It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fake Contrails

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Fake Contrails

I may have come up with a scientific angle for debunking the assertion that contrails are a natural phenomena. The photographic evidence show that the contrails are forming no more than 1/10 of a second behind the engines which I'm hoping is long before the exhaust has a chance to cool and condense. A picture appearing in a special report on Aircraft Emissions in the June 10th-16th issue of The Economist shows contrails forming quickly enough to obscure the tail of the aircraft presumably traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.

Unfortunately, all employed aeronautical engineers who could give actual measurements of exhaust temperatures have signed nondisclosure agreements similar to the commercial aircraft pilots; however, it may not be that all that technical. A first course in fluid dynamics should give a first approximation which any third-year engineering student could calculate.




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
PV=nRT



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Using a 737 (all models), at take-off thrust the exhaust temperature is only 100 degrees F out to 255 feet. Since planes fly at less than take off thrust, the 100 degrees will extend less than 255 feet under flight conditions. If the temperature at altitude is -40, and you have an exhaust of 100 degrees, guess how fast you're gonna get a contrail. That's right, we have a winner. Almost immediately from the time the exhaust exits the engine, and CERTAINLY fast enough to obscure the tail of the plane.

Where do you get this "nondisclosure agreement" business?
There are no agreements in regards to engine exhaust temps. It took me less than five minutes to find a report from Boeing showing exhaust temps and speeds under various conditions.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
On the radar says:


I may have come up with a scientific angle for debunking the assertion that contrails are a natural phenomena.


That is a good thing; from what I understand, most debunkers are fond of science, and if you can come up with sound evidence, they will tend to believe you.


The photographic evidence show that the contrails are forming no more than 1/10 of a second behind the engines...


Actually, it might be a bit less than that. As our colleague Zaphod does, let's use the Boeing B737-700ER as our baseline. If you see contrails form at around the tail of the airplane, it means that it has traveled around 50 feet prior to flash-freezing. If the aircraft is flying at 500 miles/hr (733 ft/sec) the time it would take to flash-freeze would be a bit over 68 msec.


... which I'm hoping is long before the exhaust has a chance to cool and condense.


Actually, it doesn't condense, it flash-freezes. Similarly, when the contrail dissipates, it sublimes, which means it goes directly from a solid to vapor without going through a liquid phase -- just like dry ice.


A picture appearing in a special report on Aircraft Emissions in the June 10th-16th issue of The Economist shows contrails forming quickly enough to obscure the tail of the aircraft presumably traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.


Correct; that's a good way to determine the time of freezing, assuming you know the distance from the engine to the tail section and can estimate the aircraft's speed.


Unfortunately, all employed aeronautical engineers who could give actual measurements of exhaust temperatures have signed nondisclosure agreements similar to the commercial aircraft pilots...


I am an engineer for The Integrated Defense Systems of The Boeing Company; there are no "non-disclosure agreements" I have ever signed, although we are constrained from discussing either classified or company proprietary information. However, as one of our colleagues pointed out, there is nothing proprietary about basic engineering data regarding enthalpy.


A first course in fluid dynamics should give a first approximation which any third-year engineering student could calculate.


Yes, it should.

I appreciate your interest and attempt to use engineering and common sense to better understand aircraft contrails. However, I do have one question for you:

If water cannot turn to ice in less than 100 msec, then how is whatever stuff you think comprise "chem-trails" is able to do so?

Or, if the "chem-trail" material is already solid and reflective, what keeps it from being visible as soon as it comes out of the aircraft's engines?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
and in one of the many threads i have read on chemtrails....

'zero lift' posted evidence of MoD research that showed that, even at low levels, biological agents degraded very quickly due to UV light. Not sufficient to be undetectable but sufficient to be effective.
By 'low levels' i mean under 1000 feet. Not 35,000 feet

so what do you suggest are the biological or chemical agents being seeded that can survive -40C, UV light, massive dispersal and still be effectively detected AND harmful to the general population with out being picked up by Dr, private/amateur chemist and just about every epidemic researcher in the country?

i only pause to add my previous comment that chemtrails are, by definition, best laid at night...
present your proof of this please

edit for spelling due to tiredness


[edit on 29-6-2006 by mark ten]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Wow, I have hardly visited this bit of the site since the reorganisation, but I thought I'd have a quick look and Lo! there are still loads of "chemtrail" type threads.


Originally posted by On the radar
Fake Contrails

I may have come up with a scientific angle for debunking the assertion that contrails are a natural phenomena.

Now the term "natural" is a fairly nebulous and much abused term, however I would never think to use it in relation to the exhaust from a jet engine. Contrails are clearly man-made by any reasonable definition. Are you just building a straw man to "debunk"?



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
This is BS. I know someone who owns homemade Lancair prop jet, bloody high performance plane and it can generate contrails, and it does.

Sorry but it always amazing me when people think a normal thing is a conspiracy.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I don't propose to know what the purpose is of creating persistent cloud streams that spread out into rainbow colored clouds, and which are sometimes so inky and muggy that they block out the sun, but I do believe there is a difference between what are called contrails and what are being called chemtrails.

Here is a link to a photo that illustrates the primary difference between the two.
link

Here is a link to some terrific images of chemtrails (I feel that word is suitable, as these particular streams often have an oily, rainbow colored sheen that seems to be a characteristic chemical mixtures...metals? What else would look this way? And you can say ice crystals, but these are being sprayed at low altitudes and in extremely warm temperatures. Unless you're in Alaska or some colder location, which I have been, but even then you can't claim that ice crystals can survive long enough at low altitudes to spread out and form clouds that block the sun...)

link
The following is a link to a website created by an ex meteorologist who was confounded by this phenomena, and frustrated by the lack of attention it had received from his peers. After you've read his explanation, click on his "Home" link to see furthur, bizarre developments he's discovered with regard to this interesting phenomena.


link

Here is a link to an article describing concerns voiced by air traffic controllers.

www.willthomas.net...

If you are interested in this phenomena, you can locate an aeronautical chart for your area, you can see what aircraft should be overhead (taking into consideration military bases). If you watch planes overhead leaving trails, esp. during the summer when the air is too hot and dry to create a contrail, and you still see very long, persistent contrails that spread out into clouds, then you have a chemtrail. You may be able to see two planes at once, one leaving a long, persistent chemtrail, and another leaving a short, typical contrail to contrast.

Find out the current temp. and humidity for 35,000 feet. If it's much warmer than -40F and relative humidity much less than 70% at 35,000 – atmospheric science says what you are seeing cannot be the frozen water vapor of normal airliner condensation trails. There is a free software program called "Flight Explorer" that will identify all commercial and military craft flying over you. If you correlate the chemtrails with the temperature, time and particular craft, you can isolate who is producing these trails.

If you are concerned, you can contact the closest airport tower or air traffic control center and ask to speak with the person in charge. Write down their name. Play concerned. Ask what all those big planes are doing flying over your town. If they reply that they don't know, you can tell them it's their job to know. If these are reg. airlines, ask for the specific airlines you are referring to. Also, it's probably illegal to fly several commercial airlines close together over populated areas in x formations, grid lines and criss-crossing patterns...

[Mod edit to shrink links. Please use this button in the future,
.]

[edit on 17/9/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
So you know for a fact that the air at 32000 feet is too hot and dry to leave contrails? The air temp/moisture level changes with altitude.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I only suggest that people investigate specific circumstances and conditions, and to use reason and logic to answer their own questions. Depending on the temperature and humidity contrails will form easily.

I don't know what the temperature at 32k feet is at this moment, but I'm sure it fluctuates according to a number of factors. Including the hot air I'm blowing up right now - kidding...

Actually, air traffic centers should have an approximate if not exact temperature available to them at any given time...one would assume...

Even if we were to exclude the temperature, or assume it was at -40f at its warmest, how can you still have a contrail spreading out into oily, rainbow-colored clouds that last for hours? The chemtrails often appear to be dripping, or the trail is interrupted in one or more spots, appearing to be broken, as if someone flipped a switch off, then back on. These trails often blanket out until they cover the entire sky(?).

The flights creating these trails often fly in criss-crossing patterns or grid lines, and over highly populated areas. And this happens all over the world. I even saw photos of chemtrail activity over Iraq (here's one link showing this - www.astro.ku.dk...) Are you supposed to see miles' long contrails from space?

These flights seem to fly in dangerous patterns for commercial airliners to boot. It's easy to confuse with the everyday, short, contrails that are left from traditional craft, but it doesn't take a genius to tell them apart...if you saw two aircraft, flying at about the same altitude and fairly close together, and one of them left a short "contrail" and the other a persistent "chemtrail" you would understand.

If you see a plane (usually plural) leaving a really long trail, stay and watch how that trail behaves and tell yourself that it is perfectly normal. You will probably see it spread out into a hazy blanket with a rainbow hue and soon block out the sun...it's not normal...



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
How do you know they're at the same altitude if you're standing on the ground? You CAN'T. And I've seen planes leaving odd looking contrails that were nothing more than contrails. I have yet to see one picture or contrail that is supposedly a "chemtrail" that's nothing more than a contrail or persistant contrail.

As for temperature, the averate temp at altitude is roughly -32C or so. That's fairly constant.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I am an engineer for The Integrated Defense Systems of The Boeing Company; there are no "non-disclosure agreements" I have ever signed, although we are constrained from discussing either classified or company proprietary information. However, as one of our colleagues pointed out, there is nothing proprietary about basic engineering data regarding enthalpy.



Boeing is believe to be the plane of choice for the CIA operation laying down the contrails all over the world. How would I trust you to say that contrails exist and endanger this contract for your employer?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
On this one, I have to say you're right - it's hard to tell relative altitude between two aircraft in relation to each other from the ground.

However, here's a hypothetical: imagine a warm, sunny day. You look up and see a commercial airliner in front of you, close enough to clearly make out the body, and this craft is laying down a serious, thick, persistent trail that stretches for miles.

Now, at the same time you see, beyond this closer aircraft, another aircraft from your current angle that is easy to assume is higher up, which means it is colder, presumably, than the craft in front of you. Except the aircraft higher up is only leaving a short, evaporating contrail.

How do you account for the fact that the higher aircraft would leave a short, evaporating trail, while the one closer to the ground is creating thick, hazy trails that spread out into rainbow colored clouds, while the colder stream is simply evaporating?

This seems a simple enough observation to make. But the point is, arguing that the relative distance between planes is near impossible to determine only detracts from the ultimate fact that these trails behave in very distinct, and almost categorically different ways from each other. One of them has been in existence since the beginning of commercial flight and beyond, and the other has only been recorded as being seen as recent as maybe the last 10 years...its increased in the last 4 or 5 years, which makes one wonder why the urgency...

Clouds are not supposed to look like rainbows! Airline exhaust is not supposed to spread out into hazy clouds and block out the sun. When did commercial airline exhaust ever do that? It would be considered (and should be) a major health concern. Clouds are not supposed to drip. If you put on a certain pair of light toned sunglasses you can often even see a rainbow sheen on many clouds.

It's my belief that a lot of the cloud cover currently in our skies is manmade. Not only that, I am not comfortable at all that when it rains all of those chemicals, and whatever it is that composes those clouds comes dumping onto our food crops, water supplies...our bodies...

[edit on 17-9-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 17-9-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 17-9-2006 by OnTheDeck]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Some of the most beautiful pictures I've seen were "rainbow" contrails. It depends on a lot of factors on if they do that or not. As for the "dripping" I'm not sure I know what you mean on that one.

It IS possible for one plane at a lower altitude to leave a different contrail than a plane at higher altitude. It's not COMMON, and I assume you're not talking a plane at 5000 feet as opposed to 30,000 feet. If it's at 5000 and laying down a trail I REALLY hope they're heading for an airport, because they have big problems.

Just to throw some pics out there:

(nothing to do with contrails but a funny looking pic
)


Contrail pics:







[edit on 9/17/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
You've linked to close-up pictures of commercial aircraft spreading a contrail. But the contrail and chemtrail look virtually the same exiting the craft. When the contrail evaporates, however, and the chemtrail remains to spread out into hazy clouds is where they differ in nature.

First, here is an article on an FAA reference to a "military program" involving widespread spraying - www.sciforums.com...

Just look at the links I've posted above. Also, scroll down toward the bottom of the pages from these links and look at the hazy, chemical looking rainbow clouds that are left behind...

www.weatherwars.info...

www.weatherwars.info...

www.rense.com...

tinypic.com...

Why haven't these "contrails" dissipated? The trick is to stand under a plane spraying these trails and watch the behavior of the trails. They do not go away. They spread out, and they create eerie clouds...the photos show similarities to contrails, but stand under one and watch and your common sense will tell you something is wrong...



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Oh I know. I only picked them because they're nice pictures.
I wasn't trying to prove anything one way or the other with them. I just thought "Hey, those are nice pics."

Not all contrails dissipate. There are some that have lingered for days, and turned into a high cloud cover, but they're normal contrails.

Your first link:
The first one is the same type of thing with the first pic I linked to. They're testing an engine on the nose of a 707.
The second pic is an E-6B TACAMO used by the US Navy to communicate with their submarines. Some say dumping fuel, others say photoshopped, because the two trails don't start at the same place on both sides and look different from each other.
The third pic has been seen many times by people and photographed a bunch of times. Not sure what causes the trail to do that.

Your second link:
Aside from not even being remotely close on some of the planes he "identifies" those look like normal contrails.

The Rense link looks like someone had a filter over the lense.

All of those look like Persistant Contrails.


Sometimes contrails will actually take on the characteristics of a natural cirrus cloud and no longer look like contrails after only a half hour or so. Persistent contrails can exist long after the airplane that made them has left the area. They can last for a few minutes or longer than a day. However, because they form at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will often move away from the area where they were born. When we look up into the sky, we may see old persistent contrails that formed somewhere else but moved overhead because of the wind. An example of several very persistent contrails is shown in the S'COOL cloud chart. Persistent contrails are those most likely to affect climate.

asd-www.larc.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I can't offer up anything more on this except to say anyone curious should really observe these criss-crossing, grid and x mark flight patterns with their own eyes and decide for themselves if the behavior of some of these trails is unusual.

Also, you've referenced an explanation of contrails from NASA. NASA has not of late been a reliable source for proffering truthful, accurate information. In fact, NASA started playing the "Hey, kids. See how many 'contrails' you can count on this satellite picture" game.

Now I can't prove this, but it's clear to me that NASA is trying to normalize this subject; trying to bring it out into the open and acknowledge it as nothing special. But why are they playing this game at all? It's bizarre. If they're just contrails - the same ones that have been around for decades, then why are they taking this stance? I think they really can't ignore it and have to address it, because these things are painted all over the skies and on satellite pics.

NASA has lost all favor with me. And anyone that's worth their salt who's delved at all into the organization and their creative mishandling and obfuscation of important, sensitive information will say their word doesn't carry much weight. Remember the astronaut conversations that we weren't allow to be privy to, but which have recently fallen into public hands...?

Anyway, I thank you for your responses...I've actually stopped paying attention to chemtrails, because I've kind of lost interest...if they want to spray stuff across our skies and rain chemicals on the population there's not much we can do about it. And this IS happening all over the world; in every country. And it is an unnatural happening...but that's all you can do is say it's happening...



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I only picked NASA because they were at the top of the list. I can find you just about any other page you want that will show you the exact same thing. Persistant contrails are normal contrails that don't go away because of atmospheric conditions.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Ok, here's the thing - I've seen this stuff and it doesn't take a meteorologist or scientist or NASA to tell me what I'm seeing is odd.

And just because an "official source" says they are regular contrails that have been around for decades does not make it so. The official position on a lot of subjects is to deny, misdirect, obfuscate and sometimes flat out lie about it. U.S. citizens are currently witnessing miriad unexplainable phenomena that the official position is either silence, or denial. If our own government can lie, then NASA can lie, what people like to call "credible" news sources can lie...it's all free game. If you believe everything you hear you're in for some surprises. I'll believe my own eyes.

Members high up in our government, military, respected, credible citizens, etc., have come forward claiming they have either been abducted by, or have seen ufos. Almost four million people claim to have been abducted by ufos, but the official position on this subject is denial and moreso, silence. Does this mean it doesn't exist? I don't think so...

So, respectfully, you can show me a hundred articles denouncing this phenomena, but none of it can tell me I'm not seeing what I'm seeing...if you told Jimmy Carter, astronaut Gordon Cooper and Buzz Aldrin, or the repsected individuals in the Disclosure Project, including John Callhan the head of FAA Accidents and Investigations, Air Force Lt. Colonels, Navy, Marine and Army intelligence and personnel, pilots, radar controllers, etc., that they did not see what they saw, what do you expect their response will be?

www.disclosureproject.org...

I could go on speculating as to why our own government and corporate owned "news(?)" sources censor, fabricate, cover up, obfuscate, or misdirect until I'm blue in the face. But nothing stands up against, can deceive, or discount through endless denial, silence or manipulation the conviction of witnesseing something you know in your gut is unnatural. My personal experience is all the proof I need, irregardless of what a corporation promoting its own self interests would care to say on the subject.

I think too many people have abdicated their own experience, intuition and common sense to entities that do not have those individual's interests at heart. It's too bad. If you read up on our military's history of experimentation on its own citizens, and even recently the Air Force Chief suggesting testing microwave weapons on U.S. citizens before using them in a wartime scenario to avoid being vilified in the world press is just the kind of twisted mentality we have running this country -

www.cnn.com...

I make no apologies when I say that our government and media do not have our interests at heart, and if they can fail the American public then it's all free game. If these entities have a history of censorship, concealment, obfuscation and betrayal of trust, how can anything they say hold up water? Or, I should say, how can anyone put absolute faith in what their hearing from these people over what they have personally witnessed...

Ok, so I'm stuck on the veracity of my position on this...can't help it. I will concede, because I'm no scientist, that some contrails may be able to remain for longer than a few minutes - I would need a meteorologist to confirm the length of time it's possible to sustain that "ice crystal stream" in arid, hot weather - but in my 30-something years, I've never seen contrails spread out into oily, hazy, rainbow-colored clouds - even shaped like clouds, blanket the sky and block out the sun. It's just weird...since when were clouds rainbow-colored?

And if you do some research on the subject before dismissing it from what you know - I'm assuming you're not a meteorologist, then you might find some things very odd with these streams...but I can't fully present a thorough argument here, stating all of the facts, but just state my position..



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Mark Ten, these trails are also spread heavily at night in all quarters...In fact, some areas see more spraying at night than they do during the day...

Here's another link for interested parties...

www.rense.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join