I was in Palmdale and the Chem-trail pollution was off the charts

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: fema1
Chemtrails are associated with weather modification and I speculate HAARP. So now the debate begins!

And, sadly, ends as abruptly as it began.

HAARP hasn't been online for over a year. To the best of my knowledge, UAF hasn't done more than basic timing alignment and warm up runs to make sure the equipment is intact.

Haarp was online 20 days ago.

a reply to: fema1

what is the scale of " the charts " ?

a reply to: fema1

Someone was transmitting on 3.8 MHz, but that's all you can tell from that. If I was at Chez Bedlam, I could generate you a couple of kW of the same thing with a key.

eta: Dr Fallen confirmed the first full power runs under UAF's ownership took place Feb 20. I'm impressed it's back in operational shape, it was sort of abandoned at the end.

a reply to: network dude


Doesn't jet fuel have aluminium in it now?

Undeniable proof would be close-up footage of these planes while spraying..not likely to happen - not yet, anyway

It is not common to see contrails, because certain conditions must exist first, and this is somewhat rare, generally.

These other trails are seen daily, around the world, and that would never, ever happen if it were actual contrails. Because the conditions for contrails to form are rare - not around the world, daily.


It matters not if we had proof of this, anyway. The mass media would never speak about it. Nothing is proven if the mass media doesn't announce it as proof. Which means it wouldn't be considered as 'proof' of chemtrails, same way, as usual..

a reply to: turbonium1

Somewhat rare? They're more common with the new engines than ever before. They've proven that high bypass turbofans leave both contrails and persistent contrails at altitudes that low and medium bypass turbofans never did.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: fema1
They are poisoning us by a wide spread program! When will we bring the government criminals to justice? People are driving around acting insane and people everywhere, their health is making them act in an adverse manner. The U.S. Airforce must stop this even if they disobey orders. The Cabal must and should be stopped!

Lets look at this in a different light...

Water is H2O and that means it only has 10 atoms total. This is very light and so water vapor is able to float, we call them clouds, contrails etc...

When you see a contrail and if it is floating and looks to be growing, it is a water contrail like in your picture.

If the contrail runs downward in steaks and stays thin/not growing then it is a chemtrail...chemicals are very complex modules and so are very heavy and you would see long streaks as they descended to earth. Also, dumping chemicals would typically be done at very low altitudes since at 30,000 feet you would quickly get parts per trillion before it reached the ground and so not making it very effective.

10 atoms, huh? Let's see. H2O means 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen. Even in Common Core math, that makes 3. And the number of atoms per molecule has nothing to do with floating. Molar mass and density does matter. And you say, "chemicals are very complex modules." When talking about chemicals, terms like atoms, molecular weight, or molar mass are used, not "module." And, again, density is what makes something float. If a given volume is less dense than air, it floats . Since the chemmies never say what the supposed trail is made of, it's a little hard to calculate its density.

a reply to: anonentity

Metal in jet fuel is a bad thing. It can change the way fuel burns, and cause wear and tear on the engine itself. Engines have a finite life and are one of the biggest maintenance costs, so you want to try to extend their life as long as possible.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

Somewhat rare? They're more common with the new engines than ever before. They've proven that high bypass turbofans leave both contrails and persistent contrails at altitudes that low and medium bypass turbofans never did.

The environment hasn't changed, however, and that's the problem here. It is not possible to have contrails daily, globally, because of this environmental factor.

It's an excuse, but no go.

a reply to: turbonium1

The engines did though. The engines currently used are bypassing as much as 90% of the air taken into the inlet. That means a lot more air being compressed and pushed around the engine, resulting in much more cool, moist air being pumped out.

You can try to hand wave it away all you want, but it's been proven that high bypass turbofans leave more contrails, and leave them in conditions where older engines never did.



Unless you're going to claim that they blatantly sprayed a chemtrail for a scientific paper.

The thermodynamic analysis, which is the result of
first-principle arguments, implies that aircraft and engines,
performing with a higher overall propulsion effi-
ciency release a smaller fraction of the combustion heat
during cruise into the exhaust plume, and hence cause
plume conditions which during mixing reach higher relative
humidity for the same ambient temperature and
hence form contrails also at higher ambient temperatures.
Hence aircraft will form contrails more frequently when
using more fuel efficient engines.

A recent case study with two airliners with different
engines, with details reported in a parallel publication
[36], shows that an altitude range exists in which the
aircraft with high overall propulsion efficiency causes
contrails while the aircraft with lower efficiency causes
none, as predicted by the theory.
The analysis of contrail impact on radiative forcing
performed so far [7,18,20] implies that future aircraft
with higher propulsion efficiencies cause more contrails

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

originally posted by: fema1
@ network dude

But you do have to first admit that you might not have all the answers.

I admit I don't have all the answers and I rationally know you don't either! But if you really claim to require an honest debate then read the entirety of this document.

chemtrails

J._Marvin_Herndon

Author of the retracted chemtrail document

I don't have them all, but I have a few. Marvin Herndon, Coal fly ash guy. Sadly, he introduced a new theory that debunks all previous theories about what is in a "chemtrail", but you folks don't even see that, you just see some sort of validation of chemtrails. Read what he wrote, then think about his methods. Any chance what he captured came from a source other than planes at 35,000 feet?

I have seen all the usual stuff Wiggington posts and Rense parrots.

If you are honest, I can show you that persistent contrails that look an awful lot like the trails you showed have been around since the 60's and before.

Then I can point you to where you can learn about how clouds form, and how close clouds are to contrails.

Then I can point you to where to learn how incoming weather fronts increase the likelihood of contrails and why.

But you have to be honest and want to learn. If you are quite sure you already know this, but somehow just "know" chemtrails exist, but aren't willing to explain how you can tell the difference by sight alone, nobody can help you.

originally posted by: D8Tee

Where did you come up with the idea that water contains ten atoms?

What you figure is in these chemicals they are supposedly spraying which you think are very complex modules?
Not all chemicals are complex, in all reality, water itself is a chemical.

Hydrogen is the lightest element of 1, Oxygen is 8. What I meant to say is there are 10 protons, 10 neutrons and 10 electrons that make up water. In any case very light.

Can you give me an example of one of these chemicals that you might think they are dumping? When I say "chemicals" I'm not implying the basic elements that are chemicals, but the substances that people think are being dumped. As example: if they were dropping a form of a psychedelic drug we would be looking at C20 H25 N3O, rather heavier than H2O.

originally posted by: F4guy
Since the chemmies never say what the supposed trail is made of, it's a little hard to calculate its density.

Do you think it is lighter than water? Do you think it can expand in air like water vapor/ice can? With all this dumping why haven't we taken some samples...I'm sure a 100 universities would love to test it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

With all this dumping why haven't we taken some samples.

It's been done. Quite a bit, actually.

scholar.google.com...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: F4guy
Since the chemmies never say what the supposed trail is made of, it's a little hard to calculate its density.

Do you think it is lighter than water? Do you think it can expand in air like water vapor/ice can? With all this dumping why haven't we taken some samples...I'm sure a 100 universities would love to test it.

I have offered a number of times, in these chemtrail threads, to rent out our lab's Lear 25, for just the cost of fuel, to anyone who wants to go up to 35,000 feet or so and take a sample to test. That way someone can both test and make a contrail.. So far, no one is willing to put their money where their mouth is. And we have the equipment to do a qualitative analysis of whatever is grabbed. We can do GC/MS testing, visable and IR spectroscopy, HPLC, and x--ray diffraction or crystallography.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: network dude


Doesn't jet fuel have aluminium in it now?

No, that would destroy the engines. There are additives commonly added or blended in at the refinery, but these are organic chemicals to prevent ice crystal formation and biot growth that would clog fuel lines and filters. The most common additive is Prist, which is primarily comprised of diethylene glycol monomethyl ether.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: F4guy
Since the chemmies never say what the supposed trail is made of, it's a little hard to calculate its density.

Do you think it is lighter than water? Do you think it can expand in air like water vapor/ice can? With all this dumping why haven't we taken some samples...I'm sure a 100 universities would love to test it.

I have offered a number of times, in these chemtrail threads, to rent out our lab's Lear 25, for just the cost of fuel, to anyone who wants to go up to 35,000 feet or so and take a sample to test. That way someone can both test and make a contrail.. So far, no one is willing to put their money where their mouth is. And we have the equipment to do a qualitative analysis of whatever is grabbed. We can do GC/MS testing, visable and IR spectroscopy, HPLC, and x--ray diffraction or crystallography.

I think you and Phage proved my point in at some aspect of the conspiracy you need actual data of the air to help your case that these are chemtrail with a purpose other than the normal contrails.

a reply to: fema1

I did not read all the replies so if already posted sorry. This guy ( Dane Wigington GeoengineeringWatch.org ) has many videos .... I think the first time I heard him was on Coast to coast and he is all over the supposedly Heavy metal chemical polution story and what he says is being sprayed for climate change. If he is correct then hang on to your nickers..

Found the coast to coast video youtu.be...


If interested look up his name on youtube

originally posted by: Phage
It's been done. Quite a bit, actually.

So, who is this "in-situ" fella? Sounds like some sort of damned furriner. Does a lot of observation, though.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

The engines did though. The engines currently used are bypassing as much as 90% of the air taken into the inlet. That means a lot more air being compressed and pushed around the engine, resulting in much more cool, moist air being pumped out.

You can try to hand wave it away all you want, but it's been proven that high bypass turbofans leave more contrails, and leave them in conditions where older engines never did.

Unless you're going to claim that they blatantly sprayed a chemtrail for a scientific paper.

The thermodynamic analysis, which is the result of
first-principle arguments, implies that aircraft and engines,
performing with a higher overall propulsion effi-
ciency release a smaller fraction of the combustion heat
during cruise into the exhaust plume, and hence cause
plume conditions which during mixing reach higher relative
humidity for the same ambient temperature and
hence form contrails also at higher ambient temperatures.
Hence aircraft will form contrails more frequently when
using more fuel efficient engines.

A recent case study with two airliners with different
engines, with details reported in a parallel publication
[36], shows that an altitude range exists in which the
aircraft with high overall propulsion efficiency causes
contrails while the aircraft with lower efficiency causes
none, as predicted by the theory.
The analysis of contrail impact on radiative forcing
performed so far [7,18,20] implies that future aircraft
with higher propulsion efficiencies cause more contrails

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

You claim "it's been proven that high bypass turbofans leave more contrails, and leave them in conditions where older engines never did."

Then you cite a source that says nothing about being "proven". They say it "implies" twice, though. So are you making false claims about being "proven"? Show me where it mentions being "proven", or retract your false claim..

Here's some information that says just the opposite...

High-bypass turbofan engines do not create condensation trails. The ratio of air-to-exhaust is much too high to facilitate the formation of condensation because the majority of air expelled from the back of the engine is not combusted. It is passed through the "fan" and simply blown out the back without mixing with any fuel at all.

Turbine engines are the power plant for high-bypass turbofans. Turbine engines are used in other applications besides powering jets. They are also used to power helicopters and many prop driven planes, yet we never see trails coming from these types of vehicles, and the reason is simple. Turbine engines virtually never produce condensation trails.

More to read on contrails...

Every Condition is Wrong for Contrail Formation
The formation of condensation trails requires vacuum (reduction in air pressure), cold temperatures, and high humidity, however, the output side of a jet engine contains mostly outside air that has been pushed through the engine by the large ducted fan (The ducted fan is the set of spinning blades that you see when you look at the front of the engine). This high-pressure at the output of the engine is contrary for the formation of condensation trails because pressurized air has the ability to hold much more water in suspension, without producing condensation.


www.geoengineeringwatch.org...


I prefer the truth, which has nothing to hide, or deceive, or mislead.