Debunking Chemtrails, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 12-10-2008 @ 10:00 PM by defcon5
reply to post by interestedalways

I assume this is what you mean:

What causes that is the wingtip vortexes in certain wind conditions. Normally a wing generates lift by causing a pressure difference between the top and the bottom, which is due to the air having to move faster to go over the larger upper surface. At the ends of the wing, the air is able to escape around the edge, and it does this in a swirling fashion sort of like a tornado turned on its side. Normally those vortexes move away from the aircraft and downward, but when the wind is right they can hit one side of the contrail. When this happens, you will get those finger looking areas that drop down from the contrail. BTW that picture is a WWII picture, so its been a known phenomenon for a long time.

reply to post by eaganthorn

Hey, I'm not ignoring you, but I have not have the time to get to your post yet. I will try to in the next day or so.


reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 12:56 PM by eaganthorn
Originally posted by Essan
I would say it is debunked until such time someone produces evidence that what you are seeing are not normal aircraft contrails, as observed and studied in great detail for the past 80 years.
It does not prove that some spraying takes place. But as yet there is absolutely no visual evidence of any high altitude spraying. Just normal contrails.


You are entitled to your opinion and I’ll fight to insure your rights to express yourself, but to say with any accuracy that chem-trails have been debunked is simply an opinion and not a fact. It is obvious that some wish it to become a fact, but it just doesn’t work that way, my friend. Facts are facts and opinions are opinions and while some facts are always some ones opinion, not all opinions are facts.

You’ve also introduced another variable into the discussion, not one I wish to pursue but I can highlight it for someone else to begin a debate point and that is, “What is a normal contrail”, what science determines “normal” in this regard?

I’ve also noticed you are bringing the idea of “spraying” into our discussion and I at no time addressed spraying, nor care to. So, please do not confuse me with someone else. I have been consistent on this topic by way of chemical reactions at high altitude and high heat.

It has been through this debate that I have learned from persons claiming to have experience on a flight line ground crew that there are in fact, chemical additives in the fuel mixtures and that these persons are not chemists and cannot vouch with any authority as to the chemical composition of those additives, how they react at high altitudes with the fuel and the other additives or through the design of the craft’s fuel system or exactly how many additives there truly are. They have also disclosed in the form of onsite witnessing to field testing of the fuels, that the testing process does not exclude the possibility of any additional additives or contaminants not previously acknowledged or considered.

As far as the comment of “as observed and studied in great detail for the past 80 years.”, do you really want to stick with that comment? I wouldn’t want to invite comparative studies by other groups into this debate if I were you. I would refer you to tobacco studies, asbestos studies, artificial sweeteners studies, and so on.

Most of the members who have posted on this topic strike me as intelligent and I would have thought that an intelligent person who has reviewed this entire post and each thread contained herein would understand by now the futility of the non-chem-trail position of this argument. I can only construe that not everyone has read all of the threads on this post.

BTW, nice photos, I enjoyed them, very clear and colorful.


[edit on 10/13/2008 by eaganthorn]


reply posted on 13-10-2008 @ 11:04 PM by defcon5
Originally posted by eaganthorn
No worries! Diving, eh, one of my pleasures as well, if you make it to the Florida panhandle, I’ll give you some GPS numbers.

That would be great, I come up there from time to time. I would love to get out to the USS Oriskany, I hear that it’s a pretty dangerous dive though.

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Here is yet another reason why this type of conspiracy will not go away, ever. To effectively clear this up, completely, remove all doubt, one would need to know in advance, exactly what to look for and then sample test every batch of fuel at every airport and every plane. This of course is neither practical nor feasible without logical pre-existing knowledge of the presumptive contaminant to warrant such an expense incurred by this additional wave of testing. And if such a conspiracy had foundation in truth, certainly this action would be thwarted and circumvented by design.

If there was something in the fuel then its been there since day one, as it has not chemically changed any since the supposed “chemtrail” issue has come into existence. The density, and other factors have remained constant on the fuel as well. I can go out there to work today and its exactly the same as it was 20 years ago.

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Well, a centrifuge separates any substances of different densities in a mixture or suspension but does little for compounds, distillates, solvents etc. and only confirms my point that these people only test for specific things, known things.
When testing a substance, you really need to have a pre-conceived idea as to what you are testing for, so the tests are designed to return a value to support or deny the presences of a substance.

However, this separates it down to its basic elements, which are shown on a chart. Any elements in the fuel are show along with their quantity. If something was different about the mixture, it would certainly have shown up over the years as additional elements on the graph.

Originally posted by eaganthorn
To discover an unknown substance, there is a very long sequence of testing involving test after test after test after test and so on. Many times an unknown substance remains unknown, and the best that anyone can do is say what elements a substance is comprised of which doesn’t ever denote how a compound is put together, this is why chemical formulas are highly guarded secrets that can make or break a company. Research Dow, DuPont Chemicals, Abbott, Merck, Bayer Laboratories and corporate espionage to gain better insight to the secrecy and complexity of chemical formulas.

Yes, I am familiar with this, but again, the basic elements of the compound would show up in the graph of the fuel mixture.

Originally posted by eaganthorn
I have a little more than just basic chemistry, a little more. I am surprised that a person with at least basic chemistry wouldn’t understand the concept of ideal conditions for chemical reactions. I recall it being taught in first year Chem, and as a constant principle of consideration for all studies of chemical reactions thereafter. Double my confusion that you are a diver and don’t understand the principle. The chemical reactions that occur at sea level may differ greatly at higher altitudes and equally as great at various depths below sea level.

It does not change what is burning in the fuel however. The gases released by the chemical reaction would be the same, the only thing that should vary would be the concentration of those chemicals.

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Which is why you are cautioned to not take certain medications prior to a dive as the chemical reaction in your body may change a helpful medication into a lethal poison at specific depths.

It’s not the reaction that changes though, it’s the increased concentration, which can make it lethal. In addition, the changes in the concentration of other gases in your body can add to the effects of certain medications. Other medications may affect the body’s ability deal with other retained concentrated gases, such as Nitrogen or Oxygen, stored in the body tissue. This is why dehydration increases the chances of getting the bends.

Originally posted by eaganthorn
The same is true for a chemical reaction at 10,000 feet and how they may be different than at sea level and it isn’t a question of nitrogen saturation or concentration levels, it is a question of relative pressures and temperatures to catalyst a chemical reaction.

I disagree, it’s entirely based on concentration in the tissue and the tissues ability to retain and properly blow off those extra levels of concentration. Why else would things such as fatigue, and dehydration factor into it.

Originally posted by eaganthorn
These are all simple facts my friend and I have already suggested to you to research “ideal conditions for chemical reactions” to gain an understanding and if you chose to ignore these facts and the related guiding principles of chemistry then these discussions are no longer debates, but simply some one who wishes to ignore the facts over an opinion.

I understand what you are saying about ideal reactions, but the things that we are seeing in the skies are exactly the same as we have seen since the beginning of aviation. There are simply more of them now due to the increase in air travel. It is not ignoring the facts, I simply do not believe that there is a substance that fits this description:

Goes into aviation fuel.
Does not show up in any chemical testing.
Is done without anyone in the industries knowledge.
Does not cause harm to the agents who work with it all day.
Causes great harm to all the civilians who are exposed to it.
Does no harm when run in normal ramp equipment engines.
Does no harm in normal civilian aircraft/equipment engines.
Causes clouds only when the exact catalyst is present.
Can suddenly stop like it is shut off, yet the pilots do not control it.
Has been used since at least WWII.
Controls the weather, causes UFOS, hallucinations, mind control, Morgellons, etc…

By Woo-Woo definition Chemtrails:
Chemtrails: they look like those white vapour trails you see planes leaving overhead, but unlike contrails, chemtrails are not made of harmless watour vapour, and they linger sometimes for hours in the sky, spreading out into a haze that obscures the sky. (Normal contrails tend to dissipate after about 1 - 10 minutes)

And yet we know this from WWII bomber pilots:
Jay,
Yes, we certainly did. Contrails were so thick that they became clouds. We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. We flew a different route coming back than going in partly to avoid the contrail clouds that we created. There are some pictures of contrails on my web site - none of these are shown to be very heavy but there were time when we were near the end of the bomber stream and the contrails were so dense that it was no dfferent than flying in clouds. A thousand or more
planes (4000 internal combustion engines) can make a lot of contrail at 25000 feet or more.
Hope this helps.
Willard Reese- 457th Bomb Group


Originally posted by eaganthorn
I don’t need a part time job, I am educated and I have posted facts and supplied you resource information to look up to better educate your self on the topic of chemical reactions which was my point of this debate. You either accept the facts or you don’t. As far as any other theories on the matter, I believe if you review my posts you come to realize that you are confusing me with someone else.

What I mean is that the fastest way to make someone understand that this is not happening, is for them to go work in aviation. We have a fair number of such people on this site, and I have yet to meet one who believes this nonsense.

Originally posted by eaganthorn
Yes, not only that, did you know that our oceans are filled with a result combination of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide (drain cleaner). Scary huh?

Even more frightening is they are finding coral die offs from the water being full of Ecoli, and Hepatitis.


reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 03:00 AM by eaganthorn
reply to post by defcon5


While I certainly appreciate your dedication to Secret Squirrels OP, you still have not debunked my point of this debate. In your persistent focus in trying to refute the concept of conditions for chemical reactions that I have introduced and discussed, it is very apparent that you still do not fully understand the concept. I suspect however, once you do understand, your tenacity will allow you to become a formidable debate partner in this and a much broader spectrum of topics.

I’ll try another way to help you understand. To force a desired chemical reaction that adds a simple, single additional atom, let’s say oxygen, to a molecule that is currently satisfied and has a completed and balanced charge with a satisfied bond. Meaning, that the outer shells of each atom in the molecule are complete and that there are no more electron needs (+) or surpluses (-) to share. We must introduce something that upsets that balance. Otherwise, simply introducing pure oxygen to the molecule will return or effect no change. Heat, pressure, acids, and alkaline are some things that can cause this type of upset or imbalance and subsequently allow us to force that extra oxygen atom onto the molecule. The resulting molecule has a completely different property than the previous molecule and interacts or reacts with other chemicals completely different because of that one extra oxygen atom.

And it is with this understanding you should be able to comprehend that chemtrails may very well be a product of the exhaust of our aircraft by way of the fuel additives or contaminants at high temperatures and high altitudes. While in contrast the same resulting chemical produced and spewed out at 10,000 feet or above may not be sufficiently detectable in the exhaust on the flight line.

As far as the testing of the fuel, it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, it does not change the facts about testing as I have previously stated.

As far as who believes it and who doesn’t, like I said before, it just depends on an individuals trust. When recently discussing this topic with some pilots, I get as much of a mixed response from them as I see here on the blogs. People, while in a live and personal setting tend to share only like ideas with others when discussing things like conspiracies, politics, religion, allegiances, etc so it is expected that people you know would tend to echo your sentiments, especially if you are outspoken about your beliefs.


reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 05:03 PM by interestedalways
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by interestedalways

I assume this is what you mean:



Nope, that isn't what I mean.

The picture you posted is similar, but different.

The notched trails I was observing have notches on both sides, not just one and they aren't notched right when they are laid, but they notch out later as they hang in the sky. Sometimes they twist around looking similar to a DNA strand.


reply posted on 15-10-2008 @ 11:04 PM by interestedalways
reply to post by defcon5



No, but thanks for trying to help me understand what I saw. I will find a pic tomorrow, cause I know they are around, as I have seen images of the same thing before.


reply posted on 17-10-2008 @ 09:26 AM by eaganthorn
Originally posted by Essan
Contrails certainly are a product of jet fuel.

Technically, of course, every contrail is a 'chemical trail'


Ok, we’ve now isolated more points that we can agree upon and properly assigned a common definition to the term Chemtrail that we in this discussion can, in a synchronistic fashion, relate to. The contrast between Contrail and Chemtrail is that Chemtrail implies more than simple exhaust and we have already established that there are several “additives” in the fuel.

I am confident that by now, it has been resolved that idea of the “Chemtrail conspiracy” is a feasible concept, which was my focal point of debate on this issue. For those of you who came in late, you’ll have to review the OP and all subsequent threads to catch up.

As I see it, the only outstanding issues in this discussion are; Are the Chemtrails we see producing any notable or accumulative effect, and if so, are they the result of an intentional and deliberate act or are they the result of incompetence, apathy, coincidence, happenstance or something else entirely?

If there is proof that the Chemtrails do have any notable, aggregate or accumulative effect, I ask if it is necessary to examine if that effect was by design, understanding that a conspiracy can be one of design or one of silence and that both are equal in outcome as well as in participation. Or do we simply begin to address what that effect is and how to correct it.


reply posted on 18-10-2008 @ 10:35 AM by defcon5
reply to post by eaganthorn


Originally posted by eaganthorn
Ok, we’ve now isolated more points that we can agree upon and properly assigned a common definition to the term Chemtrail that we in this discussion can, in a synchronistic fashion, relate to. The contrast between Contrail and Chemtrail is that Chemtrail implies more than simple exhaust and we have already established that there are several “additives” in the fuel.


You have not yet established any such thing, as your chemtrial model does not fit with the description of chemtrail believers. It fails to explain:
1)Supposed grids that are intentionally laid over areas.
2)Supposed “X”'s that are laid over areas.
3)The supposed “O”'s that are laid over areas.
4)That supposedly the same aircraft will create an entire grid or pattern.
5)That they can suddenly stop and restart.
6)That two different aircraft at the same altitude can be generating different types of trails.

None of those things factor into your fuel additive theory, without both the aircrew's and ATC being in on the event. Both ATC and Aircrew's would have to be aware of any patterns intentionally being laid down (unless it happens as the rest of us have said). Aircrew's would have to “be in the know” for the trails to stop and start, or for one to be spraying and another not (unless they happen as we have said).

What you are talking about is pollution, not chemtrails, and no one has denied the fact that airplanes add to the existing pollution levels as they burn fossil fuels. Aircraft pollution is visible on older aircraft as black smoke that trails behind the aircraft. B-52's and 707 Variants are very common for seeing this type of pollution coming from their engines.


reply posted on 18-10-2008 @ 05:37 PM by eaganthorn
Originally posted by defcon5

You have not yet established any such thing, as your chemtrial model does not fit with the description of chemtrail believers. It fails to explain:
1)Supposed grids that are intentionally laid over areas.
2)Supposed “X”'s that are laid over areas.
3)The supposed “O”'s that are laid over areas.
4)That supposedly the same aircraft will create an entire grid or pattern.
5)That they can suddenly stop and restart.
6)That two different aircraft at the same altitude can be generating different types of trails.


Defcon5-Please pay attention enough to discern my debate from others. It is not my intention to continually embarrass you, but you have again, confused me with someone else. I have been consistent with my point of debate on this topic and you must learn to maintain enough focus to separate the different arguments and debates to accurately correlate them to their perspective authors if you wish to be taken seriously. Should you please to, you can review all of my posts in this thread to see that I have not addressed the above mentioned six (6) talking points that you are wishing to inject here, nor do I care to as they are not relative to my position on this topic. I neither endorse nor deny them as they are not my concern.

It is, and has been, my point from the start that the Chemtrails seen in the sky and the suspicions that something is being distributed via Chemtrail is feasible and possible if the Chemtrails in question are exhaust and the result of chemical additives in the fuel. That the jet engines may very well supply enough heat to cause a chemical reaction at a high altitude that could result in a different chemical output than what is found at ground level. We’ve been through this already. That the conspiracy aspect of this topic is again, feasible, because no one person in the entire chain of possession or handling of said fuel would have to be made aware of the above mentioned chemical reactions. That the additives in the fuel could be called anything of choice and those who would test said fuel wouldn’t have any, or need to have any, knowledge of any potential chemical reactions as previously described.

Moving on;

I am glad to see that you do not deny the pollution aspect as it is part of the equation. But to say that Chemtrails are not pollution is a unique distinction and a position that most rational persons would not want to defend. In spite of this, it isn’t the carbon monoxide emissions that I am concerned with in this debate, although aircraft emissions should be more readily controlled, but the FAA’s failure to address this, is another debate altogether. It is the other pollutants in the emissions that I am addressing here, the presumed resulting chemical reactions from the “additives” in the fuel.

Which is where we left off as I was acknowledging Essan’s statement that a contrail is in fact a Chemtrail by definition and I went to further clarify the points of distinction of the two terms and how a Chemtrail was to imply something more than just exhaust in this discussion. And I still stand by my statements.


reply posted on 18-10-2008 @ 06:57 PM by defcon5
reply to post by eaganthorn


No sir, chemtrails follow the supposed points I mention above by definition, according to the so called chemtrail experts who made this crap'o'lla up. What you are discussing is something entirely different, therefore requiring a different nomenclature. There are many chemicals that aircraft can in fact disperse: electronic counter measures, cloud seeding materials, aerial fertilizer applications, insecticide, weed/foliage killer, Fire suppression liquid, Fuel Dumps, etc.... None of these fall into the criteria of the above mentioned “supposed” chemtrail traits, so none of them are in fact chemtrails. If your theory does not match all the traits of supposed chemtrials, then it must similarly fall into a different category. Simple scientific principal that you should be familiar with...
Maybe we can call them EggTrails.

PS.... Please drop the smug attitude, as it is getting rather old at this point, and you have yet to prove a darn thing. There is not a person in the aviation industry who believes in this nonsense, so it really does not behoove you to act smug compared to the many highly intelligent personnel in the field.


reply posted on 18-10-2008 @ 10:57 PM by defcon5
reply to post by interestedalways


Because the things that we have photos of are the same things that we have photos of dating back to the 1940's. They are “proven fact” persistent contrails as opposed to the Internet hoax of “supposed” chemtrails. Of course people don't remember ever seeing them before the 1990's because its not something most people recall unless they lived next to a large airport, such as I did. There was nowhere near as much air travel back then so they were less common, but they still existed. Besides this people tend to recall things being more perfect in the past then they really were, not matter what the topic may be, it's human nature to do this.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



Sno-Trains..A short History..(with short video)
  Posted 14 days ago with 16 member flags
Pictures: Civil War Sub H.L. Hunley Finally Revealed
  Posted 8 days ago with 5 member flags
Neuroscience the new face of warfare: experts
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags
Congress Passes Bill That Opens US Skies To Unmanned Drones
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags
The Latest in Terminator Tech
  Posted 2 days ago with 3 member flags
U.S. Navy to test 32 megajoule EM Railgun in the coming weeks
  Posted 1 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 68 replies