Weather Channel Founder Debunks Chemtrails

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

you prove to me there is no chemicals in a contrail.


No. You prove to me there ARE. That's how it works here in reality.


Ok meet you at the hanger,
you start the engines close the doors and I will call 911 for you.
edit on 23-6-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by OutonaLimb
For me, there is ZERO doubt.

Consistently over the last few years, days with trails are days with large numbers of planes.
Days without trails are days with very few planes.

It is catagorical to me.


All that shows is these trails come from planes. It equally proves they are CONDENSATION TRAILS.

You want to prove those lines you see coming from planes are 'chemtrails'? Then do testing to prove the chemicals they are spraying out into the atmosphere exist. Seems like that would be pretty easy to do. Why has no one (credibly) done it yet?


Here you go a study in the composition of chemtrails. Done by a Phd. Credible?

www.nogw.com...
edit on 23-6-2012 by coven83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by coven83
 


No, not credible. Even a brief skimming of the info in that link provides several examples of bogus claims.

The only 'PhD' associated with that 'study' is a fraud:

metabunk.org...

This, for example, is effing laughable:


Chemtrail spraying is significantly increased just before a storm front moves in. If the weather report calls for rain the next day, get your camera out and look for the jets laying the long chemtrails in the sky. They are often busy laying the chemtrails as the clouds from the front are moving in. The result is lots of rain clouds with no precipitation. Droughts all over the planet have increased since chemtrail spraying bagan, some 8 years ago. I have concluded that these chemtrails are creating drought conditions and the people doing the spraying want the droughts. Why do you suppose they want to stop the rain



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Air travel has reached record levels around the world. A little known fact is that the more efficient the jet engines become, the more contrail it leaves. Older jet engines left smaller contrails, and were less likely to leave persistent contrails, where newer jet engines leave bigger contrails, that tend to last longer.


The first generation jet engines had the appearance of a short cigar with the inlet nozzle and the outlet exhaust nozzles about the same size, about 3 feet in diameter. The new next generation jet looks a bit like a side-ways funnel, with the front nozzle opening about 6 times larger than the exhaust in the back, with a tapered cowling running from the large opening in front to the small one in the back. Inside that cowling, at the front, is the "High Bypass Turbofan." It is like a turbocharger add-on for a car. It pumps in extra air into the jet engine. But most of the air flows around and past the engine, between the engine and the cowling. This maintains a constant sea-level air pressure on the engine � during high thrust takeoff and in the extremely thin air at normal cruise level.

The new generation engines never "starve" for air and thus never dump half-unburned smoky fuel out the back. This increases the efficiency of the engine, produces more power and eliminates all the sooty oily black exhaust. You may remember that in the 1970s there were debates and articles about the problem of the unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons jets were spewing into the atmosphere � and in the 1980s those debates went away � because the unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons went away, thanks to the High Bypass Turbofan.

The primary outcomes of the invention of High Bypass Turbofan was to increase the efficiency of the jet engine � which it did by a huge amount � and to produce persistent contrails, now called "chemtrails." First generation jet engines were less than 20% efficient, and the High Bypass Turbofan made them more than 90% efficient! This means it took significantly less fuel to fly an airliner equipped with the High Bypass Turbofan from point A to B, thus a huge increase in profit for the airlines. Plus the same plane could now fly farther on the same tank of fuel. This is a substantial improvement and boon to the airline industry � just by slapping a big ol� fan on the front of the old jet engine. When this simple technique was discovered in the late 1970's all existing jet planes were quickly retrofited with a strap on modification to the front of the engines.

www.jerryesmith.com...

He got the basics right, but the "strap on modification" completely wrong. You can't just slap on a larger fan onto a regular engine and get a high bypass turbofan. You have to replace the engine with a new one.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Read dont scan there are many Phd's listed on the one page i gave you in the link. I am not going to argue with someone who is closed minded. I have presented you with different pieces of evidence. To list all the evidence on the subject would take a hundred threads be it for or against. As with most "conspiracies" those who refuse to see it will only believe when their government admits to it (i.e. golf of tonkin)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by coven83
 


So you take the word of an art history major who claims she is a PhD, and just reject, out of hand, all actual credible data that shows how contrails are made?

Sounds like it is your mind that is closed.

I'll leave you to your hilarious pretensions.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 




For me, there is ZERO doubt. Consistently over the last few years, days with trails are days with large numbers of planes. Days without trails are days with very few planes. It is catagorical to me.


That's a very good point. I wondered about that myself. Days where you would see typical contrails, relatively clear skies, than all of a sudden you see a ridiculous amount of contrails? I can understand the increase in air traffic today, but if that was the case, we would be seeing these numerous contrails on a daily basis.

Something just doesn't sit right with me. Contrails I observed growing up never crisscrossed like a grid pattern. It's one thing justifying these are new engines causing larger vapor trails, but what does that have to do with the excessive grid flying patterns?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by WeRpeons
 


Flight levels follow trends. Some days historically there was more demand for flights, so there were more flights added. Other days there was lower demand, so fewer flights.

Flight routes also change depending on weather. The jet stream winds don't follow a straight line path as they travel around the world. When you travel east to west, you are flying into the winds, so you are going to follow a flight path that is going to fly a route that's going to keep you out of the strongest of the winds. When flying west to east, you're going to fly a route that puts you INTO the strongest winds.

I once saw a Gulfstream III fly farther than its maximum range without refueling because once they got to altitude, they encountered a 155 knot (almost 171 mph) tailwind. It extended their range so far they completely bypassed their refueling stop, and landed with a pretty good amount of fuel remaining at their destination. That same wind going the other way, and they would have either not ever departed, or they would have had to fly a route that added a second refueling stop.

Then there are thunderstorms, and other weather events along the flight path as well. Planes don't do well in thunderstorms, or other strong weather events (Air France 447 over the Atlantic is a prime example), so they tend to go well out of their way to avoid them when necessary. Sometimes that means flying over areas they don't normally.

All of these things combined means that some days you have more flights passing over your head than on other days. And with the newer high bypass turbofans leaving more contrails than older turbofans, that also means that you're going to see more contrails because of that. Which means more cloud cover when they are persistent.

Current jet stream winds

This map shows just how radically the jet stream can change.
Animated map

2009 Jet stream map



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
Something just doesn't sit right with me. Contrails I observed growing up never crisscrossed like a grid pattern. It's one thing justifying these are new engines causing larger vapor trails, but what does that have to do with the excessive grid flying patterns?


A grid pattern usually comes more from the wind than from actually planes flying in a grid. Just two flight path intersection will quickly give you a grid pattern. This simulation demonstrate how this can happen:

contrailscience.com...

As for not seeing them before. It might be that where you grew up there was not, at that time, intersecting flight paths in that area. There have been lots of additional direct routes added in the last couple of decades, and more small jet traffic along those routes.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude
reply to post by Uncinus
 


You know, I was beginning to think chemtrails were just jet exhaust until you posted this. Now I am back to wondering if this is propaganda.


LOL!

If we found a video saying that elephants were elephants, would you start wondering if they were really white mice in disguise?


Seriously, if someone said that elephants were really white mice in disguise, would you believe them? And if not, why do you believe those spreading silly stories about contrails? It's the same thing .....



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by onecraftydude
reply to post by Uncinus
 


You know, I was beginning to think chemtrails were just jet exhaust until you posted this. Now I am back to wondering if this is propaganda.


LOL!

If we found a video saying that elephants were elephants, would you start wondering if they were really white mice in disguise?


Seriously, if someone said that elephants were really white mice in disguise, would you believe them? And if not, why do you believe those spreading silly stories about contrails? It's the same thing .....


Dude, it's SO OBVIOUS you are just a government shill for the elephant as mice industry. TPTB all WANT us to believe elephants are actually elephants (HELLO?!? GOP!) but if you aren't a sheeple, you will look closer and see the truth ALL AROUND you pointing out that mice are actually elephants. I will NOT be distracted by your disinfo campaign.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


E.L.Rothschild LLC Acquires a Majority Stake in Weather Central, LP

70% stake back in 2011 the article says. The article surrounding that article also says that they get their weather from Raytheon, the HAARP builder. Get real. Stop promoting propoganda.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Weather Channel Founder Debunks Chemtrails



"80 year old sarcastic cartoon character attempts to debunk chemtrails and fails. Succeeds at making audience laugh"

There. I fixed it for you.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


Can you explain how he 'failed' at debunking?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


HAARP was built by BAE Advanced Technologies, not Raytheon...

www.haarp.alaska.edu...

edit on 24/6/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 




HAARP was built by BAE Advanced Technologies, not Raytheon...


H.A.A.R.P.


Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of E-Systems, Inc., which is owned by Raytheon Corporation, designed and built HAARP.


picky....



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
 


E.L.Rothschild LLC Acquires a Majority Stake in Weather Central, LP

70% stake back in 2011 the article says. The article surrounding that article also says that they get their weather from Raytheon, the HAARP builder. Get real. Stop promoting propoganda.


So how is it propaganda if he's simply saying what every single meteorologist in the entire world says about "chemtrails"?

Have you asked any meteorologist? Go ahead, find one (with a degree in meteorology, so not Scott Stevens), and ask them. They will say the same thing.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


APTI is owned by BAE, not Raytheon.

en.wikipedia.org...

And what does APTI have to do with it anyway?

edit on 24/6/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a lot of people mistake chem trails for either the dispursing of jet fuel or at that altitude water molicules getting knocked around and freeze or something like that causing that stream. It's not all chem trails.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by onecraftydude
reply to post by Uncinus
 


You know, I was beginning to think chemtrails were just jet exhaust until you posted this. Now I am back to wondering if this is propaganda. Now that the good ole USA is tasked with handing out propaganda films for it's citizens as per the house appropriations bill it would make sense that they would use the weather channel guy. He should be right up there with the Fox and Cnbc exec's who are tasked with making up stories about other countries every day to sway public opinion.

So you can see my confusion why this would be posted now instead of before the propaganda was made legal.


I imagine it's now because he finally got tired of chemtrailers bugging him. But there have been similar stories by weathermen since the start of the hoax.

The change in the law regarding propaganda does NOT legalize propaganda in the US. It just allows propaganda that was produced for an overseas audience to be used for non-propaganda purposes in the US. Clearly this does not qualify. See full explanation here:

metabunk.org...


Maybe you need to read it again because it removes the old legislation that made it illegal to distribute it in America. That most certainly does make it possible to use propaganda against the American public voters.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join