Chemtrails being produced through nozzle at aft of jet engine?

reply to post by deprogrammer

ORLY??

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.

This came from Carol Rosin, one of the primary writers of the Space Preservation Act…

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.

So how does this bill validate that Chemtrails exist? It simply mentions them as a possible future weapon, sort of like photon torpedos.
In other words science fiction type stuff.

Cool video here I suppose the hollow nozzle and mixture of EDB into the jet fuel seems the most likely (to me) as it seems the most simply done. I am a chemtrail believer and there's many others. This video is great and has many good points of interest.

Originally posted by dan steely
Little known fact: all British troop carriers Have there seats opposite to the direction of flight, commercial aircraft do not, unless once again this has changed.

Really? Every time I went in a C-130 there wasn't any bloody seats, except some kind of benches around the edge, C-17's have seating arranged in the direction of flight and Chinooks do also. What troops carriers are you referring to?

As for this chemtrail nonsense, I though weedwacker did an outstanding job explaining this quite clearly, yet many seem to gloss over his input and keep asking the same questions that have already been soundly answered.

Originally posted by Marrr
Think of your car on a cold, Winters day. As you drive down the street, does the exhaust leaving your tailpipe form one bigasz contrail behind your vehicle, that slowly spreads out to many thousands of feet over time? No, it does not. While this may not be the most valid analogy, I've always liked it.

I like the Simpsons, but citing that as any sort of evidence for anything is about as accurate as what your alluding to with your analogy here. Comparing the exhaust from cars at ground level, where atmospheric conditions are vastly different to 35K ft, to Jet contrails is absurd.

I like how these chemtrailers keep on threads like this, but as soon as I give them a chance (by creating a research thread) to prove me wrong, they completely avoid the thread?

It shows how weak the argument really is

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Well, I guess I'll have to give myself a win on this debate.

No one can tell my why there is a hole in the nozzle.

Dude, there has been AT LEAST three attempts by weedwacker, if not more, to explain what that nozzle is. You have chosen to ignore it, probably because it makes your own crackpot theory seem silly.

Instead, you are looking for someone to confirm your theory and dismiss contradicting evidence as false, even if it comes from trained professionals who deal with the very thing you are hypothesising about every day.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
I like how these chemtrailers keep on threads like this, but as soon as I give them a chance (by creating a research thread) to prove me wrong, they completely avoid the thread?

It shows how weak the argument really is

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Umm, on this page there are three "chemtrail debunkers" and one chemtrail believer so far. Two counting me.

The bigger the lie, the harder they fight to keep it from being exposed, I guess.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Udontknowme]

Originally posted by Darthswan
I have taken numerous pictures of Condensation Trails and Chemical Trails. The Con-trails seem to dissapate over a period of time, the "Chem-trails" seem to last longer and they form Cirrus clouds.

So, under your logic, if it dissipates then it must be a contrail; and, if it persists them it must be a "chem-trail."

This has no basis in reality, science or logic.

Note how much of the "chem-trail" faith is based on "it seems," "it's possible that ... ," and "could" premises, follwed by an "it must be" conclusion.

This is not how critical observation and thinking works. It's great philosophically, but adds nothing to basic understanding of what is actually going on around us.

The usual reply to an obvious (and usually inevitable) contradiction among these faithful is the 'ad hominem,' a "straw man" postulate, or just plain refusal to read and consider a factual analysis, including pictures and diagrams.

Chem-trail advocates who stretch to find support, selectively quote otherwise contradictory information, and ignore fact diminish whatever credibility serious research of the "phenomenon" has developed. (Not that there is any; just giving the benefit of the doubt.)

This thread thus far is an excellent example of the fultility to trying show a "believer" that his loyalty or faith is misbegotten.

I can't see how 'weedwhacker,' oz, and others even bother to continue.
I occasionally check these threads to see if something new has developed or just for grins. I've yet to learn anything but great meteorology and some A&P insight. Don't you guys ever learn? These posts are for glad-handing among the faithful, not scientific exposition or discovery.

Logic and fact, alone or in concert, cannot convince the faithful that their god is false.

"You can't argue with a sick mind." Joe Walsh, 1976.

Deny ignorance!

jw

reply to post by Udontknowme

The bigger the lie, the harder they fight to keep it from being exposed, I guess.

"Chemtrails" is the lie. It is only "big" on the InterTubes. AND, yes, bigger this "chemtrail" lie gets, and as it is exposed as the nonsense that it is, the harder 'they' fight with ever-increasingly outlandish and non-sequitor attempts at 'connecting' unrelated topics in a desperate need to "prove" they are right...and to keep getting traffic to their websites, and to sell their DVDs and T-shirts and hats....

reply to post by jdub297

This thread thus far is an excellent example of the fultility to trying show a "believer" that his loyalty or faith is misbegotten.

I can't see how 'weedwhacker,' oz, and others even bother to continue.

Excellent observation and description of the issue.

Don't know about Oz, but I think it's sad that some lurking reader may come along, see the junk being thrown out by the "chemtrail" nonsense spouters, and believe it. Having a rational, logical point of view to counter the BS is important.

WW, you must be a masochist to continue rational explanations after these wackos ignore everything you say.......

The highest levels of spray science and technology are required in the design, testing and analysis of gas turbine aircraft engines.

www.normanchigier.com...

I just keep posting facts.

L

reply to post by Udontknowme


"You" just 'keep posting facts"??!!??

No, "you" aren't...you twist, then post. Really, the ignorance is overwhelming.

From the REST of your excerpt up above:

These very stringent combustion conditions require a high degree of control of fuel injection, atomization, droplet trajectories and airflow fields in each component of the stratified charge engine.

Read VERY carefully....they are talking about spraying the fuel INSIDE the engine's combustion chamber, in order to maximize efficiency in the burn, and to MINIMIZE what comes out as pollution!!!

I do not understand your continued trolling of this subject. NOTHING you present has ever been shown to be anything but a misrepresentation of facts. Much like the "chemtrail" websites that started this entire paranoid frenzy in the first place.

the hole in the exhaust nozzle is simply an oil vent tube, much like a PCV valve on a car,as for your chemtrail the only thing that is coming out the back of that engine is exhaust much like cars so maybe at high altitudes and fast speeds the exhaust trail looks like what you call a chemtrail.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by kbro002000]