Facts of contrails

reply to post by zysin5

Originally posted by zysin5

Chemtrails have existed many many times in our past.

Agent Orange was used by the U.S. military from 1961 to 1971 in Vietnam. The herbicide was used to defoliate inland and coastal forests, cultivated land, and areas around military bases during the Vietnam conflict.

I think we should keep the low-altitude spraying of herbicides and pesticides separate from the "common" idea of what people call chemtrails. This seems to be a whole separate discussion point.

Most people refer to chemtrails as those puffy white trails that are associated with high-altitude aircraft (what chemtrail debunkers say are only normal contrails).

The spraying of agent orange -- or, similarly, crop dusting and insect control, for that matter -- is/was done from low altitudes, and are NOT the same as those puffy white trails sometimes seen behind high-altitude jets.


Edit to add:
You may as well call this a chemtrail (fire-fighting plane dropping chemical fire retardant):

reply to post by zysin5


I agree with you in the sense that "stuff" was sprayed from planes. But the Chemtrail discussion I am trying to have is the myth that every white puffy line in the sky that lasts longer than (insert your time frame here) is a chemtrail and contrails don't last longer than (that same time frame). Contrails can last as long as clouds do because they are the SAME THING.

Chemtrail born again's seem to want to ignore any and all scientific evidence that discredits their theory. It's science. It's fact. It's not up for debate.

Sorry, I didn't meant to holler.

reply to post by network dude


Gotcha! Thanks for clearing the air! pun intended
I do agree with that. I have seen no proof of the type of chem trails you are debunking in this thread.

So with that said.. Carry on.
Good thread though.. I might add.. I know some people who are very dead set on talking about chemtrails here and now in the USA. I just have not seen the proof. Ive seen an over whelming amount of disinformation that tries to make those claims. But its all been out right lies, and disinformation.

reply to post by zysin5


That is what I just don't understand. Almost all of the "information" out there about chemtrails is outright lies, and when you point out to these people that they are being lied to, they get mad at YOU! I am just pointing to an encyclopedia so to speak, while they are having chicken bones and voo doo dolls thrown at them.
I guess you will believe what you want to believe regardless of facts.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Looking the same and being the same are entirely different.

It would be like saying the steam from your car exhaust pipe is the same as when you exhale.

Unless your car is burning oil and putting out smoke then the visible portion of the "steam" from a car exhaust IS the same as when you exhale. It's water.

Isnt chemtrails prooven to be hoax?

before cell phones and hand held devices , what was preventing people from looking up and seeing contrails? I ask this because it is a fact that most people in the digital world are preoccupied with objects that cause them to hang there heads down more than before advent of such devices. why has there been a sudden increas over the last 15-20 years of chemtrail observations.? citing facts about water condensation in no way disproves the chemtrail theory. in my opinion , the people that are trying to debunk the chemtrail observers , are only helping to obscure what is really going on.

reply to post by IsawWHATtheyDID


Because in the last 10-15 years engines have become much more efficient, with the improvements to the high bypass turbofan. This has led to more contrails being left behind by planes using these engines (which in recent years has become just about all of them), and those contrails tending to persist longer than they did in years past. Persistent contrails have been around since before WWII, just there are more of them now, due to jet engine improvements.

reply to post by cowgomoo

Isnt chemtrails prooven to be hoax?

No, the theories behind chemtrails are based on documented evidence and on-going research in geoengineering.

Geoengineering Cost Analysis

Page 31
In the case of the present system, a significant quantity of sulfuric acid will be stored on the aircraft and ejected into the atmosphere during flight. This liquid could be injected into the engine to provide additional thrust at high altitudes to combat thrust lapse. As discussed in the previous section elevated sulfur content is detrimental to engine component life, and consequently traditional liquid injection techniques (compressor inlet injection) would not be appropriate for this system. However, some thrust augmentation may be realizable by injecting the sulfuric acid downstream of the turbine, in a manner similar to a modern afterburner. By this approach, to achieve thrust increases the turbine exhaust gases must be hot enough to vaporize the sulfuric acid

Geoengineering Cost Analysis

Page 32

While the sulfuric acid injection technique described above does provide some extended altitude capability, it does not appear to provide a substantial enough benefit to warrant its implementation in a turbofan engine for that purpose. However, injection of the sulfuric acid into the exhaust in this way may represent an efficient method by which to disperse it into the atmosphere. This analysis suggests that even at the maximum sulfuric acid release rate under consideration (24.9 kg/s) the thrust level produced by the engine is not adversely affected (1.05 thrust ratio).

Geoengineering - Aerosol

Option 1: Increasing Sulfur Content of Jet Fuel in Commercial Fleet

Option 2: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft

Option 3: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using High Altitude Jet Aircraft

Option 4: Direct Injection of Ammonium Sulfate Aerosol Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft

Option 5: Running Commercial Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 6: Running Dedicated Fleet of Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 7: Running High Altitude Aircraft Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

reply to post by zysin5

Good thread though.. I might add.. I know some people who are very dead set on talking about chemtrails here and now in the USA. I just have not seen the proof. Ive seen an over whelming amount of disinformation that tries to make those claims. But its all been out right lies, and disinformation.

I wish more people would follow your lead.

reply to post by MagicWand67

No, the theories behind chemtrails are based on documented evidence and on-going research in geoengineering.

Really, could you provide a link for this information?

So we're just going to pretend geo-engineering doesn't exist?

I don't really see how chemtrails don't exist if geo-engineering is going on, Those particulates don't fly themselves up there now do they?


I mean they do admit to "thinking" about the idea, but these are scientists, they will do w/e they need to. And I continue to remain 50/50 on this conspiracy. I mean, unless people are flying planes through these trails, and testing the air.. I don't really see how it couldn't be done, all the while people refer back to contrails. People act like it's hard to hide a form of chemical in a contrail. absurd.

Originally posted by eXia7
So we're just going to pretend geo-engineering doesn't exist?

I don't really see how chemtrails don't exist if geo-engineering is going on, Those particulates don't fly themselves up there now do they?


I mean they do admit to "thinking" about the idea, but these are scientists, they will do w/e they need to. And I continue to remain 50/50 on this conspiracy. I mean, unless people are flying planes through these trails, and testing the air.. I don't really see how it couldn't be done, all the while people refer back to contrails. People act like it's hard to hide a form of chemical in a contrail. absurd.

edit on 11/29/2012 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)

I dont know that anyone here is saying that geo-engineering does not exist. What people are trying to point out is that what many people see as their "chemtrails" are in fact contrails. This does not mean that chemtrails dont exist. But when you have individuals that insist a contrail cannot persist, or that they dont spread, things of that sort ... they are going to be corrected in their errors.

So tell us, if it would not be difficult to introduce chemicals into a contrail (beyond the carbon and normal emissions from the engine), how would they go about it?

A thing I would like to point out about geo-engeneering.

If geo-engeneering is done with chemtrails, why would they absolutely be visible in the first place or even differentiate visually from cirrus clouds?

It could be done right in front of us invisibly while "chemtrail believers" would just be laughing stock as they wouldn't even look in the right direction for proof.

Here is a fact for you
Chemtrail debunkers with their theory's of what a chemtrail is.


I am more interested in how they know more about chemtrails then the public,
and dictate what they are?

They need me to believe that they are what they create in their minds,
so they can ridicule my believe.

Any argument that does not meet their believe,
has to be discounted and then ridiculed because they claim,
I do not understand what a chemtrail is in their minds.

They they try to dictate what a chemtrail is,
thus they can tell you or me your wrong.

Fact they will never discuss chemtrails that do not meet their criteria.

So again repeat to me what a chemtrail is,
that you can defend,
so I do not put you in a position,
that you find yourself unable to defend?

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
Here is a fact for you
Chemtrail debunkers with their theory's of what a chemtrail is.


I am more interested in how they know more about chemtrails then the public,
and dictate what they are?

They need me to believe that they are what they create in their minds,
so they can ridicule my believe.

Any argument that does not meet their believe,
has to be discounted and then ridiculed because they claim,
I do not understand what a chemtrail is in their minds.

They they try to dictate what a chemtrail is,
thus they can tell you or me your wrong.

Fact they will never discuss chemtrails that do not meet their criteria.

Those that argue against chemtrails on here are not arguing what chemtrails are, they are arguing about what they are NOT. There is a big difference. Example - you say that you saw a chemtrail. Someone says show me. You point up and they see a plane flying high (we'll say 30k+ feet) and leaving a white trail behind it, and from the length you can tell that it has been lingering for quite a while. That person says it looks like a contrail. You say its a chemtrail. He says looks like contrails, as documented over the last few decades. You say its a chemtrail. You go back and forth, back and forth. Neither of you can prove what the white fluffy trail is above. Difference here is that he has scientifically documented proof of what a contrail is, what they can look like, what they are made of. You have nothing.

Do you understand the point I am trying to make here?

The ones that tell me they are only contrails,
tell me constantly,
that a chemtrail is something harmful that is sprayed on us.
They need to step up to the plate and tell us where they get their info,
or if they are falling,
hook line and sinker as they describe it to us,
into false info.
And explain why they are researching false info to only use it to ridicule people with.

reply to post by network dude


nope you got it all wrong, clearly these chemtrails are made by the evil aliens to mask their huge motherships as they slowly invade our skies..

Anyway smart people,
do not research false info,
if they know better,
unless it is to be used in some agenda.