Lets settle contrails vs nano dispersion

Seems weird that we do not see trails that are half formed more often.

How come all the trails look so well formed if the conditions are a factor?

So you guys even have a list of factors?

To me it seems simple like thickness and temperature of the air and water content.

a reply to: Phage

Why must i prove it? This is very secretive tech with unknown sideaffects. Why am i held to a different standard then you? The only thing debunkers do is give a possible of what it could be and act as if this debunks it. So you can find data on contrails but non on airquility and soil/foodsamples?

a reply to: 2giveup

How does air quality prove where anything came from? All that does is prove something is there, not where it's from.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Testing the trails. Sorry for misleading. Just trying to show people that saying these lines in the sky are contrails does not disprove it. I believe there are hundreds of applications that we can and do benefit from. Take silver for example its in sneakers washing machines and some ointments. Its used in inhalers. Just becuase the info out there is about proposed ideas and applications doesnt mean the are not testing in secret before posting results.

a reply to: waynos
Ok i will ask about you at baphomet/baph/bap. (not going to becuase it doesnt change the topic at hand)The point of my post is there is no winner until real data is presented. I am just waking people up to the fact contrail science does not debunk it. It seems you have a problem with me doing this. Why? I guess i am just making this up also. What do you gain from this issue? Money? Gratification you decieved someone? You guys are so technical, so start saying contrails are only a possible answer.

Just becuase you work for them does not mean you are one of them.

a reply to: 2giveup

I am just waking people up to the fact contrail science does not debunk it.

Yes it does.

And saying it doesn't debunk it without actually proving how it doesn't isn't proof they are real.

Why? I guess i am just making this up also.

That's the first step admitting to making it up...good job.

You guys are so technical, so start saying contrails are only a possible answer.

Well until it can be proven otherwise it is.

What do you gain from this issue? Money? Gratification you decieved someone?

That should be something asked to those who push the chemtrail (nano dispersion for you) hoax, as that is their goal...deceive, and ask for donations while doing it.

Just becuase you work for them does not mean you are one of them.

Classic answer...if you don't agree with me you must be working for them.

Why does the OP keep banging on about nano dispersion like it's a thing? Has anyone figured out what (s)he's on about yet?

originally posted by: 2giveup
a reply to: Zaphod58

Testing the trails. Sorry for misleading. Just trying to show people that saying these lines in the sky are contrails does not disprove it. I believe there are hundreds of applications that we can and do benefit from. Take silver for example its in sneakers washing machines and some ointments. Its used in inhalers. Just becuase the info out there is about proposed ideas and applications doesnt mean the are not testing in secret before posting results.

And it doesn't mean they are either. In fact, it would be quite a stretch to think they were. Especially a the level you and your friends would have us believe. (every trail that lasts longer than X must be a chemtrail)

But with testing, we know what some of those test were. They told us before they did them. NASA told everyone they were going to send up a rocket and release a trail of Lithium. They did it. (for the record, that was a real chemtrail) At this point, nobody is talking about actually doing any of the SMR experiments they have been working on, just trying to figure out the implications of such an action. And they are very vocal about it. But that isn't the kind of thing you and your buddies look at. You go to garbage sites and swallow any turd they offer you.

The debunking has become laughable. When one of you make the claim that these lines in the sky can not be made by man because they are "too heavy" for airplanes to carry. It really brings the whole lot down together. If you guys can't even understand that humans have created such trails and ways of doing it are very lightweight then how can any person take you all serious when even such a simple concept of burning oil or using dry ice to create a trail seems to evade your logic. However you all do have one thing going for you and that is most people do not care about such and that allows for your shared delusion to spread. You should be ashamed.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
The debunking has become laughable. When one of you make the claim that these lines in the sky can not be made by man because they are "too heavy" for airplanes to carry. It really brings the whole lot down together. If you guys can't even understand that humans have created such trails and ways of doing it are very lightweight then how can any person take you all serious when even such a simple concept of burning oil or using dry ice to create a trail seems to evade your logic. However you all do have one thing going for you and that is most people do not care about such and that allows for your shared delusion to spread. You should be ashamed.

all you need to do is explain where to find the science that explains how the trails are now able to be created "lighter" as you say.

I doubt you understand why that statement is made. The visible lines in the sky that "look an awful lot like cirrus clouds", and spread across the sky, blending into a layer of cirrus, reacts like the chemical process that creates clouds. All that is well understood by anyone in the scientific community.

You seem to now think that some alternative compound or chemical can be used to produce the same affect. If so, sweet. News to all of science. New things are discovered all the time. But I am sure you can understand this little factoid, everyone will need just a bit more than your opinion on this matter. We need the type of chemical involved, and how it's reaction to temperature, humidity, and nucleation, appears the same as H20.

A link to a site that explains it, or a link to some peer reviewed paper should be fine.

Thanks in advance for your contribution to science.

a reply to: network dude
Find your own science.

To make a line in the sky is possible.

We seen examples of this a couple decades ago before all the emissions testing of auto.

Now if you now want to throw other details in there like dissipating into cloud formations then that is all together beyond the scope of the original unchecked statement of trails are impossible to make because the equipment is too heavy.

I have givin ample opportunity to the deniers to prove your points but they do not hold water.

The only thing the deniers have going for them is that it seems exhaust trails would look the same with or without additives.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
The debunking has become laughable. When one of you make the claim that these lines in the sky can not be made by man because they are "too heavy" for airplanes to carry. It really brings the whole lot down together. If you guys can't even understand that humans have created such trails and ways of doing it are very lightweight then how can any person take you all serious when even such a simple concept of burning oil or using dry ice to create a trail seems to evade your logic. However you all do have one thing going for you and that is most people do not care about such and that allows for your shared delusion to spread. You should be ashamed.

A child could understand what we said more than you clearly have. That is all i have to say. Keep playing dumb mate, i hope it serves you well in life.

Serious question: Are you 13 or 14 years old? That would explain a lot and might make us understand why you argue the way you do.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Well, it seems you have won the internet today. Congrats. I suppose it's easy to do when you make the perimeters after the discussion.

If you do ever care to have an adult conversation about this, let me know.
I will be on the side that tries to explain contrails in their appearance. I am not trying to argue that things cannot be sprayed from a plane.

BTW, exhaust has jack # to do with contrails.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
The debunking has become laughable. When one of you make the claim that these lines in the sky can not be made by man because they are "too heavy" for airplanes to carry. It really brings the whole lot down together. If you guys can't even understand that humans have created such trails and ways of doing it are very lightweight then how can any person take you all serious when even such a simple concept of burning oil or using dry ice to create a trail seems to evade your logic. However you all do have one thing going for you and that is most people do not care about such and that allows for your shared delusion to spread. You should be ashamed.

You know, you are being very arrogant, with absolutely nothing to be arrogant about.

By banging on about dry ice and oil, while bleating about trails being "lightweight", you are simply demonstrating the limitless depths of your own ignorance.

Here's a guide designed for children, I hope it's not beyond you, and if you believe it's wrong, p,ease explain why.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Now, if you've read and u derstood what that is saying, remember that the visible horizon, from East to West, or North to South as you wish, is about 400 miles. So a contrail halfway across the sky is about 200 miles long and 200 feet wide. Extrapolate that across the information in the link for a *clue* into the potential weight of a contrail.

This is why it's too heavy for a plane to have carried to that location. Every payload has mass. What substance can be released from the hold of an aircraft for 200 miles and create a thick, visible trail that is 200ft wide and completely opaque? Your dry ice and oil trail comparisons are so far wide of the mark that merely mentioning them makes you look stupid. Thinking that nano particles would be visible *at all* from seven miles high just makes you look even stupider.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: network dude
Find your own science.

To make a line in the sky is possible.

Yes, it is possible to make lines the sky. Aircraft do it every day. What has this and a smokestack on a truck got to do with your original premise about nano dispersion?

How do you expect a spray of nano particles seven miles up to be visible?

a reply to: deadeyedick

The debunking has become laughable.

Not as much as chemtrail believers and their evidence.

When one of you make the claim that these lines in the sky can not be made by man because they are "too heavy" for airplanes to carry. It really brings the whole lot down together.

WHo said they weren't man made, as a plane is man made, the engines are man made, so why wouldn't the white lines called contrails be considered man made?

And science tells us they aren't able to carry that much, but feel free to prove it wrong.

If you guys can't even understand that humans have created such trails and ways of doing it are very lightweight then how can any person take you all serious when even such a simple concept of burning oil or using dry ice to create a trail seems to evade your logic.

Please provide anything that backs this claim?

Do you really want to discuss someone taking other's seriously?

And it seems logic has evaded you.

However you all do have one thing going for you and that is most people do not care about such and that allows for your shared delusion to spread. You should be ashamed.

Shared delusion...well it is a scientifically backed delusion.

You can't say that about chemtrails now can you?

Ashamed...Really?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
You make post but say nothing.

There is mounting proof that you all are grasping.

The laughing part is that many claim science can explain the trails but you all can not even find the source of the trails yourself.

Exactly what atmospheric conditions are happening at the time we see a trail vs what is not present when they are not happening.

Seems like the ability to know what the cause is would go far in convincing anyone they are or are not real.

This is all day one stuff

a reply to: deadeyedick

You make post but say nothing.

WHy because it asks for actual proof, or is it because it doesn't agree with your idea of chemtrails?

There is mounting proof that you all are grasping.

Care to provide anything that backs this mounting proof you talk about?

The laughing part is that many claim science can explain the trails but you all can not even find the source of the trails yourself.

The source is from the engine burning fuel.

As for the science...

Contrails v Chemtrails: The Science That Debunks The Conspiracy

irishweatheronline.wordpress.com...

Exactly what atmospheric conditions are happening at the time we see a trail vs what is not present when they are not happening.

Here you go this should answer your questions...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Seems like the ability to know what the cause is would go far in convincing anyone they are or are not real.

Yes it is and we know what causes them why they persist, or become a short lived one...we know.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Excellent!

Now whenever the day comes that one can predict the trails and I can go and visually see what is being claimed then it will be over.
Till then we have many claiming this or that but are unable to go beyond a simple explanation into prediction.

So I guess it turns out that it is possible to make those trails from a plane and the contents of what makes them is contrary to statements in this thread that the trail could not be made by a plane due to weight but now we find out it only takes heat.

Again the details are eating you guys up.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: skunkape23
For what it's worth.
I used to carry a telescope to read electric meters.
I saw two planes, big ones, with plain aluminum skin, flying in opposite directions, spraying something from their tails. This was not contrails from the jet engines.
This was over Houston, TX in the mid nineties.
Make of it what you will.

Did it look anything like this:

No. The "spray" was coming from the tail. Not the engines.

www.nj.com...