Nothing in chemtrails... yeahhh riiiiight...Photos

reply to post by interestedalways


I sure as heck hope not!

Although wouldnt it be ironic if they burned you with the lighter you brought? Woah!

reply to post by interestedalways


yes, generation of cirrus clouds is one way, but this already occurs with regular contrails, as they expand and are the "seed" for cirrus clouds. That is a gimme!

And you are also correct in the "contrails into 'chemtrails'" line, BUT, let's remember one thing...... in relation to what? Of course, soot is carbon and as such makes it a 'chemical' but now we are complicating this notion of chemtrails. As it stands, exhaust itself has chemicals in it. So technically jet exhaust would be considered a "chemtrail" under the definition of something having a "chemical" in it. But this just makes the whole thing more complicated, and the general idea for "chemtrail" is having aircraft spraying 'chemicals' purposely to kill/control/whatever the population. Using this conspiracy theory definition, the jet exhaust is NOT a chemtrail and a contrail is NOT a chemtrail. Having soot, or "carbon dust" in it also wouldn't constitute a contrail a chemtrail as an aircraft on afterburners is not producing a "chemtrail".

Also, in reference to the ionosphere, let us not forget at what altitude the ionosphere is. The highest altitude reached by a US jet powered plane was done by the SR-71 reaching 85,135ft (16.12 miles), although the highest ever reached was by a MiG-25 to 118,898 feet (22.52 miles) . Rocket plane-wise it goes to the X-15 but now SpaceShipOne holds that record. The ionosphere itself is found 70 kilometers (43 miles) to 400 kilometers (250 miles) above the Earth. So spraying anything at 30,000ft will not go up to the ionosphere and it would require rocket's to inject ANYTHING into the ionosphere.

Originally posted by GenRadek
But this just makes the whole thing more complicated, and the general idea for "chemtrail" is having aircraft spraying 'chemicals' purposely to kill/control/whatever the population.

But see, this isn't the truth. It has become a stigma attached to those who question what we see going on in the skies.

I for one am looking to find out what is causing all the aircraft made cloud cover that changes the blue skies I used to love, what makes it seem so nefarious is the secrecy and all the people who rage on about how stupid and ignorant anyone is who even questions this.

I think that population control and poisoning if it occured would be a byproduct, not the actual intent.

reply to post by interestedalways


Well IMO, you would have to stop all air travel. Since it has grown exponentially in the last 4 decades, we are going to be seeing more contrails cutting across the sky. A lot more. However, as it is accepted by majority in the meteorological circles and such, contrails are nothing more than aircraft condensation trails. The lack of understanding this is what creates this fear. The only thing happening overhead is more airplanes flying. More people want to fly. What would choose for an overseas trip? Sailboat or plane? I would be more concerned with car and truck emissions being hazardous to your health than an airplane's contrail 30,000ft up.

Plus I do hope you had a chance to read the link I posted for you on aircraft condensation trails and ship trails. It explains everything you could want about what is happening over head. And there is really is no "secret". The secret is: understanding scientifically why and how contrails form.
Here it is again:
bragwebdesign.com...

I encourage you to read through this study as all (or at least most I hope) your questions will be answered in them.

reply to post by GenRadek



Actually I did check out your link, and at the risk of sounding childish I would like to add that there were some Really Amazing Pictures!!

It emphasized that the ice crystal factor needs to be present and also that wing tip movement was useful in creating the phenomena in the pics they showed.

Originally posted by GenRadek
The highest altitude reached by a US jet powered plane was done by the SR-71 reaching 85,135ft (16.12 miles), although the highest ever reached was by a MiG-25 to 118,898 feet (22.52 miles) . Rocket plane-wise it goes to the X-15 but now SpaceShipOne holds that record. The ionosphere itself is found 70 kilometers (43 miles) to 400 kilometers (250 miles) above the Earth. So spraying anything at 30,000ft will not go up to the ionosphere and it would require rocket's to inject ANYTHING into the ionosphere.

Close, but not quite right on the records.

SR-71: 85, 068.997 feet on July 27/28 1976
YF-12A: 80, 257.65 feet on May 1, 1965
MiG-25: 123,524 feet
F-15 Streak Eagle: 103,000 feet

reply to post by Zaphod58


Ahh see, I couldnt find the most up date figures. Thanks again!
What about that MiG-25 flight? Is that an unoffical record?

reply to post by interestedalways


Great!

Did you notice those pictures are almost the same kinds shown by "chemtrailers" as proof of "chemtrails"? You see why we laugh at those claims? The photos are amazing, and i have seen quite a few of these myself. The explanations (the science) does a great job too. It may sound a little technical, but it is sound. Anybody else who says this is disinfo, or lies, or whatever is just being ignorant and stupid!

reply to post by GenRadek


The MiG-25 is an official record. It was stripped to absolutely nothing on the airframe, and fitted with the test engines for the MiG-31. It was a MiG-25RP. The recon platform was always faster than the usual MiG-25, because it was lighter. It didn't carry weapons, so was a lighter airframe.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Anybody else who says this is disinfo, or lies, or whatever is just being ignorant and stupid!

OH, MY!

You don't really mean that do you?

I am tired of this for tonight.

Carry on without me.

I bet you are glad about that!

reply to post by interestedalways


nnnooooo!!!!!



I hope the link provided some answers you were looking for!

reply to post by dave420


reply posted on 17-11-2008 @ 05:16 AM by dave420


reply to post by TruthTellist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You can find patents for all kinds of devices, most of which have never seen production. That is not evidence.

I'm still waiting for evidence that "chemtrails" exist.
========================================

And I'm still waiting for evidence that "chemtrails" Do Not exist.
So could you please prove this to me beyond all reasonable doubt that they Do Not exist?

reply to post by GenRadek



And I hope you found something of interest in the links I posted as well.

reply to post by anotherdad


They do spray at night. I've seen them across the night sky at full moon.

reply to post by GenRadek


Absolutely brilliant, 'GenRadek'!! Good to see another level head in the discussion about 'chemtrails'.

Of course, the advocates of some nefarious 'plan' of chemical 'spraying' will recognize my User Name and likely jump to the conclusion that we are 'working together'....so I want to nip THAT notion in the bud, immediately.

This concept of 'spraying' from altitudes above what are considered nearly ground-level, as in crop-dusting, beggars logic.

(I apologize for typos I miss, I'm using my laptop right now...)

Just to re-iterate....I have written, and will continue to say that Commercial passenger jetsa CANNOT be in any way responsible for anything other, as Gen pointed out, leaving a 'carbon footprint'....much as any internal combustion engine that consumes petroleum products will do.

(Yes, a jet engine is, in essence, an "internal combustion engine"...AND it burns a petroleum product. In fact, Aviation fuel, 'Jet-A', isn't very dissimilar from kerosene....or Diesel fuel, for that matter).

Might surprise some people to learn that a jet engine isn't much different from the engine in their automobile....of course, big differences in design, but the principles are roughly the same.....an internal combustion engine, using petro fuel, will have four cycles....suck in air, squeeze the air, inject the fuel and ignite, then use that 'force' to provide the power.

We describe an axial, some might call it a 'rotary' engine (Jet Engines) as .... "Suck, Squeeze, Burn, Blow".

To make it use more words: Ingest the air, compress it, inject fuel and ignite it, and enjoy the resulting energy that results.

This is actually what happens in each cylinder of your four- or six- or eight-cylinder engine in your automobile. Each cyllinder is 'timed' to provide its own 'oomph' to play well with the other cylinders, in concert, and to turn the driveshaft to make your car go. Jet engines use a more advanced concept....but remember, a great many large airplanes were built using the same principles that are in your car engine before jet engines were invented.

Point is, just as your car engine emits exhaust gases, so to jet engines. AND, these exhaust gases come out hot! Picture, if you will, a very cold and damp morning, when you start your car. Do you see condensation coming out of the tailpipes?? Now, make your car travel at 500 MPH, and you will make contrails!!!!

Congratulations for completing the first lesson 'Internal Combustion Engine' science. Don't forget to sign up for 'Meterology: 101'....

(there is a linkage between the two...but, it's best if you've a good understanding of Physics, first)

reply to post by weedwhacker


Got any proof to go with those claims of yours?

No?

That's what I thought...

[edit on 19-11-2008 by TruthTellist]

reply to post by TruthTellist


TT....

Hello again!

I pondered whether or not to respond....agonized over the decision, actually....whether to make my response on the forum, or in private.

Obviously, I chose the former.

I will, respectfully, toss your question back --- I'm actually not sure of your question regarding my post.

Please clarify....

WW

reply to post by interestedalways


Oh i did as well dont worry.
All things must be taken into account, weighed, and analyzed.

reply to post by missvicky


You mean aircraft create contrails at night. No surprise. Why shouldn't they? Clouds form at night, why not contrails?

reply to post by TruthTellist


So you do not believe in how he internal combustion engine works? Or how a jet engine works? Funny how you immediately accept lies and false ideas as facts, then question and ignore actual facts. So what needs backing up in weedwacker's statement?