Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

reply to post by apex


apex....I hate to drop a bomb for MyNameIs....but you made good points, about curved contrails.

One thing, mentioned MANY pages ago, is the holding pattern.

IF a contrail forms while a jet is 'holding', it will look like an oval, from the ground.

Of course, I assume that everyone knows how a jet turns, correct? A bank angle of 25 degrees will result in a smooth curve, the radius will vary depending on the speed. Simple physics, and aerodynamics.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The Concorde SST did not have ABs.....they climbed to the appropriate altitude, higher than, say a B747 or B767 and just accelerated, under normal max power settings, because the airplane was designed to make it through the 'sound barrier' without experiencing the 'mach-tuck' characteristics of conventional jetliners.

Actually, she did. You should have been standing by the runway when that beast was taking off. It was almost as bad as a B-1.

She would use the afterburners on take-off, then shut them down for noise abatement. After clearing the noise abatement area, they would light them again for about 10 minutes, to accelerate up to about Mach 1.7.

newsimg.bbc.co.uk...
cdn-www.airliners.net...

Concorde is the only civil airliner in service with a 'military style' afterburner system installed to produce more power at key stages of the flight. The reheat system, as it is officially known, injects fuel into the exhaust, and provides 6,000Lb of the total available thrust per engine at take off. This hotter faster exhaust that is used on take off and is what is mainly responsible for the additional noise that Concorde makes. The reheats are turned off shortly after take off when Concorde reaches the noise abatement area.

The reheats are turned back on, by the piano switches behind the thrust leavers, for around 10 minutes once the aircraft is clear of land, to push the aircraft through Mach1 and on to Mach1.7 where they are no longer required.

Here's an interesting bit about the throttles in the Concorde.....

The Aircraft has an electrically controlled throttle system that is used to control the power delivered from the engines. Moving the throttle leavers asks the computer to apply the power to the engines in a correct and controlled manner. Through throttle master controls on the overhead panel, each engine can be either connected to the throttle lever (main) to an alternate controller or not controlled at all.

The engines also have ratings where they can be selected to different power or rating settings for different parts of the flight. eg take off or cruise. A contingency setting is available for use during engine failure and more power that normal is required from the remaining engines

There are two auto-throttles systems fitted to the aircraft that are associated with the autopilot systems. Each engine can be manually disconnected from the auto-throttle system if required. The Autopilot and auto throttle system will be described in another section of the site.

www.concordesst.com...

reply to post by Clearskies


My position is all that was asked is one screen shot. well about 20 were produced. But the main thing is to prove OZ correct one only need to go outside on a cloudless day and look up. The conditions that make clouds are the same that make con trails. Since I am not a metorologist, I will not pretend to know anything more than what I have read in this post. But I noticed that all the planes flying are not showing a con trail today. So it would seem that they are not showing a chem trail today either. It can't be both ways. If the proof is "look at them!" then what do I look at on a day like this to see the evidence of governmnet spray poisoning? Did the pilots all take today off?

reply to post by Zaphod58


Oh...OK.....my bad....

But, why need AB just for the take-off and initial climb?

Oh well....maybe that explains their short range?

Still, an amazing machine!

Sorry....I fell into 'chat-mode'. Don't answer online, please!!!

I just wanted to ackowliedge my (one) mistake!!!

EDIT....oh! I'll go to that link...man, fun fun fun!

[edit on 3/18/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by MyNameIsNobody

 

.... IF you're referring to the X-1, with pilot Chuck Yeager.... that was a rocket engine, providing the thrust, as the subject of the 'sound barrier' was being studied.

(Must answer this one more.) No, I didn’t know that aircraft had a special engine/rocket engine. What I wrote referred to ‘regular’ engines. But then, as far as it was a special/rocket engine, what’s your main point to mention it at all, as ROCKETS often produce considerable contrails/smoke. And, as it was so special, where’s the connection between this Cuck Yeager side topic and the main chemtrail issue, which this thread is about, and which we face every day, certainly not caused by rockets.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]

This is the exact same pattern as other chemtrail debunking threads. Meteorological data followed by inane ramblings about technical details on aircraft. Of course, criticizing the debunkers gets moderation censorship, constant off topic posts by them goes unmoderated.

Watch this post get deleted as these folks continue hiding what is happening above the heads of most of the people in the western world, at least.

reply to post by network dude


Contrails, persistent and otherwise, only form at altitudes where the temperature is low enough and the humidity high enough.

If the atmospheric conditions are not right at the altitude the aircraft are flying, contrails do not form.

reply to post by Zepherian


Zeph....I know, you're offline now.

BUT, when actual science is presented, then why is a clinging to false assumptions so important?

ALL of the info brought into this thread is meant to flesh out, to thoroughly explain. It is not disinfo, it is info!

This is a very complex subject, with many disciplines chiming in. The vast majority of experience presented, so far, is outstanding.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Zepherian

 

Zeph....I know, you're offline now.

BUT, when actual science is presented, then why is a clinging to false assumptions so important?

ALL of the info brought into this thread is meant to flesh out, to thoroughly explain. It is not disinfo, it is info!

This is a very complex subject, with many disciplines chiming in. The vast majority of experience presented, so far, is outstanding.

Are you also a priest at the altar of science? Science is a method. Data is a source. Presenting data does not science make. Real science implies data, interpretation and review. Notice that I didn't say peer review, because I loathe the concept of validation by authority.

History has shown that the best 'science' has been done by the mavericks, not by the mainstream, the repeaters.

No, what is being done in this thread is not science. It's obfuscation under a psuedo scientific cloak. It's raw data thrown in as padding for an interpretation of a phenomenon - chemtrails - that was done ad hoc (ie, with an agenda, with a goal) and a priori (before the fact). What is being done in this thread is an insult to history, an insult to truth.

Again, I urge the few people still honestly following this thread to find the truth of chemtrails not with a few strangers on the internet masquerading as authorities, but to go out and see it over their own heads, correlating with data about air traffic that can be obtained from various sources, such as tracking sites, airport sites, ATC, government agencies and so on.

Ignore the people saying "Hey look, this is how a cloud works, see? There can't be any chemtrails!" and trying to pass it off as science.

Mod Edit - removed off topic, non contributing remark. Discuss the topic, not the people please


[edit on 18/3/09 by neformore]

reply to post by Zepherian


Nope, Zepherian....your 'meme' seems to need some healing.

Meteorology is NOT a 'pseudo-science'. In fact, not even sure what you mean, by that.

Science is something that is observable, and repeatable. AND subject to peer review, by others in a particular field, who also see the same things, through repeatable observations.

THAT is science.

'pseudo-science' is the lingering claims of amateurs who (not calling you an amateur) who use their uneducated 'eyewitness' observations to draw incorrect conclusions.

Off topic....I recently helped another member who wondered why satellites burn up in the atmosphere, and airplanes do not. Seriously....it was a naive question, and I answered without scorn or sarcasm.

Because.....ignorance is NOT an insult. It is simply, a lack of knowledge.

Newborn babies are, by definition, 'ignorant' (although there are certain instincts) but, of course, education defeats 'ignorance'.

Ignorance is NOT a pejorative term!

Hi, honest ones !

www.chemtrailcentral.com...

Look about 3/4 down in the page :

[ Persistance by date for identifiable and Unidentifiable ]

The graph with 4 pink dots above 20000 under 25000.

! That graph SAYS IT ALL !

?? How come the **Unidentifiable** ones leave
never-ending chemtrails ??

Blue skies.

reply to post by C-JEAN


Well....C-JEAN....exactly what(?) should we be looking for???

I bit on that link of yours, and it was garbage.

So, which 'camp' are you in? As I mentioned up above, I see two camps.

'Camp One' sees the high-altitude 'spraying as trying to affect the albedo of the planet, for climate reasons.

'Camp Two' sees the 'spraying' as trying to poison people. Maybe you could called it the 'scorched Earth' theory?

Either way, neither 'camp' has done anything, nor proved anything, to support their claims in the face of real-world science.

What I see is a hodge-podge, clumsy mixing of the two concepts....with no clear understanding of ANY of the science involved, let alone the iincredible vast impossibity of such an undertaking going unnoticed.

I will repeat, succinctly....'Camp One' concept, affecting the albedo...should be done over the oceans.

'Camp Two' concept, should be done in clouds, such as cumulus and cumulo-nimbus, so as to precipate on target areas.

Otherwise, why bother?





'

reply to post by C-JEAN


The chart shows nothing. There was no altitude data for the unidentified flights. Without altitudes, the chart is meaningless.

That report is ridiculous. It is based on incomplete and flawed data. The data used does not come from physical soundings (by balloons), it is derived from GOES satellites. While the GOES data is generally accurate enough for forecasting purposes, it can vary quite a bit from the actual upper air conditions. The GOES data often misses changes in temperature and dewpoint which can appear in thin layers of only several hundred feet thick. These differences can and do result in difference in contrail production. The "researcher" believes that by taking the "best case" conditions from the GOES data, he is arriving at valid conclusions. He is not.


[edit on 3/18/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi, honest ones !

www.chemtrailcentral.com...

Look about 3/4 down in the page :

[ Persistance by date for identifiable and Unidentifiable ]

The graph with 4 pink dots above 20000 under 25000.

! That graph SAYS IT ALL !

?? How come the **Unidentifiable** ones leave
never-ending chemtrails ??

Blue skies.

Wow i hope that whoever put that together didnt wate too much time. In other words made it up since its a ashame that they tried to use satellite data for base and didnt realize what they needed was weather balloons it is the only way to get accurate readings at varying altitudes. You cant possibly believe that the satellite can give you wind variables do you? To answer your question the unknown flights were very likely military when the pass through an area and the aircraft is capable they will all ways go high altitude to avoid disturbance of local traffic and partly the fighter jocks like it. I have a friend who is an f16 pilot he loves doing air shows just so he can fly across country.

Originally posted by Zepherian
This is the exact same pattern as other chemtrail debunking threads. Meteorological data followed by inane ramblings about technical details on aircraft.

Maybe if someone could debunk the meteorological data and the numerous scientific papers dating back to 1970 that keep getting ignored by the believers?

Someone is obviously mistaken. But there;s so far no evidence or even suggestion that it;s the meteorlogists who have bene observing and studying persistent contrails since the 1920s.

Doesn't mean there are no chemtrails. But why do people think what they see are chemtrails when all the evidence says otherwise?

reply to post by OzWeatherman


Seems to me that you admit that planes do spray stuff into the air that aren't contrails. What makes you so sure that the planes supposedly seeding clouds are not spraying other stuff on occasion?

I have on several occasions with binoculars seen these planes going back and forth spraying stuff in grids. Maybe they are just seeding clouds? If so, noone is admitting this either.

Bottom line is planes are spraying stuff. If the intent is not nefarious, which it may not be, then they should go public with what they are doing.

reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity


In order to seed clouds (to create precipitation) there needs to be low level, moisture bearing clouds, already in existence. You can't see cloud seeding because the aircraft involved are flying over or through clouds.

Rain falls only from low levels clouds. At the altidue at which so-called chemtrails form it's way too cold and any possible precipitation will evaporate long before it reaches the ground.

Check out a weather book in your local library


(I think there's an ongoing problem with people mistakenly thinking that cloud seeding means to produce or grow clouds - it actually means seeding pre-existing clouds with particles around which raindrops may form)

reply to post by C0bzz


Feeeeeed meeee.

Okay . Lets do it this way. Why does the new airbus engine run so much cooler than a 707 ? Answer ; because it has a magnet runner incorporated into the turbine itself. Magnet runnners run COLD ,REALLY COLD . They also reduce the effective mass of the aircraft increasing fuel efficiency .
No wonder boieng does not like competition.....

But lets get back on topic here because I am the only one who gets posts removed when I drift .

If raptor is no longer black its because its no longer STOA. Simple .well we proved that much to them with our 'outdated' F111's.

But VLO is the whole point of the game and on that we can agree.

So you have a vlo craft enter your airspace . You cant see him on radar , or any other part of the spectrum .So what do you do to 'smoke' him out . Why you paint him of course ,with particulates laid out in the air. he flies through that crud and it sticks to his airframe YES ?

Now passive radar . What do I mean by that ? Simple.

All around the country you have transmision towers constantly pumping out a broad NET of frequencies . As they interact with a MODIFIED atmosphere you get a MAP , a spiders web ,if you like . Anything that tries to sneak through that electromagnetic and chemical smoke is going to disturb that web . So even if the bogey does not get painted , the turbulence of his air frame passing through the air leaves an electromagnetically identifiable WAKE. Yeah baby , thats what we are talking about or did you not grasp the fact that elecrtomagnetic energy can travel through the air ? I could say more on this topic because I am only describing our defensive detection systems in simple terms . But its enough to give people a grasp of the concept even if you deniers have a vested interest in 'shooting me down'.

Its common sense mate , just common sense. Obviously its never occured to you that most public infrastructure has dual purposes besides being a metal bridge or a just a TV transmission aerial. Or an olympic stadium even ....

So a Defensive aircraft can be homed in on a bogey by control WITHOUT his own position being revealed because the com is encrypted in to the entire countries communications web. MODULATION MATE . PASSIVE radar . Thats why the US has tried to hold back upgrading our telecommunications systems .

Its just like chain home only far more sophisticated these days.

On board Radar is a lighthouse which just says 'shoot me here'.

But what you dont know about our modified F111's wont hurt you , so dont feel agrieved about being kept in the dark.
Now of course the ground crews are sad about loosing their grand old ladies knowing how sexed up they are behind that humble low tech cloak of outdatedeness . But we have far more advanced stuff to deal with external threats these days.

So rest easy me old cobber . The ADF has the technology and the best personel in the defence business . Brings a lump to my throat anyway.
maybe your not as patriotic as me though...

Now perhaps I should let you all get back to your boring off topic discussions about AB's .

I would rather pay homage to the TSR 2 and Barnes Wallis but thats off topic so I had better shut up quick smart.

Unlike our STOA warbirds that can drift and lurk WITHOUT REFUELLING for weeks at a time ,the raptor is ,well, somewhat limited, in that regard .

So I dont actually have a problem with chemical spraying for genuine defensive purposes . I DO have a problem with that tech being turned on civilians we are supposed to be protecting .

Today I spent 5 hours outside playing golf. I spent a bunch of time looking up. While swinging that isn't the best thing you can do. It was a beautiful day. Not a cloud in the sky. Not a contrail in the sky. The entire sky. I understand what Phage was saying about how clouds form, but the chem trailers keep talking about these visible trails lasting for hours. Where were they today? Do they not form into visible chemtrails when clouds are not present? If not, that would seem to go against your main argument here that they are much more visible that con trails. Why that would almost make them the same thing. Contrails.

reply to post by Mason mike


Hi Mr Mason....

In answer to your question, 'Chemtrails' will occur during anytime of day or night whenever it turns out that an aircraft is dispersing some type of chemicals into the atmosphere.

Here is an article by a Cdn journalist that sites some of the concern by ATC in Cda.

Here


And here is a picture of what 'CHEMTRAILS' look like from up above... just in case yout think their contrails.
Here

Other really neat info is available here, with lots of neat pictures too.

The author of the OP seems to think that people must 'Debunk' his data on the OP. That would be like me having a thread titled 'Will a new messiah be here soon?' and then say 'Debunk' it. Well if you have a website and millions of people around the world that say this new messiah is coming, even if you know in your little heart of hearts that it can't be true. Does this mean that all the so-called miracles and writings that have been put forth are figments of our imagination. I don't believe for one minute that this new messiah is real but I do believe they have groups of people out there that will raise his awareness to the general population through their lies and deceit.

As to debunking the OP, it has been proven on almost every page that the OP data is only there to confuse the many that don't know how to read WX data. WX data is not needed to see what is clearly infront of those that have seen and taken countless pictures of these chemical poison trails. Whether they be for Wx manipulation or for seeing and following the average person on the ground using HAARP and its barium transmission, it is affecting the population of earth. This very fact has been proven also by the large amounts of documents that have come from the governments that state they have intentionally poisoned their citizens. Now we ignore these facts until someone years later will again get caught and own up to their misdoings again.

Its sad how we as humans believe we are the most intelligent living on earth. We are far from it.