1. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    A 747-400 averages 10 T an hour, so 13-14.
     
  2. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    And as anyone who reads Chemtrails Global can attest, any time there's a discussion that contains some truth to it, Russ pops in and posts the graphic. He's like the Wiz saying "ignore the man behind the curtain."
     
  3. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Where is that?
     
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 2
  5. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    It's worth pointing out that the group specifically bans "debunkers and debators [sic]".

    image.

    In other words, "we thrive on bunk and fear debate".

    And, going back to the water issue, I have had people say things like "since when do jets run on water?" It seems the distinction between what goes in and what comes out is hard to grasp for some people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Jack Baran's LinkedIn page. He has no educational background, and he works at the "Web" as "self-employed". His skills are in "creative solutions" and "problem solving". I guess he produced the "HBTF engines can't make contrails" video as a creative solution to the problem that "chemtrails" can be explained as contrails.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Whenever I ask any of them "Who told you modern jet engines can't make contrails" I get no answer at all. Ever.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Guys, something is wrong here. It wasn't Jack Baran who invented the "high-bypass turbofan engines don't make contrails" idea. His first video about this is from February 2014. But the idea was introduced on the Global Skywatch page by Russ Tanner (I guess he is the admin there) in August 2013:
    http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859

    Jack Baran produced a video on the basis of Russ Tanner's article.
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
  9. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Interesting. I had thought it was the other way around.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    russ' video link there does say
    yea i can totally see Tanner coming up with that, my world makes a bit more sense again.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Apparently it was Russ Tanner who invented the idea that HBTF engines can't make contrails. Maybe it is Russ who should be challenged to debate his statements on this page: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859

     
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Unfortunately I think Tanner takes such extreme scientific position that debating him is not going to do much.

    It's interesting thought that Dane Wigington repeats so many of Tanner's claims.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Tanner features this vid as part of his "proof".

     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Yes. Seems like Tanner is Dane's source of "science".
     
  15. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    I'd say extreme unscientific. His article even contradicts itself:
    vs.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Not to mention the claim that you should be able to see the water vapour on takeoff. You can't see water vapour.

    Actually that's one of the main mistakes that I see in articles trying to explain contrails: describing them as being made of water vapour. That just adds to the confusion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  18. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

  19. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Not if the Sun is behind the NWO. Onwards toward a brighter future!
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  20. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

  21. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

  22. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Here's a detailed, in-depth debunking of the high-bypass turbofan claim in a half-hour video. This just indicates how complex the topic actually is.

     
    • Winner Winner x 8
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  23. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Great Work!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Very comprehensive, and polite! I'll add it to the OP.

    It might work even better with narration.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Is half an hour rather long, though? I'm a bit daunted at the prospect and I am "on side"!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Well theirs are usually much longer. What can you say? Possibly one could produce a edited down version which could reference the longer one.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    It is an unfortunate fact of life that 2 or 3 sentences of bunk often require a much longer discussion to debunk. But that's why I like bunk :) While finding out why something is bunk, I learn a lot, or at least I gain a better understanding of the things I know.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Yeah but they don't watch them they just read the titles.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  29. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

    Very good video. Easy to follow and makes logical sense (much more so than other Youtube videos I've seen on high-bypass turbofan jet engines I've had forwarded to me..). A point that is explained very well in that video, that I've never seen addressed by a Chemtrail promotion video is why there is a gap between the engine and the beginning of the contrail formation. Has Dane Wigington or Russel Tanner addressed this anywhere? Or do they just ignore this little inconvenient fact? Surely if reflective materials were being sprayed from airplanes they would be immediately visible as it come out of the jet, probably even more so as the material would be the most concentrated at the release point
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Good point!
     
  31. M Bornong

    M Bornong Senior Member

    Dane has said this:


    Full video, here.


    I'm not sure how he would justify the growing number of identified planes that use the high bypass turbo fans, and show the gap, throughout the metabunk threads.
     
  32. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

    Thanks - that's interesting, so he does acknowledge that there is a gap with actual contrails, and that there is even such a thing as "normal condensation trails" (I thought he lectured that contrails are extremely rare - but maybe I'm recalling that from another source). At 1:29 of the full video he shows a photo of a front view of a jet leaving behind large plumes, which he suggests are being immediately emitted from the back of the aircraft and thus aren't normal condensation trails. Maybe I'm getting a bit OT, but what is a logical explanation for that image? Is it the angle (front view, so you can't see if there is a gap)? Or is it fuel dumping? It seems that many of the more impressive images of so-called chemtrails are a front view of the aircraft.
     
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's a regular set of contrails. See: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-l...-geoengineeringwatch-video-perspective.t4370/
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah it is rather long. I watched it at 2x. Still interesting though. I liked the wide view of mixing curve, as most diagram only show the extreme bottom left portion of this.

    A lot of people will just glaze over and click away. But some people will watch, and understand a bit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  35. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

  36. Graham2001

    Graham2001 Active Member

    I just found a video showing condensation forming inside the GE90 engines of a Boeing 777 on takeoff. Which gives some idea of just how much air these engines can move, more to the point it also shows that heat is not the only cause of condensation.

     
  37. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    In his "smoking gun" videos, he usually shows aerodynamic contrails. And those have no gap, unfortunately.
     
  38. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Interesting. I think the strong suction creates a low-pressure zone in front of the fan, which causes condensation.
    Heat never causes condensation though. Cold causes it. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Indeed, it's quite watchable at 2x playback speed. Of course that is only recommended to people who are already experts at the topic :)
     
  40. Raccoon

    Raccoon Member

    What a bull, EVERY plane engine makes contrails. Some make many, some make a bit less but in the end all planes are capable of contrails (water vapor)