Chemtrails or clouds? You decide

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mrthumpy

If this isn't a ruse by another pundit, then yes. There have been threads here about some 'xyz' agency starting the chemtrail conspiracy, somewhere, I think. Both sides being fomented to distract from the real question of sullied skies overhead.

Anyone can look up and see the miasma, any real investigation is quickly sidelined by either 'camp'.

Anyone can look up and see the miasma and they can look up information about it and discover how persistent contrails work and how they effect they climate. They also find out about the components of jet exhaust and the harm caused by the chemicals on the ground and in the air. It's not like the information is hidden.

I really don't see why you get upset about the contrail 'camp' pointing out that what we're seeing is very real and a result of the exhaust products from aircraft engines burning tonnes of kerosene an hour.

I would have thought your problem would be with those claiming that what we see in the skies has absolutely nothing to do with engine exhaust

a reply to: mrthumpy

So it was a ruse.

I really don't see why you get upset about the contrail 'camp' pointing out that what we're seeing is very real and a result of the exhaust products from aircraft engines burning tonnes of kerosene an hour.

I'm not the one that gets 'upset'.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mrthumpy

So it was a ruse.

Not a ruse at all. SOMEBODY must have started the hoax and it really does distract attention from the very real problems caused by burning tonnes of kerosene. There must have been some motivation for starting the hoax so I'm wondering who you think started it and why.

I really don't see why you get upset about the contrail 'camp' pointing out that what we're seeing is very real and a result of the exhaust products from aircraft engines burning tonnes of kerosene an hour.

I'm not the one that gets 'upset'.

But you feel the need to keep derailing threads where it is being pointed out that what we see in the skies is the normal result of burning tonnes of kerosene rather than some fictitious project deliberately spraying trails of chemicals

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Orionx2

Just like any engine from a car, truck, train, motorcycle,

Actually the requirements for pollution are higher for surface vehicles. There are no exhaust emission devices or catalytic converters on jet engines, on the ground taxing, take off, landing or cruising hi altitude.

Fine, but the topic of this thread is about the VISIBLE condensation trail created when the hot exhaust hits the invisible water vapor in the atmosphere, causing that invisible water vapor in the atmosphere to become visible when it freezes into ice crystals.

The pollutants that are in the exhaust of a plane are virtually invisible. A plane is creating dirty exhaust whether we see that exhaust or not, so I'm not sure what contrails have to do with your argument about the pollutants in jet exhaust. Sure, the air right behind a jet (whether or not that air includes a contrail) is being polluted by soot from the jet exhaust, but that contrail per se (at least not most of it) is not the pollution. In fact, a growing and spreading contrail that lasts for hours is probably mosly free of the original soot from the jet exhaust, and is instead ice crystals forming on top of other ice crystals, rather than forming on the soot from the original exhaust.

So it seems as if two questions that could be aanswered about jet exahsut and contrails are:

Q: "Is jet exhaust a toxic pollutant?"
A: Yes it is.

Q: "Are contrails blocking sunlight, possibly creating a climate issue?"
A: Yes they block sunlight, and yes that blocked sunlight (or potential greenhouse blanket effect) is possibly causing climate issues.

However, the idea of the toxic pollution from jet exhaust should be separated from the issue of condensation trails potentially causing climate issues, because they are two very different issues.

There is a third question that is the topic of this thread, and has nothing to do with those first two questions. That third question is:

"Are those puffy white trails seen behind a plane visible clouds of toxic chemicals being intentionally sprayed from those planes as part of a secret nefarious plan to intentionally poison people?"

The answer to that is "No". They are condensation trails that are made up mostly of frozen ice crystals. They may contain the soot from the exhaust as well being just ice crystals, but they are not the visible exhaust, because the exhaust is not visible. And they certainly are not clouds of chemicals being secretly intentionally sprayed for secret nefarious purposes.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

myself and the brick wall both agree 100% with what you wrote. Your intended target willfully ignores such talk. But Kudos for trying.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The pollutants that are in the exhaust of a plane are virtually invisible.

Of course they are. Both camps see to that.

Edit: Wait oh yah, I left this thread. Sorry you'll have to continue without me.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Orionx2

Seriously? Isn't there an entire forum here dedicated to this? Our are you just being obtuse to start arguments?

Blah, blah, the whole debate is a red herring. 'Only water' and 'mystery spraying' are fabricated lies.

No. Contrails (the stuff you see) are incredibly pure water, because it has condensed out of the vapour phase. There is a reason chemists use distillation and condensation to purify substances!

That is not to say that aircraft don't cause pollution, but that is a separate issue to the contrail issue. On days with low humidity, the contrails dissipate within seconds or sometimes don't even form at all. That doesn't mean the planes are magically emitting less pollution!

a reply to: intrptr

Here now can you stay on topic.



Figure out how many tons a contrail weighs and that is your answer.

Easy enough.

Sorry on phone if pic didn't come through.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You burn a tonne of kerosene and get 3.15 tonnes of co2?

That seems like a lot of if right.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You burn a tonne of kerosene and get 3.15 tonnes of co2?

That seems like a lot of if right.

Adding 2 O for every C and Oxygen is a little heavier than Carbon so you're adding just over double the weight.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Compared to what?

You get more from ground based pollution that will effect you before anything at 36000 ft above you.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Compared to what I thought. I thought kerosene was "clean" but apparently what I was thinking of was something else. Maybe natural gas or propane. I mean, I thought for sure it was cleaner than gasoline but no.

More, after a tiny bit of research, I think what must be adding to the co2 emission for jet fuel is that they're using both kerosene and liquid oxygen, and as a result of forcing the mixture, the emission is higher than typical kerosene usage. (Typical household usage is much nearer gasoline emissions, I think.)

But then again, maybe clean means soot or CO (not CO2), or maybe it's just a sells pitch I heard once upon a time?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

More, after a tiny bit of research, I think what must be adding to the co2 emission for jet fuel is that they're using both kerosene and liquid oxygen, and as a result of forcing the mixture, the emission is higher than typical kerosene usage. (Typical household usage is much nearer gasoline emissions, I think.)

Why would you think they are using liquid oxygen in the combustion process (I suppose you mean as an oxidizer)? Commercial jets don't carry a supply of LOX to aid combustion; they just use the oxygen in the air.

Or are you saying that the oxygen in the air being sucked in the front of the engine is not enough for the efficient combustion of the jet fuel?

The air being sucked into the front of the engine is more than enough for combustion. In fact, in a modern high-bypass jet engine, a relatively small amount of the total air taken in at the front of the engine is used in combustion; a larger percentage of that air bypasses the combustion chamber and is compressed to help turn the turbines, and is eventually ejected out the back.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The idea I was trying to convey was more co2 is emitted because of forced oxygen induction.

Is that wrong?

I hope you good people don't mind my trying to bring this thread back on course a bit.

So far we've zero had contributions from chemtrail believers who attempt to explain my main question in this thread. Just as a reminder:

-The main pillar in the chemtrail 'theory' is that contrails can't persist, and therefore any trail that does has to be a chemtrail.

This is being stated and repeated in many chemtrail videos and websites (see OP), but an explanation of why this is so is never given, nor is pointed out that this flies in the face of the scientific theory regarding contrails.

This lack of explanation reflects my experience in debating believers. As soon as I bring this subject up, they either stop responding, call me a shill/paid agent, get angry.. anything but a proper answer.

So what does this tell us? How come the main pillar of chemtrail theory doesn't withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny? Is anyone willng to explain this?

originally posted by: [post=21077193]mrthumpy[/post

Not a ruse at all. SOMEBODY must have started the hoax and it really does distract attention from the very real problems caused by burning tonnes of kerosene.

I have long speculated (with no evidence!) that it was am experiment. "Chemtrails" appeared just as the WWW was getting going. So someone decided to see how the WWW could be used to spread misinformation. And came up with a totally ridiculous conspiracy to try and spread and see what happens. And it went viral .....

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: [post=21077193]mrthumpy[/post

Not a ruse at all. SOMEBODY must have started the hoax and it really does distract attention from the very real problems caused by burning tonnes of kerosene.

I have long speculated (with no evidence!) that it was am experiment. "Chemtrails" appeared just as the WWW was getting going. So someone decided to see how the WWW could be used to spread misinformation. And came up with a totally ridiculous conspiracy to try and spread and see what happens. And it went viral .....

Whether the experiment was intentional or not, it sure is interesting to see how people sink their teeth in this chemtrail nonsense, and once they do it's incredibly hard to let go, apparently.

My thinking is that there's already a subculture in which anything to do with government or big companies is already viewed with suspicion (not entirely unjustified, I'd say). Part of this subculture seems to think that these entities are in control of everything that affects our life.

They often speak of 'the elite', Main stream media (which is media controlled by the elite), the illuminati (a select group of people who pull all the strings, possibly controlled by lizards, aliens or satan).. the rabbit hole goes very deep.

As this mode of thinking relies heavily on confirmation bias, pretty much anything you can think of stands a chance of getting hold of such a conspiracy-mind as long as it confirms the previous bias, or if it extrapolates previous ideas.

So in such a mind, chemtrails are almost seen as a given. It strengthens the position that the government is out to control us all in a clandestine way, and that they are essentially evil or controlled by the embodyment of evil.

That's why anyone who asks questions about chemtrails is seen as a tool of such evil. This explains some of the more extreme reactions, and the lack of critical thinking about the fundamentals of the beliefsystem.

Like in many fundamentalist religions and cults, people who ask questions are seen as a problem. Also, it really helps if you're ignorant of the science involved with contrails, because that science explains contrails really well. So you either need to ignore the science ('contrail science is also controlled by the illuminati') or make up your own pseudoscience in the hopes that the pundits swallow it hook line and sinker.

Essentially you end up living in a bubble in which you have to accept weirder and weirder ideas to keep your bubble intact. Once you take away 1 card from the house of cards, it won't take long for the whole thing to collapse. That's why many chemtrail believers prefer tyo hang out in a safe environment, an echo chamber in which their beliefs are reaffirmed over and over again.. and that's why they deeply hate skeptics, who keep questioning their beliefs.

I suspect it's also why no chemtrail believers provide an explanation in this thread. It's too close to the core of their beliefs.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: [post=21077193]mrthumpy[/post

Not a ruse at all. SOMEBODY must have started the hoax and it really does distract attention from the very real problems caused by burning tonnes of kerosene.

I have long speculated (with no evidence!) that it was am experiment. "Chemtrails" appeared just as the WWW was getting going. So someone decided to see how the WWW could be used to spread misinformation. And came up with a totally ridiculous conspiracy to try and spread and see what happens. And it went viral .....

This gives some insight into the origins