"Smoking Gun" evidence of chemtrails?

Ladym

New Member
Thanks for the clarification Kristen. Like I've said before, I don't think qualifications are that important - it's the facts that are important. Qualifications usually only come into play when someone makes an "appeal to authority" - like "X says this, and X is in the air force, so it must be true".

I presume you still believe in chemtrails? Do you have what you would consider to be some "smoking gun" piece of evidence?

Mr. West:

This is probably going to be a very long response, but you ask about the "smoking gun". For me this was when I First heard about chemtrails. My mother had taught me the difference between "passenger/commercial" airline con-trails, and "military jet" con-trails. I can remember the difference was 1. That commercial where much lower, military much higher, and commercial trails "dissipated" a;most immediately, and military trails took a couple of hours to fully dissipate; leaving a trails as long as the horizon, where as commercial trails never stayed longer than a couple minutes, max. As a child my skies were always "clear blue".

One day, not having ever heard the term "chem-trail", my friend Donny pointing at the sky, asks, "What is that"? I look up, and respond, "oh, that's just a con....". I didn't even finish my sentence, before I noticed a difference in what I "knew" and "know", as a con-trail.. The thought(s) going through my mind was, con-trails don't "fall" out the sky, and they shouldn't even form at all at that low altitude." Therefore, I said to Donny, "I don't know." He then asked, "Do you think it's one of those "chem-trails" I heard of?" My response was, "I haven't heard anything of this.", but this began our research.

I would turn your attention first to the attached two videos: The most interesting thing about these two videos, is in the first one, you can actually clearly see the difference between a con-trail and a chem-trail. The two planes are "seemingly" right beside each other, for the purpose of the video anyway. It is imporatant to make note that in reality they are very far apart, and at different altitudes. However, again the plane that is making the trail that doesn't dissipate almost immediately is actually flying at an altitude that shouldn't create a con-trail at all. You can research this via googling levels of atmosphere and condensation trails. Qoute "Contrails are human-induced clouds that usually form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km - about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40ºC). Because of this, contrails form not when an airplane is taking off or landing, but while it is at cruise altitude." This is from the NASA website, good enought of an "authority" for you? http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/contrail-edu/faq.php

Please, please, please note that the "appleman chart" is very useful, in this equation, as there were many days in the desert where "extremely" dry conditions occur, on "extremely" dry days that there should have not been con-trails, but there were "chem-trails".

The second video is very important, because you can see the airplane turn around, and head back in the same direction. The important fact of this is "PLANES NEVER DO THIS". They have an entry and exit gate. they don't just fly around randomly, or at least, aren't supposed to. This plane "should have" gone over the horizon, and not returned for hours, perhaps even days. Flight paths are not things air traffic controllers like to mess around with. This was not a "pleasure" plane, up looking at the fireworks om a fourth of July!

Next, I finally convinced my boyfriend, after two years of denial that chem-trails exist. What did it for him was:

Three videos with weatherman talking about military spraying showing up radar, and Scott Stevens. I know you think little of him, but this is a quote from Above Top Secret from OzWeatherman, "I am certainly not here to argue Scott Stevens credentials. The guy has over 20 years experience studying weather patterns and the atmosphere.", and also on that thread is a post from American Meteorological Society:

https://www.ametsoc.org/policy/whatisam.html

As pwe the AMS 20 years is well over the "and has at least three years professional experience in meteorology..."

I also, asked my father-in-law, who has a PHD in physics, yes, he is a dosctor of physics doe his opinion, and after looking into it, himself, he now believes in chem-trails.

Also, please take a look at this spwaking engegement from Ms. Meghan, it is different from the one you posted:
She goes into a couple things that were a bit unclear in the video here.

I can not explain what it's like to look at my skies, and see them ruined. It hurts my soul to never see blue sky, anymore. They are now always covered. I can not explain what it's like to know "a truth", and have seemingly, inteligent people not be able to see the truth. Don't you "remember" being a kid and laying on a hillock and staring into that vast "nothingness" of blue. Try that today, and all you will get is white lines criss-crossing the sky.
 

Attachments

  • contrail2.mp4
    9.3 MB · Views: 761
  • contrail1.mp4
    1.8 MB · Views: 660
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
AFAIK there is no basis for any supposed difference between "military" and "commercial" contrails - jet exhaust includes water, and that water freezes and acts as nucleation sites for other moisture in eth atmosphere whether it comes from a military or civilian engine, and whether it is a piston or a jet engine - or even a wankel rotary or a diesel!

the only things that matter to eth moisture are the atmospheric conditions - mainly humidity and temperature.

there are multiple authoritative sources available on the 'net supporting this - I have seen none at all supporting the difference you claim or explaining how it might exist given what we know of atmospheric physics.

Clouds of water droplets of ice crystals come or go, stay a short or long time based on atmospheric conditions - they do not have "military" or "civilian" varieties - and contrails are clouds - man made to be sure, but still "just water" - so why should they be different?
 

KC-10FE

Senior Member.
Mr. West:

This is probably going to be a very long response, but you ask about the "smoking gun". For me this was when I First heard about chemtrails. My mother had taught me the difference between "passenger/commercial" airline con-trails, and "military jet" con-trails. I can remember the difference was 1. That commercial where much lower, military much higher, and commercial trails "dissipated" a;most immediately, and military trails took a couple of hours to fully dissipate; leaving a trails as long as the horizon, where as commercial trails never stayed longer than a couple minutes, max.

You're going to have to help me understand the difference between "military" and "passenger/commercial" airline contrails. Commercial airlines are all about fuel savings, constantly trying to fly higher and in more favorable conditions. Engine manufacturers are constantly striving to build lighter more fuel efficient engines, while airline manufacturers such as Boeing and Airbus are even designing their aircraft with composite material, going as far as making their passenger seats thinner and less comfortable to reduce weight. Commercial airliners are always trying to fly higher in order to burn less fuel.

They always say Mother knows best, but I'd have to ask your Mother how did she look up in the sky and determine that an aircraft flying tens of thousands of feet above was a military versus a commercial flight? I fly on the KC-10, an Air Force air refueling tanker, which is the derivative of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 airframe, a commercial airliner. They are virtually the same, except for the fact that the KC-10 has been modified with an air refueling boom and drogue system, a receptacle above the cockpit which allows for it to be refueled midair, and a cargo bay with a cargo door built into the side.

The only time we are flying at low altitudes is when we are escorting several fighters to their destination, refueling them along the way, due to our high gross weight because of the large amount of fuel we are carrying in order to refuel the receivers. Couple that with the fact that air traffic control would rather not have 7 aircraft flying in close formation in their busy airspace.

Whether a contrail persists or not is based on the type of engine, not aircraft, as well as the current atmospheric conditions. High bypass turbofans installed on commercial airliners as well as military heavy aircraft will create massive contrails in the extremely cold air at altitude (say around -40 degrees C). If the air is already saturated, these contrails will persist, being spread over the sky by the high winds and the engines' rotational vortex. That doesn't mean low bypass engines that fighter aircraft use cannot make contrails, it is just that high bypass engines create more. Here are some F22's pushing ahead of us to land after their final air refueling, at 26,000 feet.

10357473_851182950633_715824769829703200_n.jpg
 
You're going to have to help me understand the difference between "military" and "passenger/commercial" airline contrails. Commercial airlines are all about fuel savings, constantly trying to fly higher and in more favorable conditions. Engine manufacturers are constantly striving to build lighter more fuel efficient engines, while airline manufacturers such as Boeing and Airbus are even designing their aircraft with composite material, going as far as making their passenger seats thinner and less comfortable to reduce weight. Commercial airliners are always trying to fly higher in order to burn less fuel.

They always say Mother knows best, but I'd have to ask your Mother how did she look up in the sky and determine that an aircraft flying tens of thousands of feet above was a military versus a commercial flight? I fly on the KC-10, an Air Force air refueling tanker, which is the derivative of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 airframe, a commercial airliner. They are virtually the same, except for the fact that the KC-10 has been modified with an air refueling boom and drogue system, a receptacle above the cockpit which allows for it to be refueled midair, and a cargo bay with a cargo door built into the side.

The only time we are flying at low altitudes is when we are escorting several fighters to their destination, refueling them along the way, due to our high gross weight because of the large amount of fuel we are carrying in order to refuel the receivers. Couple that with the fact that air traffic control would rather not have 7 aircraft flying in close formation in their busy airspace.

Whether a contrail persists or not is based on the type of engine, not aircraft, as well as the current atmospheric conditions. High bypass turbofans installed on commercial airliners as well as military heavy aircraft will create massive contrails in the extremely cold air at altitude (say around -40 degrees C). If the air is already saturated, these contrails will persist, being spread over the sky by the high winds and the engines' rotational vortex. That doesn't mean low bypass engines that fighter aircraft use cannot make contrails, it is just that high bypass engines create more. Here are some F22's pushing ahead of us to land after their final air refueling, at 26,000 feet.

View attachment 8320
I have never yet seen such a horrible mess of falsehoods and appeals to Motherly authority so politely put as Ladym has done.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
please note that the "appleman chart" is very useful, in this equation, as there were many days in the desert where "extremely" dry conditions occur, on "extremely" dry days that there should have not been con-trails, but there were "chem-trails".


Yes, it's often very dry at ground level, just as at the equator in mid summer it's usually incredibly HOT at ground level.
What you are likely unaware of is that this is a photo taken close to the equator in Equador: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Chimborazo_climbers_on_top.jpg
Notice how in Summer at the equator there is snow and ice?

That's because the conditions at low altitude give very little indication of the atmospheric conditions at high altitudes, where on a hot dry day on the ground it can be freezing cold and have high relative humidity at airliner altitude.

So It's great that you are learning about the Appleman chart but it refers to the temperatures and relative humidity at the altitude aircraft are flying at. It does not refer to conditions on the ground.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
It hurts my soul to never see blue sky, anymore.

This is an exaggeration, is it not?

Because, I see blue sky all the time, more often than not. I watch contemporary films and television programs, (and commercials) filmed outdoors, and see blue skies all the time in these.

I'd like to address a myriad of points you claimed in the OP, but there are so many....the misconception re: the Appleman Chart has already been mentioned, as well as the false dichotomy of "military" versus "commercial" contrails.

I note that you took a quote from ATS member "OzWeatherman" re: Scott Stevens completely out of context (since you referred to this, why not find the FULL quite by OzWeatherman, and post it here...or, at least refer to the ATS thread so we all can read its context). Additionally, the link to what is claimed a post from the "American Meteorological Society" does not work. (edit update: Apparently their website is down, atm -- 6 August).

Finally, this I find utterly implausible:

I also, asked my father-in-law, who has a PHD in physics, yes, he is a dosctor of physics doe his opinion, and after looking into it, himself, he now believes in chem-trails.

It would be more credible if you invited your father-in-law to post here. Because, an actual scientist who claims such a thing is quite unlikely.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Next, I finally convinced my boyfriend, after two years of denial that chem-trails exist.

I also have a few follow-up points of confusion. I noted above your reference to a "father-in-law" ealier (the PhD), but now I see your mention of a "boyfriend". Can you clarify?

Also, I am confused because during your OP (although you made some common factual errors and "chem"trail misconceptions, you then followed by citing this:

Qoute "Contrails are human-induced clouds that usually form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km - about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40ºC). Because of this, contrails form not when an airplane is taking off or landing, but while it is at cruise altitude." This is from the NASA website, good enought of an "authority" for you? http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/contrail-edu/faq.php

That NASA website explaining contrails is completely accurate. I suggest that you read it again, very thoroughly.

However, the sentences prefacing that quoted part above:
The thought(s) going through my mind was, con-trails don't "fall" out the sky, and they shouldn't even form at all at that low altitude."

First, it is correct that contrails don't "fall" out of the sky. However based on the phrasing, the implication seems to be that this is the perception. (There is an illusion in many cases, when observing contrails in the far distance...they only appear to get "lower" further away...).

The two planes are "seemingly" right beside each other, for the purpose of the video anyway. It is imporatant to make note that in reality they are very far apart, and at different altitudes. However, again the plane that is making the trail that doesn't dissipate almost immediately is actually flying at an altitude that shouldn't create a con-trail at all.

Exactly how were their altitudes independently determined? How is the one determined to be "at an altitude that shouldn't create a con-trail at all."

What methods were used? Tools? How were the conditions at altitude measured?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Just a few notes here:
1) Smoking gun evidence in my humble opinion would fall in the lines of maybe specifically identifying an aircraft, including type, possibly registration code, and verifiable proof that it is in fact spraying (i.e., identifiable equipment). Contrail dissipation rates do not really cut it, sorry.

2) The contrails last only a few minutes/seconds thing has been brought up by almost every follower of chemtrails, and is quite frankly false. A contrail has the same composition (water) as cloud. It can persist for hours and hours if the atmospheric conditions are right (just like a cloud).

3) My childhood skies were never "always blue". If you live in a desert, it may be clear a lot, but I highly doubt it's always been clear blue. I prefer a bit of cloud here and then because clear skies on summer days simply make things way too hot.

4) Note that contrails don't always form 26000 feet+. They form when air can no longer carry any more moisture and any further cooling would result in saturation of that air, and water condenses and thus becomes visible. On some humid days, you can see the airfoils of aircraft (not the engines) create contrails from it's lifting surfaces even while taking off and landing. You can find plenty of planespotters depicting this phenomenon. Temperatures and humidity will vary for any given day. Anything past -30 C is about where contrails start to persist a little longer as water vapor becomes ice crystals.

5) I'm highly skeptical about Scott Stevens the weatherman. Reason being: he claims hurricane Katrina was created by the Yakuza using top secret cold war technology, and makes a few other claims about major storms after that. I don't know how he can make such preposterous claims, and he being the only one to unravel these secret agendas, when natural science seems perfectly fine in understanding these phenomenons. Thus, I find it hard to believe any meteorological claim he makes despite his career.

6) A lot of information about Kristen Meghan can be found on these forums. She even posted here herself once. It may be enlightening to read through some of the stuff she had said and the stuff that has been discussed.
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Next, I finally convinced my boyfriend, after two years of denial that chem-trails exist. What did it for him was:

Three videos with weatherman talking about military spraying showing up radar, and Scott Stevens. I know you think little of him, but this is a quote from Above Top Secret from OzWeatherman, "I am certainly not here to argue Scott Stevens credentials. The guy has over 20 years experience studying weather patterns and the atmosphere.",

That was not written by Ozweather man - it was written by someone called Erasure head - here is the post

What Ozweatherman ACTUALLY said was:

- in this post

So you convinced your boyfriend using incorrect evidence........not something to actually be proud of.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
My mother had taught me the difference between "passenger/commercial" airline con-trails, and "military jet" con-trails. I can remember the difference was 1. That commercial where much lower, military much higher, and commercial trails "dissipated" a;most immediately, and military trails took a couple of hours to fully dissipate; leaving a trails as long as the horizon, where as commercial trails never stayed longer than a couple minutes, max.
I am not sure why your mother believed that but she was mistaken. I grew up in Hampton Roads, Virginia. The vast majority of horizon to horizon persistent contrails there were then and are now commercial over-flights between Florida, Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston and the big airports up north in NYC, PHL, BOS etc… There was tons of military traffic with us being right by Langley AFB and NAS Oceana but that traffic pretty much never left a trail.
The second video is very important, because you can see the airplane turn around, and head back in the same direction. The important fact of this is "PLANES NEVER DO THIS".
I’ve been on several planes that have done just that. Holding pattern. I once rode in a circle for two hours between Lake Norman and Greensboro when weather shut down Charlotte and the flight I was on along with dozens of other en route flights had to hold and wait for the weather to clear.
Harold Saive is a chemtrail promoter that lives in Gainesville, FL. He “caught” an AirTran flight making a big loop over Gainesville one morning. It was a flight from Jacksonville to Atlanta. Air traffic control made the flight do a loop after takeoff because of ground delays in Atlanta. I saw the trail from 70 miles away in DeLand on my way to work that morning. It was unique enough that I went onto a flight tracking website to find it. Apparently so did Mr. Saive. It was a commercial flight full of passengers that did indeed depart Jacksonville and land in Atlanta with a loop over north Florida included in the flight.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What second video? I only see the Kristen Meghan one.

There are two videos attached to the OP.

However, contrail2.mp4 does not show a plane turning around. You can't actually see, because of the sun, but it looks like two different planes, going in opposite directions, one a few minutes after the other.

 

Jazzy

Closed Account
@Ladym, no conclusion you have drawn bears any relationship to the TRUE nature of the sciences of combustion and the atmosphere.

You leave us with the awfully non-creative task of making a distinction between falsehoods and lies. Personally I can't be bothered to make such a distinction. As far as I'm concerned, you, and your mother are liars.

Your mother was wrong.

Civil and military jets use the same engines. The difference will only lie in the military need (on occasion) for power, and the civilian need (all the time) for economy. Fuel metering's the difference.

You should perhaps read up on clouds. You might find it useful to understand what allows a cloud to persist.

P.S. And clouds are made up of droplets or crystals of water and are always falling. Because those droplets and crystals have mass and cannot escape the force of earth's gravitational field.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
There are two videos attached to the OP.

However, contrail2.mp4 does not show a plane turning around. You can't actually see, because of the sun, but it looks like two different planes, going in opposite directions, one a few minutes after the other.

That's why I asked. I have seen the claim made many times that planes "turn around" and "spray" again over the same area, but NEVER any vid actually showing it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's why I asked. I have seen the claim made many times that planes "turn around" and "spray" again over the same area, but NEVER any vid actually showing it.

There's actually a few videos of planes in holding patterns. Certainly lots of pics:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/three-u-shaped-contrails-in-serbia.3794/


However a lot of the time when people see a plane "come back", they did not actually see it turn around, and it's more likely just another plane going the other way.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yes, the holding pattern situation, but not the "turning off the spray", then "turning around and commencing another spraying run" over an area, creating the "checkerboard patterns". THAT is what is often claimed, but never substanciated.


There's actually a few videos of planes in holding patterns. Certainly lots of pics:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/three-u-shaped-contrails-in-serbia.3794/


However a lot of the time when people see a plane "come back", they did not actually see it turn around, and it's more likely just another plane going the other way.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
but not the "turning off the spray", then "turning around and commencing another spraying run" over an area, creating the "checkerboard patterns". THAT is what is often claimed, but never substanciated.

Agreed, but either way, the video here shows neither. Just an plane flying in the other direction.
 

reenolith

New Member
Don't you "remember" being a kid and laying on a hillock and staring into that vast "nothingness" of blue. Try that today, and all you will get is white lines criss-crossing the sky.
Thought I'd chime in, because I've had similar experiences with childhood memories:
I grew up in southern germany, where it rains quite regularly, with annual rain amounts around 800 liters per square meter. And yet I've got almost no recollection of rainy days during my childhood. Of the top of my head I can only remember less than 5 days with rain.
The explanation is very easy:
On a rainy day I was sitting inside, reading or watching TV, and thus not having very memorable experiences. As soon as the weather permitted outdoor activities I was outside, playing, getting scars, etc. Those are the things I remember. I also didn't notice contrails during my childhood, although I've seen them on family photos that were taken at that time.

The point is, human memory isn't perfect. Not remembering things doesn't mean they didn't happen. They just might not have been important to you at that point in time.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
I remember growing up as a kid and seeing contrails. I remember talking to my grandmother about what makes them, because as far as I knew she knew everything in the universe. I remember her saying that they're made of smoke, that only jet planes make them, and that whether or not they disappeared had to do with temperature (and surprisingly only a third if this was wrong, which is surprising since I think she made the whole lot up). She then asked if I remembered how grandpa's car belched thick blue clouds whenever it cold, but in the summer it was just a little white puff when it switched gears. She said this was the same thing, just on the ground. (Note: I know now that none of this is correct and my grandpa's car was just a piece of crap)

This, to my mind, meant my grandpa's car was jet powered, and the only jet powered car I knew of was the Batmobile so obviously he was Batman.

This was... Late 80's I think? Not too late, since once I discovered Ninja Turtles Batman was dead to me. But, yeah, that's what I remember: Sometimes contrails didn't disappear, therefore Grandpa was Batman.
 
Last edited:
Mr. West:

My mother had taught me the difference between "passenger/commercial" airline con-trails, and "military jet" con-trails. I can remember the difference was 1. That commercial where much lower, military much higher, and commercial trails "dissipated" a;most immediately, and military trails took a couple of hours to fully dissipate; leaving a trails as long as the horizon, where as commercial trails never stayed longer than a couple minutes, max. As a child my skies were always "clear blue".

Was your mom a meteorologist?
Did she understand condensation and the manner in which exhaust moisture freezes into ice crystals (cirrus cloud) helped by the fact that exhaust particles act as condensation nuclei?
How did you determine the altitude and type of aircraft from the ground?

I would turn your attention first to the attached two videos: The most interesting thing about these two videos, is in the first one, you can actually clearly see the difference between a con-trail and a chem-trail.
I'd love to see it.

The two planes are "seemingly" right beside each other, for the purpose of the video anyway. It is imporatant to make note that in reality they are very far apart, and at different altitudes.
However, again the plane that is making the trail that doesn't dissipate almost immediately is actually flying at an altitude that shouldn't create a con-trail at all.
Except that you don't know what the altitude is.

...there were many days in the desert where "extremely" dry conditions occur, on "extremely" dry days that there should have not been con-trails, but there were "chem-trails".

I have seen this argument before. You are making an assumption that the saturation level of the air on the ground tells you what the saturation level is up near the tropopause where the airliners are flying (usually between 31,000 and 37,000 feet.)

The second video is very important, because you can see the airplane turn around, and head back in the same direction. The important fact of this is "PLANES NEVER DO THIS".
I'd like the see this video too.
Airliners occasionally do this if traffic is backed up at an airport due to a snowstorm or thunderstorm.
Military planes that are loitering in a confined area for the purpose of refueling other aircraft or military AWACS aircraft acting as airborne ATC during military exercise practice do this regularly.
It could be helpful to know where the footage was shot so we could go to skyvector.com pull up the sectional chart and see if it occurred inside a Military Operations Area or a Restricted area set aside specifically for military practice.

Three videos with weatherman talking about military spraying showing up radar, and Scott Stevens.

I've seen them. The weather forecaster even says that they are "chaff" which are designed to confuse missles so they lock onto the chaff instead of the target aircraft.

As always, the number one error of the chemtrail movement is the following claim:
"Chaff/Weather modification/patents for weather modification (choose one) exist, THEREFORE, all the contrails being left by airliners are INSTEAD chemtrails- even though there is no evidence whatsoever."

I also, asked my father-in-law, who has a PHD in physics, yes, he is a dosctor of physics doe his opinion, and after looking into it, himself, he now believes in chem-trails.

I'm sure he learned a lot about physics in school and is very intelligent.
It also sounds like he needs to learn about meteorology and aircraft jet engines just as you and your mother do.

Also, please take a look at this spwaking engegement from Ms. Meghan, it is different from the one you posted: She goes into a couple things that were a bit unclear in the video here.

It doesn't matter what detail she goes into because the facts (as SHE has stated here) are:
1. The military was mad at her for exposing that military aircraft mechanics were exposed to excessive levels of chemicals which are used in aircraft maintenance for cleaning, etc... NOT because of "chemtrails".
2. She learned of "chemtrails" on the internet- NOT in the military.
3. She INTENTIONALLY misleads her audience into believing that she was persecuted by the military because of "chemtrails"- which she reveals in her post here is NOT the case.
4. All of the above= willful lying.

I can not explain what it's like to look at my skies, and see them ruined. It hurts my soul to never see blue sky, anymore. They are now always covered. I can not explain what it's like to know "a truth", and have seemingly, inteligent people not be able to see the truth. Don't you "remember" being a kid and laying on a hillock and staring into that vast "nothingness" of blue. Try that today, and all you will get is white lines criss-crossing the sky.

Clearly you are very emotional about this. That is understandable since you are afraid of contrails do to the hearsay and rumors and pseudo-science you were programmed with as a child by a well-meaning mother (no offense intended!). All the crazies on youtube have built on that foundation.

You also cannot explain how jet exhaust becomes lines of cirrus clouds or how jet engine technology (efficiency) has drastically improved since the 1980s. The high bypass engines of the Boeing 777, which entered service in 1995, do a great job of making huge contrails. Check it out: Here you will see a 777 flying right to left leaving a HUGE contrail in air that is showing you that it is highly saturated with water because the 777 is flying through some obscuration (cirrus cloud/ice crystals).

As a pilot and the world's worst cynic I demand EVIDENCE before I am convinced that contrails are magically "chemtrails" instead because a solar panel engineer made a slick movie that proves that the soil on Mt. Shasta is more acidic than it should be!

Hearsay, speculation and pseudo science does not satisfy the burden of proof.
EVIDENCE!

Have a great day!
 
Last edited:
4) Note that contrails don't always form 26000 feet+. They form when air can no longer carry any more moisture and any further cooling would result in saturation of that air, and water condenses and thus becomes visible. On some humid days, you can see the airfoils of aircraft (not the engines) create contrails from it's lifting surfaces even while taking off and landing. You can find plenty of planespotters depicting this phenomenon. Temperatures and humidity will vary for any given day. Anything past -30 C is about where contrails start to persist a little longer as water vapor becomes ice crystals.


5) I'm highly skeptical about Scott Stevens the weatherman. Reason being: he claims hurricane Katrina was created by the Yakuza using top secret cold war technology, and makes a few other claims about major storms after that. I don't know how he can make such preposterous claims, and he being the only one to unravel these secret agendas, when natural science seems perfectly fine in understanding these phenomenons. Thus, I find it hard to believe any meteorological claim he makes despite his career.

I recently discovered "Coast to Coast AM" several days ago and have been tuning in to hear what craziness they are discussing... 3 or 4 days ago I coincidentally tuned into a show on Geoengineering!

I missed the first part with Dane Wigington, [...]

And I must mention that Dane Wigington is [wrong] as proven by him posting this video of aircraft dumping fuel to reduce to maximum landing weight after an emergency requires an immediate landing in order to scare people: and endorsing this nonsensical video on his website http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/high-bypass-turbofan-jet-engines-contrails/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jonathan Teatime

New Member
...

I grew up in southern germany, where it rains quite regularly, with annual rain amounts around 800 liters per square meter.

...

That's a fairly unusual and non standard (although not incorrect) way of expressing annual precipitation, 800mm per annum would be better :)
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
That's a fairly unusual and non standard (although not incorrect) way of expressing annual precipitation, 800mm per annum would be better :)
I have seen this before. This seems to be the way some European countries express rainfall amounts, particularly Germany. A volume per unit area (litres per square metre) is the same as a depth (millimetre), and in this case, as you imply, they are numerically the same and equivalent.:)
 

Juha

Member
By looking that engine video with blades, bearings etc. I kept wondering, what happens when I throw couple of hanfuls of aluminium and barium into it. :)

I know my car would jam forever, if HE gets lesses amounts of those. :)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I kept wondering, what happens when I throw couple of hanfuls of aluminium and barium into it.

And THAT is exactly the point.

One cannot run just 'anything' through a very finely tuned engine, such as a High Bypass TurboJet engine.

Else, it will be destroyed....VERY quickly....with catastrophic results.

Like THIS:

Or, this:


AND....just a bit of volcanic ash....even a LITTLE bit....can cause this:

ALLOW me, please to ask ANY "chem"trail believers....after seeing the third video (above)....WHAT makes you think that ANY continued ability for commercial air travel is still possible, "IF" every airplane (as it's claimed) makes so-called "chem"trails??

These OTHER airplanes (commercial flights) MUST fly the same routes....and as such, they WOULD ingest into the engines, these so-called "chem"trails.....and YET?

No problems have EVER been reported....none.

Please, explain these facts.
 
Last edited:

KAT

Active Member
And THAT is exactly the point.

One cannot run just 'anything' through a very finely tuned engine, such as a High Bypass TurboJet engine.

Else, it will be destroyed....VERY quickly....with catastrophic results.

Like THIS:

Or, this:


AND....just a bit of volcanic ash....even a LITTLE bit....can cause this:

ALLOW me, please to ask ANY "chem"trail believers....after seeing the third video (above)....WHAT makes you think that ANY continued ability for commercial air travel is still possible, "IF" every airplane (as it's claimed) makes so-called "chem"trails??

These OTHER airplanes (commercial flights) MUST fly the same routes....and as such, they WOULD ingest into the engines, these so-called "chem"trails.....and YET?

No problems have EVER been reported....none.

Please, explain these facts.


One problem here, WeedWhacker -- the first video right away boasts about putting 4 1/2 tonnes of water a minute through the engine. So why not a liquid with barium or aluminium in it? all these highly technical details, half understood, only further the evidence for the trails. They cam ingest birds, what harm would a bit of second-hand chemtrail do? (does it cause aircraft cancer, like second hand tobacco?)
[[ooops did I just start another one?]]
 

reenolith

New Member
That's a fairly unusual and non standard (although not incorrect) way of expressing annual precipitation, 800mm per annum would be better :)
I used liters on purpose, because I figured it would be better understood by most people. In the US for example, people would rather know how much a liter is, than a millimeter.
 

Jonathan Teatime

New Member
One problem here, WeedWhacker -- the first video right away boasts about putting 4 1/2 tonnes of water a minute through the engine. So why not a liquid with barium or aluminium in it? all these highly technical details, half understood, only further the evidence for the trails. They cam ingest birds, what harm would a bit of second-hand chemtrail do? (does it cause aircraft cancer, like second hand tobacco?)
[[ooops did I just start another one?]]

Check out the third video. Who knows how a solution containing barium and aluminium would behave in the combustion zone of jet engine. Given that it's not the sort of solution you would expect to find floating round in the atmosphere, I doubt anyone had bothered to run a whole lot of it through an engine to find out.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
One problem here, WeedWhacker -- the first video right away boasts about putting 4 1/2 tonnes of water a minute through the engine. So why not a liquid with barium or aluminium in it? all these highly technical details, half understood, only further the evidence for the trails. They cam ingest birds, what harm would a bit of second-hand chemtrail do? (does it cause aircraft cancer, like second hand tobacco?)
[[ooops did I just start another one?]]

Couple of points. Aluminium becomes liquid at 660C and Barium at 727C. Secondly aluminium oxide is much more abrasive (it's used in sandpaper) than volcanic ash which can cause a lot of damage to aircraft flying through it.
 

Juha

Member
Water "burns"-> comes oxygen and hydrogen. Aluminium "burns"->comes liquid aluminium, which goes everywhere like volcanic ash. You may try it with your own vehicle, but I don't pay the damage.

 

KAT

Active Member
Water "burns"-> comes oxygen and hydrogen. Aluminium "burns"->comes liquid aluminium, which goes everywhere like volcanic ash. You may try it with your own vehicle, but I don't pay the damage.



That is a "mag wheel", so called because it's a light weight alloy of aluminium and magnesium (but they have a similar melting point). The wheel in your picture was burned in a bushfire which burned 2 or 3 times hotter than the melting point of either metal. The steel bands from the radial tyres seem to be something tougher.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The wheel in your picture was burned in a bushfire which burned 2 or 3 times hotter than the melting point of either metal.

Pure aluminium would be ignited in a jet combustion chamber and destroy it. It burns at ~4000c. Aluminium oxide does not burn but it would also destroy the engine via abrasion/erosion leading to unbalancing of the turbine and catastrophic failure.

The USAF tried TMA (tri Methyl aluminium) injected straight into afterburners (which have no moving parts) back in the 1950's. That did increase thrust but the pyrophoric/toxic nature of the substance made it to difficult to use.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Tobes Debunked: James Fetzer claims Shannon Hick's photo is "smoking gun" proof of a drill Sandy Hook 24
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Joe Hill Beirut Explosion -- Evidence It Wasn't Just A Surface Explosion Current Events 21
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
C My girlfriend,Jungian Personality Theory and the Rabbit Hole (Dealing with Relationships) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 1
R "Breakthrough": U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of WTC Demolition to Federal Grand Jury. 9/11 153
M How to Evaluate Specious Evidence (Like "Bubbles" in Space) Practical Debunking 6
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 120
Everett Anderson Standard Atmospheric Refraction: Empirical Evidence and Derivation Flat Earth 18
deirdre J.Marvin Herndon tries to pass off Bird Poop as evidence of "chemtrail" spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 24
MikeC Claim: New Zealand quakes man made...... Conspiracy Theories 4
Bill Statler "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": practical problems using this argument Practical Debunking 3
Mick West When Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence in Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 35
Jonathan Evans Gyroscopes as Evidence for a Spherical and Rotating Earth Flat Earth 4
Inti Claims that compass “symbols” are evidence of Masonic involvement Conspiracy Theories 8
Michael Mitchell Claim: Evidence for use of "Breaching Round" at Sandy Hook Sandy Hook 23
Mackdog Justice Scalia death: No autopsy as evidence of conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 15
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
deirdre Debunked:'Everyone must Check In Sign' evidence of FEMA Drill Sandy Hook 25
Jay Reynolds Government of Cyprus said to find no evidence of spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Blues63 The Angle Cut at Ground Zero: Clean up or evidence ofa CD? 9/11 13
Rob Can the weapon system used be determined from the available evidence? Flight MH17 40
M Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia Flight MH17 21
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
ColtCabana United States v. Tsarnaev Evidence Boston Marathon Bombings 3
MikeC Oregon's milky rain - evidence of weather warfare? Contrails and Chemtrails 6
TWCobra Chemtrail evidence that would stand up in court Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Leifer Has the accusation of "shills" become an independant conspiracy ? Conspiracy Theories 89
Mick West Claim: New 9/11 Survivor Provides Explosive New Evidence 9/11 59
Jason Evidence for the Buk missile launch site Flight MH17 24
TEEJ MH17: Evidence a Missile was Used. Shrapnel, etc. Flight MH17 448
Libertarian MH17 Evidence Video Time Stamped Before Crash Flight MH17 12
Mick West Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent Contrails and Chemtrails 62
mrfintoil Debunked: "Welsbach" Patent 5003186 as Evidence for "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Josh Heuer 9/11: Any Evidence for remote controlled planes? 9/11 91
Mick West Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite 9/11 743
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
A Evidence of Prior Knowledge of a Planned Attack 9/11 4
Nick " Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group." Contrails and Chemtrails 1
David Fraser The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Jay Reynolds Chemtrailer looked for evidence but finds nothing reliable. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Mick West Debunked: Global Dimming vs. Global Brightening, as evidence for Geoengineering or Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 66
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
mynym Evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved in 9/11 9/11 69
Critical Thinker Deliberately misleading vs. misinformed/misunderstand valid evidence/logic People Debunked 3
Gail Tree and other plant problems as evidence for chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 153
Mick West Tip: Ask for Evidence, Don't Ask for Proof Practical Debunking 0
Cairenn a funny - Nicholas Cage Vampire Evidence General Discussion 1
Oxymoron 9/11: PNAC Motive and Opportunity as evidence of an inside job 9/11 326
HappyMonday Chemtrails - New Evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Related Articles


















































Election 2020

Related Articles

Top