Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Facts of contrails

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Size and distribution of the CCN produces different results.

The amount of carbon output in the contrail mitigation system is more than double the amount from the proposed technique I posted earlier.

It's a completely different technique. Like trying to compare apples and oranges.

The link I provided clearly states that MORE cirrus clouds would be the likely result.


No it doesn't. It says MAY result, which isn't the same at all as 'likely to', and this depends on ambient conditions anyway. I addressed this point, with some other questions, in my previous reply to you that you haven't responded to.
edit on 1-12-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Your post bears a similarity to my own OP in this thread here, even down to watching the dog outside, lol. As you see I did a bit of checking at the time, have you any thoughts regarding this?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Did you folks know our general aviation planes use low lead gasoline? Were spraying lead on you

Ever seen a b17 in person? The one i was in had oil puddles under all 4 engines. Apparently if its not leaking oil that means there is no oil in it. I think they told me each engine leaks a gallon an hour during flight. And they flew this thing over my house....

Where does the oil go exactly?



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


I wouldnt worry too much about oil poisoning from overflying B-17's



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by phroziac
 


I wouldnt worry too much about oil poisoning from overflying B-17's


But wheres it go?! Am I going to walk outside and have a B-17 fly over my house and drip oil on my clothes and ruin my clothes? Oh, and I actually had a B-17 fly over my house once. I was like, WTF and drove down to the airport and found it on the ramp and went in it and took pictures



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


When a plane is in the air the (100 mph+) airstream will atomize the oil, so it's not going to drip on anything. It's vaporized and entrained in the air as an aerosol, so just joins up with the existing pollution. It's a pretty small overall contribution.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by phroziac
 


When a plane is in the air the (100 mph+) airstream will atomize the oil, so it's not going to drip on anything. It's vaporized and entrained in the air as an aerosol, so just joins up with the existing pollution. It's a pretty small overall contribution.


so it makes a chemtrail



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by phroziac
 


When a plane is in the air the (100 mph+) airstream will atomize the oil, so it's not going to drip on anything. It's vaporized and entrained in the air as an aerosol, so just joins up with the existing pollution. It's a pretty small overall contribution.


so it makes a chemtrail


As much as any engine emission is a chemtrail, yes. Everything is made of chemicals. Water is a chemical.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 





Am I going to walk outside and have a B-17 fly over my house and drip oil on my clothes and ruin my clothes? Oh, and I actually had a B-17 fly over my house once. I was like, WTF and drove down to the airport and found it on the ramp and went in it and took pictures


I would have to think that this is more of a concern...



Than a B-17 flying over your house with an oil leak.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
Can you show us the facts of per vehicle,
how many gallons consumed.
I have been unable to find any train or car that consumes as much fuel as one airplane.


I haven't been able to find a car that consumes as much fuel as 1 train either.....


However thsi might be of some use:

US Statistics in fuel use by different types of transport per-annum since 1960

In 2010:

Aviation fuel: 12,712 million gallons
highway gasoline, diesel & other fuels: 169,769 million gallons (of which 86,666 million gallons are attributed to light vehicles with short wheelbase - ie cars and small trucks - and motorcycles)

Aviation is a long LONG way behind land transport in burning up hydrocarbons!!

Other transport - rail and water: another 11,130 million gallons of liquid fuel, and about 7,000 million kWh of electricity

edit on 2-12-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by phroziac
 


I wouldnt worry too much about oil poisoning from overflying B-17's


come on dude - the evidence clearly points to Germany being defeated by dripping oil mist from 10's of thousands of R1820 engines!!

All those HE and incendiary bombs weer a cover up!!




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Lmao i was just starting crap. Yeah, LA concerns me more than a b17.....



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


I know what you mean. I've seen some power plants putting out some horrendous emissions when I drive by. I'm a whole lot more worried about those than I am about the 757 flying overhead at 34,000 feet.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 



Chemtrails may exist, or they may not. No scientific data exists to offer proof one way, or the other

im with you theres probably some chemtrail program going on in the world but the vast majority of "chemtrais" are just clouds under certain conditions



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Your post bears a similarity to my own OP in this thread here, even down to watching the dog outside, lol. As you see I did a bit of checking at the time, have you any thoughts regarding this?


I did read your thread, and appreciate your desire to make sense of what you saw and to document and check your facts. I really can't dispute that what you saw was infact a contrail ? For myself it goes beyond just my personal observations and my opinion that geo-engineering is already happening. My opinion is based on information and facts that just make no sense given soil and water samples of high levels of aluminum and other toxic chemicals that are showing up, that weren't there until recently.

If you haven't seen this documentary I hope you will take the time to watch it, then perhaps we can discuss further....the reaction of OUR government at the end was VERY disturbing......




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
If you haven't seen this documentary I hope you will take the time to watch it, then perhaps we can discuss further....the reaction of OUR government at the end was VERY disturbing......


The response is only "dsturbing" if you think the documentary is actualy truthful.

It is not.

Michael J Murphy is now even starting to backtrack on some of the central planks of chemtrail existance - eg he has recanted the claim that persistant contrails cannot exist -




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I didn't percieve his statements to contradict the documentary at all...he says under "unusual" circumstances contrails can persist...no one disputes that fact. Still would not explain what I'm seeing in CA, with warm weather and generally low humidaty here.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Thank you for your response. Of course what I observe in my locality cannot be proof of something you are seeing in yours. My point was merely that what I observed was something that;

A) I was expecting to observe because of the weather, and

B) exactly correlates with the descriptions given by some members on here about how you tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.

So its not any kind of evidence against chemtrails themslves, only that the methodology that many are using to identify them is wrong.

I am not going to berate you with all the same arguments against the videos we see time and again (sometimes from me too), suffice to say at this stage that I find a lot of their claims severely lacking. A example is that, due aluminium being an element that comes out of the earth in which it is abundant, what are unusually high levels and where is the extra aluminium coming from?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I didn't percieve his statements to contradict the documentary at all...he says under "unusual" circumstances contrails can persist...no one disputes that fact.


In WITWATS he says that contrails are always short lived and anything that is long lived is a chemtrail.

And some people takei t even further - see www.abovetopsecret.com...


Still would not explain what I'm seeing in CA, with warm weather and generally low humidaty here.


Do you have the measurements for temperature and humidity at those altitudes on those days?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
Still would not explain what I'm seeing in CA, with warm weather and generally low humidaty here.


That's just it though. Ground level conditions don't mean anything when you're talking about 30,000+ feet. I came through Arizona yesterday afternoon, where the humidity was low, and the temp was in the 90s (according to my truck sensor), and watched a couple of dozen persistent contrails being left behind. Including one that started from "nowhere" made a dogleg, and persisted for a way before stopping. Just normal contrails. Really pretty at sunset.






top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join