In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 6. Contrail vs. Chemtrail

a reply to: AdamuBureido

the OP denounces a wrong and you presume to accuse him of what he's denouncing?

No he is making assumptions that he can't really back up unless he links his other threads which don't prove a thing.

The only accusations are coming from him.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: AdamuBureido

the OP denounces a wrong and you presume to accuse him of what he's denouncing?

No he is making assumptions that he can't really back up unless he links his other threads which don't prove a thing.

The only accusations are coming from him.

lol,
you're assuming much yourself, tsurf,
but I'll let you figure it out on your own...
Experience keeping a dear school and all that...

buh-bye!

a reply to: AdamuBureido

lol,

You should understand that most who debunk chemtrails have been discussing and researching this long before the OP thought he had the answers.

And linking back to your own threads doesn't mean what he is saying is true either, as he didn't prove anything in them in the first place.

But feel free to provide any evidence you have that backs anything in this thread or any other thread that swears chemtrails exist.

You're absolutely right, we should most definitely be concerned about the harmful effects of aircraft exhaust emissions and the radiative forcing properties of persistent contrails and contrail induced cirrus. Chemtrail activists, however, are not. They don't even believe that contrails can persist let alone understand the contribution they make to global warming and I'm pretty certain that aluminium, barium and strontium don't make up a large proportion of jet exhaust.

So perhaps it is them you should be talking to and not the debunkers.

Oh and just FYI, global dimming ended in the 90s and for much of the world the trend has been reversed. Other than in those parts which continue to pollute heavily from ground based sources of course.

a reply to: Petros312

Because people repeatedly gloss right over important information in all my posts, I have to keep quoting myself:

originally posted by: Petros312
According to NASA's own website (science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...) jet engine exhaust contains carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates, soot, and metal particles. This means air pollutants are indeed sprayed by jet aircraft. The contrail itself is a "human-induced" cloud formed by water vapor that condenses as it clings to the particulate matter of jet exhaust and then freezes. Because a contrail may be mostly composed of water, this does not negate that it contains soot as well as "dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide." Sulphur dioxide is an indisputile form of air pollution. Water vapor on its own may not qualify as pollution, but it is certainly a chemical (H2O). Every condensed and frozen droplet has formed around a particle of soot. So even if there are no unexpected toxic elements present in a "normal" contrail, every time a contrail marks the sky its presence is a guarantee that air pollution was released.

--So, why is it so hard for people to understand that a contrail is chemical pollution? Oh, I already addressed that in my first post too, so be sure to gloss over that as well. I know how hard it is for most "scientific" people to think outside the box.

The problem with people conforming exclusively to use of the term "contrail" instead of "chemtrail" is that they have also concluded a "chem-trail" in no way exists, and that's the road to encouraging ignorance. Because they are continually persuaded in both overt and covert ways to believe a contrail is only "normal," they refuse to assimilate information about how contrails may indeed be harmful, much like the bizarre notion that pollution is considered to be "normal." Consider who is enforcing the use of the term "contrail" while also enforcing complete nonacceptance of that other word that might implicate jet aircraft activity is suspect:

www.youtube.com...
Rosalind Peterson video (at 4:10):

The word 'chemtrail' has no definition in US military lexicon that I can find other than what is written as opinions and beliefs, but that they report that the word "chemtrail" is defined as an internet hoax, a conspiracy theory or a hoax. To get the military to come out and define that word as nothing other than a hoax has not been possible and no one has succeeded so far.

--But this is only the military, and although they probably want to control all use of the term, they don't have the authority to dictate who can use the word "chemtrail" in whatever manner as long as the person defines the term, which I indeed did here. This should not be construed as "moving the goal post" because the term has no official definition and means different things to different people. However, if I were to speak to military personnel about the phenomenon I would be reluctant to say "chemtrail." I'm not having a discussion here with military personnel, am I?

So, why is it so hard for people to understand that a contrail is chemical pollution?

Because it isn't. Now if you meant to state that jet exhaust is chemical pollution, sure. But that pollution is there whether a contrail forms or not. The contrail itself consists mainly of H2O, and is probably more pure than bottled water.

You keep wanting to push contrails into the chemtrail corner. But what's the point of that? Chemtrails are defined as trails OTHER than contrails, consisting of chemicals that are being added on purpose for a particular reason (chemmies can't seem to settle on what that reason is though).

Here's the oxford dictionary defintion again:

A visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation, rather than the condensed water of a vapour trail:

So I suggest we stick to that definition. It makes talking about the subject a lot easier if everyone agrees on what a chemtrail actually is. Calling contrails 'chemtrails' makes as much sense as calling them UFO's (even though they do 'fly' in the sky, and to some people contain 'unknown' elements).

If you want to talk about whether contrails are supposed to be considered normal or not, or whether they are pollution, fine, but why not just call them contrails, if that's what you want to discuss?

originally posted by: payt69
... if you meant to state that jet exhaust is chemical pollution, sure. But that pollution is there whether a contrail forms or not. The contrail itself consists mainly of H2O, and is probably more pure than bottled water.

You are MINIMALIZING, and it's typical of debunkers to focus only on facts that matter to them. That's why "debunking" is actually a process of confirmation bias.

FACT (According to NASA):

What do contrails contain? Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide ...

No one is denying that a contrail is mostly H2O. But it's obvious that some people are in total denial that a contrail also contains chemicals that are known to cause environmental degradation.

Now show me how well you can rationalize your argument by quantifying the amount of H2O, as if that negates the fact that a contrail does indeed contain various chemicals. You're doing exactly what I said in my first post: enforcing a "normal" label for something that is arguably not normal at all.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: payt69
... if you meant to state that jet exhaust is chemical pollution, sure. But that pollution is there whether a contrail forms or not. The contrail itself consists mainly of H2O, and is probably more pure than bottled water.

You are MINIMALIZING, and it's typical of debunkers to focus only on facts that matter to them. That's why "debunking" is actually a process of confirmation bias.

FACT (According to NASA):

What do contrails contain? Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide ...

No one is denying that a contrail is mostly H2O. But it's obvious that some people are in total denial that a contrail also contains chemicals that are known to cause environmental degradation.

Now show me how well you can rationalize your argument by quantifying the amount of H2O, as if that negates the fact that a contrail does indeed contain various chemicals. Your doing exactly what I said in my first post: enforcing a "normal" label for something that is arguably not normal at all.

It doesn't matter what the ratio is, as long as the amount of chemicals is within the expected quantities one finds in a contrail.

Here's a quick estimate:

Combustion products are oxides. Fuel is made up of CARBON and HYDROGEN (it is a hydrocarbon) so the combustion products are oxides of carbon and hydrogen. Specifically CARBON DIOXIDE and DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE (aka water).

You get more water coming out of the exhaust than the amount of fuel you burn, because most of the mass of a water molecule is oxygen, which comes from the air.


If you get a persistent contrail, then this water is added to by water freezing onto the ice particles. In fact it has been shown that only about 1 part in 10,000 of water in a persistent contrail comes form the exhaust. The rest was already there in the air.

If you melted down a contrail it would be far, far purer than any bottled "mineral water" you can buy.

If you find something that lies outside the bounds of what can be called a contrail, you may have a good reason to call them something else, but I wouldn't like to be associated with the looney bin that is the chemtrail community.. so at least think of something so you keep some kind of credibility. Actually I think UFO would be better

a reply to: payt69

So you basically just admitted that you do indeed ignore the fact that a contrail contains soot and chemicals that are known to be air pollution. And this goes beyond fallacious:

originally posted by: payt69
If you melted down a contrail it would be far, far purer than any bottled "mineral water" you can buy.

--You now have the burden of evidence to support your outlandish claim above. I know of no bottled water that contains soot, the ash from jet fuel. Perhaps you're just referring to total dissolved minerals of bottled water vs. condensed water vapor (distilled water has no mineral content), which would be a moot point and has nothing to do with water being "pure," as if drinkable.

So, what is it you said just a few hours ago in another thread? Oh yeah:

originally posted by: payt69
I think it's a far better exercise to just stick to the facts. Present your evidence if you have any, and if you don't, well, then it's case closed.

Let's see if you can practice what you preach.

I await your analysis of all the bottled water out there. Can't provide it?-- then case closed.

a reply to: Petros312

Despite having it explained to you several times now, it is clear that you are having a hard time grasping the explanation. Unless you are just being obtuse of course.

Let's spell it out, from a debunking perspective;

What is a contrail? = a visible trail of water ice.

Does jet exhaust contain pollutant chemicals? = YES.

Does jet exhaust contain these same pollutants whether a contrail is visible or not? = YES

Does the absence of a visible contrail mean that the air is free of pollutants and jet exhaust? = NO

Do chemtrail conspiracy sites themselves defines chemtrail as being a deliberate spray that is different from a contrail? = YES

THEREFORE, is trying to redefine a contrail as a chemtrail and fixating upon it a complete red herring because chemtrails require, by definition, for there to be a trail and 'no trail' DOESNT mean clean air and no pollution? = CORRECT.

Is that simple enough? Does chemtrail conspiracy theory demonstrate any concern about general air pollution that DOESNT involve visible trails across the sky? Of course not, because the position you are trying to present is false. Indeed YOU are the one who is minimalising, as you put it, because you are only bothered about the pollution that may be present when a contrail is visible. The thousands of other flights that didn't leave one appear to be of no concern at all. Please explain how that fits in with chemtrail conspiracy theorists who proclaim contrail-free periods as being "no-spray days" etc?

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312

Despite having it explained to you several times now, it is clear that you are having a hard time grasping the explanation. Unless you are just being obtuse of course.

--Likewise, after 7 attempts to get debunkers out of their debunking box, it appears they are just as obtuse.

originally posted by: Petros312
a reply to: payt69

So you basically just admitted that you do indeed ignore the fact that a contrail contains soot and chemicals that are known to be air pollution. And this goes beyond fallacious:

originally posted by: payt69
If you melted down a contrail it would be far, far purer than any bottled "mineral water" you can buy.

--You now have the burden of evidence to support your outlandish claim above. I know of no bottled water that contains soot, the ash from jet fuel. Perhaps you're just referring to total dissolved minerals of bottled water vs. condensed water vapor (distilled water has no mineral content), which would be a moot point and has nothing to do with water being "pure," as if drinkable.

So, what is it you said just a few hours ago in another thread? Oh yeah:

originally posted by: payt69
I think it's a far better exercise to just stick to the facts. Present your evidence if you have any, and if you don't, well, then it's case closed.

Let's see if you can practice what you preach.

I await your analysis of all the bottled water out there. Can't provide it?-- then case closed.

The only people denying that contrails contain those things are the chemtrail believers. As I said, perhaps it's them that you should be talking to

originally posted by: Petros312
a reply to: payt69

So you basically just admitted that you do indeed ignore the fact that a contrail contains soot and chemicals that are known to be air pollution. And this goes beyond fallacious:

Oh you dramaqueen. That's not what I said, is it?

Like some have stated, it's the chemmies that deny contrails are contrails. Doesn't THAT bother you?

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312

Despite having it explained to you several times now, it is clear that you are having a hard time grasping the explanation. Unless you are just being obtuse of course.

--Likewise, after 7 attempts to get debunkers out of their debunking box, it appears they are just as obtuse.

So you admit you are being obtuse. Thanks for the honesty.

a reply to: network dude

He's out on his own. A self proclaimed protector of chemtrail conspiracy theorists (CCT), he is completely at odds with what those theorists actually believe, as he knows and accepts that persisting contrails exist. The CCT's themselves vehemently deny this fact and yet he seems oblivious to this startlingly simple point. But then coherency has yet to make an appearance in any of the seven epic threads we have for our amusement.

a reply to: waynos

Just as an addenda to that post. The frustrating thing is that he is writing almost completely about things that are known, or at least suspected, of being real issues. Carbon pollution, global warming and dimming, geoengineering etc. these could be good topics to debate in their own right. We may disagree on specifics, but at least these things are based on science.

And yet he insists on tying himself to the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists, those guys who say contrails cannot persist and spread (and therefore cannot be responsible for global dimming etc) the guys who say that blood particles are being sprayed and Morgellons desease can somehow descend vertically straight down within a minute or two to get them.

He is critical of "bad science" and "new atheists" (I still don't even know what he means by that) and yet will leap to the defence of those who will publish, promote, or rely upon faked photographic evidence that falls down after a few minutes scrutiny because it's so poor.

He is offering a defence to a group that doesn't want or need it because they think he is wrong anyway. The G W Bush of ATS.

a reply to: Petros312

Another great thread, keep up the good work!

Hard to argue with logic......oh wait....I guess some on here have actually accomplished that, what a feat to be proud of!

A few second's worth of simple analysis would tell one since even a basic contrail is made up of chemicals it could and should be accurately labelled a chemtrail. But as you say, jargon matters in any propaganda war.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Petros312


A few second's worth of simple analysis would tell one since even a basic contrail is made up of chemicals it could and should be accurately labelled a chemtrail. But as you say, jargon matters in any propaganda war.

Au contraire. A few seconds worth of consideration of the exact sentence you wrote should tell any reasonably intelligent person that such a declaration means that chemtrails are nothing unique or purposeful at all, indeed everything in existence is a chemical and the very term itself is totally superfluous and meaningless. Since contrails were known for decades before someone came up with a brand new name for something that is no different from what is already known, why DID they do that? Hmmmm.

BTW, what is a "basic contrail"? Are there other kinds?