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.

 

Why are so many people calling contrails, Chemtrails?

page: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


The blackbird wouldnt leave much of a contrail while it was at crusing altitude, because it flies in the stratosphere, rather than the troposphere. The humidity above the tropopause is much lower on average




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   


Performance Measurements of Silver-Iodide Smoke Generators on Aircraft.
Smith, E. J.; Warburton, J. A.; Heffernan, K. J.; Thompson, W. J.
Journal of Applied Meteorology, vol. 5, Issue 3, pp.292-295

The performance of a silver iodide smoke generator, mounted on an aircraft, was measured in flight. The ice-nucleus output was 1014 per gram of silver iodide active at 15C and 1012 at 10C. Considerable variations in the burner configuration and the solution which was burnt had little effect on the performance.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

The above excerpt is from a NASA/Harvard website. Now what would NASA be spraying silver iodide for? Weather manipulations.

The 1014 per gram is actually 10 to the 14 power, or
1,000,000,000,000,000 particles per gram, each one a little silver sliver attached to a salt particle just waiting for us to breath it in.

But you debunkers keep ignoring the facts. I feel sorry for you.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by doctordoom]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by doctordoom
 


There are about 10 posts in this thread stating that they have used silver iodide to make rain since the 1940s. Do you not read anything that goes against what you are saying???

Silver iodide is not laid down in a trail. It is dumped into a preexisting cloud. You have to have clouds to use silver iodide. Using it makes rain, that's all.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by doctordoom
 

Silver iodide is not laid down in a trail. It is dumped into a preexisting cloud. You have to have clouds to use silver iodide. Using it makes rain, that's all.


Plus, silver iodide is released at a much lower altitude than where contrails occur. Its released in the region where the tops of cumulus and altocumulus exist, as they are the most common rain produing clouds.

Im not even sure if the OP knows how silver iodide works to increase the chances of rain



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Well since the retired the Blackbird it makes me wonder what other new tech is out there flying leaving con/chem trails. We wont know until they retire that one either. Very interesting!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by wonderworld
 


Its not technology, its just a normal meteorology, thats been occuring ever since we had the planes to fly at such a high height to cause contrails. (which has been since the 30's and 40's)



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


You might also take a Cessna 172 and use a Pole Cat to make is snow in Florida and wouldn’t need a cloud or silver iodide just plain tap water. It sounds less complex but would also dissipate before hitting the ground depending on the altitude. I’m sure it would freak some people out appearing to be a massive low flying chem trail. I suppose you can consider it a chemical reaction. Manipulation is everywhere. I should know better than to debate chemicals with a weather pro. Manipulating weather is pretty interesting though!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Actually aircraft related contrails have been occurring since about 1918 or so, and persistent contrails were first noticed in 1921. There were contrails seen before there were aircraft, which I found interesting.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctordoom


Performance Measurements of Silver-Iodide Smoke Generators on Aircraft.
Smith, E. J.; Warburton, J. A.; Heffernan, K. J.; Thompson, W. J.
Journal of Applied Meteorology, vol. 5, Issue 3, pp.292-295

The performance of a silver iodide smoke generator, mounted on an aircraft, was measured in flight. The ice-nucleus output was 1014 per gram of silver iodide active at 15C and 1012 at 10C. Considerable variations in the burner configuration and the solution which was burnt had little effect on the performance.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

The above excerpt is from a NASA/Harvard website. Now what would NASA be spraying silver iodide for? Weather manipulations.

The 1014 per gram is actually 10 to the 14 power, or
1,000,000,000,000,000 particles per gram, each one a little silver sliver attached to a salt particle just waiting for us to breath it in.

But you debunkers keep ignoring the facts. I feel sorry for you.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by doctordoom]


Give me a break. The planet is mostly covered with water. How can spraying, mostly over populated areas change the weather.

Repeat. Repeat. Chemtrails are polymers to absorb and bring to the ground atmospheric pollutants. DU, mercury, lead, burn off from irresponsible chemical factories. Stop trying to say it is for weather manipulation. Lets go one on one. (to this poster)



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


So? what no comment now that I have posted my credentials as you asked? as I stated previously, now that I have shown you mine, how about showing yours?

[edit on 15-3-2009 by QBSneak000]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by QBSneak000
 


Please post the quote taken from the post wherein I specifically make such a request of you.

After you realize you cannot locate such a post, your apology must be made immediately.

Cheers!




[edit on 16-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
You can't have it both ways. Trying to do so is hypocrisy.


Exactly.

Only a hypocrite would proclaim his relevant accreditations and not ever post them...

I do not use my educational background to try and convince people that my opinion has more weight that another members.

If I did make such claims and did cite my education as evidence and reason to be believed - I would post my shingle if asked.

But since I do no such thing, no proof of accreditation/qualification will be forthcoming..... Nor is it expected

Hypocrisy indeed.


You must have skipped this portion of my last post:

"*If I was claiming expertise in some area, and was alleging that my academic and/or professional qualifications should give my opinion more weight than other members; I would be prepared to present proof of my qualifications if asked. Nor would I expect to see the other member's qualifications before or after presenting my own.

In fact, I would feel obligated to do so for the sake of my arguments, as any discerning member would be able to see that my persistent claims of accreditation, were not backed-up with 'proof'.

Apart from that, such an enquiry does not require Quid pro quo exchange. "



[edit on 16-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



you posted:



The members who were bragging about their credentials and constantly reminding the other members of the claims 'qualifications' did weaken their side of the argument by behaving in this manner.

Not one of them ever posted their certifications/degrees/diplomas/licenses when asked. - information that might be used to identify them could have been blocked out.

All that would have been required was for one of the debunkers on that thread to post a pic of their credentials next to to their monitor to verify that they were in possession of the qualification they proclaimed throughout the entirety of the thread.




after I had replied to another poster with:



No, I trust what I know as I work in that (scientific) field.


So no, you didn't make the request directly to me so I humbly apologize for that, but considering your post, one can't help but wonder at who it was directed towards.

All I am asking is the other side of the coin of your statement. If the debunkers should have to post credentials to validate there comments and facts through the thread, then so should the pro chemtrailers no? or is it only one sided deal?

I mean no disrespect, just looking for clarification is all.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by QBSneak000
or is it only one sided deal?

I mean no disrespect, just looking for clarification is all.


Relatively.

.... And then only so far as certain individuals on that 'one-side' are claiming to have professional expertise/accreditation/qualification, and are using those claims to attempt to convince others that their own hypothesis has more validity.

Anyhow, such an enquiry does not require Quid pro quo exchange or credentials.

Why then, do you even pretend that it does ?

*As I have been quite specific in my last postings to this issue of certain members refusal to provide accreditation/qualification in a particular thread. If you are having difficulty understanding my posts, or would like to make further inquiry into my views on the matter - please convey them to me over U2U.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
As i said earlier there are 2 types of contrails so which one are we talking about thats supposed to be chem trails?
Contrails are created in an aircraft's wake when ice forms around the small particles of soot or aerosol that are expelled from the engines of the craft. These trails are formed behind the plane because the relative humidity increases due to the mixing of warm, moist exhaust gases and the colder, less humid ambient air of the atmosphere. Contrails will generally become visible roughly about one wingspan distance behind the aircraft and may be formed by propeller as well as jet turbine powered aircraft.


Cavitation is the other way contrails form.
Contrails may also be created without the need for engine exhaust gases at all. This may happen when a wing surface or tip of a wing causes a cavitation of air in very humid conditions and can even happen near ground level.

Spraying any chemical in the air would do little good due to dissipation of said chemical.And another piece of logic escapes me if clouds cam float around without disappearing why would you expect contrails to act any different they are just man made clouds? But in the end clouds and contrails form the same way so wait maybe nature is spraying chemicals too! Every cloud needs something for liquid to bond with.


[edit on 3/16/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 





.... And then only so far as certain individuals on that 'one-side' are claiming to have professional expertise/accreditation/qualification, and are using those claims to attempt to convince others that their own hypothesis has more validity.

Anyhow, such an enquiry does not require Quid pro quo exchange or credentials.

Why then, do you even pretend that it does ?




Give me a break, the burden of proof is on BOTH sides but I suppose since the pro chemtrail side has had no experts in any field even closely related to the topic chime in with any valid scientific evidence to support their claims then no credentials are needed. All we get from that side are pretty pictures, links to bad websites like RENSE and personal opinion. But when and if that day ever happens, I will expect the same proof of credentials that you demand.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by QBSneak000
But when and if that day ever happens, I will expect the same proof of credentials that you demand.



You would be right to do so.

However, and until then - the only credentials in question are those belonging to the members attempting to use claims of accreditation to bolster their arguments.

Cheers!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by QBSneak000
You asked for credentials? ok here you go. I have edited my ID card in the photo only to protect my anonymity as I would like to keep my job and somewhat privacy.

Its from Environment Canada if its too blurry to read.

Its a little blurry I know, my camera sucks but Oz can verify the validity as we know each other outside of ATS

so now that I have shown you my credentials are you going to show me yours? I think that would only be fair.


I think this is what another ATS'r said a few lines up

'' reply to post by ChemBreather
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well sell your camera, because photos alone aren't going to prove anything. ''

I'm being dumb right now, I know and appolagize, but he claims pictures are worthless as evidence. Do you have any reports backing up this photo, any police officials that can swear this is your ID card etc etc..

Ok, I am joking with you ofcorse, but you must get an idea how st%pid this issue is, you ppl want 'evidence and reports' on the 'evidence and reports' presented to you !! The deal with these Chems, I do NOT belive every trail and every plane are 'cheming' our skies,I do think they chem where and when nessesery(?) for a reason, and maby sick people is just an 'acceptable loss during the sercumstances' or something along those lines, maby a lesser of two evils. ? Who knows...


[edit on 16-3-2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Here is an pretty well research page.
ChemTrail Central




Observations of Flight Explorer confirmed contrails and highly persistent trails from jets not appearing on Flight Explorer are graphed for persistence and by date. The persistence of the highly persistent trails is an approximate generalized value of 6 hours, actual persistence could be shorter or longer. The magnitude of persistence makes accurate individual measurements difficult due to logisitical and temporal challenges.




The highly persistent trail is entirely inconsistent with the trends of identified trails observed this day. These highly persistent trails have a persistence more conveniently measured in minutes or hours, as opposed to seconds. The length of persistence of these trails has not been accurately measured due to the fact that they persist for longer than can be observed from a given location. It would be necessary to utilize a vehicle to follow these trails and produce such a measurement, however one highly persistent trail was timed at over 5 hours. This particular measurement was limited by line-of-sight visibility, the actual persistence was longer.


Why dont my added pictures show in the forum as with your pictures?
Anyways, as stated here, the trail lasted so long that if he wanted to continiue timing the trail, he had to get in hes car and drive after it beyond the horizon, and you can not say that for normal contrails, as he also states here, is that the contrails on this day, lasted about 20 seconds, afew lasted abit longer but not even close to 5 and 6 hours.

Debunk that without just denying Chemtrails..



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join