Debunked: High Bypass Turbofans do not make Contrails [actually they make more]

[TWCobra]

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

 

[JRBids]

The HBTF thing is indeed a "Big Lie", and yes as they repeat it this becomes gospel to the church since it comes from the High Priests. It is a great vulnerability to them as well because it is such a "Big Lie" that exposing it properly will lower the credibility of those who have been repeating it.

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."

 

[Hama Neggs]

And as anyone who reads Chemtrails Global can attest

Where is that?

 

[Mick West]

Chemtrails Global SkyWatch is the full name of Tanner's Facebook group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/

 

[Trailblazer]

Chemtrails Global SkyWatch is the full name of Tanner's Facebook group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/

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



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.

 

[skephu]

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.

 

[Hama Neggs]

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.

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

 

[skephu]

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.

 

[Hama Neggs]

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.

Interesting. I had thought it was the other way around.

 

[deirdre]

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.

russ' video link there does say

Our sincere *thanks* to YouTube user "categd" for creating and posting this video version of our article (above). Please share this video far and wide

Content from external source

yea i can totally see Tanner coming up with that, my world makes a bit more sense again.

 

[Hama Neggs]

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

Dispelling the Disinformation

The United States government is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars to spread disinformation to confuse the public on a variety of subjects. The most pervasive subject of disinformation today is about geoengineering/chemtrails. Below, we will expose the false claims that they make.

Claim #1: Newer more modern jets are flying higher in the atmosphere enabling them to generate enormous plumes of condensation.

Fact: The vast majority of witnessed trail formation has been witnessed by low-flying jets rendering this claim irrelevant.

Fact: The altitude in which aircraft fly has remained unchanged for over 30 years. This widely-known fact renders this claim irrelevant. The favored altitude for commercial air traffic ranges between 25K to 35K feet, well within the Earth's Troposphere.

The vast majority of early trails (between 1995 and 2005) were witnessed at altitudes so low, the public was easily able to identify the jet type and count the engines.

Between 2005 and 2010, numerous skywatchers witnessed sudden changes. First, they witnessed a majority of the jets changing from low altitudes to high altitudes. Second, they witnessed a majority of the jets changing their trail size from long-persistent trails to short, non-persistent trails. Both of these changes typically took place on the same day in any given location.

It appears that this change was designed to make the trails appear less ominous to the public.

It's important to note that even after this change, some jets still produce persistent trails several days per month, and this is likely necessary to avoid public scrutiny that would occur if all trails suddenly vanished.

Claim #2: Newer jet engines burn fuel more completely turning more of the fuel to water.

Fact: Modern high-bypass turbofans - which are used on virtually all large commercial and military aircraft - burn much less fuel per unit of ejected air; often 25% less fuel. Therefore, they produce much less water vapor than older engines.

You will never witness a high-bypass turbofan ejecting water at an airport. You will only witness a faint, block soot that is the result of burnt jet fuel (kerosene). During take off, these engines produce the maximum amount of water vapor as compared to any other stage of flight because this is the time that the fuel-to-velocity ratio is the highest.

In other words, if an engine was to produce visible water vapor, it would be most likely witnessed during takeoff. However, these engines are incapable of producing vapor trails even during their most inefficient operating condition: Takeoff.

Claim #3: The sudden appearance of trails in the past 10 years is caused by an increase in air traffic.

Fact: Air traffic increases less than 1% per year. This amounts to a total increase of about 9% in the past 10 years.

What we have seen in the skies has been a dramatic - often sudden - increase in the total number of jets with virtually all of these new jets emitting trails while existing commercial jets did not. Furthermore, all of these new jets were unmarked, non-commercial jets flying at very low altitudes. In the past few years, we have witnessed these unmarked jets suddenly flying at higher altitudes andemitting short, non-persistent trails after emitting long trails for years. Probably an attempt to make the trails less noticeable to the public.

Chemical particulate spraying was used in Vietnam and is believed to have been used in early testing in the United States in the 1980s. During this time, there were extremely few visible trails in the sky, and since high-bypass turbofans are virtually incapable of producing trails, these early trails were likely early geoengineering tests. Developing a program of this size would require many years of testing and development and there is much documentation that this testing has been conducted on the public for decades.

It's worth mentioning that a few water-injection Spey turbofans are still in service, so it's likely that a few people witnessed them in the 80's and beyond. Today, about 50 BAC One-Eleven's are in service. This aircraft is one of the few that use water injection, but most of these aircraft are not within the U.S.

Claim #4: The government worked on developing contrail-suppression technology because of the trails produced by commercial jets.

Fact: The patents showing contrail-suppression technology were developed for low-bypass turbofans and turbojets, neither of which are used on commercial or large military aircraft. This technology was designed to suppress contrail formation on the types of engines - low-bypass turbofan and turbojets - used specifically on military jet fighters to make them harder to see over enemy territory.

Government disinformation contractors use these patents to convince the public that the large jets we see in the sky are producing contrails, but all large military and commercial jets use very efficient high-bypass turbofans which are virtually incapable of producing condensation trails. Even the fleet of aging Boeing 707s produced from the 50s to the 70s which originally used low-bypass turbofans have now been retrofitted with highly-efficient high-bypass turbofans to dramatically cut operating costs.

Claim #5: The photos floating around on the internet showing contrails from military jets in the 50's proves that jet engines produce contrails.

Fact: The handful of photos from the 50s showing military jets and prop planes used water injection or internal combustion piston engines or turbojets, not high-bypass turbofans. High-bypass turbofans - the type of engines that are on the jets producing the massive plumes today - are virtually incapable of generating condensation trails.

Claim #6: High levels of aluminum in rainwater is normal.

Fact: There are a few atmospheric studies that show unusually high levels of aluminum in rainwater. These studies are often presented by disinformation contractors as "evidence", however these studies are in the vast minority and they are conducted near the ocean, downwind of industry, or other contaminating factors.

There are countless studies and water monitoring programs that show historically that aluminum should not occur in rainwater, but studies selected by disinformation contractors are carefully selected to convince the public that contaminated rain water is "normal".

Claim #7: Condensation from burnt kerosene freezes and produces ice trails at high altitudes.

Fact: The vast majority of trails witnessed are at lower or medium altitudes making this claim irrelevant.

Fact: At high altitudes, the air is colder and thinner rendering it less capable of holding moisture. This dry air further incapacitates high-bypass turbofans from producing contrails. Remember that most of the air coming out of a high-bypass turbofan is simply pushed through the big round duct by a fan blade (called "the fan") and does not get combusted at all.

Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

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.

 

[Hama Neggs]

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

 

[Hama Neggs]

It's interesting thought that Dane Wigington repeats so many of Tanner's claims.

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

 

[skephu]

Unfortunately I think Tanner takes such extreme scientific position

I'd say extreme unscientific. His article even contradicts itself:

the burning of fossil fuels produces black carbon soot, not water

Content from external source

vs.

Modern high-bypass turbofans - which are used on virtually all large commercial and military aircraft - burn much less fuel per unit of ejected air; often 25% less fuel. Therefore, they produce much less water vapor than older engines.

Content from external source

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd say extreme unscientific. His article even contradicts itself:

the burning of fossil fuels produces black carbon soot, not water

Content from external source

vs.

Modern high-bypass turbofans - which are used on virtually all large commercial and military aircraft - burn much less fuel per unit of ejected air; often 25% less fuel. Therefore, they produce much less water vapor than older engines.

Content from external source

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.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Also interesting that Dane is using graphics from Friends of Science.

Jack Baran is no stranger to flying. He has filmed several videos on international flights.

He also is listed as owning a house in Port Charlotte, Florida, so for whatever reason he is hooked on promoting a hoax I don't exactly know.

 

[TWCobra]

Also interesting that Dane is using graphics from Friends of Science.

Yes, the same organisation that boldly proclaims that they believe that "the Sun is responsible for all climate change?"

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1

Surely that is a basic conflict of belief?

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Yes, the same organisation that boldly proclaims that they believe that "the Sun is responsible for all climate change?"

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1

Surely that is a basic conflict of belief?

Not if the Sun is behind the NWO. Onwards toward a brighter future!

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

From the Mass Action Demand page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChemtrailHypernetwork/permalink/1037165706294259/ (https://archive.is/IAtgF)

View attachment 14479

That's... Quite intentionally misleading.

Implying that all modern jets are actually harmless propellers? Really?

 

[Hama Neggs]

From the Mass Action Demand page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChemtrailHypernetwork/permalink/1037165706294259/ (https://archive.is/IAtgF)

View attachment 14479

That's like I thought. The claims are about the water, not the temps.

 

[skephu]

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.

 

[TWCobra]

Great Work!

 

[Mick West]

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

It might work even better with narration.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is half an hour rather long, though? I'm a bit daunted at the prospect and I am "on side"!

 

[George B]

Is half an hour rather long, though? I'm a bit daunted at the prospect and I am "on side"!

Well theirs are usually much longer. What can you say? Possibly one could produce a edited down version which could reference the longer one.

 

[skephu]

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.

 

[JRBids]

Well theirs are usually much longer.

Yeah but they don't watch them they just read the titles.

 

[Marin B]

Here's a detailed, in-depth debunking of the high-bypass turbofan claim in a half-hour video.

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

 

[Jay Reynolds]

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

Good point!

 

[M Bornong]

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

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.

 

[Marin B]

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.

 

[Mick West]

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.

It's a regular set of contrails. See: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-l...-geoengineeringwatch-video-perspective.t4370/

 

[Mick West]

Is half an hour rather long, though? I'm a bit daunted at the prospect and I am "on side"!

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.

 

[Marin B]

It's a regular set of contrails. See: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-l...-geoengineeringwatch-video-perspective.t4370/

Thanks! I should have figured that this would have already been addressed somewhere on this website. I have a follow-up comment on the original thread on this topic.

 

[Graham2001]

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.

 

[skephu]

Dane has said this:

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

 

[skephu]

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.

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.

 

[skephu]

Yeah it is rather long. I watched it at 2x.

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

 

[Raccoon]

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)