A case for chemtrails?

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

My First Chemtrail Video: CT's in the PR Twilight
best viewed full screen explanation on my YT channel

OP i'd be happy to discuss my own CT-conspiracy theory but the usual suspects have arrived and are in a frenzy since i announced that i was going to post a thread on the contrail-conspiracy*

consider this a sneak preview

* not a mistype

Great video, thanks for sharing.

I enjoyed your commentary at the end also.

Let me know when you post your new thread. I expect that it will be a lively debate.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

The military would not use a fuel that leaves excessive contrails as it would give away the position of their aircraft making them easy to spot and target from the ground. They supposedly have a chemical that they can add to suppress contrail formation.

That would probably depend on the type of military operation being carried out.

If the aircraft was being used for scientific research then I doubt your statement would apply.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


The military now uses JP-8 with the exception of carrier operations, which use JP-5. JP-8 is the same fuel that is used in the civilian sector. Where I am located the military (along with half the state) gets its gas from the civilian fuel company located at our international airport and the fuel is exactly the same as used for the commercial airlines. As a matter of fact I used to be an aircraft fueler for that company. Additionally, our local military base houses one of the few mid air refueling wings in the country, and there are KC-135’s (which you guys always accuse of being their spray aircraft) flying over my house on a regular basis.

reply to post by defcon5


I agree with what you're saying when applied to normal operations.

What I am suggesting is that certain planes use fuel additives for other purposes. A particular air craft might be modified so that it can disperse the unknown substance by a variety of methods.

One way could be fuel additives to create man made cirrus, fuel tanks could carry different types of fuel, one for regular and one for high altitude. Also special fuel cells might be used at high altitudes

Another way might be injecting the material into the exhaust streams

Or connecting fuel dump valves to on board tanks and spraying that way.

There's a diagram in this report on pages 23 and 26 showing how the material could be injected into the engine or the exahuast
people.ucalgary.ca...




What's your opinion about this event in Oakville, WA

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


The problem with your theory is that there are not enough military aircraft in flight on any given day to spray all the persistent contrails that we see around the world in a 24 hour period. That’s not to even mention that the US is not allowed to operate military aircraft over other countries without their permission, and persistent contrails do not seem to be limited by international borders. Additionally, US military aircraft operating over 18K feet msl and outside a Military Operation Area have to file a flight plan the same as any other IFR flight, and can be tracked via that flight plan making them visible to any civilian who knows how to look for them.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
What's your opinion about this event in Oakville, WA

It sounds like Star Jelly, which is a phenomenon that well pre-dates aircraft, and has never been explained.

reply to post by defcon5


Star jelly ?

IMO star jelly is a myth. Sounds more ridiculous than any chemmie theory I have ever heard.

Seems much more likely that it came from a plane than magical star fairies .

Especially hearing the eye witness accounts of military planes flying overhead for days.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


You seem to post things that you don't fully read......and you tend to, maybe, base your "opinion" on them solely on the titles?

That interesting document (study, invention...proposal) has nothing to do with "chemtrails" ... well, of course, since there are no such things, anyway.

The inventive idea of the "nanoparticles" is to increase combustion efficiency!. This means that those same particles will ALSO be burned up, reduced to constituent gasses, etc. I daresay, also.....that any amounts, in a percentage by weight, of "nanoparticles" will be extremely tiny.


IF you would just stop and think logically, for a few minutes....you would see this entire ghost-chasing exercise of something "in the fuel" to "cause" the non-existent "chem"-trails is utter nonsense.

THINK!!

IF something, some component, was added that made the engine exhaust more visible, for whatever reason.....it would always be evidently visible!! From the beginning of start-up, taxi out, and take off and climb.

But...WE DON'T SEE THIS! (Do we??)

No....what we see are CONTRAILS. Easily explainable, predictable......based on science and atmospheric readings and conditions.


In any case.....surely you've been reading the other threads?? Why hasn't it sunk in, yet, that the many proposals out there intended to be suggestions that will mitigate the "Global Warming" (still unsure about that, aren't we? There is no firm consensus either way as to whether that is even occurring at all...).....it should have sunk in, from reading, that any technology used to deflect the UV or Infrared radiation will have the opposite visual effects than what the "chemmies" are "complaining" about!

BLUER, deeper blue skies...CLEAR skies, for example. The CONtrails are visible because they are clouds. Clouds are visible, too. These exotic atmospheric ideas would be mostly INVISIBLE to the human visual spectrum!!

Think of glass.....I know, different material....but, DID YOU KNOW that glass will deflect some UV radiation? And, glass is clear, of course (usually....in purest forms).

Of course, glass in particular, has a tendency to trap IR radiation (thus, greenhouses) ..... but, it was just an example of something that is "invisible" (transparent) yet still effective in ways that are counter-intuitive.
(Until you get a proper science education, that is....)

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Where do you come up with the ridiculous figures you posted?

6000 miles?

The United States in 3000 miles from coast to coast. No one has ever claimed to see a chemtrail that big.

Simple, logical steps.

1) Aluminium demisting agent in fuel. Must be mixed to be evenly spread through entire fuel load.
2) 6000 mile maximum range
3) Maximum fuel load given for a 777-300.
4) Density of fuel x volume of fuel = mass of fuel
5) 1% of mass of fuel = high end amount of aluminium demisting agent = 1.4 metric tons.
6) Since the demisting agent is spread evenly through the fuel, that 1.4 metric tons will then go through the engine.
7) Over the distance of 6000 miles, being the maximum range which would therefore most likely need a full fuel load.

Which you could have easily worked out for yourself.


And, while an afterburner may be described as "open ended combustion chamber", jets which leave persistent contrails (you're so called "Chemtrails"), will all be ones with High Bypass Turbofans.

Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. What will be the next excuse when the (SAG) program is admitted?

IMO the "connies" stories are starting to sound crazier each day. Much more so than any "chemmies".

Debating this topic with certain people is like participating in the Special Olympics.

reply to post by Tygart

Why do they keep making all the cross patterns, for the fun of it.[?] I don't think you really know the cost to fly a jet.

in case those aren't rhetorical questions.
perhaps they are laying down a grid for something in orbit? also, think of cross-hairs

since when have TCOTBIP shown any kind of restraint in their spending?


reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Not really surprising tho - since there's "aluminium and metals" in aircraft and aircraft engines..... In what way doe this show that there's a programme to deliberately add more in order to effect [pick a chemtrail objective of your choice]? There's all sorts of nasty chemicals in NORMAL jet exhaust - sulphates, nitrous oxides, metals, organics....because that's what is in engines and engine systems and fuel and fuel systems.

by now you've seen weedwhacker grudgingly admit to aluminum in the fuel.
thought i'd point that out in leu of an answer.


reply to post by defcon5


thank you for that lovely piece of Forteana:

Scientific analysis and theories
Thomas Pennant in the 18th century believed the material to be "something vomited up by birds or animals".[5]

In fiction
Sir John Suckling, in 1641, wrote a poem which contained the following lines:[2] As he whose quicker eye doth trace A false star shot to a mark'd place Do's run apace, And, thinking it to catch, A jelly up do snatch
Henry More, in 1656 wrote:[2][5] That the Starres eat...that those falling Starres, as some call them, which are found on the earth in the form of a trembling gelly, are their excrement.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


umm, i really think defcons called it right here, are you familiar with the writings of Charles Fort, by any chance? there is a loooooong history of weird crap falling from the sky frogs, blood, milk, and more revolting things. i think it's safe to discard this somewhat as being unrelated to CT's, for now, one less false alley to go down, which would lead us further from the truth, don't you think?

let's not indulge in the errors of the contrailers now.

Why do they keep making all the cross patterns, for the fun of it.[?] I don't think you really know the cost to fly a jet.

in case those aren't rhetorical questions.
perhaps they are laying down a grid for something in orbit? also, think of cross-hairs

since when have TCOTBIP shown any kind of restraint in their spending?

Don't say that, those cross-hairs are above my house.

Interesting theory.

I am still thinking it is for weather.

Cloud seeding

Regardless of what they say they are putting in their, I don't know. It sure looks like what is happening.

Here is one of the things I was talking about, spraying. And It is not in the fuel, to my knowledge that is impossible. It would be like adding water to the fuel take.



contrailscience.com...
contrailscience.com...

reply to post by Tygart


I think I need to focus on you.....a personal project.....

say that, those cross-hairs are above my house.

LOL!! I Maybe there is some cross-posting going on....but....airliners that fly many different routes between cities....WHAT part of that is hard to understand?

Oh MAN!!! THIS is as silly is it sounds, to the rest of everyone???:

....perhaps they are laying down a grid for something in orbit? also, think of cross-hairs ....

In an ERA OF 'GPS'??? You can have a friggin' GPS in your RENTAL CAR, for chrissakes!!!!

PLEASE, think this through, would you?


WHAT???!!!??? "adding water" to the fuel?????

It would be like adding water to the fuel take.

THAT photo is a picture of a CLOUD SEEDING dispenser mounded on the side of the fuselage (rather than the wing) of a Cessna 206 (or 207). "ADDING WATER" to fuel ????? Oh, my!!! You might be confusing "water injection" ....but, still....has NOTHING to do with "chem"-trails!!

You "finished" your post with this link:

contrailscience.com...
contrailscience.com...

I think you misunderstood what you saw, there.......

reply to post by weedwhacker


Oh boy, this is getting old. I really don't care what you think, I think we both have provided our own views. You nor I will change.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Yeah I agree the jelly material is not the same as chemtrails.

But the following attempted cover up of that incident is pretty similar to what is going on here.

The official story seems so outlandish to any person who is an actual eyewitness observer.

I do have to give them credit for creating a very tight alibi in the present case though.

saive.com...



saive.com...




SEARCH TAGS

Lockheed Martin geoengineering

Boeing geoengineering

battelle geoengineering

raytheon geoengineering

evergreen aviation geoengineering

cargolux geoengineering

geoengineering pdf

reply to post by weedwhacker


doshta? weedwhacker-san? why not respond directly?

I think I need to focus on you.....a personal project.....

why do i get this image of you rubbing your hands, and am reminded of the following quote:
" They broke Saints on their wheels..."

....perhaps they are laying down a grid for something in orbit? also, think of cross-hairs ....

perhaps that Al-Ba mix acts as a sort of magnifying mirror and/or frequency modulator/polarizer?

i notice you have not responded to my "shout-out" either.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

Aren't these the definition of what people to consider to be chemtrails?

No, what people consider to be chemtrails are these:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/25d505e09142.jpg[/atsimg]

Normal commercial aircraft contrails.

All of what you posted is true (afaik), but none of it produces anything similar to the above picture and in most cases nothing visible from the ground at all.

Chemtrails are just contrails.

This does not mean that on occasion stuff isn't sprayed from aircraft. But when it is we don't see it form into cirrus clouds. Whatever the spammers and "disinfo agents" and those who know less about the chemical composition of the 674th bigger rock on Ceres than they do about weather, may try and mislead you into thinking.

reply to post by weedwhacker

THINK!!

IF something, some component, was added that made the engine exhaust more visible, for whatever reason.....it would always be evidently visible!! From the beginning of start-up, taxi out, and take off and climb.

Why are you trying to play me for a fool once again?

This is so obvious I'm shocked you even tried to use this excuse.

Planes have more than 1 fuel tank. ..........duh

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Planes have more than 1 fuel tank. ..........duh signature:

And nothing in them that causes chemtrails. No not even this magical jet fuel full of aluminum.

Okay this is for those of you chemtrailers out there. Why is it when someone doesn't agree with you they are closed minded and then whatever else you want to call them? Now when the shoe is on the other foot the chemtrailers either leave the thread to start new ones about the same topic.It seems that when the evidence that gets presented by a debunker that shows your comments to be flawed you start throwing up anything that looks like it will help to bolster your theory. So you should think about what your going to post before doing so, because then you will see the holes in your theories.You know who you are no need to mention names.