Chemtrail pushers/believers: you should be ashamed of yourselves

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Phage

Jet A, Jet A-1, and Jet B, the most common jet fuels, are types of aviation kerosene.

The differences between Jet A, Jet A1 and Jet B are summarised on this page

If you think people are putting the same kerosene you put in coleman lanterns in jet engines you are even more ignorant than I imagined.

I used to - we wold take the overnight drains for water (of which there was hardly ever any) and run it in kerosene heaters all the time.

There are four types of jet fuels being used today, not two. Jet A, Jet A-1, Jet B, and Bio-fuel. And no, not all jets can use the same fuel with no ill effects. Some are designed for cold weather applications, some require anti-biological additives to prevent clogging injector nozzles with biologic cultures which cause the fuel to become thick and syrupy in higher concentrations.

Jet B is designed for cold weather, and adding a biocide doesn't make it a different fuel - it makes it a fuel with an additive.

All jets can use Jet A and Jet A1 - the main difference with Jet B is that it has to be handled differently - other than that ther is no practical difference. Biofuels are being developed as "drop in" replacement for Jet A/a1 - as outlined in this pdf (3.2mb)

As for prayer nozzles...it could be as simple as an orifice on the underside of the nacelle.

So where are they?

I've been a mechanic and a quality assurance engineer, and owrked for a national regulator - I've not seen any such nozzles that were not supposed to be there in my 38 years in aviation.

Now let me ask you this: does the absence of proof forego the possibility of its existence?

This question is an argument from ignorance, and thus pointless.

Gaul - any response to my red herring and other arguments on page 5? Or are they too off topic for you? In particular I'd be interested in your response to my visual observations that were unaided/unapproved by experts.

Thanks for your response!

a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

Well what do you expect people to do? Try to arrest Bush or Cheney?

Actually, I think that's been tried..

I think the focus by most conspiracy theorists is on reaching a critical mass, without that real change won't be possible.

Personally I don't really give a damn these days, let the chips fall where they may. Either people will wake up to tyranny or tyranny will wake them up itself.

As for chemtrails, I never were convinced of their reality.

a reply to: sorgfelt

in particular due to one or more military whistleblowers who are being ignored or lost in the noise.

Would one of those be named Kristen Meghan?

Some of it are poorly controlled, non-secret weather modification attempts by localities, some of it are secret experiments by the military.

You mean like cloudseeding, and your not talking about HAARP are you?

a reply to: ugmold

Ah, but when I was a child in the 60's, contrails never lingered. Never.

So because they didn't persist where you were that means they didn't elsewhere?

I find it interesting that they lingered during the second world war...



www.457thbombgroup.org...

But miraculously stopped during the 60's...and yet they are back again, how does that work?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I indicated that there were in fact four different jet fuels in use, not two as I was told by another member.

You got it backwards. You can use Jet fuel in a coleman lantern. But you would be insane to use coleman lantern kerosene in a jet engine.

Another member asked if I saw a sprayer nozzle apparatus...from six miles away as he put it... I suggested it could be as easy as an orifice under the nacelle. It didn't need to be anything as large and dramatic as a nozzle array visible from miles away.

The absence of proof does not preclude its existence. It simply means that it has not yet been discovered. This thought process has been the impetus of every major scientific discovery since the beginning of time. And you call it an argument for ignorance. The basis for our understanding of the universe itself is theory, that which is yet to be proven. Theory is not an argument for ignorance, it is the desire for knowledge. Your attitude sucks. :-)

originally posted by: Flesh699
The real conspiracy here is that JET FUEL IS USED ABOVE OUR HEADS. A nasty toxin is showering down upon everyone. Everyone wants to get all bent over Chem Trails but never stops to think about what actually is coming down on their heads like fuel. It's real, it is provable, and it is a threat to good health.

I guess your head might explode if you know what comes out of cars and some industrial factories right here at ground level.

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Ah, but when I was a child in the 60's, contrails never lingered. Never.

Yes, they did. Since the beginning of powered flight. Whenever conditions were right for contrail formation.


Please don't disregard reality in favor of unicorns.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Those are amazing contrails for a bunch of fighter planes.....do you think they all were dogfighting above 30,000 feet ?

a reply to: network dude

It is indeed interesting, where I live the last 2 years the amount of contrails is way down lol,
Has dramatically dropped and most of them do not occur, I presume that UNfavorable conditions now exist and it makes it harder for those pesky trails to form ?

I for one, miss the summers blanketed in haze as they were for the previous 9 years until last year and this year!

Please Help!!!

a reply to: ParasuvO

Those are amazing contrails for a bunch of fighter planes.....do you think they all were dogfighting above 30,000 feet ?

Who said they were from fighter planes, and who said anything about them being from dog fights above 30,000 ft?

a reply to: ParasuvO
The dogfights were between bomber escorts and attacking fighters. The bombers were at high altitudes and so were the dogfights because the attacking fighters were trying to get to the bombers.

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Ah, but when I was a child in the 60's, contrails never lingered. Never.

First of all. Yes they did. I remember them in the 70s. And other members have shown you that they do.

But let's say you are right and they didn't exist back then...so what? How is that proof of chemtrails? Out of all the possible reasons that would be possible, vastly different engine types, different fuels maybe, different plane designs, higher altitudes and changing climate...All very real and very possible, you lock on to an almost impossible logistically fantasy? When I see something I can't explain, my first thought isn't "magic!"...even if I have no way of explaining what I saw.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Well, since I don't know where you are, I can only ask, what it is that you would like? I still see a few on days that they are expected due to conditions. But where I live, in Dunn, NC, south East US, we don't get the blanketed skies that others complain about. I have taken recent pictures of them around me. But they are still just contrails. Just like they appear to have always been.

Please, tell us your APPROXIMATE location, and perhaps we can all be amazed at why planes suddenly stopped flying over your house.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: network dude

It is indeed interesting, where I live the last 2 years the amount of contrails is way down lol,
Has dramatically dropped and most of them do not occur, I presume that UNfavorable conditions now exist and it makes it harder for those pesky trails to form ?

I for one, miss the summers blanketed in haze as they were for the previous 9 years until last year and this year!

Please Help!!!

Do have any statistical analysis to support that conclusion? Or is it from your infallible perception based on staring at the sky 24/7, 365 days a year?

Or don't you actually do that?

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Those are amazing contrails for a bunch of fighter planes.....do you think they all were dogfighting above 30,000 feet ?

Probably not 30,000 feet - the bombers were probably 24-26,000 feet if they were B-17's. But there may have been dogfights above that between escorts and interceptors attempting to dive onto the bombers.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: network dude

It is indeed interesting, where I live the last 2 years the amount of contrails is way down lol,
Has dramatically dropped and most of them do not occur, I presume that UNfavorable conditions now exist and it makes it harder for those pesky trails to form ?

I for one, miss the summers blanketed in haze as they were for the previous 9 years until last year and this year!

Please Help!!!

Can I ask a question? What is more likely? That you mistaken...an easy thing to happen. We are human after all and there are probably things and conditions that you are missing or you think you see/don't see...or that there is a huge, INCREDIBLY complex global spraying operation going on, involving hundreds of thousand of chemists, pilots, engineers, ground crew and investigators all keeping quite about it all....For 20 or so years.

How does one make the jump to that conclusion? I don't understand. .maybe because I studied physics at uni I am of the mindset that claims and theories require testable and repeatable proof. Persistent contrails have that. We can explain every single facet of them. From how and when they will form to the unusual shapes they can take and the "menacing" stopping and starting. All this is readily accessible to anyone with moderate critical thinking.

You don't have to believe us debunks. ..learn the basics a science and come to your own conclusions. I guarantee, if you study honestly and from proper science source, you will get the answers as we are giving.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

I indicated that there were in fact four different jet fuels in use, not two as I was told by another member.

You got it backwards. You can use Jet fuel in a coleman lantern. But you would be insane to use coleman lantern kerosene in a jet engine.

not really - the engines I used to work on had fuel control unit settings for petrol and diesel, as well as for Jet A1. The engines would probably run just fine - perhaps not as efficiently as using the right fuel, and presumably with more risk of whatever the additives were supposed to prevent.

Another member asked if I saw a sprayer nozzle apparatus...from six miles away as he put it... I suggested it could be as easy as an orifice under the nacelle. It didn't need to be anything as large and dramatic as a nozzle array visible from miles away.

And as I pointed out there is no evidence of such things from any distance - lots of planes are photographed in very high resolution at airports from short distances - feel free to identify anything suspicious to you.

The absence of proof does not preclude its existence. It simply means that it has not yet been discovered.

You forgot option B - it doesn't exist.

This thought process has been the impetus of every major scientific discovery since the beginning of time. And you call it an argument for ignorance.

No I do not. there is a considerable difference between thinking "I wonder if something exists?" and "There's no evidence something exists therefore it must do so and I won't accept non-results of al the tests"

In the former you test for the presence of something - if you do nto find it you examine your tests - if the tests are inadequate of you have a better idea you try new versions. If the best tests show now evidence you conclude "what I am testing for doesn't exist" - it is entirely possible someone may find a better test at some later time and prove the existence, but you do not decide that is going to happen and therefore what you seek exists despite you not finding any evidence at all.

The basis for our understanding of the universe itself is theory, that which is yet to be proven. Theory is not an argument for ignorance, it is the desire for knowledge. Your attitude sucks. :-)

You should have looked at eth link to see what an argument from ignorance actually is - it does not say you are ignorant....although in this case you are certainly trying to disprove that!!

a reply to: Vroomfondel

If you could get a Dash One for the B-52, under the emergency fuel list, one of the fuels listed is kerosene. You have to tear the engines down after, and its inefficient as hell, and could damage the engines, but it would fly with kerosene fuel.

Nothing Gaul?