Chemtrail Tanker Air Show For The Skeptics

reply to post by luxordelphi

Kind of free about calling others liars, aren't you? You could have asked nicely and I would have been more than happy to search it out for you.

Please compare these two statements. Do you notice anything?

The Air Force goes on to report that contrails are safe, natural, and can result in grid patterns due to wind dispersal.

www.republicbroadcasting.org...

Claim: Grid patterns of contrails in the sky are evidence of a systematic spraying operation.

Fact: The National Airspace System of the United States is orientated in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation. Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails. More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market. The FAA is responsible for the NAS and Air Force aircraft operate under the same rules and procedures as civilian aircraft when using the NAS.

www.af.mil...

Why leave out the first part of the statement, you know, the relevant part?

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You are the one being argumentative here. You keep asking questions but you do not answer mine.

You asked exactly 1 question as far as I can see - do I think a substance do both be hygroscopic and a CCN at the same time? It seemed like a rhetorical question to me because you provided the answer yourself, which was:

n fact it's guaranteed that they do both.

- www.abovetopsecret.com...

And in fact your question was yet another attempt to avoid the issue that I had commented on - that absorption and coalescence are different mechanisms - you have not bothered to tell us how you think they work together in your model.

But back to your question - did you expect me to answer when you had already provided your own??

I didn't do so because you had done so - instead I asked who guaranteed it and what was the basis for this claim.

I see nothing wrong or argumentative there - it is perfectly reasonable for you to ask a rhetorical question that you then answer, and it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask what is the basis for your answer - and I note that instead of actually supplying an answer you continue to prevaricate.

You claim to know already so why don't you answer your own question and quit playing dumb.

What did I claim to know?

There are 2 completely different mechanisms at work. One is absorbtion of water - the other is coalescing.

Assuming we're talking about material that absorbs water. Are you saying it can't coalesce?

Answer the question and please quit wasting time with your ridiculous games.

I do not know whether a material that is hygroscopic can also be a condensation nuclei - you said they can be, so I asked what is you basis for that.

That's not playing games - that is asking for information and clarification.

Really? And what is your evidence for that? I thought you said it was "guaranteed that they will do both" (attributed to you) - not that they will only "almost always do both" - which is it?

The only reason it won't do both is if the material doesn't absorb moisture. Like metal for example.

Yes indeed - or soot, organic carbon, and many minerals that are not metals - rocks, silica, etc.((from wiki page on CCN)

You said that sulphuric acid is a cloud condensation nuclei BECAUSE it is hygroscopic - I have asked you for your basis in making that statement.

You ALSO said that sulphur at 3000ppm in jet fuel will cause increased wear - which merely showed that you had no idea what is in "normal" jet fuel.

And now you are doing anything at all to avoid answering yet again.

Originally posted by Thorazine

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus


The more hygroscopic the CCN is the larger the ice particles will be and longer they will last.

Alas, your understanding of the physics behind contrail formation and persistence is lacking.

The persistence of any contrail, regardless of the size of its CCN, is predicated on the ambient humidity level- not the size of the ice crystal.

If adding sulphur to the fuel would actually survive the combustion of the engine, it would not persist any more or less than any "normal" contrail...

So, seeing a persistent trail is not evidence of any nefarious activity...

The persistence of any ice cloud is dependent upon a lot more than just the relative humidity of the atmosphere at the surface interface boundary. It also depends on the pressure at that interface which is a function of temperature. Sublimation rate is also a function of crystal shape since radiative heating depends upon orientation to the source. Ambient atmospheric pressure is a factor The homogeneity of the material matters since different molecules sublimate at different rates. Sublimation occurs at the surface of a crstalline molecule, so effective surface area is important. Most contrail crystals have a surface cross section of about 100 micro meters.

reply to post by flyswatter


Well Luxor has produced a lot more than you. That's what I like a about you de-bunkers / Government Cheerleaders your easy to spot cause your usually lazy when it comes to reading what is provided to you.

reply to post by DJW001


Twisting is a term used in insurance to describe trickery and misrepresentation. Shame on you. You can do better than that.

Chubby Checker twist with robots

reply to post by luxordelphi


Did you overlook this?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by luxordelphi

I don't make stuff up.

Apparently you do.

Air traffic has decreased.

Provide a credible source for this.

I can be more persistent than any contrail you've ever seen.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Well Luxor has produced a lot more than you. That's what I like a about you de-bunkers / Government Cheerleaders your easy to spot cause your usually lazy when it comes to reading what is provided to you.

Luxor has produced a pile of garbage when it comes to the claims that I was speaking of. Those of us calling this whole thing a sham have produced links to decades of research and studies, while he produced trash that did nothing to prove us wrong, and in one case he actually proved his own prior statements wrong. Wonderful contribution, right?

Making statements like air traffic has decreased, or that contrail science is an overnight creation to disguise or hide the chemtrail issue ... those are GREAT ways to gain credibility.

Now, if you would like to show me a single thing that I have posted and represented as factual that is NOT factual, or something that I have just made up on the fly, I'd appreciate it

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

I can be more persistent than any contrail you've ever seen.

o.m.g....I'm so frightened! What are you...the hall monitor? Or I/C of bunk science for the day?

Airports Council International/Traffic Movements

Traffic Movements 2010 FINAL 3 LOS ANGELES CA, US(LAX) 666 938 4.8

Traffic Movements 2009 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES CA, US (LAX) 634 383 ( 15.9)

Traffic Movements 2008 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES CA (LAX) 622 506 ( 8.6)

Traffic Movements 2007 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES CA (LAX) 680 954 3.7

Traffic Movements 2006 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES CA (LAX) 656 842 1.0

Traffic Movements 2005 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES, CA (LAX) 650 629 ( 0.7)

Traffic Movements 2004 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (LAX) 655 097 5.3

Traffic Movements 2003 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES (LAX) 622 378 ( 3.6)

Total Movements 2002 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES (LAX) 645 424 ( 12.6)

Total Movements 2001 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES (LAX) 738 114 (5.8)

Total Movements 2000 FINAL 4 LOS ANGELES (LAX) 783 433 0.6

Oh gee, what is this? Looks like LAX lost over 100,000 landings/departures since the year 2000.

reply to post by CherubBaby

Well Luxor has produced a lot more than you. That's what I like a about you de-bunkers / Government Cheerleaders your easy to spot cause your usually lazy when it comes to reading what is provided to you.

Then producing a lot more as you call it is great if you actually understand what you are producing.

Well then post something new that proves chemtrails actually exist, because the only evidence ever posted is always the same tired evidence that has been posted many times before.

Tell you what since we are lazy then provide something that will make us work for it, but only if your up to it...

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by flyswatter

 

....That's what I like a about you de-bunkers / Government Cheerleaders your easy to spot cause your usually lazy when it comes to reading what is provided to you.

I guess I am a debunker. But I thought I was just a re-layer of important and overlooked scientific information.
Perhaps I should skip over the science, and go straight for the gut feelings......then I'd be a winning fellow in the "thinking for myself" camp.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Oh gee, what is this? Looks like LAX lost over 100,000 landings/departures since the year 2000.

So then how did this happen...

In 2011, LAX was the eighth busiest airport in the world after Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Beijing Capital International Airport, London Heathrow Airport, Suvarnabhumi Airport, Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Dubai International Airport, and Tokyo Haneda International Airport with 61,862,052 passengers.[3][4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Research is your friend and so is Google.

And just a bit more for you....

LAX is the busiest airport in the Greater Los Angeles Area, but other airports including Bob Hope Airport, John Wayne Airport, Long Beach Airport, and LA/Ontario International Airport also serve the region. LAX is also the busiest airport in California and the U.S. West Coast in terms of flight operations, passenger traffic and air cargo activity, leading it to be referred to as the "Gateway to the Pacific Rim."

en.wikipedia.org...

I guess losing that many landings and departures really hurt LAX ,I hope they will be alright.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Let's have the statistics, buddy. 'Busiest' is in the eye of the beholder.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Let's have the statistics, buddy. 'Busiest' is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh really, the eye of the beholder you say...

LAX handled 28,861,477 enplanements, the total number of passengers boarding an aircraft, in 2008. This makes LAX the third busiest airport in the U.S. in terms of enplanements.[23]
It was the world's sixth-busiest airport by passenger traffic[24] and eleventh-busiest by cargo traffic,[25] serving over 60 million passengers and more than two million tons of freight in 2006. It is the busiest airport in the state of California, and the third-busiest airport by passenger traffic in the United States based on final 2006 statistics.[26]

In terms of international passengers, LAX is the second busiest in the U.S. (behind only JFK in New York City)[27] and 26th worldwide.[28] The airport also claims to be "the world's busiest origin and destination (O & D) airport"in 2011[29] — i.e., the busiest airport as measured by the number of passengers who are not changing planes. The number of aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs) has steadily increased to 603,912 in 2011, up from 575,875 in 2010. [4]

en.wikipedia.org...

and just a tad more for your statistics...

LAX connects 87 domestic and 69 international destinations in North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Oceania. Its most prominent airlines are United Airlines (18.24% of passenger traffic, combined with United Express traffic), American Airlines (14.73%) and Southwest Airlines (12.62%). Other airlines with a presence on a lesser scale include Delta Air Lines (11.12%) and Alaska Airlines (4.74%).[30]

en.wikipedia.org...

Anything else you would like to see?

reply to post by luxordelphi

What are you...the hall monitor?

Show me your pass or get back in class. Hmm, on second thought you just really need to get back in class.

Nice cherry picking attempt. You have anything comprehensive of a total air traffic decrease?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Perhaps he'll use this graphic to prove the worldwide decrease in air traffic??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I wouldn't put it past him to try.

Stranger claims have been made.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Twisting is a term used in insurance to describe trickery and misrepresentation. Shame on you. You can do better than that.

I'm not the one who cherry picked the Air Force document. Air traffic travels on a grid. That part somehow got left out. As for the second half of the statement, it seems to be a clumsily worded explanation as to how persistent contrails drift out of the established airlanes to create the illusion that planes have crossed the entire sky, when in fact, they have mostly stuck to a few relatively narrow bands.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Perhaps he'll use this graphic to prove the worldwide decrease in air traffic??

Indeed Luxor...How can you review the data in ATG's easy to read graph...or even the more detailed analysis of this paper...and still claim air traffic has "decreased".

Please explain

www.webmeets.com...

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Why should I care about the number of passengers? This is a chemtrail thread. We're concerned about planes in the air. If LAX is the busiest airport on the west coast and it lost over 100,000 landings/takeoffs between 2000 and 2010 - we're in trouble. We need a quorum - enough planes in the air at one time in tight formation like in WWII (a thousand or so) - to make grids in the sky. That's what we're looking for here. And I picked LAX because I know it's busy.

But wait, tsurfer2000h, from the statistics you supplied, I'm starting to wonder if you're not a closet chemtrailer. You said 603,912 landings/takeoffs in 2011 and 575,875 in 2010. I gave you 666,938 for 2010. So it's even worse then I thought. A loss of about 180,000 landings/takeoffs since 2000. Over 200,000 lost in 2010. What's up with that?

I know you're not the one who put up the looney graph from Boeing but let me just address that here too. Boeing generated what they call a 'Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents.' That's the link that graph came from (not the link Thorazine put up - slick, slim.) This means that they have a vested interest in a statistic high enough to make accidents with their planes look average. According to the last report to Congress that I could find, they're in trouble. No new orders to speak of and nothing on the horizon - and a backlog of existing planes which were in that statistical summary and because that's about it on their revenue in that sector, those planes had better be ok.

The Commercial Jet Aircraft Market

Boeing and Airbus entered the ongoing recessionary period with a considerable backlog of undelivered aircraft on their books (Airbus recorded a backlog of 3,715 and Boeing 3,714)

By one view, there is a growing supply of surplus aircraft in this market sector and it will take years for this surplus to be absorbed by a global airline industry currently operating at reduced capacity.

But all of this is easily solved without having to follow the money or even read one statistic. Simply look up and if you see a grid in the sky (like the many pictures posted on chemtrail sites) you should see about 1,000 jets in tight formation. If you see that, then chances are good it's not chemtrails.

reply to post by DJW001

As for the second half of the statement, it seems to be a clumsily worded explanation as to how persistent contrails drift out of the established airlanes to create the illusion that planes have crossed the entire sky, when in fact, they have mostly stuck to a few relatively narrow bands.

It may well be what you say since I do contend that it was written overnight. And that's why it's so clumsy.