Is this the REAL reason for chemtrails?

A T T E N T I O N

The topic of this thread is "Is this the REAL reason for chemtrails?"

Please post on-topic.

Thanks

reply to post by VoidHawk


No, this is not the real reason for chemtrails. Namely, because chemtrails don't exist.


Surely, if chemtrails existed, information about them would come from better sources than youtube videos from people typing in all caps. "Plasma charges," give me a break!

Instead of people in youtube videos, you should trust actual scientists, you know, people who know what they're talking about.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

Hate to say it, but that is a reflection off of the window between her and the sky.

At 37 seconds, it does appear to be what you say. I'm having trouble, after that example, attributing it to the same.

I am biased. I have witnessed a thing or two that was so magnificent, so enduring, that I just sat there and took it in. There was an entire lakefront of spectators, including two news choppers that eventually arrived. There were no cellphones, and I hadn't yet reached the captain video phase of life, wherein you try to film everything with cameras bought in order to catch 'them' doing it. To you, behind your back etc.... I saw what I saw. I spread my legs as far as I could, figuratively speaking. It was just a huge punch hole, spreading calm, within fury all about...all the livelong day, while I slowly changed my ambition in life from working boy, to ...idk. Follow the leader?

I didn't even note the date. My writing efforts were destroyed years earlier.

I have no real desire to say what it is. Interesting. Thanks for the thread.

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

No, this is not the real reason for chemtrails. Namely, because chemtrails don't exist.


Surely, if chemtrails existed, information about them would come from better sources than youtube videos from people typing in all caps. "Plasma charges," give me a break!

Instead of people in youtube videos, you should trust actual scientists, you know, people who know what they're talking about.

A normal jet exhaust is a chemtrail, it is not benign, it has been glossed over. Anything added to a jet fuel over and above those chemicals, (some of those are proprietary) already used in the jet fuel, is for a purpose other than the functionality and safe running of a jet engine, and the same goes for any spraying device other than an engine that might be attached to an aeroplane. In a word, a chemtrail. There is no point in determining, or being singular about any jet exhaust on the basis of its longevity alone for instance, as being a chemtrail as it is already a chemtrail in its own right, full stop. Apart from that in regard to your post, yes there are better sources, but they too have to know all the circumstances, and that includes scientists, and if they are not fully informed, then you cannot wholly trust what they are saying.

I think this a reflection of a bottle or can that's in the passenger side footwell. It's rolling around, which is what creates the effect.

Originally posted by smurfy
A normal jet exhaust is a chemtrail,

not according to the various definitions that are commonly accepted, even by chemtrailers - a chemtrail is not simply any chemical - it is something other than normal exhaust.

Many have tried to argue otherwise - but they invariably run into practical problems such as why is it that only visible exhausts get mentioned? why only aircraft ones - why not protest at motor vehicle exhausts and the millions of other sources of chemicals in the atmosphere?

it is not benign,

Indeed - aircraft exhaust is pollution.

it has been glossed over.

No it hasn't - the reduction of pollutants from aircraft has been a major effort by engine manufacturers for many decades, and there are many studies on the effect of aircraft on the environment

Anything added to a jet fuel over and above those chemicals, (some of those are proprietary) already used in the jet fuel, is for a purpose other than the functionality and safe running of a jet engine, and the same goes for any spraying device other than an engine that might be attached to an aeroplane. In a word, a chemtrail.

nothing involved in the normal operation of a jet engine is a chemtrail - you are thinking that "chemtrail" simply means any chemical - it does not. Even dedicated chemtrail believers acknowledge that chemtrails are NOT just aircraft exhaust.

or

here, or here - which specifically notes that chemtrails are not cloud seeding either

There is no point in determining, or being singular about any jet exhaust on the basis of its longevity alone for instance, as being a chemtrail as it is already a chemtrail in its own right, full stop.

As above - no it is not. Full stop.

Apart from that in regard to your post, yes there are better sources, but they too have to know all the circumstances, and that includes scientists, and if they are not fully informed, then you cannot wholly trust what they are saying.

And yet you trust the word of some people who are even less well informed, just because they say so??

What's a normal exhaust?

Gaseous and Particulate Emissions with Jet
Engine Exhaust and Atmospheric Pollution


A.M. Starik
Central Institute of Aviation Motors
Aviamotornaya St., 2, Moscow, 111116, Russia


e-mail: [email protected]


ABSTRACT

The features of nonequilibrium processes in combustor, postcombustor flow, and in the plume of gas-
turbine engines which are responsible for the formation of gaseous pollutants, mainly, SOx, NOx, COx,
HOx, HSOy, HNOy, and ions as well as for processes that give rise various sorts of volatile and nonvolatile
(with soot core) aerosols and ice particles are considered. The results of numerical simulation as well as
experimental studies of these processes are reported.

Key words: nonequilibrium physico-chemical processes, combustor, plume, pollutants, ions, aerosols,
atmosphere.

INTRODUCTION

The aviation is the source of gaseous and particulate emissions into the atmosphere. The number of
species emitted by jet engine is much enough and depends on a kind of a fuel and on an engine design.
The emission from aviation engines is significantly smaller (in a factor of 40-50) than that from surface
sources. However, because the emissions of aircraft engines occur in the atmospheric regions (high
troposphere and low stratosphere), which are very sensible to various perturbations, the problem of
aviation effect on atmospheric processes and climate change has come into great importance [1].

Source

Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.

reply to post by smurfy


And your point is what?

BTW could you please put some ex tags around that, and format some of the lists a bit better to make it readable?

Or even just link to it and provide some highlights as to what you think is relevant?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by smurfy

 

And your point is what?

BTW could you please put some ex tags around that, and format some of the lists a bit better to make it readable?

Or even just link to it and provide some highlights as to what you think is relevant?

So you did not read one one jot. No I cannot link to it, but all you need do is to quote a portion in the search engine to find the pdf. What is relevant, and very important as per your earlier reply is here,
"complexity associated with the chemical composition of kerosene-type fuels is well recognized, and a detailed
computational consideration of all of the fuel components of kerosene would be prohibitive. Doubt et al"

In other words, all that is in jet fuel ingredients/additives is not known, and that nothing is assumed even in that text, in which shows that there are so many imponderables in the known aspects of the fuel, blah blah.

r

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by smurfy

 

And your point is what?

BTW could you please put some ex tags around that, and format some of the lists a bit better to make it readable?

Or even just link to it and provide some highlights as to what you think is relevant?

So you did not read one one jot.

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

No I cannot link to it, but all you need do is to quote a portion in the search engine to find the pdf.

So why can't you link to it?? It's no problem to do so for me (note it is a 2mb pdf)

What is relevant, and very important as per your earlier reply is here,
"complexity associated with the chemical composition of kerosene-type fuels is well recognized, and a detailed
computational consideration of all of the fuel components of kerosene would be prohibitive. Doubt et al"

So you can post the relevant bits!! Why bleat about not doing so???

In other words, all that is in jet fuel ingredients/additives is not known, and that nothing is assumed even in that text, in which shows that there are so many imponderables in the known aspects of the fuel, blah blah.

So therefore completely irrelevant to the topic of chemtrials, since all the unknown micro-portion components cannot possibly be part of any deliberate campaign to do anything.

Nicely debunked sir!

I have a full copy in my notebook, which is where the rest was coming from, and copied from the full pdf, not a partial one. Anyway if you'd understood the PDF in its context, the behaviour of jet fuel in its known makeup is itself not fully understood in its behaviour in combustion and exhaust, nothing you have said, which is basically nothing,contradicts that. A jet trail is very much a chemtrail.

Thanks to GAOTU789 for providing a link to the complete pdf in my post.

Originally posted by smurfy
I have a full copy in my notebook, which is where the rest was coming from, and copied from the full pdf, not a partial one. Anyway if you'd understood the PDF in its context, the behaviour of jet fuel in its known makeup is itself not fully understood in its behaviour in combustion and exhaust, nothing you have said, which is bascally nothing,contradicts that. A jet trail is very much a chemtrail.

it seems you are persisting in trying to redefine a chemtrail as any chemical trail in the sky, and ignoring what everyone else thinks it is - which is something deliberately spread for a secret purpose - and therefore, by definition, NOT the normal exhaust from a jet or anything else.

Sorry you do not grasp the fundamentals of what you are talking about, but you are not the first person to try this sophism

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy
I have a full copy in my notebook, which is where the rest was coming from, and copied from the full pdf, not a partial one. Anyway if you'd understood the PDF in its context, the behaviour of jet fuel in its known makeup is itself not fully understood in its behaviour in combustion and exhaust, nothing you have said, which is bascally nothing,contradicts that. A jet trail is very much a chemtrail.

it seems you are persisting in trying to redefine a chemtrail as any chemical trail in the sky, and ignoring what everyone else thinks it is - which is something deliberately spread for a secret purpose - and therefore, by definition, NOT the normal exhaust from a jet or anything else.

Sorry you do not grasp the fundamentals of what you are talking about, but you are not the first person to try this sophism

NO , I am telling you that there is no complete definition of a chemtrail from a jet's exhaust just for starters, plain and simple. I can't speak for everybody else, or for patented devices by others in the use of jet engines for albedo purposes.

reply to post by smurfy


Lots of people use a definition of chemtrails that is perfectly well understood as being materials sprayed into the atmosphere other than normal exhaust - it might not be in the dictionary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor that you get to unilaterally decide what a chemtrail is in order to indulge in sophistry.

Like I said - your tactic is not new - hey, come to think of it have you put this up under a different name before?? Hmm.....

Its less obvious on the GIF then the video, but that is nothing more then a water droplet on your windshield.
Your camera is switching focus between the water drop and the clouds in the background. Its apparent movement is from you moving the camera, and it being in closer proximity. (See: Parallax)

reply to post by defcon5


The view is not through the windshield, its through the opened passenger window.

I made my own software for examining youtube vids, it lets me expand the pic and scroll through frame by frame. Usualy I can find fault but the vid I posted just gets more weired on close inspection.

Is it fake? Well it could be, but it could also be genuine.
When people coment on vids or pics they often say "its an optical illusion". Well, it could be real and the iilusion is you think its water

reply to post by VoidHawk


Interresting idea. Some UFOs are really undetectable by human eye.