Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

reply to post by MyNameIsNobody


I believe that the contrail from that flight was also condensation from the X-1's engine. Smoke dissipates rapidly, and is usually grey or black in color. Oh, BTW there are contrails in the movie “The Right Stuff” several times, including here...

The Right Stuff (1983):

I cannot find the footage on Youtube, but there is a very clear picture in that movie which appears to be actual Black and White footage of the contrail left by the X-1 while breaking the barrier, as well as later in the movie of the B-29's and test aircraft leaving contrails.

Most of the smoke that comes off the shuttle launches is similarly water/steam, its not smoke:

The white smoke that you see when the shuttle is launched, is actually steam from evaporating water. Water is used to reduce the risk of fire as well as for sound suppression. The sound suppression system works by flooding the launch area with about a million litres of water just before ignition. The water absorbs the tremendous sound waves created by the rockets. Without the water, the sound waves would damage the space shuttle and launch pad.

Which is why Russian Rockets don't create similar clouds of smoke.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by defcon5]

reply to post by OzWeatherman


No not threatened mister Oz.... but like you said earlier ....

If you think Im leading you to your death, then dont follow, I never told you to. This thread is more for the newer members that sit on the fence,

Your leading the newer members and those that are not as knowledgeable to the fact that the government is admittedly poisoning and killing people into a death by preventing the real facts from coming out..... And your statement above clearly shows that you believe its to their death. I could be reading too much into your statement like you do with your facts but I don't think so.

I'm sure your making your handlers very happy...

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Please address the issue at hand and refrain from attacking fellow members.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by maria_stardust]

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Your leading the newer members and those that are not as knowledgeable to the fact that the government is admittedly poisoning and killing people into a death by preventing the real facts from coming out..... And your statement above clearly shows that you believe its to their death. I could be reading too much into your statement like you do with your facts but I don't think so.

Im giving the newer members a logical alternate version to the chemtrail theory, the version which is a known meteorological and scientific process.

You forgot to mention the part where I said, nobody had addressed the opening post to try and disprove the science.....but I guess I shouldnt expect to much from the people that resort to labelling when their opinion is challenged should I

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Also, the same group of hard-heads leaving the chemtrails to cloud our view. Oz, Zaphod58, fooffstarr,. WeedWacker.... I've noted a pattern to these and other posters on threads like this. Ask for intelligent discussion and then slam them down when they provide any valid data, making sure your posts have lots of nothing in them and that the valid posts get buried under the garbage.
[edit on 16-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

Now I'm a disinfo agent for trying to bring sanity back into this thread? Awesome.

At least that means I've got a job. You know what day my pay comes in? I could use it.

I'm actually on the fence about chemtrails. It is not a topic that overly interests me, and I came to the thread to see what arguments Oz had brought to the table, and how they were going to be challenged.

All I saw, reading through the first few pages, was attacks against him for his views and repeated posts of youtube videos.

There was, and still isn't no structured, scientific, logical posts that disprove anything he said in the opening post.

Excuse me for denying ignorance, but I call it how I see it. So far chemtrail believers have done nothing in this thread except personally attack members.

Don't forget that personal attacks are against the Terms and Conditions. Stating as fact that a member or members are agents with the purpose of derailing debate and spreading disinformation is targeting the poster, not the post. That constitutes a personal attack.

If you can't prove someone of being one of those sneaky government agents that roam around forums causing trouble, then keep your opinions of posters to yourself.

reply to post by fooffstarr


Face it my friend, thats all they have left.

Anyone who disagrees with the existence of chemtrails and actually brings forth credible, scientific data to prove their point or to show another side of the debate are automatically branded as dis-info agents or government shills.

Get used to it, im sure we'll hear a lot more before the day is done.

Originally posted by sensfan
So. fighter jets in the middle of high altitude dogfights in WWII were spraying chemicals?

No, that's called hydrocarbon exhaust particulates from PISTON ENGINES.

And what is this?

Debunkers crack me up. Just like their ridiculous claims that the water vapor in contrails is the same physical process that forms clouds, they have a hard time distinguishing between a WW II piston engine and a modern jet turbine.

reply to post by AllTiedTogether



Well they certainly wouldn't fall straight back down would they, so anyone claiming their city or town is being sprayed because the 'chemtrails' are over them is an idiot.

Why don't you test it out, buy a helium balloon, release it on a dead calm day and watch where it goes, I guarantee you it won't be straight up the whole way.

Also, here's another angle for you to consider:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a list I've drawn up showing the TOTAL amount (in pounds) of barium, aluminium and their alternate forms released over 10 years.

• 1997 - 41,479,841
  
• 1998 - 273,161,271
  
• 1999 - 367,405,383
  
• 2000 - 381,077,404
  
• 2001 - 300,338,671
  
• 2002 - 255,367,294
  
• 2003 - 252,116,329
  
• 2004 - 283,923,691
  
• 2005 - 286,765,468
  
• 2006 - 272,520,410
  
• TOTAL - 2,714,155,762
  

2,714,155,762 pounds or 1,231,120,344.6 Kilograms!

From just two chemicals.

Why bother spraying chemtrails when mines and factories belch out all this waste, not only in the air but into ground sources as well.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Well they've already admitted to chemtrails in 107th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2977.

First off, the bill admitted nothing, it was written by private citizens. Secondly, H.R2977 pretty much made a fool out of Kuchinich:

One of the more pervasive myths regarding “chemtrails” is that current presidential candidate Dennis Kuchinich tried to have them banned by an act of congress, but was pressured by the government to modify the act to remove the mention of “chemtrails”.

So what really happened? In a nutshell, Kucinich did not write the bill (or read it, until too late), the focus of the bill is nothing to do with chemtrails, it was written by UFO enthusiasts trying to:
1.Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex”
2.Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy
3.Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.
They listed a bunch of weird weapons, including mind control, tectonic weapons and (very briefly) chemtrails. The bill was re-written several time in less unusual language to give it chance of passing, but ultimately fizzled in committee.

Yes, it even includes “extraterrestrial weapons”, meaning weapons created by aliens (or created from alien technology from crashed flying saucers at Roswell), as well as psychotronic (mind control) weapons. Yet somehow “chemtrails” gets all the attention here.

Who wrote this? The original language for the bill was actually created by Alfred Webre and Carol Rosin.

From the Writer of the bill itself:

From Carol Rosin
[email protected]
1-28-2
Perhaps I can help correct some fuzzy information that is being spread about H.R.3616, the Space Preservation Act of 2002, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
This bill will only ban space-based weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit. It is NOT a bill to ban chemtrails and/or psychotronics or mind control devises or any specific weapons listed in the category of definitions in the original bill.
I’m not sure where that rumor started, but in any case, those definitional were only listed on the original bill for definitional purposes…to exemplify what space-based weapons might be deployed in space if the space-based weapons bill isn’t passed. Frequently bills are revised, and things like definitions are removed. No big deal. The legislation is in no way compromised. This Congressman and his legislation maintain their integrity and commitment to ban space-based weapons. It was never a bill to ban chemtrails or mind control technologies.

After he nearly got laughed out of the house, he rewrote the bill minus the nut-case stuff.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
These jokers want you to believe that the 'chaff' that the military admits to using is OK, yet provides no proof that they are infact dropping 'chaff'.

Heck, chaff has been around since the end of WWII, I remember using chaff in the game F-15 Strike Eagle on the Commodore 64 back in the early 80's. In a nutshell chaff is nothing more then aluminum foil (the same as you guys wear on your heads), wrapped around an explosive charge. When that charge ignites it creates a cloud of fine particles of aluminum that confuses radar. Its no more harmful then the stuff you have sitting under your kitchen counter.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by defcon5]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
No, that's called hydrocarbon exhaust particulates from PISTON ENGINES.

Sorry chief they are black/gray like this:

Many older aircraft, like 707's, DC-8's, and B-52's emit them...

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by MyNameIsNobody

 

I believe that the contrail from that flight was also condensation from the engine of that aircraft. Smoke does not last long, dissipates pretty rapidly, and is usually grey or black in color. Oh, BTW there are contrails in the movie “The Right Stuff” several times, including here...

The Right Stuff (1983):

Oh, I see -- smoke dissipates quickly, but water vapor doesn't?

I'm not asking for evidence of contrails in a Hollywood SFX sequence.

I'm asking for evidence of these so-called "persistent contrails" in the background of ANY film, television program or commercial that was shot prior to 1998.

You see them everywhere on present-day films and TV shows. Why not before 1998?

A friendly reminder...

...that it is possible to discuss this issue with an iota of civility and decorum. In short attacking fellow members and accusing others of being government shills and disinfo agents is debasing to the spirit of ATS.

This type of unbecoming behavior stops now.

Please take a moment to review the following links.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Stay on Topic – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

Adherence to this simple request is expected.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Ok, so you dont think its water.....its not water at that height an dtemperature, its ice

Ever heard of the cloud types, cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus? They are the three major high clouds, comprising of ice

Just to remind you of what a cloud is

A cloud is a visible mass of droplets or frozen crystals floating in the atmosphere above the surface of the Earth or another planetary body

Just to remind you of how a cloud forms

As air parcels cool due to expansion of the rising air mass, water vapor begins to condense on condensation nuclei such as dust, ice, and salt

Therefore the dust and water vapour from an aircraft exhaust can from clouds, even thought they may be artificial

Here's a link to cirrus, just to remind you what it is

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 16/3/2009 by OzWeatherman]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I'm not asking for evidence of contrails in a Hollywood SFX sequence.

I'm asking for evidence of these so-called "persistent contrails" in the background of ANY film, television program or commercial that was shot prior to 1998.

You see them everywhere on present-day films and TV shows. Why not before 1998?

As already stated, which you chose to ignore, obviously because it hard to debunk this in favor of your pet theory:

Originally posted by defcon5

Back to the Future III (1990):

During the sequence with the Native Americans chasing the Delorean in the beginning, in one shot looking up at the sky you can see contrails from a plane, obviously not around in 1885.

Old Westerns:

I recall seeing contrails in the sky a couple of times on the old spaghetti westerns. Man, and to think it would take America West another 120 years to get a hub in Arizona.

The classic one, supposedly, was in a Wild West film and in the scene where the local Indians are attacking a wagon train; you can spot the contrail of a jet that had just flown over a few moments before the shot was taken. If goofs and guffaws set you chuckling, have a look at the Movie mistakes site as it shows goofs, bloopers, pictures, quotes and trivia from thousands of movies.

Maverick (1994):

Contrail visible in the sky behind Joseph while the missionaries, Coop and Anabelle are watching Bret parlay with the Indians.

SpaceBalls (1987):

When Lone Star and the princess are arguing in the desert about the luggage, you'll notice that there is a long stream of cloud in the sky clearly indicating that a jet had recently passed over prior to filming.

Patton (1970):

After acting as a traffic cop to direct two crossing columns of tanks and trucks, Patton steps off the barrel and goes to talk to Bradley. While talking to Bradley, a large jet contrail is visible in the sky behind Patton. Military use of jets in WWII came too late, and played virtually no role in the course of the war, let alone its outcome. It is unlikely there would have been a jet contrail visible in the sky at that time of the war.

Shall I continue with this?

Just run a Search on Movie Blooper Contrail, Movie Mistake Contrail, Movie Blooper Aircraft, Movie Mistake Aircraft.

Explain that or just admit defeat...

reply to post by OzWeatherman


The opening post was addressed and debunked by everyone that provided detailed verification of chemtrail existence. You just refuse to ignore it and continue to lead the masses that will follow like the pied piper....


Like I said, the masses are not stupid as you believe and will see through your guise of information, but I for one feel sorry for the few that will believe even the slightest bit of info from you. Proven wrong so many times and yet you still maintain that you have knowledge.

WOW!

Nobody should feel obligated to prove their geographical location to anyone. We all have the right to privacy here and if someone doesn't feel like they can trust the word of another member then don't trust them. Period, end of story. No need to have staff resolve ip address of members.

Originally posted by defcon5
....Watch the contrails behind the B-52's and chase aircraft...

Regarding this X-12/B52 video:

1) MOST sequences of the video depict no contrails at all. Now, if those “…trails” in the other parts of the video were basically CON-trails (hence caused by the heat of running engines) they would ALSO show up in all/most parts of the video. At least partially. Certain differences can be caused by differing temperature/altitudes. But the differences wouldn’t be THAT big. Conclusion: NO contrails (but: see "3").

2) ONLY VERY FEW sequences of the video MIGHT possibly depict real contrails (like 3:49-3:55). Such contrails can occur in very high altitudes & low temperatures. But they’re NOT dense and the video sequences do not show whether they persist.

2) ALMOST ALL sequences allegedly depicting “contrails” actually show smoke effected by strong acceleration, typical of older flight engines. For instance:
- 3:39-3:48
- 2:25
- 2:37
- 2:48
- 2:59
- 3:08
- and so on
You can clearly see the difference between ‘normal’ flight (showing no/no noticeable contrails, so there are no ‘contrails’) and SMOKE (NO contrails) caused by burning a lot of fuel while strongly accelerating, at: 3:56-4:00 of the video!!!

btw cool music ...

[edit on 17-3-2009 by MyNameIsNobody]

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


So please direct me to the post that proved silver iodide was not released at the heights I said they would

Please direct mt to the post that proved that hot engine exhaust thrust into a supercooled environment would not sublimate

Please direct me to the post that proved that something dropped from the atmosphere would land directly on the ground below where it was observed

Please direct me to the post that proved that the data I produced from a radiosonde (weather balloon) sounding was false

Please direct me to the post that proved that wind speed and direction cant affect a trail

Please direct me to the post where a chemtrailer proved that clouds are not formed through condensation, including that of ice

Please direct me to the post that proved that a saturated environemtn cant exist at airplane crusing altitude

Please direct me to the post that shows contrails do not spread out, (ased on science, not the fact that you just say they dont with no evidence)

Please direct me to the post where a chemtrailer displayed any knowledge about basic meteorology, chemistry or knowledge of the upper air dynamis, including weather conditions near the tropopause

Shall I continue?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Oh, I see -- smoke dissipates quickly, but water vapor doesn't?

Here:
This is a Contrail:


This is Smoke:


And this is Stream:


Caused by the water dumped on the shuttle pad at take off:
Nasa Sound Suppression Test

Which is why Russian Rockets don't leave a cloud behind them after the initial dust they kick up:


Got it now?

reply to post by Chadwickus


You are freakin awesome there chad... awesome...

Well they certainly wouldn't fall straight back down would they, so anyone claiming their city or town is being sprayed because the 'chemtrails' are over them is an idiot.

Nobody is claiming this and I would say that anyone using statements against like this against knowledgeable people is an idiot.

Why bother spraying chemtrails when mines and factories belch out all this waste, not only in the air but into ground sources as well.

Then there is the best of all in the groups fight against logic.... Why bother doing this when all the chemicals are being emitted at ground level... The fact that you guys can ask a question... WHY would they do that? Does it makes sense? NO so they must not be doing it... You guys have the answers to all the questions don't you...

Did you check out those levels yourself there chad or do you have a personal friend that verified the data you have?

Awesome




[edit on 16-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

Originally posted by maria_stardust

A friendly reminder...

...that it is possible to discuss this issue with an iota of civility and decorum. In short attacking fellow members and accusing others of being government shills and disinfo agents is debasing to the spirit of ATS.

This type of unbecoming behavior stops now.

Please take a moment to review the following links.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Stay on Topic – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

Adherence to this simple request is expected.

There are two sides to this post, which I think we have to seperate here.

1) Sure, courtesy should be required on any online discussion which is public. No argument there... however:

2) It has become apparent to quite a few of us posting here that disinformation is indeed being peddled on ATS. And not just by Obama or McCain supporters, but in actual topics of importance, especially things like chemtrails, where the threshold of reality is pretty close to the average sheep. So I don't think we'll ever have this debate without the acusational tone, because quite frankly it's almost impossible that some of these people, by their persistance in debunking, by their blindness to any and all information against their position, by their dishonest tricks, could be anything else but paid disinformation agents. As you should know it is now public knowledge that disinformation operations on the internet are indeed state (and corporate) funded and ongoing, so the reality of this sad situation is more or less solid. Besides, they are easy to spot, as they rarely add anything, rather go around focusing the same few arguments on a few key topics.

And yes, we know that to some degree even the staff of ATS has been compromised. I've participated in one of these chemtrail thread fiascos before, and to any intelligent and truth motivated observer it was obvious that the case for chemtrail was proven beyond any reasonable (ie, not just rhetorical) doubt. Yet ATS refuses to accept this. Chemtrails is the proven conspiracy, what we have in this thread is nothing but a contrived exercise in denial.

I won't even fall into the quagmire anymore, other posters have put up more than enough material to prove the case. This is similar to the 911 situation.

So you guys either grow some apropriate courage organs or just accept that by now the truth has pratically hit the group mind.

But yes, I'll try and keep common courtesy with everyone, that much is legitimate to ask, but pointing out the growing disinformation effort regarding chemtrails is not off topic or in any way should be repressed by the moderation, as you're only casting (yet more) doubt on yourselves at this point.