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.

 

Dailymail UK Thread On Chemtrails: How Jet Trails Block Out The Sunshine

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



YES! This same phenomenon of people being obsessed with that which they insist is not real occurs on other topics too, especially theism and creationism. People who don't believe in God seem unable to stop flaming and bashing every single thread or comment about it, they stay parked in the Religion section and travel around in gangs it seems. Pathetic or psychotic or whatever, it isn't healthy for people to focus on things they don't believe in.


What about the people who go around bashing people who don't believe what they believe? You know, the ones who park themselves in the Religion forum travelling in gangs ripping on evolution? Are they pathetic or psychotic? It seems to me if one holds an opinion, one should welcome criticism; by overcoming objections, one can formulate a clearer picture if one is right, or, if the criticism is valid, reject one's false beliefs.




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

YES! This same phenomenon of people being obsessed with that which they insist is not real occurs on other topics too, especially theism and creationism. People who don't believe in God seem unable to stop flaming and bashing every single thread or comment about it, they stay parked in the Religion section and travel around in gangs it seems. Pathetic or psychotic or whatever, it isn't healthy for people to focus on things they don't believe in.
edit on 22-6-2011 by SaberTruth because: (no reason given)


Don't the non-believers realize that the best argument against religion, is to start "literally interpreting" it ?

OK, a bit off-subject, except for these facts....

Perhaps the best way to debate "Chemtrails" is to imagine their claims as literally real and currently in-practice.....and then ask "how can that happen in real life ?"
edit on 22-6-2011 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Having read the report apart from the temp error and the fact that we are to believe that contrail's last beyond 1-2 hours is the items i disagree with especially as this time last year there where no persistent contrail's hat so ever in the area in which i live.
Although this is my own observations of a change i have seen and i can not verify this but as in history even a secondary source of information[someones view point of an event]still has merit.
also i find it strange how readers comments are no longer available on the website now.[quick put the lid back on that can of worms]



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
242 comments with we don't know how many more there might have been shows alot of interest in this phenom. The number of threads and posts on those threads just on ATS alone shows alot of interest. Over the years as the phenomena has grown, I have found that interest, rather than acceptance, has also grown. In casual meetings it is not unusual to hear 'look at those X's in the sky' rather than ' how about this weather' or 'how about those Red Sox.' The grid patterns and X's and loops etc. are enough to cause comment. Watching news or watching shows filmed on location show skies in the background all over the world riddled with grid patterns and X's and those focus alot of attention. It's like 'wow, look at that - it's the same as here - what is that?' I have never actually met anyone in person casually or otherwise discussing this who thought they were jet trails because everyone knows jet trails disappear - they always have.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
OP, the fact that there are a number individuals on ATS who jump on these topics or continuously post threads to debunk the chemtrail theories at any given time of the day or night and rarely show up in any other threads gives reason enough to believe there is something to be concerned about.

If a person thinks the chemtrail theories are pure nonsense, why would he bother? Why spend your day arguing with people you believe to speak nonsense? Why vehemently defend the government is there is truly nothing to defend? Why do they care what allegations people make about the government if the government has nothing to hide?

Either they are assisting in the cover-up, or it makes them feel important. Anyone with a shred of self-esteem wouldn't feel the need to spend so much time arguing an issue if they truly believed it was a joke.

I believe one would find the definition of such a person under the word "pathetic" in any dictionary of the English language.


I wish this post could be used for every troll, sock puppet & purposeful dis-info agent around here, on all the major topics in ATS



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
In relation to the thread in hand, I am from the UK. I've just spent the last year at my rented student accommodation house for Uni.

Most days, over the course of the year, I'd wake up, do my usual thing & when I go outside to smoke, I notice the criss-crossing of trails in the sky, in the exact same place always, in the exact same formation. Sometimes, I see three trails.

My friend, who doesn't know about the theory of chemtrails, would always pass it off as just flights (since we're in the countryside & there are always planes or helicopters & some sort of training tests going on, I think).

But these trails would just stay in the sky for most of the day, rather than disappear after 30 minutes like normal contrails.

Just what I've seen though. It didn't appeaar every single day, but then again, I wasn't checking everyday.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
What about the people who go around bashing people who don't believe what they believe? You know, the ones who park themselves in the Religion forum travelling in gangs ripping on evolution? Are they pathetic or psychotic? It seems to me if one holds an opinion, one should welcome criticism; by overcoming objections, one can formulate a clearer picture if one is right, or, if the criticism is valid, reject one's false beliefs.

Religious people parking in the Religion forum and not laying down and dying before rabid, drooling atheists, how shocking!!

Criticism is fine, but I've seen precious little honest criticism and much hate, flame bait, and copy/paste from sites like infidels.org, evilbible.com, and talkorigins.com. Logical fallacies abound along with ignoring the OP, personal attacks, and failure to grasp arguments.

But my point here is that whether the topic is religion or chemtrails or UFOs, people who don't believe in them yet spend every waking moment raging against them have a problem. That's all.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
wow what a smoking gun sat in there with the comments that again debunks the report i have to quote it

quote:Mr. Tree "This causes water vapour emitted by the engines to crystallise and form the familiar white streaks across the sky, known as contrails. "These can be short-lived. But if there is already a significant amount of moisture in the atmosphere they can linger for hours, as the excess water vapour from the engines tips the surrounding air past its saturation point.

I was a jet engine mechanic in the Navy and I can assure you that there is no such thing as "excess water" coming from jet engines. Gas turbines operating on principles discribed by Daniel Bernoulli and commonly referred to as Brayton or Joule cycle engines, generally burn JP3, 4, and 5 which have only infintesimal H2O content if at all. Con trails are formed by a process of cavitation especially with turbofan style jets in which not all the air goes into the compustion progess. Much of the air is driven by the intake turbine blades which drives the air around the combustion stage.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 22-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 



Having read the report apart from the temp error and the fact that we are to believe that contrail's last beyond 1-2 hours is the items i disagree with especially as this time last year there where no persistent contrail's hat so ever in the area in which i live.


If the temperature remains below -40, why would the ice crystals disappear? Wouldn't they remain until the temperature changes or they grow heavy enough to precipitate?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


For contrail's to form you need a temp of -40/-60 degrees to form how long they persist is a subject to debate and has been with no real prof on either side but the fact is that you need that temp to start with otherwise no contrail will form.
Also when clouds become oversaturated then the produce rain which in turn reduces the size of the cloud and if memory serves that is also due to a change in temp also so in affect how a cloud behaves is very different than how a contrail acts even though on a submicron level it would be hard to tell them apart after a 30 minute time frame.
edit on 22-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Judging by the responses to this article, it would seem that chem-trailing is the conspiracy theory that's gone mainstream - or rather - has been observed by the masses. Now I understand why there's such a huge agenda to debunk the concept on this website :- believing in chem-trails is not purely the reserve of marginalised conspiracy nuts; it's percieved as an immediate danger to the current state of play.

Maybe the sleeping giant of the masses is waking up; maybe the Earth tribe is standing up.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Robert Reynolds because: Spelling error.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 



For contrail's to form you need a temp of -40/-60 degrees to form how long they persist is a subject to debate and has been with no real prof on either side but the fact is that you need that temp to start with otherwise no contrail will form.


Once a contrail is formed it behaves just like any other cloud. So long as the temperature remains in the right range, it will persist until the atmosphere is saturated or the winds disperse it. This can happen very rapidly or it can take all day, depending on conditions.


Also when clouds become oversaturated then the produce rain which in turn reduces the size of the cloud and if memory serves that is also due to a change in temp also so in affect how a cloud behaves is very different than how a contrail acts even though on a submicron level it would be hard to tell them apart after a 30 minute time frame.


Correct, although contrails are clouds, and behave in precisely the same way at every level.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


the visible difference should be enough for you to know that persistent contrail's do not act like clouds at all.
The shape alone is a key give away after all clouds by there very nature will bunch up into fluffy clumps and change shape with the winds and pressure in the atmosphere where as contrail's[persistent 2-8 hour] keep there shape and instead of bunching up spread out in a thin misty layer that covers vast areas of the sky while still keeping there rough shape ie you can tell its from a plane how can you honestly say that they are acting alike



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmoKeyHaZe


I wish this post could be used for every troll, sock puppet & purposeful dis-info agent around here, on all the major topics in ATS


Some people have different opinions in that we have come to the information via a different method.
Is that wrong ?
Do you propose we should think differently ?
Perhaps you have a method we should follow.....a set of rules perhaps. ?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 22-6-2011 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2011 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 



I was a jet engine mechanic in the Navy and I can assure you that there is no such thing as "excess water" coming from jet engines. Gas turbines operating on principles discribed by Daniel Bernoulli and commonly referred to as Brayton or Joule cycle engines, generally burn JP3, 4, and 5 which have only infintesimal H2O content if at all.


Correct, water would contaminate the fuel and damage the engines. (As would aluminum, barium, nerve gas, etc.) The water is produced by the combustion of the fuel; ie, when it combines with the oxygen in the air and burns. The chemical formula is as follows:

C12H26(l) + 37/2 O2(g) → 12 CO2(g) + 13 H2O(g)
Wikipedia

Note that the principle products of this reaction are carbon dioxide and water. There is some controversy over the contribution this carbon dioxide makes to global warming, and the effect the water vapor might have on the Earth's albedo. These are legitimate considerations in the "Geo-Engineering Forum." Personally, I favor the development of high speed intercity rail (which can be powered by "cleaner" energy) over continuing to expand the aviation industry (which actually requires huge government subsidies). Nevertheless, the point is that contrails consist almost entirely of water produced by the burning of refined kerosene; they are just clouds.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
For contrail's to form you need a temp of -40/-60 degrees to form how long they persist is a subject to debate and has been with no real prof on either side


No it's NOT a subject of debate. It's simple physics. They last at least as long as nearby clouds do - and often longer because they are quite dense clouds.

For references, see:

contrailscience.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
I was a jet engine mechanic in the Navy and I can assure you that there is no such thing as "excess water" coming from jet engines. Gas turbines operating on principles discribed by Daniel Bernoulli and commonly referred to as Brayton or Joule cycle engines, generally burn JP3, 4, and 5 which have only infintesimal H2O content if at all. Con trails are formed by a process of cavitation especially with turbofan style jets in which not all the air goes into the compustion progess. Much of the air is driven by the intake turbine blades which drives the air around the combustion stage.


Burning a gallon of jet fuel will create more than a gallon of water.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


that site has no real information on time lines what so ever i have read reports thet do have timeline's its nothing better than a press release put together to Shepard you back into the flock.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus
 


that site has no real information on time lines what so ever i have read reports thet do have timeline's its nothing better than a press release put together to Shepard you back into the flock.


What do you mean? It has several historical references saying that contrails can persist for several hours.

How would you explain all the science books, for example:

“A Field Guide to the Atmosphere“, by Schaefer and Day, 1981:


Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“ (Page 137)


All the science books through history agree; contrails CAN last for hours.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


so are you saying his information is wrong if so i don't think much of the navy training these days

I'm sorry if i give credence to what he is saying i will research it though just so that you don't think i take everything at face value.
edit on 22-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join