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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by djcarlosa
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)


He's not wrong in that there's very little (if any) water in jet fuel. However there's a LOT of water in jet exhaust. I think he just though that "excess water" applied to water in the fuel.

It's a simple chemical reaction, as noted above. Hydrocarbons (fuel) and air (oxygen) burn to produce carbon dioxide and H20 (dihydrogen monoxide, aka water)




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
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)


You are far more skeptical of science, aviation and meterology, than you are about what you read on conspiracy/chemtrail sites. You have taken in chemtrails, without a degree of skepticism, and seemingly taking it all in at face value



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





We can agree that the reporter typed a "3" when he or she should have typed a "4." Everything else seems to be well sourced and typo free. You still haven't explained why you linked to a paper about heterogenic ice formation.


Nice try, but you have no way of knowing if the "3" was a typo or not. Why should it be viewed as a typo as opposed to faulty research? If you guys want to scrutinize every detail presented on the chemtrail side, don't expect anything less back.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow

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)


I don't propose anything. I'm merely stating this to all the people who have to come argue their own facts over & over with no real substance on PURPOSE.

I respect everybody's opinion, whether or not it differs in comparison to mines. But when you don't respect mines & try to shut me down with irrational over-load posting, then it can become tedious.

Perhaps you should re-read the post made by NightGypsy...Coz I'm ONLY addressing this to those that start a flame war. Then, when there's about 5-10 responses to whatever that person posts, they usually completely ignore it, use the whole "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle of the same info (which has already been exposed) in another thread.

If you have a problem with me addressing this to people, then maybe you are one of these people.
edit on 22-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: grammar*

edit on 22-6-2011 by SmoKeyHaZe because: wrong name



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Hmm let me see if i've got this right this book is written by Vincent Schaefer who has a long standing relationship to the military and other government agency's even after he retired.
Was the brain child behind project cirrus one of the first weather modification programs undertaken in the states.
link; en.wikipedia.org...
then project Skyfire another attempt at weather modification again his project and then shall we add all the patients he owns?
us patient 2,437,963 is very interesting and given his involvement in earlier weather modification programs dose make me question what he might write about normal contrail's especially as there is a treaty in place banning it.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


So the mail is a chemtrail's web site now is it?
think before you write saves getting embarrassed later and just to clear up one point i don't visit those chem trail web sites i tend to look for information that has scientific merit.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by afw2121
 


Not only is the article not about chemtrails, it specifically says this:


The phenomenon occurs when aircraft fly above 25,000ft, where the air temperature is around minus 30C. This causes water vapour emitted by the engines to crystallise and form the familiar white streaks across the sky, known as contrails.

Your own source.

Did someone just use the word "pathetic?"



That point was covered at the onset of the thread. However, I wouldn't consider the OP's post "pathetic" given the discrepancy suggested with the "30C." Perhaps this discrepancy has revealed this article to be nothing more than propaganda to debunk chemtrails.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 



Nice try, but you have no way of knowing if the "3" was a typo or not. Why should it be viewed as a typo as opposed to faulty research? If you guys want to scrutinize every detail presented on the chemtrail side, don't expect anything less back.


Actually, I'm pretty sure the reporter didn't do any research at all. It's not a research paper, it's a fluff piece. I'm not sure why this article was even posted here.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post 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.


Yes.....what ABOUT those people? You know, the ones who park themselves in the chemtrail forums traveling in gangs ripping on chemtrail believers?

I doubt they are psychotic, but some of them are questionable in the "pathetic" category depending upon their demeanor.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


It was posted here because it gave a clear indicator of how many people have started to take note of what's going on around them the comments made under the article are the reason it was posted here and of course the complete lack of research that went into the article



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





Actually, I'm pretty sure the reporter didn't do any research at all. It's not a research paper, it's a fluff piece. I'm not sure why this article was even posted here.


Okay, so now it's gone from the "3" being a typo to you being "pretty sure the reporter didn't do any research at all" and the article being a "fluff piece." Interesting.....

At the onset, you seemed to be just fine with it being viewed as an article that supported the contrail theory as opposed to chemtrails.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 



Okay, so now it's gone from the "3" being a typo to you being "pretty sure the reporter didn't do any research at all" and the article being a "fluff piece." Interesting.....


Where did I ever say that this was a research paper? I'm not even the one who posted it; what's more, I instantly acknowledged the error.


At the onset, you seemed to be just fine with it being viewed as an article that supported the contrail theory as opposed to chemtrails.


That's because it is an article that supports the "contrail theory!" I'm still perfectly fine with it. Why do you have a problem with it? Because it doesn't support the "chemtrail theory?" You still haven't explained how one typo invalidates the entire article.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Hmm let me see if i've got this right this book is written by Vincent Schaefer who has a long standing relationship to the military and other government agency's even after he retired.
Was the brain child behind project cirrus one of the first weather modification programs undertaken in the states.
link; en.wikipedia.org...
then project Skyfire another attempt at weather modification again his project and then shall we add all the patients he owns?
us patient 2,437,963 is very interesting and given his involvement in earlier weather modification programs dose make me question what he might write about normal contrail's especially as there is a treaty in place banning it.


But what he says agrees with every other science book in the world, though all of the history of aviation, for 100 years.

Do you REALLY think that contrails can't last more than a few seconds? Really?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 





Do you REALLY think that contrails can't last more than a few seconds? Really?


Yes, they honestly believe that. They refuse to do any cursory research on contrails, which would be the only way to differentiate them from "chemtrails". They'll post up an un-sourced report and 100% fact but will deny decades of basic science.

It's actually alarming. And I'm still one of the people thinking this could actually be happening, but no one in the community seems interested in actually proving it, they'd rather complain about how we don't listen.

Until you guys can get some basic (and provable) science right, don't expect much from the other side. We're not here to do the groundwork for you.

Years of this chemtrail business and it's all the same, always the same. What's your proof?

Contrails can't last more than minutes, chemtrails last for hours
Contrails CAN and DO last for hours, if the conditions are right.

Every video and photo i've seen could easily be a contrail. If the only factor that determines them to be chemtrails is the length of time, then chemtrails simply don't exist. It really is that simple.

And the usual arguments will ensue, oh but the patents, oh but this, oh but that, always ignoring the basic lynch pin. Contrails can and do last for hours and form cloud cover as they are CLOUDS.

I live near an airport and get to watch traffic constantly. When the humidity is right, those normal contrails last all day and fan out. I see this all the time.

So either every aircraft on earth is "in on it" or none of them are.

Chemtrailers keep flip flopping....

It's commercial jets with fuel additives. (well, adding aluminum and barium salts to fuel is going to destroy your engine and also completely screw up the fuel to weight ratio)

It's military jets with special spray nozzles (maybe, you never know, except all the photos you can provide are in no way chemical spraying nozzles.)

A documentary about a study done during the 911 air traffic stand down, explained how the average temperature rose with no flights causing contrails. I believe it was called "global dimming" but it explained the fact that with so much air traffic, we've basically created artificial cloud cover over the main traffic routes, which just like clouds (they are clouds) block some sunlight helping bring the temperature down.

This simply wouldn't be the case if contrails could ONLY last a few minutes.

Here's a simple test you can do that for the most part is accurate.

Next time you see a plane and contrail, look around. Do you see clear blue skies? If so, more than likely you won't see a lingering contrail (depending on altitude of course)

Now do the same test and if you see clouds, keep an eye on the contrail, I bet you'll notice it lingers around longer.

Contrails are clouds, man made yes, but clouds none the less. If the conditions are right for clouds to form, conditions are right for contrails to hang around for a bit.

I really really wish people would at least get this single basic fact correct, your theory holds no weight when it rests on a joke.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


30 seconds to an hour tops even after 30 mins a normal contrail becomes the same as a cirrus cloud and it would be hard to visible detect where as these persistent contrail's [2 - 8hours] that are easy to spot even after 4 hours as a contrail it keeps its shape as it expands across the sky water crystals in clouds do not act in this way so to say that these are just normal frozen water vapour is false.
Add to that the fact that clouds move across the skys with the wind and these trails do not dictates that they can not be made of just water vapour something in there is holding the trails in one area of the sky and the spreading is always sideways even if they are layed across the path of the wind direction.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus
 


30 seconds to an hour tops even after 30 mins a normal contrail becomes the same as a cirrus cloud and it would be hard to visible detect where as these persistent contrail's [2 - 8hours] that are easy to spot even after 4 hours as a contrail it keeps its shape as it expands across the sky water crystals in clouds do not act in this way so to say that these are just normal frozen water vapour is false.


Okay, now explain WHY you think this? Did you read it somewhere? Did your science teacher tell you?



Add to that the fact that clouds move across the skys with the wind and these trails do not dictates that they can not be made of just water vapour something in there is holding the trails in one area of the sky and the spreading is always sideways even if they are layed across the path of the wind direction.


Wind at different altitudes moves at different speeds, and often in different directions.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


And what do you think of this article from 1970

contrailscience.com...


The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.
[....]
Contrail development and spreading begins in the morning hours with the start of heavy jet traffic and may extend from horizon to horizon as the air traffic peaks. Fig. 1 is a typical example of midmorning contrails that occured on 17 December 1969 northwest of Boulder. By midafternoon, sky conditions had developed into those shown in Fig. 2 an almost solid contrail sheet reported to average 500 m in depth.


This is not at all unusual an article. There are many more just like it.

So what are you basing your claims on?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





Where did I ever say that this was a research paper? .


Where did I ever say you said it was a research paper?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 



Where did I ever say you said it was a research paper?


My bad. You were the one who is acting like it's a research paper:


Nice try, but you have no way of knowing if the "3" was a typo or not. Why should it be viewed as a typo as opposed to faulty research?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since you continue to try to score childish points, let me ask you the same question: how do you know it's not a typo? And what difference would it make? Does the author of the article present himself as a meteorologist? Is this article intended to be cited in journals?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by DJW001
 






You still haven't explained how one typo invalidates the entire article.



....and YOU still haven't explained how you know the "3" was a typo? Did you write the article? If not, referring to it as a "typo" is an assumption. Remember what you debunkers are always trying to point out to chemtrailers about "assumptions?"


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

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



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join