Chemtrail Tanker Air Show For The Skeptics

Originally posted by Human_Alien
What I am saying is the footage speaks for itself.
To deny this is to derail reality.....so, you don't want to be a member of delusion do ya?

Here is a video that speaks for itself:



A very high quality copy of this video and a link to the 1905 book "Cloud Studies" is available for download and sharing. Go to the video on YouTube and click the link in the description box.

Originally posted by ProtectedWitness
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

The third trail is created by the vertical stabilizer. At those speeds and altitude, the air is quite easily disturbed. It wont be disturbed as much as engines, so that's why the middle trail isn't as thick as the outer trails.

More likely the aircraft is dumping fuel. Sometimes aircraft do this to lighten their weight.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Chemtrail Blitz That Debunks the Debunkers! Great compilation of sky-scrawling (because I refuse to call this art)

Contrails.

reply to post by Paul Rubino


Would you agree that contrails are NOT natural, not only ice crystals, and are created artificially, therefore should NEVER be considered harmless and non-toxic ??

It is like you are saying that exhaust from a car , if it created fog all over, would be nothing unusual, should be breathed in, and poses no threat to anything... THAT is how far you Contrailers have taken this, and it is laughable.

reply to post by Paul Rubino


Aircraft that have fuel dump capability have the dump valves on the wings, either between the engines, or on the wingtips. Usually on the wingtips. Not all aircraft can dump fuel though.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore

Would you agree that contrails are NOT natural, not only ice crystals, and are created artificially, therefore should NEVER be considered harmless and non-toxic ??

This is a strawman argument. Contrail formation is a natural process. When it happens without an airplane exhaust being present, they are called cirrus clouds. People who actually understand the process are not in agreement about the environmental impact of aircraft exhaust. Some believe that the carbon released may be leading to global warming, others that persistent contrails increase the Earth's albedo and have a cooling effect.

It is like you are saying that exhaust from a car , if it created fog all over, would be nothing unusual, should be breathed in, and poses no threat to anything... THAT is how far you Contrailers have taken this, and it is laughable.

The exhaust from a car is toxic. At one point in history, exhaust fumes really did form a deadly fog over urban areas. Google the word "smog." The very people you are accusing of lying to you about chemtrails, meteorologists, environmental scientists and public health officials, identified the dangers and causes of this lethal air pollution and lobbied for more rigorous emission standards; the result: slightly more expensive automobiles and much, much less air pollution.*

If you are really concerned about removing toxins from the air, become an advocate for bicycles and public transportation. I'm serious. Anyone who complains about "them" spraying chemtrails, then turns around and pumps deadly carbon monoxide into the atmosphere from their gas guzzling vehicles is a hypocritical fool.

* An example of the government interfering in people's lives. Decide for yourself if this was a good thing or a bad thing.

reply to post by DJW001

Contrail formation is a natural process.

o.m.g.!

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by DJW001

 

Contrail formation is a natural process.

o.m.g.!

The process is natural. Clouds form when air is cooled below it's saturation point. The artificial thing is the raising of the saturation point by adding water vapor. There's also some added cloud condensation nuclei, but those are not necessary.

It's like when you make ice cubes in the freezer. The process of water freezing is quite natural. The artificial thing is the way you change the conditions.

I don't do chem trail threads so I dont know why I'm replying to any of this. But what I want to ask is why would they bother spraying at 30,000 feet surely wind directions speeds air currents etc will spread the so called chemicals to a place where they shouldn't be. So all these people that look up and go OMG they are spraying over my town, doesn't mean these chemicals just drop on top of you. Have you ever tried spraying a mist of water into the air and watched it? It doesnt just drop down where you sprayed. If its windy the wind will take the spray of air into your neighbours yard.

So if you were to spray let's say over NY surely the air currents and the jet stream will take it away from NY. Also if the government or whoever wanted to poison us there are easier ways to do this. Spraying in the air is too unpredictable.

For the record .. I don't believe in chem trails

reply to post by Uncinus

The process is natural.

So which came first: the jet or the egg?

natural process definition

natural process - a process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings); "the action of natural forces"; "volcanic activity"

Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus

Here we use a global climate model that captures the whole life cycle of these man-made clouds to simulate their global coverage, as well as the changes in natural cloudiness that they induce.

Contrail cirrus change the water budget of the surrounding atmosphere and therefore can have an impact on natural clouds.

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


The issue about the chemicals not dropping straight down and being subjected to unpredictable and random currents is a moot point as chemtrail believers don't really believe in the laws of physics. Whenever they're asked how a plane can spray a volume of chemicals exponentially larger than total volume of the aircraft, they just wave their hands and move on to some other insane idea, or they try to explain that we only know the laws of physics that PTD/NWO/Boogyman wants us to know. I've given up on debating them mostly because you can't win an argument with someone who denies reality.

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker

I don't do chem trail threads so I dont know why I'm replying to any of this. But what I want to ask is why would they bother spraying at 30,000 feet surely wind directions speeds air currents etc will spread the so called chemicals to a place where they shouldn't be.

There isn't any proof that spraying is done at 30,000 feet. The only reason 30,000 feet is in the mix, as an altitude, at all, is because the rare persistent contrail needs that altitude to form. It's not really possible, to tell, from the ground, how high a craft is flying. The people that say that these trails are contrails need them to be at that altitude. Nobody else does.

So if you were to spray let's say over NY surely the air currents and the jet stream will take it away from NY. Also if the government or whoever wanted to poison us there are easier ways to do this. Spraying in the air is too unpredictable.

There are hundreds of tests and research papers written and ongoing for this purpose. A lot is known about how different chemicals react in the atmosphere.

Governments have performed spraying in the air, historically, to test various compounds. Whether the purpose of chemtrails is to poison the population or sterilize the population or infect the population or drug the population, on purpose, is not known. Compounds that the government has deemed 'safe' in the past, have been subsequently found to be extremely dangerous: asbestos; dirty bombs. Regulation, as in Agent Orange, takes a long time to catch up and illness manifests and is denied by the government many times before it is finally admitted.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker

So if you were to spray let's say over NY surely the air currents and the jet stream will take it away from NY. Also if the government or whoever wanted to poison us there are easier ways to do this. Spraying in the air is too unpredictable.

There are hundreds of tests and research papers written and ongoing for this purpose. A lot is known about how different chemicals react in the atmosphere.

Governments have performed spraying in the air, historically, to test various compounds. Whether the purpose of chemtrails is to poison the population or sterilize the population or infect the population or drug the population, on purpose, is not known. Compounds that the government has deemed 'safe' in the past, have been subsequently found to be extremely dangerous: asbestos; dirty bombs. Regulation, as in Agent Orange, takes a long time to catch up and illness manifests and is denied by the government many times before it is finally admitted.

edit on 20-7-2012 by luxordelphi because: correct spelling

You avoid the question

There is evidence of chemical dispersal test at ground level.

but everyone who knows anything about the weather knows that dispersal at high altitude means you have no control over where or when such dispersed substances will land. Other than that it's physically impossible for it to land where it was dispersed

But anyway, is today's chemtrail theory that they are poisoining us and not undertaking geoengineering? It's so confusing when no-one has ever worked out exactly what the chemtrail hyposthesis is!

Hey thanks for the friendly replies I'm no expert on the matter so you've helped me understand the subject maybe I shouldn't of opened my mouth haha. The only why I suggested they done their business at 30,000 feet because pretty much every chem trail video the plane is at high altitude. But in my honest opinion I'm on the contrail side of the fence

reply to post by luxordelphi

There isn't any proof that spraying is done at 30,000 feet. The only reason 30,000 feet is in the mix, as an altitude, at all, is because the rare persistent contrail needs that altitude to form. It's not really possible, to tell, from the ground, how high a craft is flying.

Let me see if I read this right...

The only reason 30,000 feet is in the mix, as an altitude, at all, is because the rare persistent contrail needs that altitude to form

So then how are the white lines in the sky which are at 30,000 ft. or more called chemtrails or as others like to call them persistent contrail(another name for chemtrails)?

reply to post by luxordelphi

The people that say that these trails are contrails need them to be at that altitude. Nobody else does.

You mean like NOAA,NASA,Air Force,NWS,and so on?

Maybe you could elaborate as to who these Nobodies are, because I am very intrigued?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
There isn't any proof that spraying is done at 30,000 feet. The only reason 30,000 feet is in the mix, as an altitude, at all, is because the rare persistent contrail needs that altitude to form.

See that's the kind of disinformation the chemtrail promoters use. You are basically making things up:

A) 30,000 feet is not a magic altitude. It's not the altitude, it's the temperature and humidity. You can get contrails at ground level if conditions are right.

B) What is this "rare persistent contrail"? Why on earth do you say it's rare? There's plenty of old reports of persistent contrails spreading out to cover the sky. Back in 1969 it was reported to cover the sky 30-40 days a year, and there would be plenty ore days with fewer persistent contrails. So how exactly is that "rare"?

reply to post by luxordelphi

There isn't any proof that spraying is done at 30,000 feet.

Correct.

The only reason 30,000 feet is in the mix, as an altitude, at all, is because the rare persistent contrail needs that altitude to form.

Incorrect; as has been pointed out, persistent contrails can form at much lower altitudes under the right conditions. The figure 30,000 feet is thrown around because that is the typical cruising altitude for commercial airliners.

It's not really possible, to tell, from the ground, how high a craft is flying.

There are numerous ways to determine the altitude of an airplane from the ground. The simplest is to use two theodolites with a baseline of, say, a kilometer. A dedicated team of chemtrail researchers should be able to keep a fairly accurate log of "anomalous" aircraft. Unfortunately, that would be too much like work. Most prefer simply to guess, or take someone's word for it.

reply to post by AndyMayhew

But anyway, is today's chemtrail theory that they are poisoining us and not undertaking geoengineering? It's so confusing when no-one has ever worked out exactly what the chemtrail hyposthesis is!

Evidence of chemtrails is not the same as motive for chemtrails. Collateral damage is not the same as intent. Incidental damage - unforseen side-effects - accidental, almost, are not necessarily deliberate.

If somebody sprays something that is supposed to be safe when dispersed in open spaces and 10, 20 years down the road, after a lot of health complaints, it is found to be unsafe - what is that? That's like asbestos, which would never have been declared 'no safe level of exposure' without a cancer peculiar only to asbestos.

Just because people believe there is evil intent in this world, doesn't mean they believe that the person next door, who happens to be an airline mechanic, has evil intent.

This thread wasn't about motive. Historically, it is very very difficult to believe that those involved in the actual mechanics and spraying of Agent Orange had evil intent. Except for defoliation, which is not mainstream evil intent.

So just because a person recognizes chemtrails, doesn't mean they see communists under the bed. It also doesn't mean that they feel that anyone, including the military, is out to get them. Motive is not agreed upon, only effects are.

There is alot about the atmosphere that remains unknown. This works both ways: those that are spraying don't necessarily have all the answers about the movements of particles/clouds in the atmosphere. And those that have health complaints based on overhead grids and chemical skies, don't necessarily have answers, but they do have complaints.

Just for the record...I've read more studies on atmospheric dispersal of jet emissions that morph into jet cirrus than is prudent for a single person. There is equipment, in orbit, that does nothing but sample cirrus - how thick it is, how opaque it is, where it is, where it went etc. I agree that the creation, for the most part, is a mystery. But man's creation, jet cirrus, not so much.

reply to post by DJW001

Incorrect; as has been pointed out, persistent contrails can form at much lower altitudes under the right conditions. The figure 30,000 feet is thrown around because that is the typical cruising altitude for commercial airliners.

You have what I perceive as a vested interest in proving that the grids in the sky are outrageously persistent contrails. I don't. Therefore it doesn't matter to me what altitude or humidity or what saturation of nucleatable (is that a word?) particles is present. It only matters to you.

What matters to me is fostering some real understanding of the grids in the sky. Not proving that they are outrageously persistent contrails.