Are these Chemtrails?

reply to post by Bilk22

I mean they did admit to "chemtrails".

Who did? At what point in the video? Can you provide a timestamp?

reply to post by Phage


Hi phage! I think these are condensation trails. I see them all the time, and actually see the plane doing it. People can't see that engines are quite hot and will produce steam?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Bilk22

 

I mean they did admit to "chemtrails".

Who did? At what point in the video? Can you provide a timestamp?

edit on 8/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Can you tell me what the subject of their conversation was in that meeting?

reply to post by luxordelphi

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Relative humidity and particle saturation are two different things. Sorry.

Of course they're different things. Regardless, "particle saturation" does not have to be "super" for contrail persistence. Either way, you're not making any sense.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
This is not about aerodynamic contrails - separate subject. Sorry.

They are the exact same substance, and they're persistent contrails which don't require exhaust. You can ignore them if you like, but they are still an example of why exhaust heat is not a requirement.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
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.

Again, this is not a requirement for contrail persistence.

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

Yet there is no actual latitude 'requirement' for contrail persistence.

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

So it's not ok for you to use logic and common sense. I figured as much, but clouds are not a theory I made up. You should try to learn about them some time to help dispel your delusion.

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

You don't have to assume anything to know that there is humidity in a cloud. It is made from water! Denying this is beyond ludicrous.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
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.

Yep, because basic atmospheric science is propaganda to you. This is what I meant by making up ridiculous theories simply to carry on believing another ridiculous theory. Each and every one of your rebuttals has failed at showing that they are a necessary requirement for contrail persistence. Better luck next time.

Originally posted by rickymouse
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.

Yep - that is exactly what I am saying.

Maybe you should study the FDA's requirement for a while to see what is possible.

Maybe you shoudl tell me what I'm looking for there in relation to jet fule, rathe than me having to look at the entire site??

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".

Like I thought - you were talking about gasoline and not JET fuel - 100LL is not JET fuel - Jet A1 is kerosene, and does not now nor has it ever, AFAIK, contained lead.

The lead in gasoline (for piston engines), of almost all varieties, was not secret.

Perhaps you should know a little more about what you intend to conduct a discourse on before doing so??

reply to post by Crashyy

Originally posted by Crashyy
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

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

Greetings, or should I say hallo (or maybe bonjour, I'm not quite sure)

Ok, so you're just over the channel from the UK, so you would get rather similar atmospheric conditions. We can try to find a closer radiosonde measurement though, to get a better understanding of what the atmospheric conditions were like.

You can use this site to locate measurement locations. I don't think the database has any measurements from within Belgium, but there is a site across the border in De Bilt, Netherlands. Here is the data from radiosonde measurements starting at 12 (Zulu time) on the 16th. The measurements show that at around 34,000 ft (around cruise height for large airliners), the temperature was -49.3 (degrees C) with a relative humidity of 62%. Using an Appleman chart as a guide, you can see that airliners flying at this altitude would likely leave a persistent contrail. Similar condition exist on the 17th as well, but I'm not sure exactly when your photos were taken.

Coincidentally, the data shows that at altitudes of no more than 1,500 ft below or above of 34,000 ft, you have relative humidity lowering to 36% and 26% respectively, showing that there was a 'pocket' of increased relative humidity. So you know someone is either lying or has no idea what they're talking about if they claim that these pockets don't exist, even though cumulus clouds alone are proof that they exist.

reply to post by Bilk22


The video you posted shows a smoke screen being layed. Nothing new in the use of smoke in the history of warfare. Epic fail for the YT 'Chemtrail' uploader. He/She invents a title and the 'chemtrailers' flock with their 'awesome' 'amazing' comments. Complete ignorance shown of the use of smoke during and preparing for combat operations.

See footage and memoirs.

www.britishpathe.com...

www.britishpathe.com...

www.liveleak.com...

Memoires of aerial smoke screen laying during WW2

www.combinedops.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by luxordelphi

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 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.

Of course, never mind the fact that Evergreen only has 1 (ONE!)! supertanker capable of segmented drops...and these drops are liquid from the belly of the plane...and are done at very low elevations to drop on specific targets...and in fact, have NOTHING to do with "chemtrails"- ....You keep flogging Evergreen as evidence when its clearly misdirection- are you a troll?

"pockets of humidity" made up??? Really? Have you ever been outside?

Why do clouds have gaps in them?

Why are there clouds in one spot but not another??

Why are there different layers of clouds at different altitudes?

Please explain.


You amaze me at your ability to let your exposed fallacies and ignorance just roll off your back- no acknowledgement when your claims are clearly exposed as bunk...you just move right to the next one...fascinating.

reply to post by luxordelphi

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

Surely you aren't talking about this plane are you?





And you think this is making the segmented contrail or chemtrail for you?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Yes, I believe he is talking about that plane.

See there, how it says:

Firefighting AND Weather Modification

Those are two different capabilities..... just because it doesn't show you a picture of the others doesn't mean they aren't using those options.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

Yes, I believe he is talking about that plane.

See there, how it says:

Firefighting AND Weather Modification

Those are two different capabilities..... just because it doesn't show you a picture of the others doesn't mean they aren't using those options.

And of course weather modification = cloud seeding. Aer you STILL trying to claim that chemtrails = cloud seeding??

But anyway - has it ever actualy been used for that? honestly - I have no idea.

But even if it was, the "chemtrail" from dumping its load would obviously look nothing like those trails from engines across the sky that are supposedly poisoning us, and it is still only 1 aeroplane that canot explain all those trails (that it's "chemtrail" wouldn't actually resemble) across teh world.

reply to post by dplum517

Firefighting AND Weather Modification

Maybe you should have read a little more on their site....

Evergreen is studying other applications for the Supertanker. Oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and weather modification are all potential markets for this aircraft. Because the aircraft is pressurized, the Evergreen Supertanker has the capability of any long-range Boeing 747 passenger aircraft. This allows the aircraft to deploy to any international location.

www.evergreenaviation.com...

Note the key word above potential markets.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

Yes, I believe he is talking about that plane.

See there, how it says:

Firefighting AND Weather Modification

Those are two different capabilities..... just because it doesn't show you a picture of the others doesn't mean they aren't using those options.

But that doesn't change the fact that the only have ONE plane like this...and that any weather modification use the plane is used for still would have nothing to do with a persistent trail high altitude that could be construed as a "chemtrail".

Whatever the use- it is still delivering its payload from the belly and will a relatively short burst...and thus has nothing to do with the internet "chemtrail" meme

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

But anyway - has it ever actualy been used for that? honestly - I have no idea.

No,and they are only looking at it as a potential market.

reply to post by dplum517

Those are two different capabilities..... just because it doesn't show you a picture of the others doesn't mean they aren't using those options.

Actually there is only one of those two capabilities that plane utilizes and it has nothing to do modifying weather.

reply to post by Bilk22


The video you put up on the 70 years ago 'smoke curtain/screen' is one of the most amazing I've ever seen. Watched it again this morning. Excellent find.

reply to post by luxordelphi

The video you put up on the 70 years ago 'smoke curtain/screen' is one of the most amazing I've ever seen. Watched it again this morning. Excellent find.

How about the original video..

www.criticalpast.com...

reply to post by Thorazine

....You keep flogging Evergreen as evidence when its clearly misdirection- are you a troll?

Thorazine: I like your enthusiasm but I'm not going to argue nonsense with you. Whether you're a troll or I'm a troll - these are metaphysical, subjective questions - and in the meantime chemtrails are real and people are ill and plants and trees are dying and the sky is obscured and HAARP is still operating and that's real.

You amaze me at your ability to let your exposed fallacies and ignorance just roll off your back- no acknowledgement when your claims are clearly exposed as bunk...you just move right to the next one...fascinating.

Trust me, if there ever was a fallacy exposed, I'd be on it like white on rice because I'm not here as a sit-around. But your 'science' is like dogma which persists in the face of contrary observation. Give it up. It's untenable.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Did you miss this from your link?

www.criticalpast.com...

Chemical Warfare Smoke Curtain seen.

Help me out here...what does this link refute?

Originally posted by luxordelphi

You amaze me at your ability to let your exposed fallacies and ignorance just roll off your back- no acknowledgement when your claims are clearly exposed as bunk...you just move right to the next one...fascinating.

Trust me, if there ever was a fallacy exposed, I'd be on it like white on rice because I'm not here as a sit-around. But your 'science' is like dogma which persists in the face of contrary observation. Give it up. It's untenable.

predictable...avoid the substance, avoid the facts...and just spout meaningless rhetoric.

Please deal with the facts:

the fact that Evergreen only has 1 (ONE!)! supertanker capable of segmented drops...and these drops are liquid from the belly of the plane...and are done at very low elevations to drop on specific targets...and in fact, have NOTHING to do with "chemtrails"- ....

"pockets of humidity" made up???

How are these observations contrary to the fact the the atmosphere has pockets and layers of differing temps and humidity?

Explain why a plane could NOT fly through a pocket of differing air that might cause the nature of a contrail to change.

Why do clouds have gaps in them?

Why are there clouds in one spot but not another??

Why are there different layers of clouds at different altitudes?

Please explain.


Even at the same altitude, the atmosphere has pockets and regions of differing temp and humidity.

Your claim is a fallacy.

Fallacy exposed.