Why don't contrails show up on water vapor satellite? Because they are chemtrails.

reply to post by Manasseh


Sorry, Manasseh, that photo of the interior of an airplane does NOT help your argument, here.

It's been floating around the web for soime time now. It is being mis-represented by people very desperate to find a shred of evidence for 'chemtrails'.

That photo, with rows of what look like beer kegs....those are water tanks. That is the Boeing 777-300 in flight testing. They use water to simulate the payload, and move the water around to change the CG, as part of flight testing and performance evaluation protocol.

Gosh, I saw one months ago, where someone had Photoshopped a sign labeling what was obviously the lavatory as "HazMat". Thought that was a funny bit.

Your 'water vapor' satellite imaging idea is certainly clever, but it has been repeatedly pointed out that contrails are ice. Just like cirrus clouds. Oh! Did I mention? You likely won't see the cirrus clouds either, on a water-vapor satellite image.

Now....you cannot have it both ways---you simply cannot believe that EVERY commercial jet sprays a 'chemtrail'. So, let's say the Military IS spraying? OK....then if a normal contrail from a commercial airliner is expected to show up in your satellite imagery, then those should show up, eh?

Ever seen a contrail that lasts for just a mile or so, behind the airplane, then disappears (sublimates)?

Oh, as far as clever goes, the liquid CO2....that is rich! Why not just throw shaved dry ice out the window?

Do you unhderstand how weather RADAR works? Not just what's on the ground, but airborn WX RADAR as well? All it does is read the returns from WATER! Liquid water, not vapor....Flying an airplane through a cloud of vapor will provide no return on the screen. Liquid water in the cloud indicates a potential for convective activity, and turbulence....dangerous turbulence. So, airborn WX RADAR is an effective, and necessary tool, for the airline pilot to avoid flying through an active weather 'cell'....fancy name for a thundercloud. And potentially deadly, airplane-breaking turbulence.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It goes to how rain is formed, whether naturally or artifically....water will not condense from its vapor state to liquid withoud some sort of particulate matter to trigger the process. Rain clouds (cumulus) generally live below 30000 feet --- well below. A huge Cumulo-Nimbus may top out above 40000 feet....but it's just poking its head up. The convective activity, up and down drafts, collect and carry the water....a tall storm will carry the water high enough to freeze, and voila! You get hail.

But, most rain occurs from below, oh 20000 feet or so. Maybe Essan could be more specific.

Cheers!





[edit on 9/7/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well if it doesn't pick up ice then that is a good explanation. I checked and you are right about cirrus clouds being ice. Hard to tell if the vapor images show those kinds of clouds or not however due to all the other vapor around.

Why doesn't the water vapor imagery show ice though? I understand 1 is a gas, the other is a solid. But both are forms of water in the atmosphere. Not saying you are wrong or whatever, just kinda curious on why is all. Is it on purpose?

reply to post by Manasseh

The first thing that struck me with your presentation was the discrepency of scale between the enhanced ir and the water vapor map. Contrails are not very big things, so when you are looking at a map of the whole US, I doubt very much that they would show up. Oh, that's right, they're not water vapor, silly me. . .

If you expect to see contrails from so far out with the picture spanning such a distance.. you're going to have to zoom in. If you wanted them to show up on that satellite photo then they'd have to be several miles wide.

How is this even remotely a smoking gun?

SATELLITES ARE THE KEY GUYZ DUH

reply to post by badmedia


bad, it has to so with the density.

Wispy cirrus, made of tiny ice crystals (and contrails, for that matter) are simply not dense enough to reflect RADAR.

As I've mentioned, water and hail will reflect the RADAR. Hail is sometimes encased in a thin film of water, while it is in the clouds.

As to airborn Color WX RADAR (state of the art today) I can't remember the rates of rainfall or water density that related to the three colors. Green is less than one standard, Yellow and Red show increasing amounts of water, of course. Most current systems also have magenta to indicate a Doppler reading (horizontal movement)....areas to definately avoid!

The OP has mentioned Silver Iodide, and liquid CO2....but we can't seem to pin him down on which method is allegedly being used, nor by whom.

Perhaps some rhetoric can be toned down, and more understanding will come to light.

... so every single airplane is using chemicals to cloud seed? every single airplane that flies around the world is intentionally dropping chemicals to manipulate the weather...:

if you expect them to show up on the water vapour map, then you would see a couple here and there, with the amount of aircraft humankind has up there.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by kidney thief]

INteresting thread. The pics about the pine beetle, and the colorado trees, interesting as well. Putting 2 and 2 together, our governemnt months ago, had said, they think it would be best for eath, to cut all the trees down, to stop global warming. i was in SHOCK when i read it. MYabe those chemtrals are desinged too kill as many forests as inconspiculously as possible?
LEarning astronomy, as akid, i learned that INfrored pics up heat sources. That is not water vapro coming out of those jets. I love learning about automobiles, and am somwhat a mechanic myslef. Any combsution engine(that burns fuel) and leaes an exhaust trail, fo carbon dioxide and chemicals, can be seen on infrored. Why? BEcuase its hot, like car exhaust, and with carbon dioxide in the mix, makes it a little warmer. If it was cold, like water vapor, it wouldnt be picked upon infrored, infrored would have jsut seen through it like a glass sheet.
So, im thinking, maybe its silver iodide, or carbon mix of something, o maybe just carbon dioxiide(exahust). BUt remeber, engines push out the by product of combustion, carbon, not water. If its exhaust was pushing out water vapor, alot of those engones would have hydrolocked or completely not worked at all.
just my 2cents to this post..

reply to post by ziggy1706


ziggy you are mostly correct, about engine exhausts.

ANY internal combustion engine (and a jet engine qualifies as such) that burns petro-chemicals will have an exhaust....of burnt and unburnt petro-chemical residue.

Of course, the exhaust is hot....from a jet engine, about 600 to 700 degrees C. However, at 35000 feet, the temperature is somewhere around -40 to -45C The exhaust gases are hot (the engines are hotter, of course) and it's the sudden heating and cooling of the surrounding atmosphere that will produce a contrail, given sufficient water vapor.

I think anyone who lives on Earth, in very, very cold weather has seen the same effect coming out of the tail pipes of your car. Hard to realize, I know, but it is essentially the same effect.

Originally posted by Manasseh

However, cloud seeding with silver iodide doesn't work to well unless the atmosphere is cold enough. So they us LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE to supercool the atmosphere.

Cloud seeding with silver iodide doesn't work at all unless you spray it into an existing low level moisture bearing cloud

The silver iodide acts as a nuclei around which water vapour coalesces and snow forms. When this becomes heavy enough, it falls to the ground (melting en route). Thus making it rain.

And if all contrails are really comprised of silver iodide etc as you imply, then surely it means this has been going on for 100 years? Contrails aren't exactly a new phenomena!

And what of natural cirrus clouds? How do they fit into your idea?


(incidently, both natural and man-made cirrus comprise of ice crystals, not water vapour)

Originally posted by badmedia

Why doesn't the water vapor imagery show ice though? I understand 1 is a gas, the other is a solid. But both are forms of water in the atmosphere. Not saying you are wrong or whatever, just kinda curious on why is all. Is it on purpose?

erm....As previously stated....


Water vapor emits a lot of infrared radiation at a particular wavelength. The water vapor images we see are produced with filters for that wavelength. For weather observational purposes, knowing where water vapor is, is good.

Water, as ice clouds or water clouds, emits infrared radiation in other wavelengths. The other infrared images we see are produced with filters for those wavelengths. for weather observational purposes, knowing where ice clouds and water clouds are, is good.

It is on purpose. Meteorologists can learn/predict different things by knowing where water vapor is and where clouds are.

Contrails are not water vapor, they are ice. Water vapor is not ice.

This is retarded, I feel stupider for having read it.

First of all, contrails are not water vapor, neither are clouds either. Look at side at the air. Unless you have 0 percent humidity, you are seeing water vapor, which is water in gaseous form. When you get down to it, people that say things like "Vapor trails", are contradicting themselves. COntrails are usually water droplets, but can turn to cirrus ice crystals, which again is not vapor.

Killing people with silver iodide seeding? hahahaahahahahhaah

Sorry...hahahahahahahh, cant help myself. Its like the bizarro world of the absurd. I know a thing or two about cloud seeding and how it is done. I am quite sure you cause more harm to the world when you go out and drive a vehicle and pollute, than anything caused by silver iodide seeding.

Want to take a guess at the amount of silver iodide released by a small twin cessna or beechcraft King Air?

Originally posted by Manasseh

Why do they not show up in water vapor satellite images?

It may be due to distance, as some have pointed out. Don't get me wrong I also believe that the government is spraying chemicals over areas at times but of course there is no proof of this. Going by history it is still very possible. After all, at one point the government dumped a bacterial fog over parts of San Fransisco to test the effectiveness of a biological attack on American soil.

...Mr. Nevin's family learned what they believe was the cause of the infection, linked at the time to the hospitalizations of 10 other patients. In Senate subcommittee hearings in 1977, the U.S. Army revealed that weeks before Mr. Nevin sickened and died, the Army had staged a mock biological attack on San Francisco, secretly spraying the city with Serratia and other agents thought to be harmless.

The goal: to see what might happen in a real germ-warfare attack. The experiment, which involved blasting a bacterial fog over the entire 49-square-mile city from a Navy vessel offshore, was recorded with clinical nonchalance: "It was noted that a successful BW [biological warfare] attack on this area can be launched from the sea, and that effective dosages can be produced over relatively large areas," the Army wrote in its 1951 classified report on the experiment. mindfully.org

Originally posted by MatrixBaller04
I'm sorry but you are an idiot.

Is name calling really necessary?
Even if the OP is wrong just state the reason why, without childish insults.

p.s. Guys PLEASE stop excessively quoting a whole page worth of a reply. It's annoying seeing the same long post twice and having to go all the way to the bottom for a three sentence reply.

Thanks,


- Lee

Originally posted by Manasseh
Scientists will tell you that those long trails left behind aircraft are just water vapor, and you should just go back to watching TV, instead of questioning the "experts"
......................

Good post star and flag! It is a compelling picture, but couldn't it be that "enhanced infrared" just contrast the icecrystal trails more?

Somebody with real infrared camera experience/knowledge should be able to answer this question better.

reply to post by firepilot


firepilot.....nice to know a voice of reason can still show up!!

Problem is, these 'chemtrail' believers don't really know what a KingAir is. AND how high it can fly.

Nor do they understand what kind of payload a KingAir can carry, compared to a large jet!

All of this talk about Liquid CO2....ummmmm.....that stuff has weight. So does Silver Iodide.

Do the laymen in the audience not realize the ramifications of weight, when it comes to airplanes???? Seems not.....

Folks, a KingAir or a pressurized Cessna (when properly equipped), perfect for 'cloud-seeding' to make rain! But, no way, no how, will they make a contrail, much less a 'chemtrail'!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Look.....perhaps I should approach from a different direction....

The total surface area of our planet Earth is (according to Google)

510,065,600 square kilometers. For comparison's sake, that equates to 196,937,429 square miles.

Now, our atmosphere is pretty thin, and I admit at an altitude of a few miles up, the total surface 'area' would be slightly larger....but I think I'm making a point here.

Just exactly how many airplanes would be needed to 'spray' enough to seriously make an impact???

Nearly 200 million square miles? So, a few jets, leaving a 'trail' a few miles long, and half a mile wide? Multiplied by....what???? 600 million airplanes?

Come on, logic dictates.....it does not compute.

Personally I believe chemtrails DO exist, forwhatever reason. They appear seperate to the usual contrail I've seen.

BUT the OP here, does nothing to help anything, in every thread I've seen them make. Crackpots who scream supposed thruth and shove pictures down throats are not any more clued up than people asking questions.

Just.. gah.

Im tired of having my concerns thrust into the negative because people just force their 'insight' as reality, while some people are still thinking objectively about things.

Dr Stephen D McKay has done a lot of research into the differences between Chem-trails and "con-trails" and he will be my guest on my online radio show this Friday night at 9 p.m. (Sat Sept 12th).

If this issue concerns you as it does me, then tune in at www.glastonburyradio.net... and e-mails your questions to the Doc!

Ross

Originally posted by Manasseh
Where are the weather "experts" to debunk this one.

I would like to see what kind of lies they have cooked up for this one.

It was clear from the start that you would not be able to accept debate and/or being debunked. Why ask for opinions if your unable to open your eyes? Deny ignorance?

I beleive the UV images are chemtrails and not vapour for the following reason.

I fit was vapour of normal planes, all the lines would be somehow showing a flight path pattern. Just like a kid would write a letter and write over and over that single letter.

But the UV image shows how the lines run very parallel and nicely spread to cover a certain area. Just like a kid would color in a colouring book.

I think you get the logic behind my drift.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Problem is, these 'chemtrail' believers don't really know what a KingAir is. AND how high it can fly.

Nor do they understand what kind of payload a KingAir can carry, compared to a large jet!

All of this talk about Liquid CO2....ummmmm.....that stuff has weight. So does Silver Iodide.

As a former crew chief on the EP-3A (P-3) aircraft, I know a few things about aviation.

The weight of silver iodide?

Vaporized, silver iodide yields about 600,000 billion particles per gram-the amount you can put on your fingernail-each a potential snowflake or raindrop.

Besides being highly diffusive, with one gram filling several cubic miles of sky, silver iodide takes effect sooner than nature's own nuclei. It goes to work at around 25° down in the lower, more moist cloud layers rather than holding off until it is much colder. Since that is the temperature where most of the water is-sometimes three-quarters of the cloud-silver iodide clearly improves on nature's own seeds as a rainmaker.

www.weathersage.com...

Every claim I have made is backed up by an external source.

I have seen the debunker do no such thing.