Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails , page 27
Pages: <<  24    25    26    27  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 61 times


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 04:38 PM by pteridine
reply to post by zorgon



Planes in airshows are not at 30,000 feet making contrails. They are operating smoke generators that are obvious and known to the observers.

Would you claim that airplanes are operating these smoke generators, unknown to the public, at high altitude for the purposes of dispersing something in contrails with unknown intent?


reply posted on 4-12-2008 @ 04:42 PM by pteridine
reply to post by zorgon



As we consider the condensation of exhaust from high altitude jets all unburned fuel will also condense in the trail. Hence all trails are condensation trails or....contrails.



reply posted on 5-12-2008 @ 02:53 PM by MrPenny
reply to post by zorgon



Where is that photo originally from? Can you please the provide the context in which that photo was published? Yes, something is being ejected.....no, it isn't contrail. So instead of the unspoken/unwritten implication....provide the source of the photo so we can determine if it is something sneaky secret....or not.

With no explanatory text for the image, it's not quite on the "up and up" to post it with the wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

What is it? Where does the photo come from? Having seen and read your work....I'm willing to bet the source of the photo has a somewhat mundane explanation for what that activity actually is.


Nevermind....just as I thought....

It's from vortex studies conducted by the Dryden Flight Research Center.



You're so sneaky zorgon.....


[edit on 5-12-2008 by MrPenny]


reply posted on 6-12-2008 @ 12:33 AM by pteridine
reply to post by zorgon



Why does the idea that spray equipment is available need such a tortuous proof? Of course smoke generators exist and planes are tested using smoke generators. Photos are taken and published. No secret spraying from 30,000 feet.
Ground crews at commercial airports have not seen such devices on aircraft nor anyone loading such devices with dispersant. The amount of material available for dispersion from such devices is small and is unable to accurately target ground facilities.
There is no supporting evidence for any NATO shield nor any possibility that what you have described would do what you claim. If the defense of the nation depended on throwing dirt in the air we would be in sad shape. Any scheme to effect the radar would blind everyone's radar and allow hostile aircraft to attack without warning; a very bad plan.


reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 12:20 PM by dave420
reply to post by pteridine



Chemtrailers don't need evidence. They just need their beliefs, and they will not surrender them to any logical argument. Trying to show how fatally-flawed their position is will not result in any progress. You will simply be labeled a "disinfo agent" or "ignorant", even when neither is true.

They are a lost cause. Anyone who will believe in something without any evidence what-so-ever will not stop believing in it even with all the evidence in the world neatly displayed in front of their faces. It's a religion, not an intellectual exercise. They have their fantasy, and they need to live it. It's not about learning for them, but existing in a world where super-secret government plans are everywhere, and only an enlightened few, including themselves, knows the truth. It's like a band aid for paranoid insecurity.


reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 12:46 AM by zorgon
reply to post by dave420


Nice speech Dave

Of course you DO realize that your argument works against you as well yes? Couldn't have said it better my self.. mind if I quote ya on that? All I need to do is exchange the word 'believer' to the word 'skeptic'



BTW have you seen my proof that Santa exists?
Stop being a Grinch and pop in to learn something
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Ta ta...


reply posted on 10-12-2008 @ 09:59 AM by dave420
reply to post by zorgon



You could, but you'd be flat-out lying. You have no evidence to support your beliefs. No direct samples taken from suspicious trails which turn out to contain exotic chemicals. That is what you need, and indeed what any rational person would need, to believe in chemtrails. Yet you have forgone that essential evidence and decided to jump right in and believe immediately. That is irrational. I believe that which can be demonstrated. You haven't demonstrated anything. Except your gullibility and paranoia, that is.


reply posted on 16-3-2009 @ 09:32 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by zorgon



I know it's an old thread, but I have to reply to this one. Your "barely visible trail" is engine exhaust. The C-130s and most turboprop aircraft leave a very faint brown cloud behind it when it flies from the engine exhaust. A lot of the time it's hard to see, but under the right conditions you can see it.

pro.corbis.com...

Very faint, but you can see discoloration behind the aircraft:
www.dma.state.mn.us...

www.baseops.net...
Pages: <<  24    25    26    27  >>    ^^TOP^^



Starship Enterprise could be a reality by 2032, engineer says
  Posted 13 days ago with 77 member flags
WARNING: 3D TV\'s Possibly Causing Strokes and Vision Loss
  Posted 19 days ago with 27 member flags
I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?
  Posted 16 days ago with 20 member flags
World’s longest-running experiment now with webcam
  Posted 14 days ago with 19 member flags
Schoolboy \'genius\' solves puzzles posed by Sir Isaac Newton
  Posted 1 days ago with 17 member flags
Bye Bye Co2 and global warming
  Posted 6 days ago with 16 member flags
TV Networks Say You\'re Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
  Posted 0 days ago with 16 member flags
Big Oil Vs. Plasma Battery Technology - Guess who is winning?
  Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags