Chemtrail Tanker Air Show For The Skeptics

Originally posted by luxordelphi
AndyMayhew put up a study from the early 1970's that showed a failure to produce contrails in perfect conditions.

You what?

I linked to a paper that showed that persistent contails were well known, observed and described in 1970 - when you claimed that they were 'made up overnight'

Big fail!!!!!!! Posting lies doesn't make your case stronger. I hope other readers of this thread take note.

btw when were 'persistent contrails' made up "overnight"?

Edit: to avoid anyone trawling back through the thread, This was the first of several papers I posted link to. I think it proves persistant contrails were known of and studied in the 60s and 70s?

How many times do you have to be told that the word is Contrails not chemtrails.
And the other word is paranoid.

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Why do people that believe in chemtrails think that showing pictures of contrails prove the existence of chemtrails? I really don't get their logic. We know that contrails leave a checkered pattern due to flight paths. We know that contrails can dissipate or linger. What are you trying to show?


Human_Alien...do you believe in every single conspiracy theory you come across? Most of your threads are ridiculous and discredit the real conspiracies. You constantly call everyone that disagrees with you COINTELPRO..... but If anyone would be a dis-info agent it would be you.

Not trying to be mean but...you make us all look like this guy...

edit on 13-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

And the whole point of your post above is exactly what if I may ask, I don't see anything contributed to this thread just a lot of babble.

Personally I have been a without a doubt they have been spraying toxins for about 7-8 years, this means nothing here and I know that but after watching the video posted here and people ignoring the question how can one engine sputter and the other not?


I cut my teeth on this site which everyone knows here but for the fun of it here is the link.
www.carnicominstitute.org...


I can say I have read every page on the above site and I will admit a lot of it is over my head and will forever be.

But I would love anyone here in doubt and with some real knowledge to debate Cliff here one on one ...........
It would be a slaughter.
To HA the OP S&F and you sure brought them out in droves today!
Regards, Iwinder

edit on 13-7-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)

Engine sputter ... huh, what are you talking about? Are you referencing the video of the KC-10 refueling plane that was purported to have "nozzles" and be spraying? If thats the case ... the original unedited video was linked, and the video itself was a joke. The "nozzles" are farings for the flaps, which can be found on every one of these KC-10 refuelers, and the "spray" was explained in a quote from that very person.

I REALLY hope that you are not saying that video was the final straw in the argument for you.

Did you watch the video and read the thread all the way through?

I was asking Realspoke not you but your reply is a welcome derailment to this thread.

Regards, Iwinder

Heh, thanks for clarifying

It just bugs me when falsities like that are pushed around as if they were fact. Not only has that video been explained, but I sit about 5 feet from a pilot at my desk here at work. I turned around and asked him "what the hell are these things?" without giving him the context of the argument being had. It took all of 2.2 seconds to answer "flap farings", then he spent another 5 minutes demonstrating what they were and how they are vital to the plane.

edit on 13-7-2012 by flyswatter because: I have fat fingers

I just read a thread on the WMD regarding Iraq and I could not believe the nonsense I was watching as it was a U tube video.............So I turned to my right and lo and behold there was George Bush and Dick and Don and even Ms Rice right next to me.

They assured me that there is indeed WMD there even after 10 years the Iraqis were quite good at hiding stuff.
So with that said the WMD story is quite true because the gang sits here on my right.......
Regards, Iwinder

PS to the OP sorry for the off topic post I used to address an off topic post of hearsay to say the least.

reply to post by rickymouse


Classic argument when you have nothing. Show me proof that something does not exist. How on earth can anyone do that. Better you show proof that they do because thats the only thing that is going to save face for you.

reply to post by Thorazine

Please explain why ice crystals formed from the exhaust of airplanes cannot persist. How are they any different than the ice crystals found in cirrus clouds?

Because in the early 1970's, an experiment set up to produce persistent contrails, failed, in perfect conditions.

An outrageously persistent contrail is a fluke; a freak. Unless it's a chemtrail - which brings an entirely different set of particulates into the mix.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Reference?

And if true, what do you think was causing the persistent contrails in the 60s and 70s that provoked so much research and concerns over their impact on climate?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Thorazine

 

Please explain why ice crystals formed from the exhaust of airplanes cannot persist. How are they any different than the ice crystals found in cirrus clouds?

Because in the early 1970's, an experiment set up to produce persistent contrails, failed, in perfect conditions.

An outrageously persistent contrail is a fluke; a freak. Unless it's a chemtrail - which brings an entirely different set of particulates into the mix.

I am unfamiliar with the experiment to which you refer. Please specifically point out what experiment and why a failed attempt at one data point renders the physics of contrail formation, persistent and spreading false.

The paper Andrew linked above has pictures from 1969 clearly showing persistent contrails that persist and spread into "extensive" cirrus sheets.

Why were they studying them if they didn't exist?

The scientific literature dating back decades is filled with descriptions of what you call a "fluke, a freak"- and yet even back then with much LESS air traffic they were labeling persist, spreading contrails as "frequent, often and extensive"- so much so that they were curious as to their albedo effect.

You still haven't explained why you think a contrail will not persist in ice saturated air. Describe the physics that says that is not possible.

I've just watched a video of an aircraft with contrails. Am I missing something? The fact that you can't see it for a short while has literally nothing to do with whether they are there or no. Atmospherics, air pressure and frankly viewing an aircraft at height through a digital lens!

Think about it, if they were going to saturate the population with something, don't you think they would add it to our water supply? Lot easier and cheaper.
Btw, I don't think they do either.

There is absolutely no way someone on the ground, who has no knowledge of the plane itself or where it originated, can say that they are spraying chemicals purposefully, when in fact these could be contrails or exhaust fumes. There are large planes like this that constantly spew exhaust in this manner, so how do you go about distinguishing them?

reply to post by AndyMayhew

Reference?

Read your own links. So far this has been easy money for me. And I have to say it again: propaganda is not science. Vested interests are not science. Observation, on the other hand, is a first step in science.

We observe that something is not right. Too many outrageosly persistent contrails in the sky. We have not seen this before. Several people, quicker and more observant and smarter than we are, i.e. Carnicom and Thomas, jump in to warn of what is happening.

Uh oh - 'Houston, we have a problem.' Carnicom and Thomas become the brunt of character assassination and a bunk science is invented overnight to 'explain' something that is impossible by your own links.

Chemtrailers become, themselves, victims of character assassination, i.e. loonies, because they are unable to accept the bunk science.

This isn't rocket science. It's really simple. And the simplest of all explanations is that the technology exists to eliminate contrails entirely. And that's another can of worms. What's being eliminated if outrageously persistent contrails are a freak?

reply to post by getreadyalready

Do you have any idea of the amount of liquid that would be required to produce even a very, very small cloud? The contrails you see in the air that stretch for miles would require 100x more liquid than any known aircraft can possibly carry, let alone disperse.

You're wrong. No liquid is needed at all. The moisture comes from the surrounding air. The material is a very fine powder of salt based metal oxides and sulfur. These materials are known as "hygroscopic". Which means it attracts and absorbs water from the surrounding area.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract and hold water molecules from the surrounding environment. This is achieved through either absorption or adsorption with the absorbing or adsorbing material becoming physically 'changed' somewhat, by an increase in volume, stickiness, or other physical characteristic of the material, as water molecules become 'suspended' between the material's molecules in the process. While some similar forces are at work here, it is different from capillary attraction, a process where glass or other 'solid' substances attract water, but are not changed in the process (for example, water molecules becoming suspended between the glass molecules).

Hygroscopic substances include cellulose fibers such as cotton and paper, sugar, caramel, honey, glycerol, ethanol, methanol, diesel fuel, sulfuric acid, methamphetamine, many fertilizer chemicals, many salts (including table salt), and a wide variety of other substances.

Zinc chloride and calcium chloride, as well as potassium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide (and many different salts), are so hygroscopic that they readily dissolve in the water they absorb: This property is called deliquescence. Not only is Sulfuric acid hygroscopic in high concentrated form but its solutions are hygroscopic down to concentrations of 10 Vol-% or below. A hygroscopic material will tend to become damp and "cake" when exposed to moist air (such as salt in salt shakers during humid weather).

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Because in the early 1970's, an experiment set up to produce persistent contrails, failed, in perfect conditions.

I think you are referring to this paper :

ciresweb.colorado.edu...

I think you need to re-read it for comprehension - the very first sentence of the paper says this: "it is OFTEN observed that contrails spread considerably...and persist for HOURS"

So, even in 1970- persistent contrails were described as occurring "often".


As for the experiment which you claim "failed"- You are incorrect.

...of the 10 days they had available for research- favorable contrail conditions were found on only 2 days- The first day they flew they found "extensive contrail cirrus" already present in the atmosphere - such that they did not attempt to collect a sample from their contrail because of possible mingling with other contrails.

On the second attempt- they found clearer skies and were able to sample their own contrail 12 minutes after generation. They even included a picture of it. In fact, the contrail they generated was at a Temp. higher than what Appleman had charted as needed for contrail formation.

So, not only was this experiment NOT A FAILURE as claimed by you but it definitively shows that contrails can and often do persist and spread and that they were studying them 40+ yrs ago and thus the science of contrail formation, persistence and spreading was NOT made up "overnight" .

what say you?

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
You're wrong. No liquid is needed at all. The moisture comes from the surrounding air. The material is a very fine powder of salt based metal oxides and sulfur. These materials are known as "hygroscopic". Which means it attracts and absorbs water from the surrounding area.

But even if that created a visible trail, then a contrail would have formed anyway, so how can you tell the difference between a chemtrail and contrail?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
We observe that something is not right. Too many outrageosly persistent contrails in the sky. We have not seen this before.

What exactly have we not seen before? You will concede, I take it, that persistence contrails have been commonly observed before. So what is new exactly? Just more of them?

Or do you actually think that Carnicom is correct here:

www.carnicominstitute.org...

Originally posted by luxordelphi
We have not seen this before. .

This isn't rocket science.

Ahhh but We Have...

ciresweb.colorado.edu...

journals.ametsoc.org...

docs.lib.noaa.gov...

journals.ametsoc.org...

journals.ametsoc.org...

journals.ametsoc.org...

journals.ametsoc.org...

In this paper they study contrails visible on satellite images from 1979:

journals.ametsoc.org...


There are many more papers like this - all them prove that your Belief that "we haven't seen this before" is FALSE. All of these papers are from 20+ yrs ago...YOU didn't notice them but others did. Of course, there is exponentially more air traffic now...and new engines expel more water vapor but those are other topics.

So, you are correct- its not rocket science...but it IS contrail science.

reply to post by ProtectedWitness


You might like it in japan.
No one will find you there plus i hear from ann colter that the benefits from the radiation are great!

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by norhoc
hey human alien, do a little research the third trail where there is no engine you point to, is called a wingtip vortice, google it and you can watch thousand of videos and read about it and see many pictures of them, and they don't only come off the wingtips, they can come off the tail also, you moron.

edit on 13-7-2012 by norhoc because: misspelling

That's a bit harsh, and probably wrong too. I've never heard of an aerodynamic contrail that JUST comes from the tail. Far more likely this is either a drain, or the APU exhaust.

reply to post by Uncinus


I agree i don't think it would be that profound since it would not get as hot as a engine exhaust does.
My first thought was a toilet drain but from what i have seen it would clump together somewhat and freeze and not form a con trail.
The more i think about the third trail i believe it's a chem trail.
I have seen planes just like the video shows leave a2 streaks across the sky then stop for a 4 or 5 second pause only to begin to leave trails again.
This led me to believe that the trail came from tanks and not engines since the plane kept straight on coarse.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Uncinus

 

I agree i don't think it would be that profound since it would not get as hot as a engine exhaust does.
My first thought was a toilet drain but from what i have seen it would clump together somewhat and freeze and not form a con trail.

It would certainly not clump. The drains on planes are heated to avoid freezing as the water exits (look up "heated drain mast"), but once it gets into the 500 mph air, the water will instantly be aerosolized into a fine mist which will then either evaporate or freeze then sublimate away, or it might form a contrail if humidity is high enough.

If it does form a persistent contrail, then it's likely you won't see it, as it will quickly be covered by the engine contrails.