I said, ask for the opinion of serious amateur meteorologists if any of this is possible. Please, really, try it. Sadly, no one ever does.

3) Why isn't spraying done it at night or over the sea where no one can see it?

4) Are commercial jets doing this? If so pilots need to know about weight and fuel, so it's not something they could sling in tanks tanks under the planes without the pilots knowing. They must therefore be doing it knowingly. Can you really see Ryanair-topman Michael O'Leary agreeing to this?

5) If it's in the fuel, without the knowledge of the pilots, it needs to be of the formulation that does not screw up the engines. Any cumulative damage to the engines will be picked up by the hundreds of service engineers.

6) Assuming it is in the fuel but some how not damaging the engines, where is it being added along the chain of fuel production to aircraft? This fuel is routinely quality checked in facilities all over the world. It must be added after testing.

7) If civilian aircraft are involved, there are a lot of teams that have to be silenced, too many I suggest. Therefore perhaps there is a dedicated fleet of aircraft doing this. But where do they all take off and land from? Their own dedicated airstrips? With no one noticing? And who's maintaining all these aircraft, supplying the fuel and support staff? Some one must know someone working on this.

No one has yet answered where all the chemtail stuff is being manufactured without anyone knowing anyone who works in such a facility.

Increased air traffic has greatly increased the number of contrails, which do have an effect on the weather (for confirmation ask a meteorologist) but that's not to say it is deliberate is it?

I think you get my drift. There is just far too much to try to cover up in this conspiracy.

We all know weather modification has been attempted and probably still goes on. So, the government doesn't tell the truth - we know that! But these things seem to me to be all mixed up. Official denials are hardly proof 'They' are doing it.

thermion
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 04:08 AM   #722
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

As we can see, the denier trying to steer the discussion into "deliberate spraying" topic, and trying to avoid discussing "the real danger of the trails". Because if they use real science, not just play of logic, it is clear that those trails are problem. Even NASA dare to claim that those trails are potentially serious problem.

So what make the denier see trails as harmless as human breath?

It is obvious that even the denier have lack of knowledge for contrails. I have to admit I learn more of the real science of contrails trying to answer the denier. And it is amazing how the denier get the science wrong.

Here is an example of argumentation show made by global warming promoter Dane Wigington and trails danger denier Mick West:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wig...g-debate.2211/
Quote:
Dane: what is necessary for that cloud to form though Mick? Particulate matter. Right?
Mick: Yes particulate matter, but ...

Dane: ... it can't form without particulate matter can it?

Mick: ... the air is full of particulate matter. Everywhere, even in the clouds or not in the clouds, there's particulate matter everywhere, there's no shortage of particulate matter. The stuff that comes out of the black of the plane helps the contrails to form a little bit, but if it was perfectly clean, if it was just spraying water out of the back of the plane, you'd still get a contrail, because there's particulates in the atmosphere.

But the point we were talking about here is that there's a gap in a contrail, now, all the contrail is doing is revealing where in the sky the areas of humidity are. So if there are area of humidity that are shaped like clouds, which have very sharp edges, you've see cumulus clouds with incredibly sharp edges, why wouldn't a trail flying, a plane flying through area of humidity start and stop at exactly where those boundaries are? If it was flying through...

Dane: ... the turbulence alone around a passing aircraft could never make possible what you describe, it is absolutely impossible. And if you describe, what you described is true Mick, then how come as the same time we see an aircraft leaving a trail from horizon to horizon, we can spot, and we have on film, aircrafts flying at the same approximate altitude, leaving virtually nothing. Why is that? How is that explained?

Mick: because, it's the same approximate altitude, it only takes a few hundred feet in difference for you to be in a different layer of the atmosphere. And it can be very different humidity. There have been tests done in Germany where they have two planes flying side by side. One of them leaves a trail, and the other one doesn't leave a tail, because they have slightly different engines.
The science show that they are both wrong.
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICA...PAPERS/136.PDF
(1). Cirrus clouds can evolve from spreading persistent contrails known as primary cirrus or contrail cirrus (2). Secondary cirrus occur due to locally increased soot and aerosol concentration, which might lead to theformation of cirrus clouds that would not form in the absence of air traffic

Depending on the allocated importance of the radiative forcing due to persistent contrails and cirrus clouds relative to that of other aircraft emissions, it might occur that the avoidance of persistent contrails and cirrus clouds becomes the most important and pressing issue to be addressed in the future.


http://www.airliners.net/aviation-ar...ead.main?id=85
"Ruling out drastic changes in altitude, another option might be to increase the emission standards of jet engines and with that only insure airplanes with the newer, cleaner engines. Tests were performed with a NASA jet aircraft examining the effect of sulfur levels in jet fuel exhaust. During the airborne test one engine was run on normal jet fuel and the other engine was run on fuel that emitted exhaust with a lower sulfur content. The high sulfur engine, representing most jet engines on modern commercial aircraft, produced a contrail that lasted through a larger range of temperatures and formed faster out of the engine. The low sulfur engine did the opposite. While this option would not completely eliminate contrails, it would narrow the window of conditions needed to form them, making them less common."

People already know that they may have to pay more to get a more green product. So what is wrong by reducing efficiency in order to reduce pollution?

It is already clear that even the science admit the problem, government will always deny it. That is what politician do. They have no profit of admiting problem. Why even denier tell people that those trails are harmless when the scientific literature claim otherwise? I smell conspiracy.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants

Last edited by sucahyo; 27-10-2014 at 04:09 AM.
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 09:44 AM   #723
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Well that's what the whole chemtrail idea is about, isn't it? Chemtrails are supposedly made of chemicals that are deliberately being sprayed, in the mind of the chemtrail believer. That's what this forum is about. It seems to me that it is you who wants to steer the topic in a different direction.

According to wiki, this is what chemtrails are..

´According to the chemtrail conspiracy theory, long-lasting trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public.[1] Believers in the theory argue that normal contrails dissipate relatively quickly, and contrails that do not dissipate must contain additional substances.[2][3] These arguments have been dismissed by the scientific community: such trails are simply normal water-based contrails (condensation trails) which are routinely left by high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions.[4] Although proponents have attempted to prove that the claimed chemical spraying does take place, their analyses have been flawed or based on misconception.[5][6]

Because of the widespread popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation.[2] Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly needed to confirm that supposed chemtrails are in fact normal contrails.[7]

The term chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words "chemical" and "trail", just as contrail is a contraction of "condensation trail".[8] Believers in the conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the claimed chemical release may be for solar radiation management,[2] psychological manipulation, human population control, weather modification, or biological or chemical warfare, and that the trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.[1][9][10] Contrails are formed at high altitudes (5–10 miles or 8–16 kilometres) and if any chemicals were released at such altitude they would disperse harmlessly and fall many hundreds of miles away, or degrade before touching the ground´.


So that´s what we´re discussing here. Now if you want to discuss the dangers or lack thereof of contrails, I really suggest you start your own topic where you lay out your ideas and discuss them there, instead of derailing the chemtrail discussion with your ideas every time.

Last edited by payt69; 27-10-2014 at 09:47 AM.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2014, 01:44 AM   #724
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Unlike Dane Wigington's follower, I believe that the key of fighting chemtrails is not spreading awareness, nor talking, nor scaring other people, nor bothering local official, nor bothering poor third country.

No one completely sure who are responsible for spraying. If we look for an alibi, then I would suspect company that is US military contractor for chemical weapon, which also the one that get benefit from melting the ice at north pole. Coincidentally, Dane Wigington is a former employee of such company.

But since we don't have evidence, then what we can do is to make ourself immune to chemtrails. To make our environment immune to chemtrails.

It is meaningless to argue or spread the word about chemtrails if this do not improve your own situation by next year. This is addressed more to the current chemtrails believer that currenly achieve nothing. What is the use of having more people agree if you can not even make your kids healthy? If you can not even protect your own family, why bother to tell other people. What are you trying to achieve by telling other people? Are you trying to shift the responsibility?

If you really want to improve the situation then start by learning how to protect yourself, to protect your family, something that really work and tried, not just some detox scam bullshit circulating around. Then share it to other people.

Share chemtrails story only to people with strong heart or healthy. The current method of spreading chemtrails awareness is obviously wrong. many people are frustrated, angry and become sick without even know what they supposed to do. Since they are brainwashed that the only way to stop spraying is to spread awareness, then what they spread is their anger, their sickness, their desperation. Not realizing that they share the wrong target. A very clever diversion tactic.

If anyone think that chemtrails community is free from diversion, that is bullshit.

The reason I argue is to make people improve the situation. I argue people who do things wrongly, I argue people who do nothing and also obviously I also argue people who are ignorant.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2014, 02:56 AM   #725
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

OK so since as you state you have no evidence, what exactly are you trying to protect yourself from? And how do you do it?
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2014, 04:54 AM   #726
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I struggle to get rain against those trails.
http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2...with-cemenite/

I don't care if they are deliberate or not, I like it more when they do not show up.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2014, 12:30 PM   #727
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
I struggle to get rain against those trails.
http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2...with-cemenite/

I don't care if they are deliberate or not, I like it more when they do not show up.
I notice you still call them chemtrails. My impression was that you didn't believe they had any added chemicals in them though.. so which is it? Do yuo believe they are chemtrails, and if so, what chemicals do they contain?

I just had a look at some of your cemenite links. Seems like some pretty far out stuff you're into.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2014, 01:30 AM   #728
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
I notice you still call them chemtrails. My impression was that you didn't believe they had any added chemicals in them though.. so which is it? Do yuo believe they are chemtrails, and if so, what chemicals do they contain?
I don't know what chemical but according to academic literature, they are commonly called soot particle. Most studies mention sulfur. Some mention them as chemi-ion, like this article:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/420...-4203-2007.pdf
"The nearfield jet model accounts for charge effects on aerosol nucleation and growth caused by chemi-ion emissions within the framework of a multicomponent, size-resolved, kineticallycontrolled vapor/aerosol system."

This diagram explain it more clearly. The one at the top is surprisingly not water (H2O), which is unlike what have been circulating around in chemtrails debate. So, water is not the main cause contrails.


So, the claim that contrails created the same way we breath at cold air is completely bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
I just had a look at some of your cemenite links. Seems like some pretty far out stuff you're into.
The good thing is it is easy to make and the effect is replicable. Some people replicate just to get more mileage/power for their vehicle, never learn about chemtrails etc.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants

Last edited by sucahyo; 29-10-2014 at 01:31 AM.
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2014, 03:44 AM   #729
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
This diagram explain it more clearly. The one at the top is surprisingly not water (H2O), which is unlike what have been circulating around in chemtrails debate. So, water is not the main cause contrails.
From the summary on page 12 of the study you got that picture from:

http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/~pa1c/plume_ptcl_formation.pdf

'Soot particles formed during fuel combustion constitute the major solid (non-volatile) particle fraction present in exhaust plumes. Under certain thermodynamic conditions the emitted H2O condenses and freezes to water ice particles, thereby forming the contrails. These line clouds may rapidly dissolve when the ambient air is dry. Persistent contrails grow further by deposition of ambient H2O in an ice-supersaturated atmosphere'.

Quote:
So, the claim that contrails created the same way we breath at cold air is completely bullshit.
It's called condensation, and you must not have understood what the study is really saying then.

Quote:
The good thing is it is easy to make and the effect is replicable. Some people replicate just to get more mileage/power for their vehicle, never learn about chemtrails etc.
Ok I'd love to see the study that shows me the effect is being replicated

Last edited by payt69; 29-10-2014 at 03:53 AM.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2014, 12:59 AM   #730
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
From the summary on page 12 of the study you got that picture from:

http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/~pa1c/plume_ptcl_formation.pdf

'Soot particles formed during fuel combustion constitute the major solid (non-volatile) particle fraction present in exhaust plumes. Under certain thermodynamic conditions the emitted H2O condenses and freezes to water ice particles, thereby forming the contrails. These line clouds may rapidly dissolve when the ambient air is dry. Persistent contrails grow further by deposition of ambient H2O in an ice-supersaturated atmosphere'.



It's called condensation, and you must not have understood what the study is really saying then.
You did not consider what happen if jet exhaust has less soot. Which already explained on my previous post. I really hate to repost it. but since you miss it:
"The high sulfur engine, representing most jet engines on modern commercial aircraft, produced a contrail that lasted through a larger range of temperatures and formed faster out of the engine. The low sulfur engine did the opposite."

I hope I don't have to repost again. If you still think contrails is the same as human breath, feel free, but I hope you know I disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
Ok I'd love to see the study that shows me the effect is being replicated
I don't have that kind of study, only testimony. replicate if you interested.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2014, 02:57 AM   #731
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
You did not consider what happen if jet exhaust has less soot. Which already explained on my previous post. I really hate to repost it. but since you miss it:
"The high sulfur engine, representing most jet engines on modern commercial aircraft, produced a contrail that lasted through a larger range of temperatures and formed faster out of the engine. The low sulfur engine did the opposite."

I hope I don't have to repost again. If you still think contrails is the same as human breath, feel free, but I hope you know I disagree.
It's the same priciple. Water vapor condenses on tiny particles, called nuclei. Whether those nuclei are soot or pollen or whatever else doesn't really matter. The low sulfur fuel just provides fewer nuclei.

Here's the full quote from the article:

Ruling out drastic changes in altitude, another option might be to increase the emission standards of jet engines and with that only insure airplanes with the newer, cleaner engines. Tests were performed with a NASA jet aircraft examining the effect of sulfur levels in jet fuel exhaust. During the airborne test one engine was run on normal jet fuel and the other engine was run on fuel that emitted exhaust with a lower sulfur content. The high sulfur engine, representing most jet engines on modern commercial aircraft, produced a contrail that lasted through a larger range of temperatures and formed faster out of the engine. The low sulfur engine did the opposite. “Aircraft generate an invisible aerosol trail which enhances the background level of condensation nuclei, in particular regions with dense air traffic at northern latitudes and near the tropopause”6. This condensation nuclei is the tiny matter that gives water vapor the ability to form. The International Civil Aviation Organization is in favor of making polluting, obsolete aircraft uninsurable. While this option would not completely eliminate contrails, it would narrow the window of conditions needed to form them, making them less common.

So you see, it doesn't say that fuel with less sulphur eliminates contrail altogether, but that contrails are generated in a smaller window of conditions. But of course there's a catch to introducing a desulphurized fuel:

The costs and benefits of introducing ultra-low sulfur fuel for aviation have been weighed up in a new study, and there are unexpected pros and cons. Modelling showed that desulfurising jet fuel would improve air quality, preventing between 1000 and 4000 deaths globally each year. It would cost the global aviation industry $1-4 billion (£0.63-2.5 billion) per year - ¢2-7 per gallon of jet fuel - which equates to an increase in the cost of jet fuel of around 2%.
But the study also pointed to climate downsides: desulfurising fuel would reduce the formation of cooling sulfate particles, which currently offset some global warming. 'Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth,' notes lead author Steven Barrett of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), US. 'If you compare the costs and the benefits they come out as being broadly even in our analysis.'


Well at least we may rest assured that research IS going on to try and reduce contrails. But as always there are many irons in the fire, and for now there doesn't seem to be an obvious winner.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/20...jet-fuel-radar

Quote:
I don't have that kind of study, only testimony. replicate if you interested.
Well you seem to have a solution to just about every problem with that cemenite. What's stopping you from putting it through it's paces and scientifically have it tested? It should be easy eough to test the mileage you get out of a car with and without cemenite, for example. I'd love to see those numbers.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2014, 03:09 AM   #732
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I think my point is clear that contrails is not the same as human breath.

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
Well you seem to have a solution to just about every problem with that cemenite. What's stopping you from putting it through it's paces and scientifically have it tested? It should be easy eough to test the mileage you get out of a car with and without cemenite, for example. I'd love to see those numbers.
What stopping me is money. And I don't see the point why I should do that. There are people who are willing to try even if I don't do that. I doubt people interest will increase even if I make them tested at a lab. they may hijack this too.

For number, mileage improvement is about 30%. For power, the one with number are CBR150 motorcycle, top speed change from 160kmph to 175kmph. top rpm change from 12000 to 14000. we can argue, but it is more convincing to try it for yourself.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2014, 01:02 PM   #733
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sucahyo View Post
I think my point is clear that contrails is not the same as human breath.
Your original claim was this:

Quote:
So, the claim that contrails created the same way we breath at cold air is completely bullshit.
Which is patent nonsense. It's the exact same priciple.

'Engine exhaust contains water vapour due to the combustion of hydrogen containing fuels with air. Because of high temperature, the relative humidity is low initially. Therefore contrails, like fog forming from breathing people in outside winter air, form only in cold ambient air'

http://aero-net.info/fileadmin/aeron..._Contrails.pdf

And here a guy demonstrates it on purpose for us:

http://youtu.be/vuxcMf9U_qw?t=1m02s

page 3

So your opinion that contrails are nothing like human breath is yours only, and not supported by any kind of science.

Of course there's also a difference between human breath and engine exhaust. The engine exhaust is usually around 850C, while the ambient temperature of the air is around -40 to -65C. So that's quite a difference. On top of that the heavily compressed air expands once it leaves the exhaust, cooling it rapidly, and creating a LOT of water vapour, which settles in part on the nuclei provided by the engine exhaust, but also on nuclei already available in the air.

In other words: even if you manage to create a perfectly clean burning engine, you'll probably still get contrails.

btw in certain conditions, human breath can also create persistent 'contrails':

http://youtu.be/Mr8x_6czeMA

And a nice demonstration here:

http://youtu.be/vuxcMf9U_qw?t=1m2s

Last edited by payt69; 30-10-2014 at 01:44 PM.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2014, 06:46 PM   #734
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Arrow

I continue to be perplexed by those who have not acknowledged the clear evidence of chemtrails being sprayed the world over by planes, many of which are unmarked and flying in completely irregular flight paths from normal air traffic. Someone is paying a lot of money to have this done - and no one can convince me, after seeing the clear evidence in the skies and on several dozen videos that chemtrails are really contrails.

This is an excellent site to familiarize oneself with chemtrails. The second link has an interesting, localized solution to dispersing chemtrails in your area. This website also has many important articles on vital subjects which concern us all.

http://www.educate-yourself.org/ct/#intro

http://educate-yourself.org/ct/goodbyects10jan02.shtml
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2014, 08:41 PM   #735
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indolering View Post
I continue to be perplexed by those who have not acknowledged the clear evidence of chemtrails being sprayed the world over by planes, many of which are unmarked and flying in completely irregular flight paths from normal air traffic. Someone is paying a lot of money to have this done - and no one can convince me, after seeing the clear evidence in the skies and on several dozen videos that chemtrails are really contrails.

This is an excellent site to familiarize oneself with chemtrails. The second link has an interesting, localized solution to dispersing chemtrails in your area. This website also has many important articles on vital subjects which concern us all.

http://www.educate-yourself.org/ct/#intro

http://educate-yourself.org/ct/goodbyects10jan02.shtml
Thanks for those links. A quick glance shows me that it seems to be the same nonsense that's being regurgitated all over chemtrails sites.

Maybe you can point me to the part where it explains why these trails can't be persistent contrails. After all, that seems to be the basis of the whole chemtrail thing.

And while you're at it, point me to the clear evidence as well. If it's there, i'd love to see it.. but i've got a feeling it's gonna be stuff that's long been debunked.

Last edited by payt69; 30-10-2014 at 08:49 PM.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2014, 10:30 PM   #736
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

Well I am perplexed that no one has even attempted to answer the questions in my post 721. No one has even come close.

Come on, someone must be able to robustly challenge those points.

thermion
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2014, 01:09 AM   #737
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Having similarity do not mean they are the same. As side note, I met a lot of debunker claim to be supported by science, but surprisingly lack of scientific reference/evidence. They use play of word. When provided with real scientific evidence, they make excuse. I rarely see debunker accept the scientific reference as it is.

So for chemtrails believer out there, study the science, not the geoengineering one, but the contrails cirrus one. Do not avoid science, learn it! You will find that science have a great concern for contrails and many theory circulating in chemtrails debunker group are wrong.

I think it is already clear from this quote:
"The high sulfur engine, representing most jet engines on modern commercial aircraft, produced a contrail that lasted through a larger range of temperatures and formed faster out of the engine."

If they add more sulfur, it is possible for trails to form at warmer termperature.


Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
The engine exhaust is usually around 850C, while the ambient temperature of the air is around -40 to -65C. So that's quite a difference. On top of that the heavily compressed air expands once it leaves the exhaust, cooling it rapidly, and creating a LOT of water vapour
You talk as if the water that made contrails was made entirely from the fuel. Let me remind you that most of the water is not from the jet engine exhaust:
http://web.archive.org/web/201110171...u/science.html
"Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide) , but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air.

The water vapor from the engine is very very small compared to the water absorbed/robbed from its surrounding.


Also the warming effect, how come people dare to think that contrails is as harmless as human breath?:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-ar...ead.main?id=85
"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was the aforementioned event, and it was likely to have excited meteorological researchers involved in contrail impact studies. The national airspace was shut down for three days, something that had not yet occurred since the jet age began in the 1960s and is not likely to occur ever again. Scientists took advantage of this unique three day period in history that lacked contrails. What they learned was shocking and is enough evidence to effectively silence any counterargument to their case.... “September 11 – 14, 2001 had the biggest diurnal temperature range of any three-day period in the past 30 years,” said Andrew M. Carleton1. Not in three decades had there been such a large temperature spread between the daytime highs and the nighttime lows.... This is evidence that contrails do alter the climate of the land they drift above."
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants

Last edited by sucahyo; 31-10-2014 at 01:20 AM.
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2014, 01:16 AM   #738
indolering
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 3,092
Likes: 79 (59 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by payt69 View Post
Thanks for those links. A quick glance shows me that it seems to be the same nonsense that's being regurgitated all over chemtrails sites.

Maybe you can point me to the part where it explains why these trails can't be persistent contrails. After all, that seems to be the basis of the whole chemtrail thing.

And while you're at it, point me to the clear evidence as well. If it's there, i'd love to see it.. but i've got a feeling it's gonna be stuff that's long been debunked.
There's no such thing as 'persistent contrails'. And there's never been such a proliferation of 'persistent contrails' by strange aircraft zig-zagging all over the sky. Many in gov't have admitted to the practice of aerosol spraying but never reveal its true purpose. they don't have to - chemtrails have been analyzed by a number of scientific researchers and found to contain all sorts of nasty things.

Hey, believe what you like - when I watch chemtrails being sprayed overhead, forming into tic tac toe formations, I know for a fact that something is going on. These phenomena have never occurred before - why now, all of a sudden...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
Well I am perplexed that no one has even attempted to answer the questions in my post 721. No one has even come close.

Come on, someone must be able to robustly challenge those points.

thermion
It's ok to believe the evidence of your senses, thermion. Is it not obvious to you there are two distinct types of trails being emitted in the sky? You think the satanists-in-charge can't keep a secret? The trails are obvious - but not their purpose. Again, believe what you like - chemtrails are wholly distinct from contrails - sorry you don't see it.
indolering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2014, 01:33 AM   #739
sucahyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 987
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
Well I am perplexed that no one has even attempted to answer the questions in my post 721. No one has even come close.

Come on, someone must be able to robustly challenge those points.

thermion
I don't see the point.

I don't care who, how or why they happen. But it is clear that even profesional meteorologists consider contrails as a problem. So someone who do not consider contrails a problem is questionable. I consider people at metabunk.org and contrailscience.com to be questionable people.

I guess you never see dozens of trails at night that happen in the span of an hour, which turn cloudless sky into syk completely covered with clouds. And it is obvious from satelite photo that trails show up at the sea too. The rest of your question came from a speculation and most can only answer with speculation too. speculation vs speculation -> endless argumentation without positive results.

I believe that those trails is a problem. Those trails is what can prevent non lethal weather. When gentle rain was canceled, I often see trails behind it. Rain clouds that build up in hours will be gone the minute few trails start popping up.

I am sure we can do something. I believe my weather is less lethal than the average of the country.
__________________
An example of failed CB, Rants
sucahyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2014, 03:17 AM   #740
payt69
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indolering View Post
There's no such thing as 'persistent contrails'.
I know that's what chemtrail pushers tell you. But did they ever tell you WHY contrails are always supposed to disappear within a couple of seconds to minutes?

We've been over this with many other chemtrail believers, and no-one seems to be able to answer the question WHY a contrail isn't supposed to persist (reason: they don't tell you in WITWATS). After all they're just clouds of ice particles, and if a cirrus cloud can persist, then so can a contrail, given the right conditions.

Here's a short video explaining some of the basics of contrails:

http://youtu.be/DPTa56n1Y70

Quote:
And there's never been such a proliferation of 'persistent contrails' by strange aircraft zig-zagging all over the sky.
True, there's a lot more air traffic now. The patterns you see are air routes. Also see the video above to see a visualiasation of that traffic.

Quote:
Many in gov't have admitted to the practice of aerosol spraying but never reveal its true purpose.
No they haven't. They haven't admitted that what you call 'chemtrails' are aerosols or whatever you claim they are.If you think they have, show me the evidence.

Quote:
they don't have to - chemtrails have been analyzed by a number of scientific researchers and found to contain all sorts of nasty things.
IF you're referring to the 'science' as displayed in WITWATS, that's been debunked to the core. They sampled dirty snow from mount Shasta, and they had a rainwater sample that was left outside for a month.

See here: http://contrailscience.com/what-in-t...they-spraying/

Quote:
Hey, believe what you like - when I watch chemtrails being sprayed overhead, forming into tic tac toe formations, I know for a fact that something is going on. These phenomena have never occurred before - why now, all of a sudden...?
My bet would be on passengers being transported by more and more jets.

Also nobody ever notices anything happening in the sky, until they're made aware of it. There are a couple of videos out there where people are made aware of contrails, and then they state that they never really noticed them before.

If you then tell them the chemtrail myth how those contrails never lasted before, how there were never as many, it all becomes a matter of confirmation bias. People who otherwise know nothing of aviation or meteorology are given false interpretations of known phenomenae.

That's how flap hinges, test equipment, fuel dump valves, oil drain pipes and all sort of other things become 'spray nozzles'. Aerodynamic contrails, fuel dumps and wingtip vortices become chemtrails, balance test equipment becomes 'chemical tanks' etc.

The point is: it's all a hoax. And you believe it because you never double check anything.

You're probably thinking I must be a troll of a paid government shill or something right? I know.. it's part of the chemtrail hoax, and a mechanism to deal with people who display doubt. After all, who could doubt such an obvious thing eh?

Well start with the basics.. Is it true that contrails can't persist? Then what is a cirrus cloud?

Last edited by payt69; 31-10-2014 at 03:31 AM.
payt69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:56 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.