Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails

page: 26
61
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
You really aren't up to scratch with paying attention to your surroundings or in science class, huh?


No I guess not... I must be dumb cause when I ask what chemicals make red smoke I get lectures on light dispersion through white clouds...

Hmmmm Well thank God for the Military... they don't try to evade the question.



This is a purple smoke grenade, used during a military training exercise. Typical colored smoke is like a normal white smoke bomb, with a dye released into the smoke.
U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Scott T. Sturkol)

Seems the Air Force is good at making pretty bombs and 'smoke' trails...

AH See THEY have an answer for me...

Red Smoke Recipe

* Potassium chlorate - 15%
* para-nitroaniline red - 65%
* Lactose - 20%

Green Smoke Recipe

* Synthetic indigo - 26%
* Auramine (yellow) - 15%
* Potassium chlorate - 35%
* Lactose - 26%

Red:
Disperse Red 9 (older formulation)
Solvent Red 1 with Disperse Red 11
Solvent Red 27 (C.I. 26125)
Solvent Red 24

Orange:
Solvent Yellow 14 (C.I. 12055)

Yellow:
Vat Yellow 4 with benzanthrone (older formulation)
Solvent Yellow 33
Solvent Yellow 16 (C.I. 12700)
Solvent Yellow 56
Oil Yellow R

Green:
Vat Yellow 4 with benzanthrone and Solvent Green 3 (older formulation)
Solvent Yellow 33 and Solvent Green 3
Solvent Green 3
Oil Green BG

Blue:
Solvent Blue 35 (C.I. 26125)
Solvent Blue 36
Solvent Blue 5

Violet:
Disperse Red 9 with 1,4-diamino-2,3-dihydroanthraquinone
Solvent Violet 13


KEWL!!! Well so much for getting straight answers to simple questions on ATS. I see nothing mentioned about refracted sunlight where I was looking

Silly Lemming

Very Pretty for Warfare




So... the Air Force has all kinds of recipes for colored smoke...

They also have smoke dispensers on Air Planes during Air Shows to leave colored smoke trails.

That smoke does not come through the engine... so why are you assuming chemtrails are produced through the engine?

The pesticide planes have external sprayers...

The 'vortex study' planes have external sprayers...

Don't see why its so hard to understand a simple change of WHAT is coming out of those sprayers is the only difference








[edit on 3-12-2008 by zorgon]




posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Those planes fly at low altitudes when they disperse anything that they want to hit the ground in a specific area. I haven't seen dispersal devices on commercial jet aircraft, nor the logistical infrastructure that would allow them to be casually loaded.
The theory that there are fuel additives designed as dispersants is from Eaganthorn with whom I am now debating the issue. He has not yet claimed how, what, or why, only that it is possible to hit specific targets wth fine particles from high altitude.
I believe that you are claiming aluminum or alumina as the dispersed material. So far you have not said how you think it is done.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I believe that you are claiming aluminum or alumina as the dispersed material. So far you have not said how you think it is done.


I have stated clearly MANY times that I do not yet have the answers or the data. Yet you keep expecting someone to produce the data. The simple logic that eludes you is that IF there is a secret chemtrail operation, then getting hard data will be near impossible at best...

But then you know that... so feel comfortable in your position and don't have to do any research.


I have stated clearly MANY TIMES that I have just started looking into this recently and have not yet come to any conclusions either way

I have stated clearly that I THINK one of the components is some form of aluminum and/or other metal with the purpose being to ATTEMPT to block increased solar radiation. HAARP also is attempting to place a shield for this purpose but that is another thread and I HAVE the data on that one


I have also spent time tracking down ANY possible link to chemicals of ALL TYPES being sprayed into our atmosphere for many purposes. I would ASSUME that the best way to find real evidence of CHEMTRAILS would be to follow the trails of chemicals dispersed by airplanes.

Seems that would get me closer to the truth than arguing in a thread where one deals with blind people
At the very least it leads me to many other interesting 'operations' Always good to have info for other new threads


Silly Lemmings



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
THIS is interesting... but most likely propaganda..




Air Force One has been observed recently in a number of both high altitude and crowd pleasing low passes to be releasing a seemingly harmless colorful red dye. Protesters at the president's appearances have made claims of adverse reactions upon contact with the chemical. Complaints of headaches, nausea, and general malaise upon viewing or listening to Mr. Bush are apparently replaced with feelings of complacency, euphoria, and in some extreme cases, somnolence.

The White House insists that what is being disbursed is merely red smoke, similar to that seen in air shows and other aerial displays, and is meant as a display of bipartisan patriotism.

An independent laboratory has tested air samples from previous appearances, and while they maintain that the results are preliminary and inconclusive, traces of the drugs diazepam and fluoxetine have reportedly been found in significant concentrations.

"I don't want you to think about the Democratic plans for success," stated Bush at a rally in Indiana today. "They are in agreement on one thing... they want to make me leave before my job is done, and I will not let them."


www.unconfirmedsources.com...




posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

No I guess not... I must be dumb cause when I ask what chemicals make red smoke I get lectures on light dispersion through white clouds...



Since I was the one who posted the info on clouds and light dispersion, I assume that remark was directed at me. And I think you are being a bit unfair.

You posted an image of a sky filled with red CLOUDS, and you asked:

Not sure what chemical gives the red color though


Now you claim that you were talking about smoke... Well, I guess I am the dumb one, then.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Since I was the one who posted the info on clouds and light dispersion, I assume that remark was directed at me. And I think you are being a bit unfair.


Nope nope nope... that was for dave420 who decided to tell me I don't know about science


Nice presentation on light dispersal, Ziggy
And yes I do know that Essans red contrails and the 'red rain' were colored thus by sunset rays...

That doesn't explain this one...



nor these...

ARRGGG Invasion....




posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
One merely needs to keep things relative.


Heed your own advice. The topic of this thread is a phenomena that occurs at significant altitudes and is produced by modern jet engines. Not mosquito foggers, quaintly chugging around the neighborhood with a 2 stroke Briggs&Stratton lawnmower engine in the bed of a truck.

What degree of "relative" does "merely" seek? Almost relative? Slightly relative?



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Dang link bad...

[edit on 3-12-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
The topic of this thread is a phenomena that occurs at significant altitudes and is produced by modern jet engines.

What degree of "relative" does "merely" seek? Almost relative? Slightly relative?


Actually, I thought the topic of this thread was “Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails “, in which I have supplied ample rationale to indicate at least some exception to this claim. The simple logic entailing the feasibility of Chemical trails along with a logical definition was and still is my claim and approach.

The comment of “relative” is in the scope of testing to which I refer the use of a small engine, on a small scale, and of cooler temperatures. To infer otherwise is to imply that a laboratory must use a larger engine and higher temperatures to test for quality control standards and subsequent evaluations. Which would be a ridiculous assumption made by an ill informed person with limited if any exposure to real science or laboratory practice. That was meaning of the term "relative", I used and I stand by that comment, do you understand yet? Or do you need further clarification? As I said before, all you need to do is ask.


[edit on 12/3/2008 by eaganthorn]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I am not frustrated in the least and I have no intentions to wriggle or deflect as you continue to do. The problem here is that you are so wrapped up in thinking you have made some point, you fail to realize what is being said. My theory of additives in the fuel is much more than theory it is a simple fact, easily verifiable which is something you do not wish to do, so I do not take you serious.

I provided both, a hypothetical scenario and a historical reference, neither of which you understand, sadly, you do not even understand exactly where you are lost. You somehow think that in the hypothetical scenario, planes achieve an instant 30K altitude at take off and approach, which might very well be the reason why I chose 15 miles as my zone size. You resort to ridicule and become emotional when I respond in kind. So, I do not take you serious.

You make claims that I am now desperate, but if you were to actually read any of my posts you would be able see that I have been consistent in my position, granted I have been side tracked a few time to explain in greater detail, some key points that other readers may have missed, as well as the slower kids like yourself. But the fact is, this has all been just duplication for me, so my work was actually done at a previous time. I am repeating what you are too lazy to review on your own of what I have already suggested for you to review on multiple occasions. So, I don’t take you serious.

I have no need to impress anyone, but I have enjoyed the game, thanks for playing, and take care to sign up for those classes I’ve suggested, they should really help you in the future.

I need to leave now and I'm going to miss you most of all, Mr. Scarecrow, but don't worry, I'll be back.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
The comment of “relative” is in the scope of testing to which I refer the use of a small engine, on a small scale, and of cooler temperatures.


So then the "scope" of your testing is a small two-stroke piston driven engine, burning regular gasoline with some type of additives, at or near sea level.

Now, in what possible way does that "scope" encompass gas turbine engines--with a completely different combustion method, different fuel, and altitudes roughly in the 30k ft. range +/-, with the expected swings in atmospheric conditions?

Your big words, condescending attitude, and insults don't negate the fact that those variables are so far apart that there is little "relativity" in your example. It isn't even close.

So in conclusion....your example sucks as a means to make a point. You know that, but you're simply too smitten with yourself to admit it.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by MrPenny]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Nice work and great research Zorgon. I must say, I've always enjoyed your posts.
You always go full on! Good stuff!



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

So in conclusion....your example sucks as a means to make a point. You know that, but you're simply too smitten with yourself to admit it.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by MrPenny]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I've never seen a lab that needed anything more than small scaled tests, that's simply how's it done. I think this is where the math part comes in. Again, it's ok if you don't get it, not everyone does. I'm just glad that those who don't get it, don't work in a lab, else there would be hell to pay.

But just to make sure, my little sister is a chemist in a lab, I'll check with her in the next few days to see if I am still right, maybe they've changed the way things are done since I last worked in a lab.

[edit on 12/3/2008 by eaganthorn]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaganthorn
I'm just glad that those who don't get it, don't work in a lab, else there would be hell to pay.


And I'm glad people who design, test, and build jet turbine engines don't conduct tests like you propose.

So put your money where your mouth is....show us the math that renders the variables and results from your puny lawn mower test into a model that represents the scenario this thread is about....Contrails...created by jet engines at high altitude, with a range of environmental parameters.

You do that. Or just admit your example is hilariously off the mark.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Seems they have discovered the REAL source of contrails in Germany. And this one even has three sylphs in it




meh... slow thread day what can I say?



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by eaganthorn
 

Of course there are additives in the fuel. That has been discussed. There are anti-oxidants, anti-freeze for St. Paul weather, and additives to increase lubricity. It has yet to be shown that there are additives that will survive gas turbine combustion, fall 30,000 feet, and actually have some effect on a target population.
Your hypothetical scenario is easily dismissed on several fronts. Your selection of 15 mile ranges and lower altitudes for the dispersion do not allow for the fact that there are no contrails at low altitude. This thread is about contrails and chemtrails. You assume that if DDT can survive a small de-tuned IC engine then additives in the fuel will survive combustion in a modern gas turbine which has none of the thermal flux characteristics of a lawnmower engine. You also miss the concept of all aircraft leaving the airport being fueled from the same tanks and having no target discrimination. We discussed this at length and you avoided responding except to say that you had proven your point and others didn’t understand. You haven’t proven your point at all. You blustered and patronized. Your pompous and condescending posts miss the point whether you know it or not. You make assumptions that others are not as educated as you are and you underestimate technical skills while regaling us with tales of your limited laboratory experience. By the way, as Mr. Penny said, lab tests in a fume hood with an IC engine do not scale to a gas turbine at atitude. I suspect that there may be more than a few professors of science and engineering on this site that will happily instruct you in their areas of expertise, should you ask.
So far, you have not made any compelling arguments for your theory nor responded to rebuttals other than to imply a vast technical superiority that you obviously do not have. Is this a smoke screen of another kind?
I anticipate your return, even if you do not take me “serious” (sic).



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Based on the comparison between these two photos (top one showing red-colored 'contrails' and bottom one showing military personnel wearing gas masks) , I personally feel that any smoke, regardless of color, is poisonous to inhale. Perhaps, buying gas masks would be nice X-mas presents for anyone with ‘chemtrail’ problems overhead.

~Not trying to derail thread, but trying to deny ignorance here.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


Pikypiky,
Smoke can't be good for you. Cigarette smoke is probably the biggest killer in the US. The dyestuffs that are entrained in smoke from smoke grenades are not so bad because they are not breathed continually and regularly but there is no certainty that they are harmless. Smoke marks something like a target, an LZ, or a friendly position or substitutes for something during training exercises, like a chemical weapon. If you ever pop a smoke grenade and aren't upwind of it, you, your bodily fluids, and everything you are wearing will be very colorful for a while.
Pteridine



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


And none of that has anything what-so-ever to do with the trail phenomenon seen in the skies, be they condensation or exotic chemicals.

Can you at least try to keep on a single point? You are all over the place.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
And none of that has anything what-so-ever to do with the trail phenomenon seen in the skies, be they condensation or exotic chemicals.


AH So you admit that there IS a 'phenomenon seen in the skies' with 'exotic chemicals' So perhaps you could explain EXACTLY what a chemtrail is in your mind so we can address what you want




Can you at least try to keep on a single point? You are all over the place.


'single point' Yes that is how the skeptic mind functions. It can only focus on ONE point... even when an issue being studied has many points to see the big picture... the skeptic mind pushes that one point that it knows one cannot yet prove and ignores all other data...

Kinda sounds like a broken record after a while... Personally I prefer to wander around looking at all angles Perhaps that is why I find so much interesting stuff


Okay so to YOUR point...

We have contrails from military jets that contain toxic waste byproducts from the burning of the additives in the fuel.

We have thousands of military jets flying around the world daily.

By that standard ALL contrails are indeed chemtrails... they are indeed deliberate... though they have no malicious intent (other than taking out the target
)

So then what was your SINGLE point again?






top topics
 
61
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join