"Why in the World are They Spraying" Official Trailer

Originally posted by luxordelphi

Your looney tunes website has never proven outrageously persistent contrails. There is nothing on your website or on any website anywhere that proves that grids in our skies are contrails. It's an assumption. A dangerous one.

What would constitute "proof" to you?

That contrails can and often DO persist, spread and cover the sky HAS been proven- It is been observed since planes have flown high enough. They have been studied, sampled IN SITU, replicated in labs and fully explained by the Laws of Nature in fully peer-reviewed, repeatable demonstrations. Anyone can prove the formation and persistence of contrails to themselves. The basic physics of contrail persistence is FACT. Irrefutably proven fact.

Since contrails are known to persist and spread and are a known result of air travel...it is up to YOU to prove they are actually something else.

The assumption that they are "chemtrails" is YOUR assumption...there is nothing that you or ANYONE has presented that proves the trails in the sky are not contrails. That is an assumption on your part- and judging by the people who want to shoot down "chemplanes"...a dangerous one at that.

reply to post by luxordelphi

There is nothing on your website or on any website anywhere that proves that grids in our skies are contrails. It's an assumption. A dangerous one.

And....there's nothing anywhere that says that there IS a reason for contrails making cross-hatch lines.
...oh wait..yes there is...1/2 one explanation, 1/2 a different explanation.
0.5 explanation is that someone is planning grids and dropping precision lids...
the other 0.5 explanation is just a mass of chance jet destinations.

Compare those two....and the mathematically random chance version vs. the "dropping guided evil lids on target"
....sure...it's gotta be the more complex version....because it's just damn more interesting..

reply to post by Thorr

...and yet the very first sentence in the paper explicitly says this " It is OFTEN observed that contrails spread considerably"

How does a statement about the 'considerable spreading' of contrails relate to their occurrence?

Let's face it, it's an inconvenient study. It shows that contrails are hard to produce even when you have perfect conditions.

reply to post by EyeDontKnow

In the entire above post....I saw nothing that addressed the topic, addressed the science, or offered an alternative explanation.

What science is that? Outrageously persistent contrails need ideal, exact conditions. Because of this, they are easy to eliminate.

Exhaust Contrails

The exhaust contrail is formed by the addition to the atmosphere of sufficient water vapor from aircraft exhaust gases to cause saturation or supersaturation of the air. Since heat is also added to the atmosphere in the wake of an aircraft, the addition of water vapor must be of such magnitude that it saturates or supersaturates the atmosphere in spite of the added heat. There is evidence to support the idea that the nuclei which are necessary for condensation or sublimation may also be donated to the atmosphere in the exhaust gases of aircraft engines, further aiding contrail formation. These nuclei are relatively large. Recent experiments, however, have revealed that visible exhaust contrails may be prevented by adding very minute nuclei material (dust, for example) to the exhaust. Condensation and sublimation on these smaller nuclei result in contrail particles too small to be visible.

Everybody agrees they're bad - whether chemtrail or contrail. Why go on with it? Just get rid of them.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by EyeDontKnow

 

In the entire above post....I saw nothing that addressed the topic, addressed the science, or offered an alternative explanation.

What science is that? Outrageously persistent contrails need ideal, exact conditions. Because of this, they are easy to eliminate.

Exhaust Contrails

The exhaust contrail is formed by the addition to the atmosphere of sufficient water vapor from aircraft exhaust gases to cause saturation or supersaturation of the air. Since heat is also added to the atmosphere in the wake of an aircraft, the addition of water vapor must be of such magnitude that it saturates or supersaturates the atmosphere in spite of the added heat. There is evidence to support the idea that the nuclei which are necessary for condensation or sublimation may also be donated to the atmosphere in the exhaust gases of aircraft engines, further aiding contrail formation. These nuclei are relatively large. Recent experiments, however, have revealed that visible exhaust contrails may be prevented by adding very minute nuclei material (dust, for example) to the exhaust. Condensation and sublimation on these smaller nuclei result in contrail particles too small to be visible.

Everybody agrees they're bad - whether chemtrail or contrail. Why go on with it? Just get rid of them.

And perhaps you could provide a link to the "recent experiments" that get rid of contrails by adding dust to them? How much does this cost? What are the environmental effects? What dust?

The text you quote seems to have been cut and paste from the "Aviation Weather" in 1965 (or before). Maybe they don't do it because it never really worked?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by EyeDontKnow

 

In the entire above post....I saw nothing that addressed the topic, addressed the science, or offered an alternative explanation.

What science is that? Outrageously persistent contrails need ideal, exact conditions. Because of this, they are easy to eliminate.

Exhaust Contrails

The exhaust contrail is formed by the addition to the atmosphere of sufficient water vapor from aircraft exhaust gases to cause saturation or supersaturation of the air. Since heat is also added to the atmosphere in the wake of an aircraft, the addition of water vapor must be of such magnitude that it saturates or supersaturates the atmosphere in spite of the added heat. There is evidence to support the idea that the nuclei which are necessary for condensation or sublimation may also be donated to the atmosphere in the exhaust gases of aircraft engines, further aiding contrail formation. These nuclei are relatively large. Recent experiments, however, have revealed that visible exhaust contrails may be prevented by adding very minute nuclei material (dust, for example) to the exhaust. Condensation and sublimation on these smaller nuclei result in contrail particles too small to be visible.

Everybody agrees they're bad - whether chemtrail or contrail. Why go on with it? Just get rid of them.

So stop being scared of things 10km in the sky and start worrying about whats coming out the rear end of Automobiles.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Thorr

 

...and yet the very first sentence in the paper explicitly says this " It is OFTEN observed that contrails spread considerably"

How does a statement about the 'considerable spreading' of contrails relate to their occurrence?

Let's face it, it's an inconvenient study. It shows that contrails are hard to produce even when you have perfect conditions.

Wow...I am actually a little dumbfounded at your lack of reading comprehension...is it purposeful or simply a lack of ability?

The statement in question relates to their occurrence by stating that the spreading of contrails occurs "OFTEN".

Lets read it again, shall we?

"It is OFTEN observed that contrails spread considerably"

...it is often observed...means it is seen a lot...which means it occurs frequently...

What about that do you not understand? seriously....

The study DOES NOT show contrails are hard to produce "even when you have perfect conditions"

On the days they had "perfect conditions" they found and created plenty of persistent contrails...

How do you expect to taken seriously when you cannot understand the information that is presented to you?

The study is quite convenient as it shows that persistent, spreading contrails were observed frequently back in the early 70s such that they merited study and sampling directly from the atmosphere.

Those facts alone undermine the very premise of the "chemtrail" theory- that contraisl only dissipate-never persist and never have...

reply to post by luxordelphi


Hang on, are you seriously saying that you WANT fine particles of dust sprayed into the air in sufficient quantities to prevent contrails on flights that may travel for thousands of miles? What happens when it falls to earth, won't people be breathing it in?

I thought this was exactly what you were AGAINST?