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.

 

Chemtrail Debunkers are Losing.

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
I honestly doubt the sanity of people who persist in denying the difference between normal condensation trails and chemically produced trails.


You doubt our sanity?

So pilots, aircraft mechanincs, atmospheric scientists and meteorologists are all insane now are we?

With the risk of sounding stuck up and cocky here, I think we are the best qualified to determine what happens in the upper troposphere regarding contrail development as persistance. Now im not saying you guys are stupid or anything (i honestly am not trying to degrade you guys before you start), because with the right amount of study, anyone can learn this stuff. Unfortunantly the websites you visit are bias.

Try visiting a contrail webiste, figure out the science behind them, then if you really want to prove us wrong, debunk the science. Simply stating that you "see" something and then claiming everyone else is insane, is not evidence enough.




posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Udontknowme

OK, now show me what the particles are. Please provide a link so that all may review the data.

Thank you in advance.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Udontknowme]


You want me to show you miniscule particles?

Im probably not the best person to ask for the link, as Im more concerned with the water vapour within the exhasut.

Actually give me a little bit and I will see if I can find something


Yes, thanks. I figured someone posing as an expert in contrail formation would have access to particulate levels in exhaust, as you and I know that is the "anchor" needed to form the trails.

As I posted in my opening post, Science Direct stated



The coarse residual particle mode (Dp≥1.5 μm) in contrails consisted almost completely of mechanically generated metallic particles which contributed only about 1% to residual particle number but approximately 50% to residual particle volume.

Source

I've shown there is metallic particles in contrails, up to 50% rpv. But they don't let one read what exactly, are they.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Silly me, to think that the military would want to try to do such things! Weather weapons?! C'mon... who would be stupid to even think about such an idea?

I mean, if you try to think like the military, why would you want to control the weather?!!! There would be 0 advantages! Its a stupid idea! Its not even worth to spend 5$ on it!

Yeah, you are all right!
Its been debunked! Its such a nonsense!

Chemtrails... weather control?!
LoL
I must go and get help for even thinking of this! And HAARP is probably just a new system to scare mosquito's..




posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Udontknowme
 


This is what aviation fuel typically consists of


Aviation fuels consist of blends of over a thousand chemicals, primarily Hydrocarbons (paraffins, olefins, naphthenes, and aromatics) as well as additives such as antioxidants and metal deactivators, and impurities. Principal components include n-octane and isooctane. Like other fuels, blends of Aviation fuel used in piston engined aircraft are often described by their Octane rating.


Here's interesting information about the freezing point of jet fuel too



Jet A-1
Flash point: 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: −47 °C (−52.6 °F). (−40 °C (−40 °F) for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.8075 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg [4]


Im also going to take a look and see what extra additives are used in jetfuel. Might do that tomorrow though, its getting late here



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by Hazelnut
I honestly doubt the sanity of people who persist in denying the difference between normal condensation trails and chemically produced trails.


You doubt our sanity?

So pilots, aircraft mechanincs, atmospheric scientists and meteorologists are all insane now are we?

With the risk of sounding stuck up and cocky here, I think we are the best qualified to determine what happens in the upper troposphere regarding contrail development as persistance. Now im not saying you guys are stupid or anything (i honestly am not trying to degrade you guys before you start), because with the right amount of study, anyone can learn this stuff. Unfortunantly the websites you visit are bias.

Try visiting a contrail webiste, figure out the science behind them, then if you really want to prove us wrong, debunk the science. Simply stating that you "see" something and then claiming everyone else is insane, is not evidence enough.


You really musn't put words in my mouth friend.

Its ok with me that your viewpoint differs from mine. Truly. I just feel pity for the ignorance (willful denial) of certain facts that do not require scientific inquiry. My eyes and almost 50 years of experience are all I need. But let the debate rage, because after all the flags and stars are accumulating with every reply.

Out of curiosity, do you scienfically examine every tank of gas you put into your car or plane to determine its chemical fingerprint? Or do you rely on someone else's report on the proper chemical mix in that particular batch of fuel? If you aren't examining the fuel before every flight, how can anyone believe that you know precisely what is in airline fuel. Just because you know how to drive one, repair one, or maintain one, does not mean you are the chemical expert in the fuels used to propel them.

Until you, yourself have made the scientific study to determine the actual content in the fuel used on every individual flight you are involved in....your points are less impactful than you may like.

40 years ago, the blue skies belonged to the heavens. Who does it belong to now? Man takes over and dooms the world to filth, corruption, disease and death to every living organism on the planet. Its bad enough that human greed has corrupted the pristine health of earth itself, now the outrageous insanity persists into the skies. Our land is fouled, the water poisoned and now the air itself is victim to man's insanity and quest for more, more, more.

It is your responsibility and mine to make sure we are not inadvertently, irreversibly harming the planet with our human ignorance.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I'm more interested in what is in the contrail. Again, you and your friends are not addressing the Science Direct report. Interesting to note, that was done in 1998, right around the time people starting talking about Chemtrails.

Please address this issue, as no one seems to be able to.

Maybe we have debunked the "Great Oz".



[edit on 23-8-2009 by Udontknowme]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Advancedboy
how can you remove a post? and how can you upload a youtube video? damn....


Advancedboy, this is the video you were trying to post:

[edit here. After watching, the video, whilst cute (cat playing piano) didn't seem to be on topic. Sorry everyone, thought I'd help out Advancedboy here. Next time I'll go to source and watch there, first.]

[edit on 23 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Udontknowme
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I'm more interested in what is in the contrail. Again, you and your friends are not addressing the Science Direct report. Interesting to note, that was done in 1998, right around the time people starting talking about Chemtrails.

Please address this issue, as no one seems to be able to.

Maybe we have debunked the "Great Oz".



[edit on 23-8-2009 by Udontknowme]


Ive read the abstract for the article, but I cant get into the methodology or results without having a login, so that link is pretty useless.

As for whats in the contrail, I have explained what it is, which is dust and water vapour, but I was trying to find the complete list of waste products from the burning of aviation fuel. Just to add, the main products of hydrocarbon burning are water vapour and carbon dioxide. Like all clouds though, contrails also contain small particulates, just in minute amounts like your own link proved. Its said 1%. Without access to the full article we wont find out what the results are though

And no you havent debunked me


[edit on 23/8/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Ok so lets say these planes you are seeing are spraying chemtrails, where's the hard data to back up this observation? Air samples,


Ask, and you shall receive.



Aerosol Science and Technology, 38:400–408, 2004
Copyright c American Association for Aerosol Research


Particle Generation and Resuspension in Aircraft Inlets
when Flying in Clouds

1 Aeronomy Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado
2 Aeronomy Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado,
and Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, Boulder, Colorado
3 University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
4 Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona

Using on-line analysis of single particles, we have observed both
generation and resuspension of particles when ice crystals, cloud
droplets, or dust impact an aircraft inlet. Large numbers of particles
smaller than 1 μm with a composition suggesting stainless
steel were measured when flying a stainless steel inlet through cirrus
clouds. Smaller numbers of metal particles were also observed
when flying through dust or water clouds. A different instrument,
sampling through a different inlet, found zinc particles when sampling
in cirrus clouds. Laboratory experiments have verified that
high-speed ice crystals can abrade stainless steel. Collision of ice
crystals with the inlet wall also resuspended previously deposited
particles. A notable example came when a flight through the space
shuttle exhaust plume deposited large numbers of unique particles
in our inlet. Some of the same types of particles were observed when
the aircraft flew into an ice cloud the following day. The generation
of particles by impaction of ice crystals and dust in inlets may have
affected some published results about ice nuclei and metal particles
in the upper troposphere. The newly generated particles cannot be
distinguished from atmospheric particles by size alone.

www.espo.nasa.gov...


Stainless steel? Zinc?? Notice how they stay in the atmosphere until the next day?



2.1.2 Chemical and microphysical mechanisms that determine the evolution of emissions from the engine exit to plume dispersion
The initial composition of jet contrails are determined by processes occurring within approximately one wingspan behind the aircraft: chemical and water activation of combustion particles, i.e. soot aerosols, and the subsequent formation of ice on some of these particles (Kärcher et al., 1996).

The contribution of soot particles to contrail formation at temperatures near Tc was inferred from theoretical studies in the cooling plume of the homogeneous freezing potential of fully liquid, volatile acidic plume particles that start forming before the threshold conditions for ice formation (Kärcher et al., 1995).

It was found that volatile particles do not freeze homogeneously in
plumes that are barely supersaturated with respect to water as a result of their very small sizes (a few nm) relative to soot particles (> 10 nm). Soot is formed from sulphurous and carbonaceous compounds during combustion.

The sulphurous component, in the form of sulphuric acid, H2SO4,
increases together with water vapour by condensation after emission...

www.faa.gov...

There is an assessment of the contrail from the FAA!

Soot particles? Volatile acidic plume particles? Sulphuric acid? Chemtrail is a better name for it than contrail.


edited to clarify point being made, which is, why are we ignoring this?

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Udontknowme]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Udontknowme
 



Stainless steel? Zinc?? Notice how they stay in the atmosphere until the next day?



But, but, but....I thought it was "barium and aluminum and silver iodide" that was always being "intentionally sprayed"???

That snippet you found seems to be nothing other than a study of pollution, in our atmosphere caused by us by NORMAL activities, such as jet airplanes!

Stainless steel and zinc particles, in microscopic sizes??

You do realize that jet engines, like all mechanical devices, have friction as they operate, and that there is erosion on surfaces that contact each other, correct? Lubricationn is needed, of course, or else the engines wouldn't last for a few seconds.

Jet engines have, in the oil systems, little magnets that sit in the flow of oil as it is circulated to/from the engine components, out to the heat exchanger (for cooling) and back to the engine. They examine these magnetic collectors on set schedules, to look for excessive amaounts of particles suspended in the oil, indicative of extraordinary wear somewhere in the engine. For particles that are non-ferrous, they also check the filter screens regularly.

The oil HAS to be filtered, because all of those little particles, if allowed to remain, will just accelerate the wear and tear.

It's the same darn thing in you automobile engine!!!

I'd bet you'll find metal particles in your car's engine exhaust, as well.

SO...by one definition, chemtrails exist. EVERY airplane, every jet, every Cessna, every Piper, every lawnmower-engine-powered ultralight makes a chemtrail. So does EVERY car, truck, ambulance, scooter, railroad diesel engine....you name it, if it burns a fossil fuel, it's making a chemtrail.

It's known as pollution.

The notion of wide scale deliberate "spraying" to the extent that so many people THINK they are seeing is just not plausible. There aren't enough airplanes, manpower, or amounts of so-called "chemicals" to be loaded, carried up, and released to achieve coverage over millions of sqwuare miles. Hundreds of millions of cubic miles, you folks seem to forget to think in three dimensions, here.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
And what about this:
www.northernresistance.info...



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


OK so which is it are chemtrails purposefully being made or are they a by product of burning jet fuel.Make up your mind either way the contrails would occur no mater whats in jet fuel its irrelevant.There is no engine that converts 100% of fuel As to harmful effects of burning jet fuel of course there is its exhaust. This is what happens when you burn fuel and jets aren't that different from cars as far as exhaust.If you want to argue jets pollute the air thats fine but its not a conspiracy is it?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
SAPs are special access programs; which are operated through the Military Industrial Complex.


I see a huge conflict, since SAPS are explicitly excluded from military, strategic, and tactical programs.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
I sat in my backyard watching them for hours at a time, days on end and months into years.


I'd like to refer you back to my original post in this thread...


Originally posted by cranberrydork
Actually, chemtrail debunkers are gaining......they're gaining the time to indulge in activities that are actually worthwhile and useful.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


I'm sorry, dear. You are mistaken.


The ones that lay the trails in the sky fly higher than commercial airliners. I sat in my backyard watching them for hours at a time, days on end and months into years. The aircraft that leave persistent trails behind fly so high you can barely see them with the naked eye, and they make no Sound whatsoever.


I really wish I could sit in your backyard and show, explain to you from my perspective, and you'd learn far faster than is possible from this forum.

However, I will do my best to explain here, and to dispel some misconceptions. Here we go......

There are few airplanes that can fly higher than commercial airliners. Fact. There are certain exotic aircraft that go higher, but they certainly are not capable of carrying the massive payloads required to be "spraying" anything.

For passenger jets, you rarely see anything above 40,000 feet. Most are capable (41,000 for the B757/767, for example) but above 40,000 is the limit, and ONLY when the total weight is light enough to achieve. When you fly very long-haul trips, you will surely notice that the airplane will generally climb higher, later in the flight. This is because fuel efficiency is increased (up to a point) by going higher, but being able to GET higher is dependent on weight. ALSO, certain altitudes are more advantageous for winds, at times.

The atmosphere changes, above 40,000 feet. This is a fact, in books on atmospheric science. The air density begins to diminsh much more rapidly, at a non-linear rate, as you go higher, and leave the troposphere. AND the stratosphere.

MOST military large jets are variants of passenger jet designs. (The military C-5 and C-17 being exceptions, for example).



...fly so high you can barely see them with the naked eye, and they make no Sound whatsoever.


Oh, dear. Let's examine this, shall we?

A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, and wingspan is 124 feet. (plus a few inches).

35,000 feet is just about 6.6 statute miles. (Assuming you're at Sea Level. If you're up in Denver, then you're a mile closer to 35,000 feet!)

Anyway, seeing a thin object 155 feet long from nearly seven miles away (remember slant-range distance, too)???

And the "Sound"? Again, that's a long distance, sound needs the air to carry...and if the air is not very still, the sound may not reach your ears, on any particular day, where you're sitting. SO, absence of "Sound" is not conclusive of....well, of anything!

When you understand airplanes, aviation, aircraft performance abilities (and inablities), atmospheric science, meteorology, etc, etc...."chemtrails" just fall to pieces!!



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Hazelnut - if we assume these are not commercial aircraft - then whose aircraft are they? How can you tell how high they are? And also what aircraft is in service in any numbers that flies at higher altitudes than airliners?

[edit on 23/8/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Hazel and C0bzz,

Here is some info on the C-5:


Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 0.79 (503 kn, 579 mph, 932 km/h)
Cruise speed: Mach 0.77
Range: 2,400 nmi (2,760 mi, 4,440 km) with a 263,200 lb payload
Service ceiling: 34,000 ft (10,400 m)
Rate of climb: 1,800 ft/min (9.14 m/s)
Wing loading: 120 lb/ft² (610 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.22
Takeoff roll: 8,400 ft (2,560 m)
Landing roll: 3,600 ft (1,097 m)
Fuel capacity: 51,150 US gal (193,600 l)


--snippet--

The Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is a large, military transport aircraft built by Lockheed. It was designed to provide strategic heavy airlift over intercontinental distances and to carry outsize and oversize cargo. The C-5 Galaxy has been operated by the United States Air Force since 1969 and is one of the largest military aircraft in the world.

Here's a picture

and Source


Here's the C-17:


The Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) C-17 Globemaster III is a large military transport aircraft. The C-17 was developed for the United States Air Force from the 1980s to the early 1990s by McDonnell Douglas. The aircraft carries on the name of two previous United States military cargo aircraft, the C-74 Globemaster and the C-124 Globemaster II. The C-17 is used for rapid strategic airlift of troops and cargo to main operating bases or forward operating bases throughout the world.


And technical specs, pertinent:


Performance

Cruise speed: Mach 0.76 (450 knots, 515 mph, 830 km/h)
Range: 2,420 nmi[98] (2,785 mi, 4,482 km)
Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
Max wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277


And a picture

Source link


[edit on 23 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Chem*****s where already ongoing in 1994 !

Hey, Chadwickus Sam60 SantaClaus OzWeatherman C0bzz
FraternitasSaturni Essan dragonridr. . .
how about this one, again, (for the new readers) ??
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a little video and it's not a long read,
and you will see, there also, ridiculous debunk-answers,
the same as we see here !

It was not VISIBLE chemtrails, because it was raining, BUT
it was obviously many CHEMDROPs ! !

And, for the new readers:
Extensively well done report!
www.chemtrailcentral.com...
3/4 down the page you will see the graph with 4 pink dots !
How bizarre/convenient??: "the unregistered" planes do the chemtrails ! B-)

Blue skies.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 



FOR THE NEW READERS, certainly watch the video. It is ONE isolated incident, and there are plenty of information sources out there that have explained it by now.



And, for the new readers:
Extensively well done report!
www.chemtrailcentral.com...
3/4 down the page you will see the graph with 4 pink dots !
How bizarre/convenient??: "the unregistered" planes do the chemtrails ! B-)



As C-JEAN keeps bringing up not only the YT video, but this "chemtrail central" study, and seems to ignore the facts when I point out the flaws in the 'study', I will go look for my previous response, and post it here in an edit.
__________________________________________________

Here is my other post refuting the "chemtrail central" study.

[edit on 23 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Here is a good video of chemtrail timelapse called "73 planes before breakfast"




new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join