Chemtrails in Arizona this Week.

I think I am headed in the right direction here,
just showing that using a conspiracy term like chemtrails
opens one up to ridicule.
But if you just call it pollution,
an accepted term in society,
then it has to be dealt with.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I think I am headed in the right direction here,
just showing that using a conspiracy term like chemtrails
opens one up to ridicule.
But if you just call it pollution,
an accepted term in society,
then it has to be dealt with.

Contrails are just clouds. They are made of water. It's a bit misleading to call them pollution, as that implies some kind of poison, and something more long lasting.

If it's just the visuals that both you, then you might find this site interesting:

www.contrails.nl...

You can't have an engine burning a petroleum product
to create contrails and make a claim it is only water vapor.
There has to be some exhaust of burned petroleum product
in that contrail.
I am tired of watching the same misguided statement it is
only water vapor.

Originally posted by firepilot
would you like laws that prevent planes from crossing the path of another? Or maybe if there was only one jet aircraft allowed in the air at a time over the US?

That's your debate?

That isn't even the subject of discussion.

reply to post by Annee


You still haven't responded to a very polite attempt to get more information, in order to better ascertain what it was that you observed:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
You can't have an engine burning a petroleum product
to create contrails and make a claim it is only water vapor.
There has to be some exhaust of burned petroleum product
in that contrail.
I am tired of watching the same misguided statement it is
only water vapor.

When a plane flys by and does not leave a contrail, then its the exact same exhaust as when it does.

So if the were NO contrails then the pollution would be exactly the same.

When you see a contrail it's just because the atmosphere is humid enough for clouds to form. 99% of the water in perstent spreading contrails actually comes from the air - just like with regular clouds.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
used by the Airbus A330 for the flight

Nothing personal here, brethren but if you want to compare cars to aircraft, why not pick the aircraft with the best fuel economy, highest quality, and handsomest engineers?

Indeed - A380's...all the way!

Not that I want to mention who sends me a paycheck every two weeks, but it rhymes with "going".

Lost my vote when they made 737-3's the new "classic"...

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket You can't have an engine burning a petroleum product to create contrails and make a claim it is only water vapor. There has to be some exhaust of burned petroleum product in that contrail.[/QUOTE]

True. If I said that water vapor is 100.00 percent, I was wrong. But it is quote a bit; and, with CO2,adds up to about in excess of 99.6 percent (based on teh Swissair chart below); ironically, the new high-bypass turbofans you see on jet aircraft today are designed to burn much hotter and more efficiently (cleaner) than the old turbojets of the sixties. I say "ironically" because since they burn hotter, the engines draw in a lot more air (and water vapor) than before and the result is more water vapor coming out and thus larger and more noticeable contrails.

But what's the difference? If there are some combustion byproducts coming out of the aircraft, that doesn't add or dimish to the fact that the contrails themselves are almost completely ice-cryastals, nor does it detract from the fact that contrail persistence is a function of ambient temperature and relative humidity, not because of a Secret Nefarious Plot by TPTB.

Gmoneycricket sez: I am tired of watching the same misguided statement it is only water vapor.

I understand your point. We should be more accurate when we toss around terms like "all" or "none". "Almost all" or "'almost none" would be more accurate.

But how do you suppose aviation professionals and engineers feel when they hear the "If it persists, it's a 'chem-trail!' mantra? That particular piece of theology is made up of whole cloth and has been repeated so long that it has taken a life of its own. Indeed, it is one of the baseline foundations of the entire "chem-trail" religion -- and it is demonstrably wrong.

Finally -- and not to arouse your ire -- I still don't understand why you are advising other people to ignore any views on this subject but your own. Would you explain that to us?

edit on 3-11-2011 by Off_The_Street because: I had to re-do the math.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by firepilot
would you like laws that prevent planes from crossing the path of another? Or maybe if there was only one jet aircraft allowed in the air at a time over the US?

That's your debate?

That isn't even the subject of discussion.

Well, would you feel better thought and not be scared, if a plane was not allowed to cross the path of another? Because you insist if planes paths cross, that must be spraying.

It just seems you get alarmed if you see multiple aircraft in the sky above you at a time..

reply to post by Off_The_Street


What gets made by burning 1 ton of jet fuel (roughly, depending on the exact engine, from SwissAir)

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
You can't have an engine burning a petroleum product
to create contrails and make a claim it is only water vapor.
There has to be some exhaust of burned petroleum product
in that contrail.
I am tired of watching the same misguided statement it is
only water vapor.

Well sure, there is going to be products from the combustion of jet fuel.

But the ironic part is though, its the contrails that cause you the most alarm and make you think the most of pollution. However, when those aircraft are in cruise flight at the altitudes where contrails can form, those aircraft are polluting the least and are in the most efficient part of flight.

If they flew lower below contrail altitudes, they would actually be burning MORE fuel, would have a longer flight, and more congestion in the air traffic control system.

And the most efficient and modern the engines are, the more apt they are to make contrails.

There is alot of discussion about Chemtrails and it seems that there are alot of posts from users who need to read this. PS Stop with your diagrams.

www.whale.to...

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

reply to post by dw31243


So what is it you are doing when you use videos and statements of people who you say are experts in the field if not invoking authority yourself??

Quoting scientific papers that contain evidence is NOT invoking authority - it is invoking evidence.

Invoking authority is saying xyz is true because John Smith said so and he is a PhD. You are not providing anything as evidence of truth other than the qualifications - the "authority" of the source - no data, no supporting studies.

Saying "xyz is true because there are studies that show it, and here they are, and they contain all the data" - that is not invoking authority - that is providing evidence.