I am slightly confused. Looking for Info

reply to post by tsurfer2000h

Tell you what, since you seem to want to ask others this question, please gives us your best educated guess then we can see how educated you are?

Me first huh?

OK



From the video perspective the best educated guess I can make is that the persistent contrail is at a lower altitude than the normal contrail seen being made by the plane.

Which contradicts the theory of "when conditions are right". Because the lower the altitude the less likely it is that contrails will persist.

Jet exhaust burns fuel and produces chemicals that are always being produced regardless of wether the exhaust from a jet is visible or not from the ground. These chemical compounds are invisible to the naked eye.

reply to post by intrptr

Jet exhaust burns fuel and produces chemicals that are always being produced regardless of wether the exhaust from a jet is visible or not from the ground. These chemical compounds are invisible to the naked eye.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you there.

The issue is that some jet exhaust contains more hygroscopic CCN than most normal jet exhaust that creates the persistent spreading effect.

How it gets there and why is the main question at hand.

Is it due to additives in the fuel? Is it something being injected into the exhaust systems? Is it just a rich fuel/air ratio?

Or as the skeptic / debunker crowd will tell you it is all due to atmospheric conditions? Which IMO is highly doubtful.

We know that different jets have different engines and different efficiency. Is it just the type of engine certain jets have that add to the likeliness of persistent spreading contrails? Another factor which IMO is highly doubtful.

reply to post by ThirdRock69

Other than lower pressure, no, there are no "most common" conditions.
Here, look up the upper air conditions yourself. You can see for yourself how much variation there is.
weather.uwyo.edu...

reply to post by ThirdRock69


what was the atmospheric conditions at 25K feet as opposed to 35k feet on that day in that location?
Have you ever flown, did you ever hit bumps in the road? there is no road, so where did the bumps come from? Turbulence. Which is caused by pockets of air that differ in condition to the other air. So no you can understand the variances that could exist.

Persistent contrail formation might be favorable today at between 22k and 28k feet, in the area of that picture you posted. 20 miles away, conditions change to where formation might occur at 26k to 32k feet. Can you tell the difference between 25k feet and 28k feet from the ground? Yea, me neither.
Conditions for favorable contrail formation include pressure, temperature, and moister or humidity. And they change all the time. And the ground temperature has almost nothing to do with what is happening up there.

reply to post by ProudBird


this is something i had to learn first. the more i researched, the more the facts were missed because of my simple understanding of the terms and science. understanding the definitions went a long way for my in progressing my research

reply to post by ThirdRock69


lol, i always want to do that to posters, point out hypocrisy through their own words. good call, and like you said...we ALL need to remember this thread is to present and debate the facts; while you pointed out the falsity in the poster, you also continued to instigate the same type of response from him

reply to post by ThirdRock69


id have to agree. while i also agree it is not accurate to judge the altitudes of the trails from the ground, with our eyes, i do believe we can make a base judgement on which is higher. maybe not with any accuracy on the distance between, or even from the ground, but i believe i call tell when something is closer of farther away, and i think most can too

Originally posted by refused
reply to post by JAsay1LOVE

 

I agree with you man. Some of these people will believe that the economic system is rigged, politics are rigged, industries are rigged, medicine, military, religions, schools, 9/11, even aliens could be involved etc. etc. etc. (at least one of these things or similar or they wouldn't be on this site).

But for some reason government poisoning of our skies is impossible and ridiculous. I don't understand it either mate, I don't care if the chemtrails are real or made up, it makes no difference to me because I believe that we're f*cked regardless. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna trust the government's word on it. They've done far, far, FAR worse things than pour chemicals into the sky in the past so in my opinion the onus of proof is on THEM to prove that they're not doing something wrong. Because god knows the government wouldn't even exist if it weren't an impressive liar.

People have far too much faith in people they've never met. Would you trust a stranger on the street, someone you've never met before, whom you have no idea what their values and beliefs and virtues are, with your own life? I doubt it. Yet we do! Daily! If you're comfortable with this you're bloody delusional and your blind faith in the hand that feeds is more disturbing to me than a suicide bomber's.

If you don't believe chemtrails are real, fine, who cares? But if your reason for your disbelief is trust in the government then you're a damn fool!

amen. lol. thank you for your input and, imo, a well wrote analysis. definitively on the same page man

Originally posted by Phage


To answer an earlier question of yours; temperatures tend to drop with a gain in altitude (until the stratosphere is reached)

serious question...what happens when one reaches the stratosphere? does it change from become more cold, to warming up? or does the temp sort of level off?

reply to post by intrptr


on the subject of fuel exhaust...i would have to believe studies have been done to research the affects and risks with the exhaust raining down from the sky still. i will look for said research; if anyone else has any information on this sort of research please let me know

Its simple people like to think they know something when they don't! the cult of scientific/academic orthodoxy thinks they know everything. If it does not fit into their narrow little cult box it does not exist.

They have been the bane of humane progression through out history. It has always been the rebels who went against orthodoxy that have moved us forward in progression. They persecuted men like Galileo and Da Vinci, they were still claiming the world was flat long after Columbus and others proved it wasn't, they were claiming manned flight was impossible while the Wright brothers were soaring right over their pointy little pin heads, they claimed man would never go faster then 60 miles an hour, would never reach space etc. etc. Thank god for the rebels who ignored them and pressed forward or we would still be living in caves and chucking spears for our dinner and at each other.

There is plenty of evidence for Chemtrails! Just because it does not go through the bought and paid for so called official Science/Academia cult approved channels doesn't mean it is not valid. People have taken samples of air and soil before and after chemtrails have been sprayed and found hard evidence, pictures of passenger planes gutted of their seats and fitted with tanks for spraying, and millions of us who have witnessed the spraying and the difference in air quality before and after, the criss cross patterns that do not follow any known flight patters etc etc.

They can cry not credible all they want ignore them and move forward we do not need their approval to embrace evidence and truth where ever it is found!

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE


In this other thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another member shared a link to a report on fuel and emissions

Originally posted by Alchemist7

I found a very informative document about the different aviation fuels used and the specifications/differences between each fuel. The emission standards for jet fuel from the 40's is way different from the standards of current fuels used. The sulfur content is also different between civilian aircrafts vs Military aircrafts. Also fuel manufactured during WWII didn't have emission standards and explains why such large plumes of condensations vs current civilian jet plains. Theres alot to read but very informative:

Aviation Fuel Tech

Originally posted by hawkiye


They can cry not credible all they want ignore them and move forward we do not need their approval to embrace evidence and truth where ever it is found!

you hit the nail on the head, thank you. my mission in intellectual progression is just that...just because someone else, or a body of like minded individuals says nay, does not make the subject go away, or even make the subject irrelevant. there is truth in all, imo, whether the truth be great or small. its not up to others to tell us what is credible or not...thats why we have brains. to make our own conclusions from our own interpretation of the facts. this is a much more rewarding sense of academic accomplishment, at least i believe so.

reply to post by ThirdRock69


very nice. thank you for the link and source. i believe a lot of the people whom claim chemtrails to be bunk, do so based off over generalizations of the term in the "conspiracy community". while i am a hippie, i am no tree hugger per say, but i believe these results do show that chemicals are being deposited into the atmosphere, and like it is said, "what goes up, must come down". while the chemtrails may in fact only be only exhaust and "normal" contrails, the emissions are still toxic, and toxins are still raining down on the surface. i think much like gaul and phage try to twist people up on words semantics, the same goes on on a larger scale with many theories; meaning people who oppose chemtrails say the idea is ridicules because the term chemtrail they associate with the extreme and harmful theories on the "lines in the skies", but i believe, as i have just stated, that the emissions are toxic, and while i dont believe the amount of these toxins to be exceedingly detrimental, they are chemical trails non the less

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE

serious question...what happens when one reaches the stratosphere? does it change from become more cold, to warming up? or does the temp sort of level off?

At a certain point high in the stratosphere (above where normal air traffic flies) the temperature does begin to warm. Thinning of the atmosphere and increased solar radiation along with slower wind speeds.


Edit:

here's few links

en.wikipedia.org...

Aircraft flight

Commercial airliners typically cruise at altitudes of 9–12 km (30,000–39,000 ft) in temperate latitudes (in the lower reaches of the stratosphere).[2] This optimizes fuel burn, mostly thanks to the low temperatures encountered near the tropopause and low air density, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. It also allows them to stay above hard weather (extreme turbulence).
Because the temperature in the tropopause and lower stratosphere remains constant (or slightly increases) with increasing altitude, very little convective turbulence occurs at these altitudes. Though most turbulence at this altitude is caused by variations in the jet stream and other local wind shears, areas of significant convective activity (thunderstorms) in the troposphere below may produce convective overshoot.
Although a few gliders have achieved great altitudes in the powerful thermals in thunderstorms, this is dangerous. Most high altitude flights by gliders use lee waves from mountain ranges and were used to set the current record of 15,447 m (50,679 ft).

en.wikipedia.org...

The tropopause is a layer which separates two very different types of air. Beneath it the air gets colder and the wind gets faster with height. Above it the air warms and wind velocity decreases with height. These changes in temperature and velocity can produce fluctuation in the altitude of the tropopause, called gravity waves.

reply to post by ThirdRock69


nice, good call. what about the farther out into space one travels? does it continue to heat up, or will it eventually loss the heat in the vastness of space? i suppose that is an off topic question though, but a question i am interested in

reply to post by ThirdRock69


ah i missed the edit before my response. thank you for the graphs. i know i said this before, but i love graphs and charts. not only a great way to learn, but a great tool to teach. thank you

reply to post by JAsay1LOVE


You're welcome.

I did read that above the tropopause the air can increase in temp.

So if a plane were flying in the lower colder region of the tropopause and another plane was flying in the higher warmer region of the stratosphere.

It is possible for the higher plane to make a less persistent contrail.

So the point I was trying to make about the video (since we have no way of telling the altitudes) I was mistaken.

Here's a good chart showing temp and altitude

reply to post by ThirdRock69


thank you for this graph as well. very good info please keep it coming. i would also tend to agree with you that the elevation in atmosphere can be conducive to a higher plane creating less of a trail.

i understand all of the information about height and conditions to creating the trails, and the factors that play into the trails...but all of the info presented for the stance they are merely contrails has still not rid me of the little voice saying i am still missing something. that there is more than meets the eye, for while the eye may not be able to accurately id the elevation and chemical composition of the trail, the eye can still determine that what is being viewed is either normal or out of the normal. that has nothing to do with science, its common sense. if we saw a man running down the street with a purse in his hands...we dont know if that is his purse or not, we dont know what his intentions in running with a purse are, but 9/10 people would assume that man stole the purse.