The Chemtrail Hoax

Originally posted by Code 3

In other words, Einstein, why do you believe that is it that it is ok for cirrus clouds to persist, but not for contrails.

Yes to all of the above, you seem to have quite a problem with perception dont you Howard.

Also, Howard you dont know what you are talking about!

The ices crystals from hot jet exhaust or like in world war 2, when B-17's Pratt and Whitney recipical engines produced contrails at altitude. P-47 thunderbolts did it at altitude as did the Russian Yak. Or the Rolls Royce merlin in the P-51. On and on, the point is just like your breath in cold weather, the crystals are very small compared to natural cloud formation.

Not really. As you can see from the following, ice crystals in a fresh contrail, while on the smaller size, because of they are recently formed, will eventually reach the same size distribution of natural cirrus ice crystals. It all depends on the degree of ice supersaturation of the atmosphere and how old a contrail gets.

www.atmos.ucla.edu...&_Climate.pdf

Limited measurements from highflying aircraft in tropical cirrus clouds, which can extend to as high as 15-18 km, illustrate that their ice crystal size ranges from about 10 μm to 2000 μm with four predominant shapes: bullet rosettes, aggregates, hollow columns, and plates, similar to those occurring in midlatitudes.

. . .
contrails were found to predominantly consist of bullet rosettes, columns, and plates with sizes ranging from about 1 μm to about 100 μm.

box.mmm.ucar.edu...

Heymsfield and Aulenbach, along with Glen Sachse (NASA Langley Research Center) and Paul Lawson (SPEC, Inc.) extended their analysis of data from the SUCCESS project (Subsonic aircraft: Contrail & Cloud Effects Special Study), sponsored by NASA to examine the relationship of persistent contrail development on the ambient relative humidity field. In one instance, the NASA DC-8, which collected the microphysical data, produced a contrail at a temperature of -52°C, generated a contrail and then sampled the resulting contrail for over an hour. In this instance, the contrail developed ice streamers (precipitation trails) which contained ice particles hundreds of microns long that descended up to 1 km during the observational period.

These researchers found that inside the contrail core, ice particles remained relatively small due to high crystal concentrations (~ 10 cm -3) which reduced the vapor density to ice saturation. Mixing of moist environmental air and vapor-depleted contrail air produced localized regions of ice supersaturations along the contrail periphery where contrail crystals grew large enough to fall from the contrail into the vapor-rich environment below. As the heavier crystals left the contrail, a stochastic selection process caused others to move into the regions of ice supersaturation. As this process continued over time, it produced precipitation trails. In effect, the contrail core acted as a source of ice crystals, the contrail periphery acted as a growth region, and the environment provided a continuous source of vapor for particle growth.

Measurements of contrail particles with impactors and optical probes (see also Section 3.2.4 and Table 3-1) reveal a wide variety of size, shape, and spectral size distributions. The results depend on plume age, ambient humidity, ambient aerosol, and other parameters. At a plume age of 30 to 70 s, ice particles have been found to form a single-mode log-normal size distribution with a volume-equivalent radius in the range of 0.02 to 10 µm, a mean radius of about 2 µm, and maximum dimension of 22 µm. Particle shapes are mainly hexagonal plates, along with columns and triangles. The axial ratios of the columns were found to be less than 2, and the shapes of the crystals were already established for particles of about 1-µm radius (Goodman et al., 1998). Contrail particle sizes increase with time in humid air. Ice particles observed in 2-min-old contrails typically have radii of 2 to 5 µm with shapes that are almost spherical, indicating frozen solution droplets (Schröder et al., 1998b). On the other hand, some contrail particles strongly polarize light, indicating non-spherical shapes (Freudenthaler et al., 1996; Sassen, 1997). After 10 min to 1 h, contrail particle size distributions may range from 32 to 100 µm or even 75 µm to 2 mm (Knollenberg, 1972; Strauss et al., 1997).

Particle properties within a contrail core differ from those at the edges of the contrail. In the center of contrails, insufficient water vapor is available to allow the large number of ice particles to grow to large crystals. At the edges, ice supersaturation is greater, thereby sometimes allowing ice crystals to form up to 300 µm in diameter (Heymsfield et al., 1998a). The larger particles have various shapes, with the largest being bullet rosettes (Lawson et al., 1998). Such large particles are within the natural variability of cirrus particle sizes. As a consequence, old dispersed contrails appear to have particle sizes similar to those in surrounding cirrus (Duda et al., 1998; Minnis et al., 1998a).

So the only real difference between a persistent contrail and a natural cirrus cloud is the source of the water that the ice crystals form out of.





[edit on 12-3-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 12-3-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Code 3

This is why clouds produce rain, snow, ice and sleet.

You do realize that there are many different types of clouds, don't you?

You ever see a contrail rain!?!

Have you ever seen a cirrus cloud rain?

LOL I stop paying attention to these threads for a week or so, come back, and the exact same crap is going on.

So like, the other morning I saw a whole lot of jets flying through the sky. More than I usually notice. They all had these puffy white trails behind them. Some of them just seemed to start out of nowhere. Some of them stopped and then started again. I thought to myself, "WOW... those MUST be these 'chemtrails' I hear so many grunts about." But then I put the lightbulb down, and thought to myself... "hmmmm... there are some other streaks of clouds starting at the exact same points these trails are starting... maybe the air in that area is just right for clouds and condensation..."

Then I was like "Nooo... theres way too many jets up there... that cant be normal!" but then I realized "Wait a second... I hardly ever notice this many jets because Im never really looking for them. Usually Im more concerned with what's in front of me, than what's 30,000 feet above me, as I should be."

Well Im stumped.
I don't know what to think.
It is quite evident that these are the work of the illuminati in cooperation with the grey colonisation of Uranus, and the Masons are jealous. I cant be certain, but I know for a fact this is true! .......

"It is quite evident that these are the work of the illuminati in cooperation with the grey colonisation of Uranus, and the Masons are jealous. I cant be certain, but I know for a fact this is true! ......."

APC, I have warned you before not to discuss such matters in front of the non-Reptoids; we don't want them to get wind of the plan.

Ack.. I suppose Ill have to die now. Very well, see you next week.

HA! My avian masters will be pleased with my infiltration of human, grey and reptoid culture.

"Ack.. I suppose Ill have to die now. Very well, see you next week."

Hardly, after all the money we invested in your training and the plastic surgery.

However, if you keep this up and "Big R" gets wind of it, you're liable to end up being assigned to fly "chem-planes" on the midnight shift for the rest of your career.

You remember what happened to Howard Roark after his little "incident" with Osama bin Laden back in 2001. I STILL don't think Roark's got his covered parking space at CIA Headquarters in Langley back yet....

And Father Luke Duke wouldn't even have his job now if Condoleezza hadn't spoken up for him at the last meeting at Reptoid Central.

Just trying to be helpful.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by Off_The_Street]

I want a covered parking spot...

I beg to differ with you on your chemtrail findings.

We have hundereds of thousands of photos via internet.
NASA has hundred of thousands of research analysis.
We as a nation are getting sicker slowly.
There is a conspiracy plot to establish a one world order
via President G. W. Bush speach. He calls for a one world order.
I guess most people are smart enough that they can put two
and two togather and they do know our government is up
to something. It is up to the government to deceive us.
THey are doing a great job. They have the billions of dollard to do
the job they are set out to do.
Today is March 28th, 2005 and they are still spraying chemicals
on southern Idaho. We are in severe drought.
Every where they spray the clouds clear up.
The government is going to manufacture plutonium 238 in Idaho
at the INL. plutonium 238 is highly haxardous. It is a silvery white
metal that is in the form of a dust particle. One dust particle
will contaminate a whole building. They will not say what they
are making it for. It is my opinion that this will be used in chemtrails.
research it.!!!!!!!
sa

For anyone who is still skeptical about the effects of air craft on the health of human beings
please simply go to Google news page, and search Percholate in breast milk

Got milk? Got Percholate?
They've found it bottled cow milk in California too.
If its not coming from the jets, where is it coming from?

ssallen says:

"We have hundereds [sic] of thousands of photos via internet."

Sure. Hundreds of thousands of photos of persistent contrails. That's no proof of a plot, any more than pictures of a hundred thousand christmas presents are proof of Santa Claus.

"NASA has hundred of thousands of research analysis."

Hundreds of thousands of what? Are you saying that NASA claims that there is a plot to spray chemicals from aircraft? If so, do you have any evidence of this?

"We as a nation are getting sicker slowly."

Do you have any statistical analyses of such increased sickness? And if you do, can you show a correlation to your so-called "chem-trails"?

"There is a conspiracy plot to establish a one world order via President G. W. Bush speach [sic]. He calls for a one world order."

And what is the correlation between GW Bush's speech and your so-called "chem-trails"?

"I guess most people are smart enough that they can put two and two togather [sic] and they do know our government is up to something. It is up to the government to deceive us. THey are doing a great job. They have the billions of dollard [sic] to do the job they are set out to do."

What do those claims have to do with "chem-trails"?

"The government is going to manufacture plutonium 238..."

I doubt it. 238 is an isotope of uranium, not plutonium.

"It is my opinion that this will be used in chemtrails."

How about fuel for nuclear reactors?

"research it.!!!!!!!"

Sounds to me like you might want to do a bit of "research" yourself. Perhaps you might want to read the entire thread here first.

Legalizer says:

"For anyone who is still skeptical about the effects of air craft on the health of human beings please simply go to Google news page, and search Percholate in breast milk ... If its not coming from the jets, where is it coming from?"

I didn't see anything in any of those articles that correlated perchlorate in mothers' milk to jet exhaust.

Did you?

Did any of the articles say what the source of Perchlorate was?
Perchlorate is a jet fuel additive.

The Fertilizer Institute

Perchlorate
Perchlorate is a compound found in natural deposits and is also manufactured for various industrial purposes, mainly as a propellant for jet fuel.  A recently published paper suggests it may also be present in fertilizer.  However, subsequent scientific work disputes these findings.  In fact, it appears perchlorate does not appear in fertilizer, except for a small amount of products that come from some natural deposits in Chile.  The Fertilizer Institute is working with EPA on a definitive testing program to finally determine if there is any perchlorate in fertilizer.

EPA

What is perchlorate?
Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man-made chemical. Most of the perchlorate manufactured in the United States is used as the primary ingredient of solid rocket propellant. Wastes from the manufacture and improper disposal of perchlorate-containing chemicals are increasingly being discovered in soil and water.

Does my water contain perchlorate?
There have been confirmed perchlorate releases in at least 25 states throughout the United States. EPA, other federal agencies, states, water suppliers and industry are working to address perchlorate contamination through monitoring for perchlorate in drinking water and source water and developing treatment technologies that can remove perchlorate from drinking water.

Known Perchlorate Contamination Associated with Department of Defense Sites

Given that some perchlorate compounds are from jet exhausts, how does that tie in with a Huge Secret Plot to Spray us with some sort of Bad Juju?

I don't think anyone would argue that the byproducts of hydrocarbon combustion are healthy and good for you. The very fact that persistent contrails can "seed" to become wide-ranging cirrus clouds in itself is not a good thing, because any kind of cloud cover will probably change the daily-nightly temperature delta.

But that's not "chem-trails"; it's just pollution.

By the way, you mentioned that the idea of perchlorates in fertilizer has been denied:

"However, subsequent scientific work disputes these findings. In fact, it appears perchlorate does not appear in fertilizer, except for a small amount of products that come from some natural deposits in Chile. The Fertilizer Institute is working with EPA on a definitive testing program to finally determine if there is any perchlorate in fertilizer.'

True, but it is the fertilizer trade group that are doing the denial, it appears. The tobacco institute has been denying stuff for years, too, as has the folks who make aspartame. you might want to take their denials with a grain of salt....

Here is an article that discusses just that:

pubs.acs.org...

Originally posted by Legalizer
Did any of the articles say what the source of Perchlorate was?
Perchlorate is a jet fuel additive.

The Fertilizer Institute

Perchlorate
Perchlorate is a compound found in natural deposits and is also manufactured for various industrial purposes, mainly as a propellant for jet fuel. A recently published paper suggests it may also be present in fertilizer. However, subsequent scientific work disputes these findings. In fact, it appears perchlorate does not appear in fertilizer, except for a small amount of products that come from some natural deposits in Chile. The Fertilizer Institute is working with EPA on a definitive testing program to finally determine if there is any perchlorate in fertilizer.

Well actually perchlroate is not a jet fuel additive. If you followed the link in the above refrenced page you would have read this:

Perchlorate salts are used in a variety of industrial applications, but most significantly as oxidizers or oxygen sources in solid propellant for rockets, missiles, and fireworks. Perchlorate salts are also used in air bag inflators.

This is a correct description of the use of perchlorate. It is an oxidizing compound used in solid rocket fuel motors. It has never been used as a jet fuel additive.

This appears to be a common mistake. A few weeks back, the editors of Geenwire made a similar mistake confusing jet fuel with rocket fuel. However, when the error was pointed out to them, they corrected their article.

I have taken the liberty of asking the Fertilizer institute to correct their web page, also.



[edit on 29-3-2005 by HowardRoark]

Hey Off_The_Street, first your handle is very cumbersome to type! Although it is a good handle it takes some dexterity with the ole fingers.

Saterday I witnessed an aircraft spraying right over my home, I know all about how difficult the logistics are for such a program and all the other arguments. You know by now I am an avid fan of all craft that produce lift, as are you.

So that being said you are familiar with the detail level of an aircraft that is at such an altitude to produce a contrail. When this particular aircraft flew over it was the size of a fifty cent peice held out at about arms length (my arm not Shahqile Oneals) I could also see all four engines in perfect detail, in my experience of looking to the sky for aircraft it was way to low for a contrail, the temperture was 50 degrees at ground level and the humidity was at 62 percent.

Believe me my friend I know from what it looked like, the clarity, the crisp look with no blue haze between it and myself, the fine detail, It was white and without markings and looked to be a B747 Supertanker Retardant dispencer. It flew over the area twice, the first time the trail it left drifted downwind very fast it then flew out past the horizon, then about half an hour later it flew over again, turned on its sprayer, and left the same size trail and flew away, this trail was in a slightly different spot and stayed the rest of the day and of course spread out.

My point is that it was without a doubt at to low an altitude to leave a normal hot exhaust induced contrail.

Not trying to sway any opinions, just getting it off my chest.

[edit on 29-3-2005 by Code 3]

I'm a 32 year old IT Manager with a degree in Industrial Science and Technology.
BTW you don't lead a sheep by the nose, you're thinking of bulls. Get your analogies right at least.

I just came to the site without logging on just to see what people like FatherLukeDuke are saying. The quote above is by this IT Manager. Some people cannot uderstand what normal non-geek types use for dialogue.

I hold a sheep by the nose and kick him in the arse to get the beasts attention. Also what in the heck does being a computer geek have to do with anything but 1's and 0's? Your arguments are like broken record, and you know nothing of criminal investigation.

Prove it, Prove it, Prove it, Prove it, Prove it.

Originally posted by Code 3
My point is that it was without a doubt at to low an altitude to leave a normal hot exhaust induced contrail.
[edit on 29-3-2005 by Code 3]

But your really don't know for sure, do you?

There is only one reliable, inexpensive method to determine the altitude, flight explorer.

Oh, and the weather conditions at ground lever are irrelevant at high altitudes.

But your really don't know for sure, do you?
There is only one reliable, inexpensive method to determine the altitude, flight explorer.

Oh, and the weather conditions at ground lever are irrelevant at high altitudes.

This is the exact reason why you are one of the three stooges that are on my ignore list Howy, it is like chasing your tail.

The only thing you can do is put a spin on someones statement. Firstly, you cannot know EXACT altitude from the type of visual I described, but you CAN determine that it is flying to low for contrail formation. You ever look at how small and to what level of detail you can determine when an aircraft is flying at 28,000 feet and above? It is never seen like aircraft that are flying at about 16,000 to 18,000 feet, I came to that conclusion from my experience in seeing aircraft, size detail level amount of haze and a number of determining factors in propeller driven aircraft at there max altitude. This particular craft was not much higher than what you would see a cessna 182 flying at.

About ground conditions. Of course the temperture is going to be vastly different, but when you have perfect visibilty with a blue sky and are experincing snow/water evaperation and the humidity is at 62% that humidity level is not going to be changing much at altitude, in fact it is more than liklely going to be lower at altitude on that particular day.

About flight explorer. If I had used that as an argument you would have spun what I said in some other direction, there is not any way to discuss this with you or the other two in your comedy team. Please stick to the slapstick you three stooges made famous, its much more entertaining. This tail chasing literal line by line picking apart someones posts is getting very old, but that is your technic you use, blow all this psycho-bable back at the poster until they are so frustrated with chasing around in a circle jerk the person doesnt even want to post anymore.

This is why the three stooges are on ignore!

[edit on 30-3-2005 by Code 3]

Originally posted by Code 3

But your really don't know for sure, do you?
There is only one reliable, inexpensive method to determine the altitude, flight explorer.

Oh, and the weather conditions at ground lever are irrelevant at high altitudes.

This is the exact reason why you are one of the three stooges that are on my ignore list Howy, it is like chasing your tail.

The only thing you can do is put a spin on someones statement. Firstly, you cannot know EXACT altitude from the type of visual I described, but you CAN determine that it is flying to low for contrail formation. You ever look at how small and to what level of detail you can determine when an aircraft is flying at 28,000 feet and above? It is never seen like aircraft that are flying at about 16,000 to 18,000 feet, I came to that conclusion from my experience in seeing aircraft, size detail level amount of haze and a number of determining factors in propeller driven aircraft at there max altitude. This particular craft was not much higher than what you would see a cessna 182 flying at.

Well Code, given thathere are many different types of jet craft out there and that some of them are twice as large as others, size and detail would not appear to be a reliable indication of the actual altitude.

About ground conditions. Of course the temperture is going to be vastly different, but when you have perfect visibilty with a blue sky and are experincing snow/water evaperation and the humidity is at 62% that humidity level is not going to be changing much at altitude, in fact it is more than liklely going to be lower at altitude on that particular day.

FYI, “The standard atmosphere can be thought of as the average pressure, temperature and air density for various altitudes”

www.usatoday.com...

Thes are of course Average values. In actuality, the atmosphere is highly variable, thus that is why we have various types of weather systems and cloud formations.

In any event, it is totally without merit whatsoever to try and correlate ground conditions with conditions in the upper atmosphere.

About flight explorer. If I had used that as an argument you would have spun what I said in some other direction, there is not any way to discuss this with you or the other two in your comedy team. Please stick to the slapstick you three stooges made famous, its much more entertaining. This tail chasing literal line by line picking apart someones posts is getting very old, but that is your technic you use, blow all this psycho-bable back at the poster until they are so frustrated with chasing around in a circle jerk the person doesnt even want to post anymore.

What phyco-babble?

The flight explorer program is very useful, and at only 10 bucks a month, you can use it for a couple of months and see what you can find out. At least you would have a better idea of the altitudes the planes are at.

The next thing is to determine the specific atmospheric conditions at that altitude. Unfortunately, that is a much, much harder thing to do. Radiosondes are notoriously inaccurate at determining the relative humidity with respect to ice (they have a definite dry bias).

LIDAR has shown some real promise, but they aren’t that common and the data is limited to the area they are operating in.

I seriously think that you need to sit down and try to develop a clear understanding of what a contrail is. It is a totally false idea that a contrail must dissipate after a few minutes.