Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are these Chemtrails?

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The nanofuel additives could be in every gallon of jet fuel and we would never know.


Like I said - go buy a gallon and get it tested against the published standard! If it does not meet that standard then you may well have concrete evidence of a crime being committed!!


That is covered under patented chemistry and the analysis would not need to show it if the law allowed it.


Nope - they would still have to say "patented material" or similar. And actually if they were testing for the signatures of the various elements involved they might not know what the materials actually are, so would just report on the amount of each element in the sample.


All jet fuel had lead in it until a couple of years ago.


AFAIK jet fuel has never had lead in it - you are probably thinking of gasoline.


Some probably still does. What is the replacement technology for the replacement of the lead on these jets, without the lead the engines would not work safely before. So what changes were done to the fuel. I doubt if the molybdenum could be used for jet engines but a combination of nano metals would probably work.


Metals are metals - "nano-metals" will melt and screw over engine components just like larger particles would.

Lubricity of jet fuels is a major concern, along with other characteristics - but there was never lead in jet fuel, so there has never been a need to replace it with anything.

Jet engine fuel components are manufactured to use the kerosene itself as lubricant, with the permitted sulphur. In fact with decreasing levels of sulphur in fuel for anti-pollution measures, there has been a need to improve the lubricity, and you can find those materials in the specification fo Jet A1 I linked to previously.

Here's and EASA paper (European Aviation Safety Authority) on lubriciy of low-sulphur jet fuels.
edit on 19-8-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Where's a face-palm pic when you need one


This isn't a face palm - but I can recommend it:




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi
 

What is an "outrageously persistent contrail?"


Further, if contrail formation doesn't meet historically set precedents, the science is changed to 'include' these exceptions.
It is? What exceptions?



In case you didn't watch the video that randyvs put up on Evergreen, I'll quote:

Tim Wahlberg, Evergreen Int'l Aviation at 1:24: "...it can do segmented drops..."

In order to explain the dot dot dot...or dash dash dash across the sky of a rapid intermittant contrail, the contrail crowd puts forward 'pockets of humidity' lol.

The Ultimate Proof that Chemtrails are NOT caused by Elevation/Temperature

The spokesperson for Evergreen clearly states that segmented drops are a capability of the particular aircraft he discusses. 'Pockets of humidity', creating a morse code-like appearance, are an example of making stuff up to fit exceptions in contrail formation. Further, no one has taken readings on these 'pockets' so it's all just assumed as well.

In the sub-tropics, chemtrails behave differently than in mid-latitudes so looking up will not always give a clear picture, however, the grids, as in the OP, are a graphic illustration of what are, in these latter days, being called 'outrageously persistent contrails', rather than chemtrails which is what they are.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 




Historically set precedents like what, for example?


From WWII we learned that there are a number of conditions that need to be met in order for contrails to persist for 15 minutes. Hard to believe? Watch:

1. Humidity has to be just so.
2. Altitude has to be just so.
3. Temperature has to be just so.
4. Particle saturation has to be super.
5. A cloud corridor needs to exist.
6. A weather front needs to exist.
7. Exhaust heat needs to be just so.
8. Latitude must be considered.

If you have this data for the OP photos and can prove that it's not virtual propaganda, I'll entertain you. Otherwise - you got nothing. lol. (...except shameless promotion of your website...)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


From your linked video...



So when did smoke become a chemtrail?

Because last time I checked smoke wasn't considered a chemtrail.

And this is what was done,and guess what it wasn't chemtrails...



Vapor, not Smoke

The "smoke" created by this technology was neither a smoke (like the product of the combustion smoke screen methods) nor a chemical gas (like the product of the chemical smoke bombs) but was a vapor of a specially designed formula created by Patterson. This formula was referred to as the Patterson secret formula by the military researchers, but shortly after its implementation, the composition was known as "fog oil," a name that had not entered the lexicon until Patterson's invention.

The "fog oil" was atomized by specially designed nozzles, injected into a heated chamber, then vaporized, but not burnt, by the hot gasses within. This vaporized fog oil was then ejected into the air by rapidly moving air flow. Upon entering the air outside the heated chamber, the fog oil vapor immediately condensed, forming an extremely thick fog layer that hung close to the ground. According to one of the Patterson patents, and this was confirmed by subsequent Navy researchers as reported in this document, ". . . [the] smoke screen or cloud produced. . . develops a density and opacity greater than the heaviest known natural fog." A person need only imagine the thickest fog they have seen or heard about to realize the enormous obscuring power of this smoke screen. Objects less than 1 foot within the smoke screen were completely hidden from view. It was denser and could be produced faster than any smokescreen ever created.

The Patterson smoke screen system had another great advantage over all previous smokescreens: it was virtually harmless to troops. It had no known short or medium term toxicity. Long term toxicity may have been possible, most likely only with frequent exposure, but even today, there is no clear evidence of long term side effects resulting from exposure to this type of smoke screen. This is why the main ingredients of the formula remained a part of fog oil compositions long after WWII.


sites.google.com...

But since it was on youtube it must have been the truth...


Google is your friend....



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


The Baltic coast is in northern latitudes. It's never hot there. It rains alot. Summer temps might get into the 80's. With global warming, times have changed, and summer temps now get into the 90's.

Why did the pilot wear heated gear? Because his cabin wasn't heated.

Seriously, I was just having a little fun with the thread about no chemtrail threads in the summer because, of course, it's summer and this is a chemtrail thread.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


I actually found the original video that your link was taken from...

www.criticalpast.com...

Your liked youtube video is a blatant lie and is a real video but not of chemtrails and was also done in 1923 not wwII.

Good try....



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





Summer temps might get into the 80's. With global warming, times have changed, and summer temps now get into the 90's.


Are you sure about that...


Over the sea, the air temperature is dominated by the sea temperature which, in the late spring is dependent upon the melting of the Winter ice. By July air temperatures reach 16 or 17 deg C rising to 22 deg near mainland coasts. Day time temperatures over land can, on occasion, be as high as 30 deg C. The following table shows some typical daily maximum temperatures and the average monthly average extremes


weather.mailasail.com...

You can find the table at the link, and here is a link to a Fahrenheit to Celsius converter to help you out.

www.wbuf.noaa.gov...



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



Originally posted by luxordelphi
From WWII we learned that there are a number of conditions that need to be met in order for contrails to persist for 15 minutes. Hard to believe? Watch:

1. Humidity has to be just so.
2. Altitude has to be just so.
3. Temperature has to be just so.
4. Particle saturation has to be super.
5. A cloud corridor needs to exist.
6. A weather front needs to exist.
7. Exhaust heat needs to be just so.
8. Latitude must be considered.

So you accuse others of making stuff up, then you go and put forth this drivel. More face palm logic.

The main things on your list are numbers 1 and 3. However, many of the other points are irrelevant. For example, altitude is not a direct factor. It is just that the conditions of temperature and humidity vary with altitude. It is possible to get contrails at ground level if it is sufficiently cold, although this could only occur in very cold regions such as Antarctica. You have also shown that you don't properly understand super saturation (something I've previously tried to explain to you, but obviously not well enough). Super saturated air is merely a measure of relative humidity, not a separate requirement and doesn't involve 'particles'. Your numbers 5 and 6 are not requirements at all. It appears you are just making stuff up. A weather front is merely a mechanism which can provide the necessary conditions of temperature and humidity, but it certainly is not required. Exhaust heat is not required either, as aerodynamic contrails can form and persist due to localised increases in relative humidity over the wings. The exhaust can provide extra moisture though. Lastly, latitude is not a requirement, even if latitude can influence the temperature and humidity levels (making it an influencing factor, but not a requirement).

So of your list of required conditions, you got 2 out of 8 right as actual requirements. Sorry, but that's a fail. Yet I'm sure you still feel qualified to announce that all the science is "bunk" or "made up overnight". I guess it's a lot easier to dismiss something as false when you don't actually understand it.


Originally posted by luxordelphi
'Pockets of humidity', creating a morse code-like appearance, are an example of making stuff up to fit exceptions in contrail formation. Further, no one has taken readings on these 'pockets' so it's all just assumed as well.

Yet again, more face-palm logic. I have explained to you in the past that the atmosphere is not uniform, and it does not follow a simple rule of less humidity as you go higher. Yet, we don't need to take "readings" of 'pockets' to know that they exist. You just need a little observation and a bit of common sense. A cloud is a localised 'pocket' of condensed water droplets or ice crystals (ie a pocket of increased relative humidity). Sometimes, you can get lots of small 'pockets' of cloud, such as cumulus cloud, showing that the atmosphere is not uniform, but contains variable 'pockets' with different properties. Denying that pockets of different humidity exist is tantamount to denying that clouds exist in anything other than vast uniform sheets. Just because you don't know something, doesn't mean you can just assume that it is an assumption. That would be "making stuff up".


Originally posted by luxordelphi
If you have this data for the OP photos and can prove that it's not virtual propaganda, I'll entertain you. Otherwise - you got nothing. lol

Since the OP hasn't stated where they are yet (at least not that I recall), we can only speculate. However, if they're in the UK, I have provided the data showing that conditions were conducive to contrail formation (at least they were on the 17th). Yes, even in Summer, it can get awfully cold at 35,000 feet. So while you claim others have "nothing", at least they're not lying or showing such a poor grasp on the topic and misleading others.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Nah I'm not from the UK, I'm from Belgium in Europe :p



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Relative humidity and particle saturation are two different things. Sorry.

This is not about aerodynamic contrails - separate subject. Sorry.

Exhaust heat doesn't have to do with extra moisture. It has to do with vaporization depending on how hot and, with contrails, depending on how cool. Sorry.

Latitude is related to the entire hydrological cycle. Things happen in the tropics that affect mid-latitudes. Sorry.

Making up 'pockets of humidity' to fit your theory is ok for you - not me. Sorry.

Assuming that a certain humidity exists in a 'pocket' is not scientific. Assuming humidity in order to prove contrails is ludicrous. Sorry.

I'd be a bit more careful about passing out the face palm. Wouldn't want you to get slapped with it. So far, you've taught me nothing except that you know zip about this subject except the standard propaganda. Better luck next time.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 




Are you sure about that...


Go back to sleep or tell me what you're taking exception to. Is it that temperatures along the Baltic Sea get into the 80's? Is it that temperatures along the Baltic Sea now get into the 90's? Is it global warming? What....!!!!



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Around this area, it's time to plant seed and seedlings. No rain for 52 days and counting. Chemtrails almost daily, winter ending approaching spring, bees disappearing, birds dropping Dead.

I find it strange that we are at a time of mass produce and we cannot produce. Of course the price of food is and will saw through the roof over the next six months.

Do the trails in the sky have any effect on the future crops/rain???????????????????



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Bilk22
 


From your linked video...



So when did smoke become a chemtrail?

Because last time I checked smoke wasn't considered a chemtrail.

And this is what was done,and guess what it wasn't chemtrails...



Vapor, not Smoke

The "smoke" created by this technology was neither a smoke (like the product of the combustion smoke screen methods) nor a chemical gas (like the product of the chemical smoke bombs) but was a vapor of a specially designed formula created by Patterson. This formula was referred to as the Patterson secret formula by the military researchers, but shortly after its implementation, the composition was known as "fog oil," a name that had not entered the lexicon until Patterson's invention.

The "fog oil" was atomized by specially designed nozzles, injected into a heated chamber, then vaporized, but not burnt, by the hot gasses within. This vaporized fog oil was then ejected into the air by rapidly moving air flow. Upon entering the air outside the heated chamber, the fog oil vapor immediately condensed, forming an extremely thick fog layer that hung close to the ground. According to one of the Patterson patents, and this was confirmed by subsequent Navy researchers as reported in this document, ". . . [the] smoke screen or cloud produced. . . develops a density and opacity greater than the heaviest known natural fog." A person need only imagine the thickest fog they have seen or heard about to realize the enormous obscuring power of this smoke screen. Objects less than 1 foot within the smoke screen were completely hidden from view. It was denser and could be produced faster than any smokescreen ever created.

The Patterson smoke screen system had another great advantage over all previous smokescreens: it was virtually harmless to troops. It had no known short or medium term toxicity. Long term toxicity may have been possible, most likely only with frequent exposure, but even today, there is no clear evidence of long term side effects resulting from exposure to this type of smoke screen. This is why the main ingredients of the formula remained a part of fog oil compositions long after WWII.


sites.google.com...

But since it was on youtube it must have been the truth...


Google is your friend....


Hey thanks for the link. Seems they've known how to produce "chemtrails" for way longer than we thought, since that film is from 1923. Did you even look at the film you linked or is your reading comprehension that tenuous? It's obviously not "smoke". It's a fog created with .......................................wait for it........................................ chemicals. Interesting what they refer to it as - chemical warfare. Now 89 years later, I bet the technology is much better and they can pretty much atomize and spray anything.




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
For any of you interested enough to see someone admit to what they're doing.




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


So you are saying that the published standard can't include requiring certain substances to be put in jet fuel for reasons that are not listed. Maybe you should study the FDA's requirement for a while to see what is possible.

So there's no lead in aviation fuel?.
Here is a quote from Wiki "The most commonly used aviation fuel is 100LL, i.e., "low lead". It is dyed blue and contains a relatively small amount of tetraethyl lead—though the amount is greater than what was contained in many automotive grades of leaded fuel before such fuel was phased out".
edit on 19-8-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Before you get to deep about this video...



You may want to read this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That should help explain why this video has been discussed and debunked already...



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





Is it that temperatures along the Baltic Sea get into the 80's? Is it that temperatures along the Baltic Sea now get into the 90's? Is it global warming? What....!!!!


I take exception to the fact that you do not know what your saying and I linked you to something that proves your wrong and I guess you may not have understood it.

So let's see what I linked you to..



Now I also provided the link to a converter of Fahrenheit to Celsius,and I take it you didn't understand that either?

Let's look at the above chart and see what the daily max temp is for that region..

It looks like it says 22 degrees celsius, now if you convert that to Fahrenheit you get 71.6 degrees Fahrenheit not quite 80 is it?

You can use this( and I will post the link again) if you think I may have been wrong in the conversion.

www.wbuf.noaa.gov...

I can only give you the tools,and it is up to you whether or not to use them.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Before you get to deep about this video...



You may want to read this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That should help explain why this video has been discussed and debunked already...



That really "debunks" nothing my friend. Nice try though. I mean they did admit to "chemtrails". Dispute the facts, not look for alternative explanations for why soil samples may have certain levels of elements in it.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Crashyy
 


That's condensation trails. Airplane engines are quite hot, they produce steam, which then cristalize in the atmosphere. I see them all the time. So many trails makes me think you live somewhere cold.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join