Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
LMAO you used old WW2 Bombers again to demonstrate heavy contrail formation which is ludricous... Those older engines emmit much more particles then you'r modern day jet.. Its like comparing a modern day ford mustang to an old model T lol nice work oz

What post, and who were you referring to about the bombers?
Also the exhaust from the old radial piston engine aircraft would be more akin to the gray/black smoke seen in the B-52 footage above. However, Piston engines can make contrails the same as jets can, same as your car or your breath does on a cold morning.

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
This is true because the emissions can more easily ice up pretty quick if its contrail is originally cooler... obviously if its warmer it will be more difficult for particles to ice up at lower altitudes... so yes it is possible that more modern aircrafts are showing more contrails at lower altitudes...

Makes sense.
Thanks…

Again... old bomber planes Emmit more particles in exhaust... which equal more particle to ice up .. which equal more CONTRAILS....NO ITS NOT THE SAME to even compare both technologies is ludicrous even with the new cooler engines...NOT EVEN CLOSE

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
LMAO you used old WW2 Bombers again to demonstrate heavy contrail formation which is ludricous... Those older engines emmit much more particles then you'r modern day jet.. Its like comparing a modern day ford mustang to an old model T lol nice work oz

Jokes on you

Why dont you do search for clouds on wiki or google. You will probably be surprised to find that
If you cant be bothered checking, then go back a few pages where I explained this process

particulates in the atmosphere actually stimulate the growth of ice crystals, as they provide a nucleus for the water vapour to attach to. This is another reason why the contrails only consist of exhaust material and water vapour

ok lol

Are you even remotely implying that an older WW2 bomber will emmit the same exhaust particles as a modern day jet.......................................????

[edit on 17-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 17-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]

hey OZ what do you think of that fallout calculator?? nifty little thing ? well I guarantee you the U.S goverment has something on the order's of 1,000 times more advance... and can plugin ALL weather variables... and hit the target EXACTLY on the dot.. even with moderate winds....

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Again... old bomber planes Emmit more particles in exhaust... which equal more particle to ice up .. which equal more CONTRAILS....NO ITS NOT THE SAME to even compare both technologies is ludicrous even with the new cooler engines...NOT EVEN CLOSE

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Are you even remotely implying that an older WW2 bomber will emmit the same exhaust particles as a modern day jet.......................................????

I never said they didn’t have heavier exhaust, I simply stated that they were more prone to emitting the black/grayish exhaust smoke as I showed in the B-52 footage above. A lot of your older engines were big smokers, DC-8’s, B707’s, and B-52’s included. I am not sure where you are going with this though as while they might have made even worse contrails due to having more material for the ice particles to cling too, there were far fewer flights back then, and they did not fly as high as we do today.

Maybe a bigger question is why you had to repost my entire post twice to address the same question, and still manage to misunderstand what I was stating?

The excessive LOL’s tells me though that you are baiting for an argument. That as well as re-posting entire quotes is a no-no on ATS.

the excessive LOL's are because this is funny as hell LOL so you agree then that an old WW2 bomber will emmit much more particles then a modern day jet that will ice up and therefore create much heavier contrails?

reply to post by thefreepatriot



That argument is flawed and you know it, a good percentage of chemtrail reports are reported directly over towns and cities.

Don't believe me?

I Don't Want to Believe... Chemtrails, 03/10/2009, Sunnyvale, CA, Pics.

Massive Chemtrails Over LA??? Pictures!!

Chemtrails over NY/NJ???? Why so many?

Blatant Chemtrail Spraying in Vancouver, British Columbia

More Chemtrails Over Chattanooga, Tn- 56k beware

Chemtrails over Kent

Chemtrails over downtown of Knoxville, TN (PICS)

Chemtrails Over Chattanooga, TN (Warning, Big Pics)

Chemtrails Over Portland OR 23/11/08

Chemtrail Halo Victoria BC 18/11/2008


So tell me, what's going on here then?

reply to post by Chadwickus



I am sure many chemtrails are reported over major cities(highest population centers) if it was a windy day all the sprayers had to do is move up against the wind a bit... just enough to where the chemtrails will drift with the clouds to be over the cities..., or I am sure if they where spraying they would prefer to spray in ideal conditions where there's very little wind.. There really isn't proof on either side its all conjecture, however if I see one side is coming in with ludricious info to back up there claim's I will call them out as I see them....

reply to post by thefreepatriot


gave you a star using logic there... however it is plausible that if there was
chem spraying going on #1 it would be targeted more to high population centers #2 more people would witness it and #3 more chem trails would be misidentified as chemtrails as these are high traffic areas and there's more people that would be witnessing it.. I believe a good percentage of chemtrails are misidentified contrails...

reply to post by thefreepatriot


The calculator works fine for a single windspeed and direction but in the real world windspeed and direction usually change quite a bit with altitude.
Try figuring out where something dropped from 30,000 feet over Charleston would end up. Wind direction and speed are in the 7th and 8th columns. Keep in mind though that this is what the wind over Charleston was doing when the balloon was sent up. It changes over time and location so when the chems get to a lower level some distance away and some time later, you're going to need a whole new set of data.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/a4df9911637a2830.png[/atsimg]

The sr71 blackbird only became public knowledge when it was obsolete .

No, Sr-71 became public knowledge in the same year as it first flew. Given the relatively small size of our military budget it is difficult to believe that would be offset for black budgets, even though we have little technological base for such programmes, and the money would best on to real defense...

Oh dear , another desperate attempt to save face from some low level cover up artist .

From some low level cover up artist? The fact of the matter is your arguements are so laughable at best, that they are almost not worth time at all; however they are such fun to read, and reply to. It's merely delusional humor made up in the back of your mind. Little about the capabilities and numbers of the F-22 and F-111 are classified, except for specific details; for example, the VLO technology, and software. That is public knowledge and verified, since neither programmes were ever black. Until you prove it, you're posting junk hyperbole, which doesn't work, as it's only made up garbage with no bearing on reality, as there is a complete absence of evidence pointing to what you're saying.

fact is you are masquerading as ADF personel to blow yet more smoke on the debate . you are comparing apples and pears .

The same way you are masquerading as a "RECONPILOT"? Pahlease, you hypocrite; try again.

Yes, I am comparing apples to pears. F-111 is not designed fly on the level of the F-22. They are not even in the same class. So yes, Apples and Pears; a modern air dominance fighter, versus an outdated unsurvivable PIG. This is open source and verified. You disagree? Prove it.

So name drop all you want. The fact of the matter is that everyone around here knows that what is shown to the public is only a fraction of what is on strength.

What is shown to the public is our current strength. Experimental one off's, and experimental hardware do not count as 'current strength'. Just ask Bill Sweetman, or Shadowhawk; I think he knows a little more about Hypersonic aircraft than you...

Your churning out meaningless and bogus statistics is laughable.

How is verifiable evidence that is well documented and agreed within the professional analyst community, laughable? Well then, why did I have your post linked from friends abroad? Or is somehow, personal hyperbole about fathers with security clearances and retired air marshalls somehow more credible these days?

So lets get real here and ask ourselves what is possible with an old air frame when it has anti grav ,full cloaking , dynamic shield generation for improved hypersonic performance and superior passive radar to the tired old overpriced raptor .

Which videogame is this from?

The (real) F-111 has none of them features; it does not even have a radar nor the capability to fire anything Air to air larger than an AIM-9, and the replacement that we take delivery of later this year just so happens to have the avionics, and many characteristics of the LO part of the future USAF HI - LO mix (F-22 - F-35 respectively). Now, without telling fairy tales from your 'family connections', please explain to me why this is wrong. Use facts this time.

Also, what is a "passive radar"? Do you even know what RADAR is? You do understand a pilot hasn't been rated on the F-111 since 2007? Do you, for the god knows how many'th time, know the F-111 doesn't even have a proper radar? The terrain following radar itself is abysmal simply because it can easily be detected by a modern digital RWR; look at the technology set behind it. I am not going to do it for you.

Why does your fantasy F-111 have all these fantasy features, whereas the F-22 doesn't? Can you actually answer the questions this time - they are not 'loaded'. Funny isnt it how YOU ignore the facts, evidence, and citations, of credible sources with a proven track record yet flock around the make believe, no evidence, personal hyperbole...

LMAO you used old WW2 Bombers again to demonstrate heavy contrail formation which is ludricous... Those older engines emmit much more particles then you'r modern day jet.. Its like comparing a modern day ford mustang to an old model T lol nice work oz

Water vapor is caused by the combustion of the fuel itself and the heat generated, and not so much particulate matter. Thus you have it the wrong way around.



The Boeing 707 will put out over twice the particulate emissions as the A340... The MAXIMUM temperature in the A340 will be far higher; but because of engine design the exhaust will actually be cooler.

[edit on 17/3/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by thefreepatriot



Well firstly that fall out calculator probably isn't going to be of much use, it should be fairly obvious why when you start throwing numbers in. (It doesn't account for multiple wind speeds or directions let alone any at high altitudes)


Secondly, there are numerous wind models around that scientists and meteorologists use.

So the government could use such a thing to spray for maximum effect.

But my question still stands, why do most chemtrail reports say they are over a city or town?

It's pretty obvious that they aren't going to land on the populated ares isn't it?

They're gonna land out to sea or out in the middle of nowhere.


Thirdly, such a wind model could actually be very handy to debunk most chemtrail sightings, not help prove them.


Cheers








[edit on 17-3-2009 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Phage


ahh phage... are you implying that the U.S military cannot plug in all the variables,calculate and accurately predict any fallout from a high altitude.....????

Just a reminder

This is NOT BTS

Please stop with the Chit Chat posts

Semper

reply to post by Chadwickus



I have said it before.... I am sure many chemtrail reports are misidentified... there is no way of knowing if a trail is a vapor trail or chemtrail unless you actually directly get a sample... many reports are misidentified contrails.........would you bet your salary that those reports are actual chemtrails?? are the reports truly accurate and reported by reputable people? off coarse not.......

[edit on 17-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]

reply to post by C0bzz



so you are saying contrails are formed mostly on the basis of water vapor..........?and particulate matter does not help very much in the formation of contrails??????

reply to post by Chadwickus



I never implied that the little java applet had much use in the calculation of "chemtrails" targeting just that the government has one much more sophisticated that could.

reply to post by thefreepatriot


We know I don't believe them to be chemtrails, so the question now is, do you agree that all chemtrail sightings over cities and towns are just contrails?