chemtrails over Florida 01-01-2012, page 10

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:10 PM

link

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by niceguybob

"geoengineered stuff" - what exactly is that?

Please enlighten us all...

I had a friend named George, called himself Geo,
and he worked at the proving grounds engineering stuff.
geoengineered

niceguybob

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 10:13 PM

link

Sorry, wrong website connect to Geo engineering on Wiki. Here's the correct one:
en.wikipedia.org...

I'm working on a project about how Cornstarch Lobbyists have stolen paid govenment employees votes here in California to BAN plastic based on misinformation on biodegragation and plastic in a landfill.

Please excuse the above reference and post to Wiki.

And please don't ask me to prove proof on topics that I cannot. It's a conspiracy site.

I CAN prove how Lobbiests shifted the elimimation of plastics in a landfill based on cornstarch lobbyests later.

That's easy. I have the proof. Read up on Gore.. He's a jerk. So's GeoChemcrap.

Do some research. I've posted on this topic before. I remain unchanged on it.

defcon5

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:26 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
How does the water vapor get removed from the exhaust gasses?

They are two different byproducts that are formed by two different processes. The pollutants are a byproduct of burning fossil fuel in any form, and the contrails are a byproduct of condensation from the hot gasses interacting with humid cold air. Two different chemical processes, two different resulting chemicals.

The proper conditions do not exist to make a gas, like carbon monoxide, turn into a liquid and form a new compound with the liquid condensation that is forming the trail.

When you see cars outside in the cold, and they are leaving a vapor trail behind them, do you think that the Carbon Monoxide that is a byproduct of internal combustion stays inside those vapor trails, or blows off and mixes into the atmosphere?

Same thing happens here.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
You are claiming that the trails are 100% water vapor and you are 100% WRONG.

They may have trace amounts of soot in them, but apparently not much or it would form rain.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
You are also downplaying the effects of the exhaust on the environment to what end?

I certainly am not, but what are you going to do about it?
Do you use electricity?
Drive a car?
Eat processed foods?
These things produce far more greenhouse gasses and pollution then aircraft do.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Do you like the contrails?

They don’t particularly bother me one way, or the other. To me they are simply man made clouds, and cause no permanent harm either way. There are a lot of more seriously harmful things happening to this planets atmosphere right now to be worried about, such as the methane leaks coming from Siberia.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Does someone pay you to defend contrails?

Nope. I wish someone would though.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Is this your personal mission to defend contrails?

No. I just see it as a completely silly topic that has been propagated by certain people on others to scare them, or even in some cases to fraudulently make money off them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

defcon5

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:28 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Afterthought
To those who are saying that the trails are 100% water vapor, at what temperature does water vapor become invisible?

I'm asking this because the trails seem to persist much longer than they should be able if they are only water vapor. The way they spread out does not seem natural if they are composed of 100% water vapor.

Contrails are man-made clouds, they can exist under the same conditions are clouds, and for the same amount of time as clouds. When you look up and see clouds, your seeing visible water vapor.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Gmoneycricket

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:36 PM

link

If you like cirrus clouds,
there is a aircraft product line,
and a clothing line.
Why fight it get your apparel here.
www.cirrusconnection.com...

edit on 4-1-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)

ProudBird

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:42 PM

link

reply to post by Gmoneycricket

Worst. Reach. Ever.

A "Cirrus" is just a type of light airplane.....by the company called "Cirrus".....

cirrusaircraft.com...

Gee, a little research brings great rewards in knowledge.

Gmoneycricket

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:51 PM

link

reply to post by ProudBird

I hope you got your pay and maybe a little overtime.
So are you going to order a coat?

Ps
It is only water vapor created out of burning kerosene
I have an inside source on here.

Only people that spend there life fighting Chemtrails really believe in them.

defcon5

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:10 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by niceguybob
Def, We are having RECORD setting warm temperatures here in Northern Nevada/Tahoe region.

As others have already mentioned its not the surface temperature, it’s the atmospheric temperature. When you compress a gas it gets hotter, that’s how a fire piston works. Conversely, when a gasses pressure decreases so does its temperature, which is why you sometimes see snow on the top of mountains but not below them.

This is the same reason why when you use a can of dusting air (canned air) it will become cold, and will actually form ice if you hold the button down long enough. This is because its temperature decreases as the air rapidly expands out of the can. It's also the same way that heat-pumps and air conditioners work.

So pressure, humidity, and temperature all have to be taken into account to some extent, and you need to know that information for that specific altitude, THEN you need to know the bypass ratio of the engine that is passing through that air mass.

Originally posted by niceguybob
Zig Zag Criss Cross My friend.

That is most likely nothing more then evidence of upper level winds affecting the contrail, which are not visible to your naked eyes. There are lots of currents in the atmosphere that are in constant motion, this is part of what makes things like gliding possible.

If you have ever watched skydivers, they will drop ribbons out of the aircraft as they ascend. That is so they can observe the winds at various levels, to know how its going to affect their jump.

Same thing here, parts of the contrail may be pushed by these wind currents while others may not be. The end result is that you end up with kinks in the contrail that look like zig-zags.

Originally posted by niceguybob
It completly clears up after 3-5 hours. Blue skies. BACK at it again, crisscross zig zag.
Gosh... Those flight patterns for commercial planes are just strange.

What your describing here is called a flight bank. What you’re seeing is commercial aircraft all reaching an area in a group, called a bank. Flights are scheduled in banks so that connections between flights are possible with minimal waiting between them.

So for example, all the morning flights leave between 6am and 7am, that’s one bank. There is now about a two hour gap before the next round of incoming flights hits the airport, while they travel their from their airports to yours. That’s why ramp crews get to spend so much time playing cards, watching tv, etc.

Between flight banks, after your gates are set up for the next round, you have nothing to do until the next bank arrives.

Anyway, that is why you see them all show up in an area at the same time, then trickle off and start up again.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Gridrebel

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:13 AM

link

I read the chem trial threads because I find them interesting and I am just drawn to them. I am in the MN/SD/ND area (yep, all three) and I RARELY ever see ANY trails from flying machines. I won’t call them chem or con trails. Just trails. In the last week, I have noticed some trails, very high up but long. Two to be exact. I just don’t see “trails” because I don't live under a common flight pattern area. Seriously, if I were to see one a month I would be surprised. The sky is usually clear, blue and beautiful with the exception of occasional normal clouds and cloud covering. This morning, I completed an errand and I noticed three trails all at one time in the sky, it was early, 10ish or so. Odd to have three trails. At 4:30pm, I had another errand to run and I could still see the original trails, but much more spread out, literally covering the sky as I see in many pictures and I thought WTF? So I was wondering, is it a temperature and wind flow issue? I don’t know but I have to wonder what in the world is going on.

edit on 5-1-2012 by Gridrebel because:

Gmoneycricket

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:17 AM

link

And I don't care if you believe in Chemtrails or Contrails, or spend your life fighting them.
It is your given right as a human to believe what you want.
The only time I feel the need to comment,
is when I see one person making fun of another for what they believe.
We are Americans we allow believe, regardless of our opinion.

Well if you want to beat me up for this, ok go ahead!

Take some pride in the ability of all, to voice their opinion, don't try to embarrass them to your believe.
And if you are getting paid to embarrass and mock, then that speaks volumes for the corporation you have decide to work for.

onecraftydude

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:38 AM

link

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by onecraftydude

I don't know much about sky heaters or sky sponges, but I can absolutely assume they are stupid ideas meant to make me look like a fool for complaining about the trails that block the sun that only exist because of airplanes.

You seem to be falling into the usual paranoiac chemtrailer trap of trying to make the discussion about you. If you cannot see my post as anything but a personal attack on you then perhaps you are a tad too precious to try to have a discussion with.

My post was just what it was, the only ways that I (as in ME) could think of, both rationally and irrationally, of facilitating the removal of visible trails. How MY stupid suggestion, for which I clearly accepted all responsibility, might reflect on YOU is a connection entirely of your own making.

I suppose you are a "Debunker"? Whatever your purpose for calling my idea of getting rid of these trails stupid, I really don't care.

I would hope that everyone should hope to be a debunker, as the opposite to a debunker is a liar, if you think about it logically. I prefer to use the term sceptic, because while I am open to ideas of what may be possible or may happen, I've not seen anything yet in favour of chemtrails that wasn't either faked, misrepresented or misunderstood. And you evidently cared just enough to reply

The point of this discussion is to get rid of something left behind by airplanes. It is not a natural occurrence and it does affect people directly such as myself. Call it selfish or naive or stupid all you like, but don't deny their existence or the impact of them because that truly is moronic.

So you tell us then, seeing as you have been making so much noise about it. How do you stop water vapour from freezing at -30 degrees, or how do you get this moisture to sublimate into already saturated air?

THAT is what you are asking to do, and it is a failure to understand that which is, to use your own term, moronic.

It is no good throwing in strawmen either. Nobody says that contrails are 100% water vapour, Nobody is defending trails, nobody denies they exist, and throwing out the accusation that people who disagree with your view are being paid to do so is the saddest sign of desperation and none of them do anything to promote your opinion.
There cannot be one person amongst us that would not welcome clean energy in abundance, but calling for trails to be banned with no knowledge of how or why they are there in the first place (and an open declaration of not caring why either) isn't going to achieve it.
edit on 4-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

If it makes you feel better we will stop saying we. I am sure your ideas were good ideas in your mind, but to US they seemed stupid and at least a poke at our intellect.

As to me being a chemmie, whatever. Do you suggest there is nothing in the exhaust except for water? NO? Well others have so you are wrong for assuming the debunkers are always right.

The only thing I have said over and over again is that airplanes leave persistent trails and they need to be gone from OUR skies. You can agree or disagree with that statement. I did not tell you you MUST agree or be labelled a traitor. I said you can't deny they exist or that they contain chemicals which someone tried to say they did not.

WE take it that your opinion is that airplanes make clouds and they always will so we should accept it and drink a beer. Is that correct? If so you need not post anything further because WE get the jist of your opinion.

You can not be for and against something. WE are against chemtrails/persistent contrails/sky turds.

onecraftydude

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:03 AM

link

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
How does the water vapor get removed from the exhaust gasses?

They are two different byproducts that are formed by two different processes. The pollutants are a byproduct of burning fossil fuel in any form, and the contrails are a byproduct of condensation from the hot gasses interacting with humid cold air. Two different chemical processes, two different resulting chemicals.

The proper conditions do not exist to make a gas, like carbon monoxide, turn into a liquid and form a new compound with the liquid condensation that is forming the trail.

When you see cars outside in the cold, and they are leaving a vapor trail behind them, do you think that the Carbon Monoxide that is a byproduct of internal combustion stays inside those vapor trails, or blows off and mixes into the atmosphere?

I have experience with exhaust gasses. I have tested plenty with a gas analyzer and there may be water vapor, but you better believe there are a ton of different gasses mixed in it. I am not a meteorologist or a scientist with a lab to test theories, but I think given time the gasses will separate from the jet exhaust and rise or fall. The exhaust gasses are mixed with the air coming out of the engine regardless of the amount of moisture mixed with it. But it was never my intention to debate the exhaust gasses.

Same thing happens here.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
You are claiming that the trails are 100% water vapor and you are 100% WRONG.

They may have trace amounts of soot in them, but apparently not much or it would form rain.

Then why not say that instead of what you said? If you claim to be accurate and intelligent being a debunker then at least be accurate?

Originally posted by onecraftydude
You are also downplaying the effects of the exhaust on the environment to what end?

I certainly am not, but what are you going to do about it?

I am going to raise awareness and whatever else is in my power to draw attention to the problem and look for solutions, what are YOU going to do?

Do you use electricity?

Yes. I also build my own solar panels so that I can lessen my impact on my environment and eventuall get off the grid altogether.

Drive a car?

Yes. I drive several vehicles and they all have improved exhaust emissions and better fuel mileage (30% more) with my patented hydrogen system installed.

Eat processed foods?

I have a greenhouse and grow a garden as well as an aquaponics system to supply fish for meat. I am not 100% self sufficient yet, but if I needed to be it would not be hard.

These things produce far more greenhouse gasses and pollution then aircraft do.

That's like saying "My son only stabbed that kid unlike that psycho that gunned down his classmates."

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Do you like the contrails?

They don’t particularly bother me one way, or the other. To me they are simply man made clouds, and cause no permanent harm either way. There are a lot of more seriously harmful things happening to this planets atmosphere right now to be worried about, such as the methane leaks coming from Siberia.

I can't do anything about Siberia, but these trails directly affect ME.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Does someone pay you to defend contrails?

Nope. I wish someone would though.

Originally posted by onecraftydude
Is this your personal mission to defend contrails?

No. I just see it as a completely silly topic that has been propagated by certain people on others to scare them, or even in some cases to fraudulently make money off them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

I am not trying to make money or scare anyone. I have not placed a link to anything resembling a "Chemmie" website. I just hate chemtrails/sky turds and want them out of my sky. You can have them in your sky since they don't bother you.

onecraftydude

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:14 AM

link

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by onecraftydude

So you agree then that "chemtrails" are the same things we've been studying for decades and which - I think - everyone agrees we'd rather not have other than that at present we don't have affordable technology to prevent them.

Question is: do you think we should ban people from flying until we can fly aircraft without contrails ever forming? Or do we just accept them. And lets face it, they do sometimes look quite pretty at sunset ......

If these are just regular emissions then I would suggest rerouting flights when the atmosphere is primed for them to form. Maybe they could be routed over your house or Defcons house so you could muse at their beauty at sundown.

I feel like my sky is my property. The reason I say that is that if I have a neighbor who flies a helicopter and he likes to hover over my house I should have the right to tell him to get out of my airspace. I feel the same way about these sky turds. They ruin my, and others, ability to store solar energy from the sun. There are water rights, property rights and mineral rights so why not sky rights?

onecraftydude

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:18 AM

link

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

See my rebuttal to defcon for your answer.

BTW, did you copy and paste his answers?

Imagewerx

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:23 AM

link

I've learnt a new word today,is "Chemmie" now the official name for someone who believes in chemtrails? Is there by the same way of thinking an official name for those who believe they don't exist?

Aaaaaahhhh yes I remember now we've had it for ages haven't we.........sane

ProudBird

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:29 AM

link

reply to post by onecraftydude

So......it is clear that the existence of normal contrails is understood, but you just don't like it?

I suggested (perhaps in another thread) that people have all sorts of "confirmation bias" going on.....specifically as to their poor and inaccurate (exaggerated) recollections of contrail, and frequency of occurrence, year-over-year.

The way to be more "accurate" as to the true frequency of persistent contrails would be to actually document...make the supreme effort to keep a diary or record, every day, same times of day (several times each) for an entire year, then compare the results. The actual number of instances of persistent contrails will then be seen, and proven, to be far fewer in number than were "remembered".

As to "complaining" about contrails in regards to one's Solar Power concerns? Demanding that everyone else adjust to just ONE person's desires isn't what living in a society is about.

Besides, there ARE places on this planet with very little overhead air traffic. Alternative locations to reside.

I can't help but be reminded of this, though....

"The Simpsons"....gotta love 'em!!

onecraftydude

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:18 PM

link

reply to post by ProudBird

I guess you assume I am the only one who is bothered by them?

I think you might need to read some of the other comments.

Gedo:Rinne Tensei

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:30 PM

link

You really think they would let you see these chemical trails if they really has this kind of function?
I bet they can make invisible spray that would be easier to them...to do some poisoning...

F4guy

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:33 PM

link

Originally posted by Gridrebel
I read the chem trial threads because I find them interesting and I am just drawn to them. I am in the MN/SD/ND area (yep, all three) and I RARELY ever see ANY trails from flying machines. I won’t call them chem or con trails. Just trails. In the last week, I have noticed some trails, very high up but long. Two to be exact. I just don’t see “trails” because I don't live under a common flight pattern area. Seriously, if I were to see one a month I would be surprised. The sky is usually clear, blue and beautiful with the exception of occasional normal clouds and cloud covering. This morning, I completed an errand and I noticed three trails all at one time in the sky, it was early, 10ish or so. Odd to have three trails. At 4:30pm, I had another errand to run and I could still see the original trails, but much more spread out, literally covering the sky as I see in many pictures and I thought WTF? So I was wondering, is it a temperature and wind flow issue? I don’t know but I have to wonder what in the world is going on.
edit on 5-1-2012 by Gridrebel because:

Seeing three at the same time should not be unusual, even in your area, which, if it is near the ND/SD/MN confluence, is probably somewhere near Wheaton, SD. If you step outside right now you should see three, assuming it's clear skies there. There is an Air Canada Airbus 319 headed to Western Canada cruising at 32,000 feet, a Delta Airbus 320 at 36,000 going to Boise, and a Delta 737-800 at 36,000 going to Salt Lake City. And that doesn't include all the refueling aircraft (mostly KC-10s now) at the 319th Air Refueling Wing at Grand Forks Air Force Base, which routinely cruise around waiting to refuel aircraft over the skies of all three states, and the aircraft they are refueling. And there are a number of high altitude jet routes close enough to your area to see traffic on them. There are: J-32, J-70, and J-90, all more or less East West, and the north-south J-45. By the way, the winds at 34,000 feet above your area are from the West at 125mph, and the temperature is -65F. That works out, if you're interested, to a wind chill of -142F.:

ProudBird

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:48 PM

link

reply to post by onecraftydude

You are at least articulating for a specific reason, i.e. Solar PV panels.

Also, it is your contention that the existence is normal airplane contrails is somehow an infringement on your personal rights. That is an opinion, certainly, and also within anyone's right to hold such opinion. But, it is a bit futile to "complain" about something that is merely the by-product of our technology, and that actually has minimal effects at all, overall. As noted, there are parts of this country (USA) and indeed many other places on Earth where contrails are far more rare, just due to the sparse air traffic......oh, and nearer the tropics, where upper atmospheric conditions aren't as conducive for contrails to form.

(Hawai'i, is an example....not only is it southerly latitude-wise, and tropical, but most air traffic is in/out of the airports there, so there are very few high-altitude overflights)

The other people aren't really too bothered, mostly, by contrails per se; They are of the mind(incorrectly) that normal contrails are some as-yet-undefined horrible "weapon"......even those "believers" cannot come to a consensus....and every time they make those claims, it can be shown that they are ONLY claims, and have absolutely zero science nor evidence to back them.