Pilot admits chemtrails and says they are a "necessary evil"........

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Who says it's rare for a persistent contrail to form?

How can you tell one is lower and not a smaller plane?

New engines tend to leave contrails, both persistent and non persistent at altitudes where they didn't before.

contrailscience.com...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Here is a great example. Contrails are more likely to form with colder temperatures, that is the main factor, though humidity plays an important albeit lesser role.

That is incorrect. While cold temperatures are required, such temperatures are not unusual at altitudes above 30,000 feet. In order for contrails to persist the air must be saturated. That is, the relative humidity with respect to ice must be at least 100%. With humidity lower than that the ice crystals which compose the contrail will sublimate and the contrail will dissipate.

The formation of persistent contrails occurs when the relative humidity with
respect to ice (RHI) reaches or exceeds 100%.

www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

Contrails persist if the ambient humidity is larger than saturation humidity over ice surfaces (relative humidity over ice RHi larger than 100 %). In such ice-supersaturated air masses, the ice particles within the contrails grow by deposition of water vapour molecules from the ambient air. Contrails may persist as long as the ambient air in which the contrail forms stays ice-supersaturated

aero-net.info...

Yet here we have a video, and I have seen this in real life on many days in the skies with my own eyes, where the higher contrail disappears quickly as it should, yet the lower contrails persist for an hour or more, opposite to what you would expect if they were normal contrails.

How do you know which contrail is higher? How do you know what the humidity is at the level of each contrail.

Zaphod58
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

Who says it's rare for a persistent contrail to form?

How can you tell one is lower and not a smaller plane?

New engines tend to leave contrails, both persistent and non persistent at altitudes where they didn't before.

contrailscience.com...

I have seen this with my own eyes, the lingering chemtrail that gets lower and lower to the ground and doesn't move very much, and a jetliner obviously flying much higher like at 30,000 ft + with a normal contrail that disappears after a minute or so. I will upload these pictures later.



Can you summarize the science of how new planes leave more persistent contrails whereas they didn't before please? Because I didn't get the memo that that the laws of physics and chemistry had changed over the past couple of decades.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

So what is scary about chemtrails?

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...
www.rense.com...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

I have seen this with my own eyes, the lingering chemtrail that gets lower and lower to the ground and doesn't move very much

Are you sure it isn't spreading out and creating the illusion that it is getting closer?
Are you saying that "chemtrails" do not drift with the wind? Are they self propelled to hover?

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


The new engines have a higher bypass ratio. The exhaust is cooler, due to air being injected into the exhaust. This allows for contrails to form at a lower altitude than a Iow bypass turbofan.

I wasn't aware that the laws of physics had to change for contrails to persist or form at different altitudes than before.

ArchaicDesigns
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

I guess you are going to tell me that these are ballast barrels.

edit on 29-9-2013 by ArchaicDesigns because: (no reason given)

Great example of what it would take to even start.......So are you suggesting everyone of the 30k airline flights that produce all the contrails are equipped with something similar to push out chemtrails too?

reply to post by Xtrozero

Keep reading. You missed his point.
So did he after a while.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


1. Anyone who doesn't believe it should read this PDF file from the U.S. GOV
Proof

2. Operation Large Area Coverage
Proof

3. News Reporter Confirms

reply to post by Phage


Okay, so contrail formation is not completely dissimilar to the formation of snow, though a little different, anyway, what is more important in the formation of snow, humidity or cold? Will snow form with very cold temperatures and a little humidity? Of course, that is why we see snow in the desert. Will snow form with high humidity and warm temperatures? Of course not, that is why we do not see snow in the jungle.

A normal contrail is the equivalent of seeing snow on some high mountain peak in the summer time. A chemtrail is the equivalent of seeing snow in the Amazon in winter - it doesn't make sense, until you realize it is not actually snow.

reply to post by Staroth

Anyone who doesn't believe it should read this PDF file from the U.S. GOV

Did you read it? Can you point out the "proof" part?

Operation Large Area Coverage

Yes, I know that things can be dispersed from aircraft. How is that proof that persistent contrails are "chemtrails".

News Reporter Confirms

That a jar left outside in an area next to a toxic waste site for a week got stuff in it? BTW, you'd better take a close look at the units used in the analysis.

Just a little understanding here...

If the trail starts small and grows it is water vapor since that is the only thing that could continue to grow as water vapor condenses with the heated air.

If the trail floats, and just seems to expand, it is once again water vapor. Chemicals would have downward lines as they sink due to being heavier.



Other questions....

Why is the chemical white like water vapor, why not invisible?

Why spray 30k feet in the air? wouldn't it just dissipate to parts per million/billion?

Why not just spray at night, at low altitudes over dense populated areas?

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Okay, so contrail formation is not completely dissimilar to the formation of snow, though a little different,

No. It's quite different. Snow forms inside cumulus clouds. Contrails are clouds, cirrus clouds. Snow is by definition precipitation. Contrails are not precipitation. Contrails form from the effects of hot exhaust gasses interacting with cold air.

Will snow form with very cold temperatures and a little humidity?

No. Neither will contrails (unless it's really, really cold). But humidity at what altitude?

A chemtrail is the equivalent of seeing snow in the Amazon in winter

Not really. And not unless the temperature in the Amazon is -50º.

Staroth
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

1. Anyone who doesn't believe it should read this PDF file from the U.S. GOV
Proof

2. Operation Large Area Coverage
Proof

3. News Reporter Confirms

Thanks, great video and links. Its hard to believe the general public is not aware of this, the disinformation campaign has been quite well done I admit.

My personal opinion is that the reason for chemtrails is to augment the magnetosphere as it diminishes as we head into the magnetic pole shift. Though as one poster stated above I quite often see the chemtrails blocking out the setting sun and nowhere else in the sky, it seems like they are trying to hide something, but this reason even to me seems more farfetched -but the chemtrails are often there by the setting sun and nowhere else.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Then explain why I see them all day long, and sometimes all night (persistent trails).

Staroth
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

1. Anyone who doesn't believe it should read this PDF file from the U.S. GOV
Proof

what "proof" of chemtrails is in there??

it is a report on the effects of aerosols on climate.....yeah...not news, not secret, nothing about "spraying" them from aircraft??

2. Operation Large Area Coverage
Proof

not from airliners, not from engines, not since het 1960's, used Zinc-cadmium sulphide and biological agents that were designed to be located so they could see how they spread.

How is this proof of chemtrails now? :Lpuz:

3. News Reporter Confirms

confirms what??

Interviews someone, gets some samples tested....and GETS IT WRONG!

Have a look at 0.55 where they point to the test results - notice the units - 68.8 micrograms (that's the little character that looks like an italic u) - they say this is 6.8 parts per million.

But it isn't. It is 68.8 parts per billion - micro is 1/millionth, and a gram is 1/1000th of a litre - so you have parts per billion - and 68.8 parts per billions isn't over anything.

Completely debunked here - the station even withdrew the article because of the error - but strangely enough chemmies seem to ignore that....

ArchaicDesigns
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

I guess you are going to tell me that these are ballast barrels.

edit on 29-9-2013 by ArchaicDesigns because: (no reason given)

10,000 Stars!!

reply to post by AbleEndangered

Can I ask? For what?
www.semissourian.com...

reply to post by AbleEndangered


For posting a picture of fire fighting tanks?

Yeah, same technology used with fire fighting.....