Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

chemtrails over Florida 01-01-2012

page: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


The chemicals in the actual exhaust are the same that come out of the back of your combustion driven car, and are just as invisible. So I guess you need to determine what it is that you are complaining about. Is it the cloud like trails that are left? Because if that is what your worried about they are nothing more then water/ice. If your worried about the exhaust gasses, then those are invisible and do not remain a part of the water vapor cloud that is left behind.

So basically you’re trying to group two individual things together under one name, then getting upset because people are disagreeing with your incorrect definition of what that is.
Make sense?




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
There are only two ways that I can think of to get rid of persistent contrails.

1 - You make airliners fly in warmer air, lower down

2 - you invent a vast Sky-heater that will raise the temperature above 30,000ft to a level where the trail doesn't form and/or a sky-sponge that draws out the humidity so that any trail created quickly sublimates.

Both options are equally stupid because even if '2' was possible, it would do nothing about the pollution that jets leave behind, while '1' would actually INCREASE that pollution due to engines burning more fuel more quickly to compensate for having to fly in thicker, draggier air.

Honestly, for someone to be complaining about something they admit they know nothing about and confess they don't actually care what it is, and yet demand that whatever it is must be stopped has to be one of the most puzzling premises I've ever seen on any subject, anywhere.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


The chemicals in the actual exhaust are the same that come out of the back of your combustion driven car, and are just as invisible. So I guess you need to determine what it is that you are complaining about. Is it the cloud like trails that are left? Because if that is what your worried about they are nothing more then water/ice. If your worried about the exhaust gasses, then those are invisible and do not remain a part of the water vapor cloud that is left behind.

So basically you’re trying to group two individual things together under one name, then getting upset because people are disagreeing with your incorrect definition of what that is.
Make sense?


No it does not.

How does the water vapor get removed from the exhaust gasses?

You are claiming that the trails are 100% water vapor and you are 100% WRONG.

You are also downplaying the effects of the exhaust on the environment to what end? Do you like the contrails? Does someone pay you to defend contrails? Is this your personal mission to defend contrails? Or is there some other reason you support the polluting of our skies?

I am saying they do not belong in our sky. If for no other reason than solar power production which is CLEAN energy.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
There are only two ways that I can think of to get rid of persistent contrails.

1 - You make airliners fly in warmer air, lower down

2 - you invent a vast Sky-heater that will raise the temperature above 30,000ft to a level where the trail doesn't form and/or a sky-sponge that draws out the humidity so that any trail created quickly sublimates.

Both options are equally stupid because even if '2' was possible, it would do nothing about the pollution that jets leave behind, while '1' would actually INCREASE that pollution due to engines burning more fuel more quickly to compensate for having to fly in thicker, draggier air.

Honestly, for someone to be complaining about something they admit they know nothing about and confess they don't actually care what it is, and yet demand that whatever it is must be stopped has to be one of the most puzzling premises I've ever seen on any subject, anywhere.

I don't know much about sky heaters or sky sponges, but I can absolutely assume they are stupid ideas meant to make me look like a fool for complaining about the trails that block the sun that only exist because of airplanes.

I suppose you are a "Debunker"? Whatever your purpose for calling my idea of getting rid of these trails stupid, I really don't care.

The point of this discussion is to get rid of something left behind by airplanes. It is not a natural occurrence and it does affect people directly such as myself. Call it selfish or naive or stupid all you like, but don't deny their existence or the impact of them because that truly is moronic.






posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 


So you agree then that "chemtrails" are the same things we've been studying for decades and which - I think - everyone agrees we'd rather not have other than that at present we don't have affordable technology to prevent them.

Question is: do you think we should ban people from flying until we can fly aircraft without contrails ever forming? Or do we just accept them. And lets face it, they do sometimes look quite pretty at sunset ......



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude


I don't know much about sky heaters or sky sponges, but I can absolutely assume they are stupid ideas meant to make me look like a fool for complaining about the trails that block the sun that only exist because of airplanes.


You seem to be falling into the usual paranoiac chemtrailer trap of trying to make the discussion about you. If you cannot see my post as anything but a personal attack on you then perhaps you are a tad too precious to try to have a discussion with.

My post was just what it was, the only ways that I (as in ME) could think of, both rationally and irrationally, of facilitating the removal of visible trails. How MY stupid suggestion, for which I clearly accepted all responsibility, might reflect on YOU is a connection entirely of your own making.



I suppose you are a "Debunker"? Whatever your purpose for calling my idea of getting rid of these trails stupid, I really don't care.


I would hope that everyone should hope to be a debunker, as the opposite to a debunker is a liar, if you think about it logically. I prefer to use the term sceptic, because while I am open to ideas of what may be possible or may happen, I've not seen anything yet in favour of chemtrails that wasn't either faked, misrepresented or misunderstood. And you evidently cared just enough to reply




The point of this discussion is to get rid of something left behind by airplanes. It is not a natural occurrence and it does affect people directly such as myself. Call it selfish or naive or stupid all you like, but don't deny their existence or the impact of them because that truly is moronic.


So you tell us then, seeing as you have been making so much noise about it. How do you stop water vapour from freezing at -30 degrees, or how do you get this moisture to sublimate into already saturated air?

THAT is what you are asking to do, and it is a failure to understand that which is, to use your own term, moronic.

It is no good throwing in strawmen either. Nobody says that contrails are 100% water vapour, Nobody is defending trails, nobody denies they exist, and throwing out the accusation that people who disagree with your view are being paid to do so is the saddest sign of desperation and none of them do anything to promote your opinion.
There cannot be one person amongst us that would not welcome clean energy in abundance, but calling for trails to be banned with no knowledge of how or why they are there in the first place (and an open declaration of not caring why either) isn't going to achieve it.
edit on 4-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
To those who are saying that the trails are 100% water vapor, at what temperature does water vapor become invisible?

I'm asking this because the trails seem to persist much longer than they should be able if they are only water vapor. The way they spread out does not seem natural if they are composed of 100% water vapor.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


They are frozen water vapour - tiny ice crystals. Just like all clouds are at that height. And they remain visible until they melt or are dispersed by the wind (we only see them when there are billions close together - individually they would not be visible at that distance even to superman)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude


How does the water vapor get removed from the exhaust gasses?


It freezes because the temperature is cold enough and the humidity is high enough - conditions affect the different constituent parts of the exhaust gasses differently.


You are claiming that the trails are 100% water vapor and you are 100% WRONG.


You saying it is wrong does not actually make it wrong - what is your evidence for saying this?


You are also downplaying the effects of the exhaust on the environment to what end?


Not at all - pollution from aviation is of considerable interest to scientists & you can find papers about it all over he net if you look.

However compared to land transport, air travel uses only a small proportion of fuel - air transport uses only 10% of the total transport fuel burn in the USA - the fight against transport pollution is mainly against cars and trucks because they burn 77% of the fuel used.


Do you like the contrails? Does someone pay you to defend contrails? Is this your personal mission to defend contrails? Or is there some other reason you support the polluting of our skies?


Do you drive a car, or make use of one that someone else drives? Do you use electricity generated by coal, oil or gas? I bet you do.
Who pays you to create the pollution they cause??


I am saying they do not belong in our sky. If for no other reason than solar power production which is CLEAN energy.


Really - solar powered planes? Have you done the math on how many acres of solar power it would take to power a 747, for example?

edit on 4-1-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Def, We are having RECORD setting warm temperatures here in Northern Nevada/Tahoe region. They have been spraying harder in the last 10 days then in the last year.
Zig Zag Criss Cross My friend.
It completly clears up after 3-5 hours.
Blue skies.
BACK at it again, crisscross zig zag.

Gosh... Those flight patterns for commercial planes are just strange.
I'm still trying to figure out which airlines fly zig zag. Oh, and I want to fly on planes that are on time. These other planes seem to come..then stop coming..then come again. The other airlines seem consistant. They must be newer planes too because their exhaust ERRR CONtrail is short.

Glad this issues been resolved. Florida is just colder. Thanks for the clarification.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
]reply to post by niceguybob
 





Def, We are having RECORD setting warm temperatures here in Northern Nevada/Tahoe region. They have been spraying harder in the last 10 days then in the last year.



Exact same situation here in Utah.

Noticed a dramatic increase on Christmas day and have been going at it since.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
And so the point, so often repeated ad nauseum on here for everyone's benefit, that temperatures at ground level bear no relation to temperatures high up, passes by once more, unwanted and unheeded. Those pesky facts just get in the way don't they?
edit on 4-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by niceguybob
 



We are having RECORD setting warm temperatures here in Northern Nevada/Tahoe region.



ON THE GROUND!!! Right??

Temperatures AT THE SURFACE have no, zero, zilch, nada relationship to temperatures at altitudes thousands of feet above your location.

Period.

Factor this in to your memory banks.....



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
And so the point, so often repeated ad nauseum on here for everyone's benefit, that temperatures at ground level bear no relation to temperatures high up, passes by once more, unwanted and unheeded. Those pesky facts just get in the way don't they?
edit on 4-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)


ZIG ZIG is not a point? Oh.. It's the temperature at that altitude. My bad.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
LMAO!!! The upper atmosphere has once again changed temperature at 4:00 Northen Nevada/Tahoe time due to the lack of Contrails. Because it must have warmed up, up there.

Clear Skies...

WAIT!!! Multiple planes are flying in different directions at different altitudes WAYYYY up there.

CON trails. No trails.

Didn't they read the disinfo handbook?

Cheers



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by niceguybob
 


Sorry, but you have just brilliantly illustrated a lack of understanding about our Earth's atmosphere, and the differing levels of humidity, and even "saturation" that can occur.

Go back two squares, do not pass "Go", do not collect $200.......roll the dice again, hope you land on "Park Place"....
edit on Wed 4 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by onecraftydude
 

This should be an even more interesting read for you if you think clouds at commercial airliner flight levels AREN'T composed of ice crystals!

ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu...

"Typically found at heights greater than 20,000 feet (6,000 meters), cirrus clouds are composed of ice crystals that originate from the freezing of supercooled water droplets."



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by niceguybob
 


Sorry, but you have just brilliantly illustrated a lack of understanding about our Earth's atmosphere, and the differing levels of humidity, and even "saturation" that can occur.

Go back two squares, do not pass "Go", do not collect $200.......roll the dice again, hope you land on "Park Place"....
edit on Wed 4 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


Sorry, I disagree.
If you've never seen them "screen" the sky with a geo-engineered layer of stuff, you don't understand.

Please don't give me techno "misunderstanding" of Science to tell us we're just ignorant.

Weak.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by niceguybob
 


"geoengineered stuff" - what exactly is that?

Please enlighten us all...



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Well, To begin with start HERE:
www.ideaconnection.com...

It's not my definition.. It's Wikipedia's. The term Geo Engineering has been substituted like global warming, and climate change.

Please don't confuse my words. Hit the button SEARCH on Google and have a look around.

Neither definition for Chemtrails or Geo Engineering is mine.

I happen to think that Global Warming was a "Convenient Truth" perpetuated by the one of the biggests frauds of the 20th century.
The Gore family was involved in coal extraction for over 100 years and 3 generations.

And? Al Gore get's Carbon Tax credits to his family.:
www.digitaljournal.com...

I also think that CHEMtrails have a real effect on the atmosphere. I do not know if they have good things from their occurance or not. I'm not in the loop. I hope so.

Go ahead and say they don't happen.

Cheers!





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join