An explanation of those white lines in the sky behind planes.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jbowenh

originally posted by: network dude
This debate seems to be a difficult one to have. One side is based on science fact, the other, seems to either disregard the facts, or flat out doesn't believe them. In an effort to find out which of the two that is, I'd like to ask that anyone who disagrees with this science, offer an alternative explanation to what makes contrails persist. Keep in mind that all the science offered here is what has been taught to everyone in the field for decades.
Here is a start:
www.wrh.noaa.gov...

What is a contrail and how does it form?


To answer this question, lets first identify what a contrail is. A contrail is the condensation trail that is left behind by a passing jet plane. Contrails form when hot humid air from jet exhaust mixes with environmental air of low vapor pressure and low temperature. Vapor pressure is just a fancy term for the amount of pressure that is exerted by water vapor itself (as opposed to atmospheric, or barometric, pressure which is due to the weight of the entire atmosphere above you). The mixing occurs directly behind the plane due to the turbulence generated by the engine. If condensation (conversion from a gas to a liquid) occurs, then a contrail becomes visible. Since air temperatures at these high atmospheric levels are very cold (generally colder than -40 F), only a small amount of liquid is necessary for condensation to occur. Water is a normal byproduct of combustion in engines.

Here is a page with some very specific information:
cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...

So again, if you believe in the chemtrail theory, that's fine. As long as you understand it's just a theory. But if the above cannot be dis proven, then the age old "just look up" "I can see them with my own eyes" is proof of nothing but reaffirming the fact that contrails exist.
Contrails:

(BTW-that thing sticking up is a driver, this pic was taken on the #1 hole a golf course.)

i believe you have misunderstood the entire debate based on the basic information you have presented. The arguement is not based on the factual existence of contrails. It is the difference between seeing a jet fly over head at decent altitude making a trail and having a crop duster fly over you all day long spraying large amounts of _______ at illegally low altitudes. I argue with you because my brother comes at me with your very same argument. Contrails are not chemtrails.

The chemtrail side claims that any trail lasting for more than "X" number of minutes is a chemtrail, because contrails can't persist. THAT is the conspiracy theory that I am trying to explain against. The pointing to a contrail in a picture and claiming that it's a chemtrail.

What is amusing with the persistent contrail theory, at least from my perspective. If it stays a cloud and stays up in the sky, how does it affect you? It didn't come down, it stayed up in the sky! Look up! There's your evidence!

originally posted by: network dude
As has been said before, your whitsleblowers only bring their opinions to the discussion.

One has to use knowledge of the goings on in the world that have taken place since 9/11, in general, to put the testimony of whistleblowers into perspective.

It is a matter of one's frame of reference. The topic of geoengineering should be viewed within the larger picture of the New World Order agenda of those who believe themselves to be the elite because they think they are superior to the rest of us.

In such a world, the wherewithal of the general public to establish proof regarding world affairs is not possible because nothing is the way it should be in a world of control by deception - what the elite refer to as the "noble lie."

No, the whistleblowers are not expressing opinions. They are courageously sounding an alarm.

And believing someone because they tell you what you want to hear is silly.

Please stop and listen to yourself there.

Rather an arrogant statement, that is.

a reply to: ConnectDots

All it takes is some hard data, some REAL evidence to prove the chemtrail theory. I mean look up for f's sake. So THERE is your evidence. Go get it. Show the world you were right.

One has to use knowledge of the goings on in the world that have taken place since 9/11, in general, to put the testimony of whistleblowers into perspective.

It is a matter of one's frame of reference. The topic of geoengineering should be viewed within the larger picture of the New World Order agenda of those who believe themselves to be the elite because they think they are superior to the rest of us.

In such a world, the wherewithal of the general public to establish proof regarding world affairs is not possible because nothing is the way it should be in a world of control by deception - what the elite refer to as the "noble lie."

The other day I sat down in my car, ready to drive home. It was dark outside, but I've never seen anything like this... I couldn't see ANYTHING through my windows! I'm assuring you, this wasn't normal! My windows were all fogged up! This never happened before! I'm sure it's some nefarious chemical that's being sprayed on car windows by secret government agents.

Now this is very dangerous information, and I'm risking my life by bringing this information out to you all. But in my opinion it's worth the risk! I'll risk my life so you can be warned!

Oh I also found a solution. Once I turned on the blower in my car and had it blow on the windows, the chemicals magically dissolved. Well they appeared to do so anyway, but the chemicals may still be there. So I suggest you step outside your car as you unfog your windows, you know, just to be sure. Also wear a gasmask while you're driving your car, bacause the chemicals may still be in there.

So how do I know chemicals must be involved? Well normally windows NEVER fog up like that. Sure you might get a bit of mist, but it usually goes away after a few seconds. So that's why chemicals HAVE to be involved.

I know it all sounds laughable, but this the level of nuttyness of the 'chemtrail theory'. Your 'courageous whistleblowers' are a bunch of crackpots!

Anyway, so all this is to do with a post 9/11 plan being executed right? So how do you explain persisting contrails before 9/11?

No, the whistleblowers are not expressing opinions. They are courageously sounding an alarm.

Nope they're not. Both whistleblowers you mention are pathological liars, as has been shown over and over again.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: occrest

Did you watch that video? Please tell me at what point do they discuss spraying anyone with anything? I believe they were discussing mixing it with flu vaccine. And real or not, it's irrelevant to contrails. Please try to stay on topic.

It's a hoax anyway

a reply to: ConnectDots

The problem is, your knowledge of the shadow government that "may" exist, doesn't change the laws of physics. the same laws that explain how things work. Until you can show me how any other chemical than water can be sprayed and spread out into a cloud like substance, I am afraid all the whistlblowing is just hot air. (pun intended)

a reply to: ConnectDots

I feel that the contrail - chemtrail debate is a waste of time because it's too easy to obfuscate the issue ad infinitum.

And yet, here you are, seemingly attempting to obfuscate the issue further. Wouldn't it be better to clear it up a bit?
What issues do you have with the science that explains contrails? Why should folks dismiss it in favor of the myths emanating from the chemigod of Mt. Shasta?

a reply to: ConnectDots

How is someone that says they knew nothing of chemtrails, until they learned about them on the Internet, and says point blank they're not a whistleblower about them, considered a whistleblower about chemtrails?

When did we move to bizzaro world?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Duh, she was in the Air Force. Therefore, she knows all about any clandestine operations.
All military people do. Every one of them.

a reply to: network dude

You are narrowing yourself to the knowledge of science that you think is all there is, because you're mainstream, correct?

This is where it is necessary to open up your mind to technology that is secret.

If you are unwilling to explore the world of black projects, by listening to alternative sources, since that's the only place you'll find the information; you can't be informed.

It's impossible.

a reply to: ConnectDots
Water in the atmosphere freezing at -40° is a black project?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

You are narrowing yourself to the knowledge of science that you think is all there is, because you're mainstream, correct?

This is where it is necessary to open up your mind to technology that is secret.

If you are unwilling to explore the world of black projects, by listening to alternative sources, since that's the only place you'll find the information; you can't be informed.

It's impossible.

OK, I'll entertain your idea. We are discussing those white puffy lines in the sky.
In order for me to disregard the "mainstream" science that has explained them as contrails for almost 100 years, I will need an alternative theory.

Please present me with an alternative theory, or link me to someone else's alternative theory explaining what they are and how they work.

Unlike most chemtrail believers, I will click your link and read the content.

I am sitting on the fence here, only because I can't find multiple recently detailed studies of contrail chemistry (plane exhaust) that gives me the "beyond a doubt" realization that toxic particulate matter does indeed exist in contrails. I did find one, however, from MIT, so now the very low toxic particular emissions from plane exhaust seems to be a factor in acknowledging the fact that contrails may not be composed entirely of water, if we can believe the engineers at MIT.

Sulfur in jet fuel is a major killer, but for a small additional cost "on the order of [U.S.] five cents a gallon, you can remove the vast majority of the sulfur," he said.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Then I read that air pollution due to vehicle transportation far outweighs all other types of toxic particulate air pollution, which makes me wonder if people are just misguided as to exactly where the bulk of the toxins actually arise.

The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

news.mit.edu...

a reply to: ConnectDots

Because everyone knows that the DIA, in its never ending quest to find leaks of classified information both only reads and only checks mainstream sites and totally ignores alternative sites.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

a reply to: network dude

it doesn't have to be a jet aircraft to leave a contrail. In WWII pilots were given the "contrail altitude" in their briefings. The "contrail altitude" is the altitude where conditions will allow the formation of contrails due to pressure changes or airflow vortexes.

In the 80's we were still briefed on the "contrail altitude" before each flight.

a reply to: InTheLight

Aircraft engines are much like any other internal combustion engine, in that it's exhaust has pollution. Aloysius the Gaul has a graphic that shows the amount of contaminants in the process.

But the bad stuff is invisible and present from engine start to engine stop.
The stuff you see that looks like a long cloud is frozen water droplets. Just like a cirrus cloud.
science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: JIMC5499

Yep, I worked on C-130s (turbo prop engines) And when flying in formation at times we could see contrails from the plane in front.

a reply to: network dude

I always used to love the really humid days when you'd get the trails on the ground either going into the intake or off the props over the wing.

a reply to: network dude

So, contrails are indeed chemtrails...same thing. Now I can agree with my friend when she rants on and on about chemtrails.

a reply to: Zaphod58

When we stopped in Zagreb to refuel, it was snowy, windy and cold, and the props made the coolest trails while taxying. They were like a swirl inside a cone that went about 30 feet behind each engine. It looked cool, but in order to see all that, you had to be the crew chief fueling the plane, and watching others take off. So it was a bit chilly. On the same trip, we went to Split and had 75 degrees and beautiful sunshine about 20 minutes later. (time might have been off, I napped a bit)