Chemtrails Over Portland OR 23/11/08

reply to post by GenRadek


thats all nice and all that you would say there is a correlation.. but what is it?? considiring older piston airplanes produced much more exhaust that will turn into contrails..i dont see how you can compare them to jet engines.. Nice to see the 4 weatherman working overtime today..

reply to post by thefreepatriot


At startup a more modern plane can make just as much smoke. Have you ever seen a picture or video of an L1011 starting engines? When they start the tail engine they left a HUGE smoke cloud. It always suffered a static fuel leak that allowed the fuel to pool in the engine. When the hot exhaust hit it, it left a massive cloud.

There are many engines that leave SOME kind of smoke at startup, you can't compare them at engine start to how they leave a trail in flight.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by thefreepatriot

 

No it's not. Jets were in use by the end of WWII and they left contrails too. Jets are more efficient, but they're not really cleaner burning than earlier ones. They use the same fuel, they're just more efficient at burning it. They leave contrails just like the original jets did, and they can turn into clouds just like a B-17 contrail could and did.

octane 87 fuel was used in the B-17..You are stating that they use the same fuel as JETS is WRONG I will remind the pilot nxt time beore takeoff that he can refuel with regular gas at chevron

[edit on 24-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

reply to post by thefreepatriot


And here we go with putting words in my mouth again. WHERE did I say that they used the same fuel as a B-17? I didn't. I said that more modern jet engines burn the fuel more efficiently than the older jets, and the piston engined planes. I never said it was the same fuel.

If you used a little THOUGHT, you would have seen that I said that more modern jets are more efficient than earlier ones, and used basically the same fuel as earlier ones. They've changed it over the years, but it's still basically kerosene.

[edit on 11/24/2008 by Zaphod58]

Give me a break.. I didn't put the words in your mouth you did... here it is in bold for you to see..

No it's not. Jets were in use by the end of WWII and they left contrails too. Jets are more efficient, but they're not really cleaner burning than earlier ones. THEY USE THE SAME FUEL, they're just more efficient at burning it. They leave contrails just like the original jets did, and they can turn into clouds just like a B-17 contrail could and did.

reply to post by thefreepatriot


And as I said, if you had used a little THOUGHT, you would have seen that I was comparing early jets to modern jets, NOT early jets to B-17s.

Jet fuel in the ME-262, which was the first jet to be flown was kerosene. Jet fuel in the Boeing 777 is STILL kerosene, with other additives put in it. The biggest difference between the two is that the 777 burns it more efficiently than the engine in the ME-262.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I never talked about earlier jets to begin with...... only about the B-17s and modern jets.. Obviously B-17s are dirtier then modern day jets.. and produce more exhaust .. this was my point.. i understand you now.. but the context of the discussion was B-17s not earlier jet aircraft.. Also I did not know military jets were used by the end of WW2.. thats pretty cool.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by thefreepatriot

 

No it's not. Jets were in use by the end of WWII and they left contrails too. Jets are more efficient, but they're not really cleaner burning than earlier ones. They use the same fuel, they're just more efficient at burning it. They leave contrails just like the original jets did, and they can turn into clouds just like a B-17 contrail could and did.

I understand ... but when did I talk about earlier jets?? I was comparing older piston planes to modern jets.. and yes the exhaust is much cleaner on a modern day jet then an old piston ww2 relic plane using octane 87 for gas..which will produce allot more dirty exhaust then a MODERN day Jet plane... Can we agree on this or no?

[edit on 24-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

The main products of hydrocarbon fuel combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapour. At high altitudes this water vapour emerges into a cold environment, and the local increase in water vapour can push the water content of the air past saturation point. The vapour then condenses into tiny water droplets and/or deposits into ice. These millions of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals form the vapour trail or contrails. The energy drop (and therefore, time and distance) the vapour needs to condense accounts for the contrail forming some way behind the aircraft's engines. The majority of the cloud content comes from water trapped in the surrounding air.[citation needed] At high altitudes, supercooled water vapour requires a trigger to encourage deposition or condensation. The exhaust PARTICLES in the aircraft's exhaust act as this trigger, causing the trapped vapour to rapidly turn to ice crystals. Exhaust vapour trails or contrails usually occur above 8000 metres (26,000 feet). where the temperature is below -40°C (-40°F).[1]


a dirtier combustion method with a low octane fuel would produce allot more particles in the exhaust.. Equaling to more contrails .... This isn't rocket science...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by thefreepatriot

 

At startup a more modern plane can make just as much smoke. Have you ever seen a picture or video of an L1011 starting engines? When they start the tail engine they left a HUGE smoke cloud. It always suffered a static fuel leak that allowed the fuel to pool in the engine. When the hot exhaust hit it, it left a massive cloud.

There are many engines that leave SOME kind of smoke at startup, you can't compare them at engine start to how they leave a trail in flight.

You are correct however the starter smoke is a good indicator of how dirty the combustion method is..which will produce more CONTRAILS... more. particles equals to more contrails...

The point here is... someone here used an old WW2 plane to prove that those huge "contrails" being observed now are just contrails. However those old planes produced much more contrails because of the fuel used and combustion methods which lead to a crap load more particles beings pushed into the air which means a hell of allot more contrails being formed at high altitude... using WW2 era planes to explain the huge "contrails" being formed by modern day jets is illogical.......

[edit on 24-11-2008 by thefreepatriot]

Originally posted by thefreepatriot

You are correct however the starter smoke is a good indicator of how dirty the combustion method is..which will produce more CONTRAILS... more. particles equals to more contrails...

This might be true (really not sure if it is) but it is the atmospheric conditions more than anything which determine how thick the contrails are and how long they persist.

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
The point here is... someone here used an old WW2 plane to prove that those huge "contrails" being observed now are just contrails.

No.
I posted a video of B-17's to demonstrate that broken contrails are caused by atmospheric conditions, not by the "spray" being turned on and off.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by thefreepatriot


No it isn't. If you have a static fuel leak, then fuel puddles in the engine, hot exhaust hits it, huge smoke cloud. But when pressurized the fuel doesn't leak, no smoke at all.

L1011 in flight, no smoke:


L1011 engine start:


Engine start doesn't really prove anything, except whether you have a static fuel leak. Yes, some engines do run dirtier than others, but it doesn't prove whether it's going to leave a smoke trail, or whether it is going to leave more contrails or not.

The old B-52s and Canberra bombers used to use a shotgun shell to start the engine. Left a huge smoke cloud, but once they were airborne, they didn't smoke THAT badly.

reply to post by marsha law


Isn't it amazing how when a chemtrail thread starts, all the specialists in weather fronts and meteorology come out of the woodwork with their atmospheric report and analysis.

Just incredible.

Whooo - just gives me chills thinking about it, but hey, that must be the cold front coming in.

Pffffffffffft

reply to post by arizonascott


Probably because it has to do with weather. You know, science and stuff.

OMG enough with the "chem trails" already. We have F-15s in Oregon. Could they perhaps be contrails?

It is pretty much common knowledge that chemtrails are a part of the NATO ADG....

They are clearly for our protection and completely non-malevolent.

Mr. Phage and followers,

I aprecciate your position and some of the verified data presented.
However it seems to be going both ways.

Just wondering your thoughts on the plausibility of such operations.

Why I wouldn't doubt chemtrails is the facts and documented evidence of similiar projects in the aspect of covert testing.

The many black operations performed unknowingly on test subjects from the range of military to civilian people.

Nonconsensual Medical Experiments on Human Beings
Secret US Human Biological Experimentation
The U.S. Government's Secret Testing of Radioactive, Chemical and Biological Weapons on Humans.

Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans (Paperback)

Also perhaps chemtrails are a medium of protection, A blanket to deflect frequencies aimed towards us and such from enemies. I wont explain really it's only an theory but these links might peace a clue.

One study looked at over 100 earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.0 or larger in Taiwan over several decades. The researchers found that almost all of the earthquakes down to a depth of about 35km were preceded by distinct electrical disturbances in the ionosphere.

Plan for
quake 'warning system'

The HAARP program is committed to developing a world class ionospheric research facility consisting of: The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI), a high power transmitter facility operating in the High Frequency (HF) range. The IRI will be used to temporarily excite a limited area of the ionosphere for scientific study.
A sophisticated suite of scientific (or diagnostic) instruments that will be used to observe the physical processes that occur in the excited region.

HAARP Home Page

Be a tool for geophysical probing to find oil, gas and mineral deposits over a large area

HAARP.NET

So perhaps we are making a shield to avoid our lands being probed by foriegn countries, and perhaps there may be some substance into a correalation of HAARP and earth quakes, while Chemtrails act as a protective barrier lol I dont know. Or maybe the properties of chemtrails act as a medium for high RF signals or even to be intensified into a plasma shield I don't know.

My thing Is I don't doubt the possibilty of it all so I'm into looking at why? what for?



So do you doubt the possibility and plausibility of such a program?

reply to post by GodshipForAll


I grew up in Richland WA where this happened......community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...