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.

 

Chemtrails are real.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
For the sake of argument, we will assume they are.
Every persistent line in the sky that lasts longer than 10 minutes is a chemtrail.
What is in them is irrelevant.

The chemical would have to be a liquid. It would have to be sprayed out of some apparatus. Since we are not talking about smoke here, but rather a mist, it should react exactly like any other liquid in the same state. (perhaps reacting differently to different altitudes due to chemical makeup)

So the big question is, would these trails be visible as long lasting (contrails looking) lines in the sky?

If so, wouldn't they still have to react with the same properties all over the globe? (by that I mean they would be lines of clouds, but only visible at certain altitudes with certain temperatures and humidity levels)

I would like to try a new trend I saw in another thread. Discussing chemtrails without calling people names and even acting like responsible adults.

(please note that this is hypothetical so no baby seals will be harmed in this discussion, not will any fragile feelings as long as everybody is nice to everybody)




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I of course would say that "spraying apparatuses" are being used and do exist.....but other possibilities do exist.

This has been pointed out before.

From Patent #5003186 owned by Hughes Aircraft Company


The greenhouse gases are typically in the earth's stratosphere at an altitude of seven to thirteen kilometers. This suggests that the particle seeding should be done at an altitude on the order of 10 kilometers. The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the particles may remain in suspension for up to one year.


Via the Jet Fuel.

Could explain why some trails look to be coming directly from the engine.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
An interesting thought experiment is to look at the visual density and other aspects of something sprayed, vs. a persistent contrail.

For example, suppose you were spraying white aluminum oxide powder, and that was all that was making the white trail. It a substance visually similar to flour, or talcum powder.

How much would you need to spray to get the initial dense white trail?

What would it look like after it spread out to 100 times its original width?

What is the mechanism that causes it to spread out?

Would it cause visual phenomena like sun-dogs or halos? How?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517

Via the Jet Fuel.

Could explain why some trails look to be coming directly from the engine.


In such a case, then why is there a gap between the engine and the trail?

What percentage of the jet fuel would have to be "metallic particles"? How much would that result in being expelled, at a standard burn rate?

edit on 2-2-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Sulphur Dioxide is a commonly mentioned possible material for geo-engineering.

But it is invisible so you'd not see any trails from it being sprayed.

It does react with water in the atmosphere to make Sulphuric Acid among other things, and aerosols of this are certainly visible if they are deep enough - nothing like fluffy white tho - it forms Vog which is a sort of yellowish grey.

Edit: Actually I'm a little confused by what the OP is actually asking - surely what is in the trail is important to how it will be visible and how it will react with the environment??

edit on 2-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Consider a 777, at 30 gallons of fuel burned per minute, say that was 1% "metallic particles", that's about 2 pounds of metallic particles per minute, at 500 mph, that's 8 miles/minute, or 42,000 feet per minute, so 2 pound of particles every 42,000 feet, or a density of 0.02 grams per foot.).

Compare that with water vapor, of which the fuel is essentially 130% (adding oxygen), and that growth from ice supersaturation means that's that's only about 1% of the eventual spread contrail.

Meaning a persistent contrail would have about 10,000x the mass of a 1% metallic particle fuel mix.

Now you've see persistent contrails, and how big they can be. How could metallic particles in the fuel look ANYTHING like something that weighs 10,000 times as much.
edit on 2-2-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I'm willing to go along with this, it can only help to try to see both sides. Unfortunately I cannot get past the part where, if we are to assume that the fuel is the medium in which the chemtrail is carried, and it goes through the engine, what volume of material is required to create a thick visible trail and what could the mixture ration with the fuel be to ensure that combustion still occurs and engine performance is maintained?

Also, why would the trail not be visible as soon as it leaves the engine, but instead only appears after a small gap?

The idea of visible contrails as frozen water vapour adequately answers both those questions for me, so can someone put a plausible alternative explanation that would allow for chemtrails?

(If anyone wants to ask why water ice explains it to me, I am willing to put my viewpoint but I haven't here so that thread doesn't wander off purpose and become another back and forth, its been said many times in other threads already)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 


I have seen that pattent, and without thinking anything about the process of the engine, that method of delivery would be the easiest in order to keep it hidden from all but the fuel designer. But I would think only certain planes would have engines built to burn fuel with all those foreign additives. Jet engines are extremely particular.

So in that case, the locations that could have planes with mechanics to work on modified engines would be very few. Or we would be having a larger conspiracy which would be harder to contain.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Edit: Actually I'm a little confused by what the OP is actually asking - surely what is in the trail is important to how it will be visible and how it will react with the environment??

edit on 2-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


I am interested in a thought I had about the chemicals reacting differently to ordinary exhaust. I was thinking that whatever chemicals were used should be universal, (if the reason the bad man sprays is the same worldwide) so they should all react the same. If that is the case, it should stand to reason that not all the lines in the sky could not possibly be chemtrails and if that is the case, where does that leave the bulk of the theory?

Or we might just prove that it's possible that all the lines are nasty chemicals and we are all gonna die. (humor but not meant to be snarky or mean, just light)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
A chemtrail is a contrail

Not all contrails are chemtrails

A chemtrail is an intentionally made contrail intended for the purpose of SRM (solar radiation management)

All that is required to create a chemtrail are the right conditions for contrails and a dirty (increased fuel consumption settings) jet exhaust. The increased amount of sulfur and other elements in the exhaust are sufficient CCN (cloud condensation nuclei) to create the persistent spreading contrail or AKA chemtrail.

There are other types of chemtrails that have been tested before and I'm pretty certain that these technologies are still being tested and developed to create better and safer ways of SRM.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 




The increased amount of sulfur and other elements in the exhaust are sufficient CCN (cloud condensation nuclei) to create the persistent spreading contrail or AKA chemtrail.

The condensation occurs very soon after the exhaust encounters the cold, moist air. Why would more nuclei cause gradual spreading?

Short lived contrails evaporate because there is insufficient water vapor in the air (humidity) to support them. The ice sublimates back into water vapor. Why would more condensation nuclei cause the ice crystals which form around them to last longer?

There are more than enough condensation nuclei existent in the air. How else would cirrus clouds be able to form?
edit on 2/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

All that is required to create a chemtrail are the right conditions for contrails and a dirty (increased fuel consumption settings) jet exhaust.


Jets are not like piston engines - you do not have a mixture control to run lean or rich.

Increasing the fuel flow will cause the jet engine to try to run faster, and if there is insufficient airflow then it will also run hotter and possibly damage components.

Moreover if you do have excess fuel - eg by having water injection that stops some of it burning - the excess carbonises into black sooty smoke trails like this:



Which are definitely not fluffy white trails!
edit on 2-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


So you believe that there is nothing really bad in the chemtrails? Are they barium and aluminum still?
I could see intentionally making trails if the purpose was to block the sun as has been said, but there is still the problem that people think that "they spray more just before a front" and in acutallity, that is when persistent contrail formation is at it's best. Does that play into the mix in your opinion?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL

There are thousands of government documents and even a U.S. Government Bill [H.R. 2977] that prove it.

H.R. 2977
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr2977ih/pdf/BILLS-107hr2977ih.pdf




(2)(A) The terms ‘‘weapon’’ and ‘‘weapons system’’ mean a device capable of any of the following:
(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by—
(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or
(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as—
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;



Also, there are even eye witness accounts. Here is a video from Phoniex Arizona from February 1, 2012.


edit on 2-2-2012 by dw31243 because: spelling

edit on 2-2-2012 by dw31243 because: qoute

edit on 2-2-2012 by dw31243 because: link



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dw31243
 


The video from "Pissed off" on YouTube is just another example of ignorance, but does clearly tie in to this thread's OP, and especially the specific responses above.

Member Uncinus pointed out the mathematics of it. There is NO material, other than the water vapor which freezes to form the trillions of tiny ice crystals of which contrails are composed, that could possibly be carried aloft (especially by passenger airliners) and then appear as thick and extensive as the contrails do.


Originally posted by Uncinus
"Consider a 777, at 30 gallons of fuel burned per minute, say that was 1% "metallic particles", that's about 2 pounds of metallic particles per minute, at 500 mph, that's 8 miles/minute, or 42,000 feet per minute, so 2 pound of particles every 42,000 feet, or a density of 0.02 grams per foot.).

Compare that with water vapor, of which the fuel is essentially 130% (adding oxygen), and that growth from ice supersaturation means that's that's only about 1% of the eventual spread contrail.

Meaning a persistent contrail would have about 10,000x the mass of a 1% metallic particle fuel mix.

Now you've see persistent contrails, and how big they can be. How could metallic particles in the fuel look ANYTHING like something that weighs 10,000 times as much"
.


I checked his figures....they are spot on.

Let's look at them:

The Boeing 777 @ 30 Gallons per Minute? We use Pounds per Hour usually, and checking the amounts, we find that at a typical rate of 6,000 pph, per engine, times (2) = 12,000 pph total for the B-777 in cruise flight.

The weight of Jet-A1 is 6.7 Pounds per Gallon. Divide12,000 lbs by 6.7 = 1,791 Gallons per Hour.
Divide 1,791 by 60 minutes = 29.85 Gallons per Minute.

SO, 30 gpm is right on. The rest of his calculations are also clearly easy to see as being correct. Just simple math and logic. (30 Gallons of Jet-A1 weighs 6.7 pounds, remember? So 30 X 6.7 = 201. 1% of 201 = 2 pounds).

Now.....member Uncinus was extremely generous with the "1%" figure for something "added" to the Jet fuel. This would, in reality, destroy the engines, and possibly clog the fuel filters as well....so possibly the fuel would clog the system, and never reach the engine (thus, saving the engines from harm)...but if no fuel can reach the engines, then what happens? Of course, modern jets DO have something called a "Fuel Filter Bypass" valve arrangement, so IF a filter gets clogged, fuel will still flow. But then, we are back to the engine being degraded, and destroyed, in just minutes from the fuel contamination of 1%.

In terms of Parts Per Million rate of fuel contamination that 1% of something in it would be, it is 10,000 ppm!!

Here is a handy calculator that performs the conversions for you. At the top, enter 1 into the first field, and then change the units in the box that says "select units...." to "per cent". Then, hit "Convert it!".

Simple.....yes???

Just to compare the 10,000 ppm figure....there is an anti-static additive in Jet-A1 called Stadis 450, which is often mentioned on "chemtrail" websites. Know how much of THAT is in the fuel? About 2.5 ppm to 3 ppm!!

10,000 ppm is 3,333 to 4,000 times HIGHER than 2.5 ppm to 3 ppm!!

A 1% concentration of some foreign material in Jet fuel is way, way, way too much to be acceptable, by any standard!

Want proof??

From the PDF source linked below:


30 ppm
maximum at the
temperature of delivery


That standard is for the fuel delivery method of both a refueler truck or a hydrant dispenser.

See the figures in the link below, in "Appendix C", Page 36:

ExxonMobile Aviation -- World Jet Fuel Specifications

Finally, the most telling reason that NOTHING is in the Jet fuel is: You never, ever see it during taxi, takeoff, approach and landing...do you?


Can we finally eliminate the ridiculous claims of something in the Jet fuel, now?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


For all your writing, you wasted your time because Chemtrails are real. No Internet Troll can prove it otherwise.

Go... take another coffee-break.
edit on 2-2-2012 by dw31243 because: spelling

edit on 2-2-2012 by dw31243 because: keyboard jammed with chemtrails



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dw31243
 

Why did you leave out this part?

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons

That "extraterrestrial weapons" part does make it all sound kind of silly, doesn't it? Maybe that's why Kucinich dropped all that stuff after he actually read it.
www.gpo.gov...

BTW, I see you proclaim yourself a "professional anti-internet troll". Can you tell who your clients are? Does being a troll who is anti-internet pay well? I wouldn't normally ask but since you have it on your avatar I thought you wouldn't mind.


edit on 2/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
If I was a Chemtrail guy and wanted to make the argument.
I would drop is the word spraying.
I would change to releasing.
Companies, People, and Governments release chemicals without their knowledge every day.
So I would start out with some sort of proper wording, to begin the argument, that they could not defend.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
It is all in the wording
I have watched these guys
and they have even shown us
Contrail Forecast Maps.
But they will tell you we have no control,
over the cirrus clouds they create,
but they have Contrail Forecast Maps?
They would only have to direct planes around the humid/weather fronts to
stop blocking sunlight to living creatures.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
But with that statement
they will respond with greed
as all they want to do is make a profit.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join