Are these Chemtrails?

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
I said persistent contrail at ground level,
the contrail in that video did not linger for hours.

How do you know that?

But to be honest,
who in there right mind would be out there for hours at 50 below
filming vapor trails of pollution.

Greenies concerned about pollution ... or perhaps they could set up a remote camera to do it?

Here's a photo of a nice long contrail over the south pole, just for interest

reply to post by Phage


Naw
just fly planes at a lower altitude consume more fuel,
at 33,000 tons per flight per average current,
it is going to take forever to reach peak oil usage.

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
And I don't understand how something as lite as a snowflake,
can fall to the ground with gravity,
but ice crystals formed in contrails remain airborne and persistent.
I thought ice was heavier then snow.

Snow is made of ice crystals.

The fall rate is determined by the mass to surface are ratio, which is much larger (and hence slower) for small crystals.

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
reply to post by Phage

 

Naw
just fly planes at a lower altitude consume more fuel,
at 33,000 tons per flight per average current,
it is going to take forever to reach peak oil usage.

33,000 tons of fuel per flight?? Or did you mean something else??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
reply to post by Phage

 

Naw
just fly planes at a lower altitude consume more fuel,
at 33,000 tons per flight per average current,
it is going to take forever to reach peak oil usage.

33,000 tons of fuel per flight?? Or did you mean something else??

Considering that the maximum take off weight of the worlds heaviest airliner, the Antonov An-225, is 640 tons, you would hope they mean something else

But then again, it wouldn't be the first time woefully misleading information and a complete lack of knowledge has been displayed in this thread

reply to post by Uncinus

The fall rate is determined by the mass to surface are ratio, which is much larger (and hence slower) for small crystals.

This is an interesting point and illustrates the ongoing use of nano for chemtrailing. Here is the real reason that 15 minutes of persistence, within a front, has turned into sky grids and a general toxic sky appearance.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus

 

The fall rate is determined by the mass to surface are ratio, which is much larger (and hence slower) for small crystals.

This is an interesting point and illustrates the ongoing use of nano for chemtrailing. Here is the real reason that 15 minutes of persistence, within a front, has turned into sky grids and a general toxic sky appearance.

Now if you'd just put some evidence with the buzz words, we'd give you a bit of a break

The best that chemtrail believers can do on this board has been debunked many times in many threads. Not sure why, but I'm still willing to listen, watch, and/or read any proof that you think may exist. I guess its the learner in me or something.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
reply to post by Phage

 

Naw
just fly planes at a lower altitude consume more fuel,
at 33,000 tons per flight per average current,
it is going to take forever to reach peak oil usage.

33,000 tons of fuel per flight?? Or did you mean something else??

Considering that the maximum take off weight of the worlds heaviest airliner, the Antonov An-225, is 640 tons, you would hope they mean something else

But then again, it wouldn't be the first time woefully misleading information and a complete lack of knowledge has been displayed in this thread

Your right, I should have said lbs, not tons.

Typical fueling considerations in a 747-200 or 300 allow for 2200 pounds of fuel to be used for taxi to take off. A fully loaded aircraft will use 33,000 pounds during take off and climb to cruising altitude. During the first half of the flight, the aircraft will consume an average of 28,000 pounds of fuel per hour. The aircraft lightens as it burns fuel and at the end of the trip, the fuel consumption drops to about 21,000 pounds per hour. Descending and landing consume the least fuel, around 6000 pounds. Unburdened of its fuel load, the aircraft will consume only 1000 pounds of fuel, less than half what it needed to taxi before take off. A reserve of 25,000 to 40,000 pounds is loaded to allow changing airports should it become necessary.

www.ehow.com...

reply to post by flyswatter


In WWII we learned that contrails can persist...for maybe 15 minutes. That's a guess. It's difficult to say how much less than 15 minutes they persisted because, in WWII, the sky was filled with bombers and fighters and weather and smoke and flak. So it's understandable, that in a sky like that, it would be difficult to time the persistence of an individual contrail, but, from those who were there, we can read that they persisted for perhaps 15 minutes.

When a volcano erupts and propels ash high into the atmosphere, the obscurant properties of the ash don't last forever because several things happen. The ash particles, even though many of them start out very small - nano size - want to get together. They want to clump together and they do. This makes larger and larger particles. These larger particles fall-out, rain-out and evaporate out and that's the end of it.

Lab engineered nano-size particles, ultra-fine particles, aerosols...can be created with some properties useful for persistence and useful as reflectants. Why is persistence useful? It saves money. Means you don't have to do it again so often. Also, if the reason is to obscure the sky, there is less chance that someone will see anything incoming. An engineered nano-size particle has a surface area that is out of proportion to its' size. This is because the atoms collect at the surface rather than being distributed throughout and that is because this size of particle straddles two worlds and so has behaviors from two different sciences mixed into one particle.

2nd, nano particles can be charged or hold a charge so that they repel each other. This means that they don't want to get together and form clumps and don't. That means that they won't rain-out, fall-out or evaporate out so soon but will persist which is the idea. They are engineered to stay small. They're smart.

Persistent contrails and chemtrails are different primarily in the outrageous persistence of the chemtrail. It lasts and spreads and lasts and finally spreads out too thin to even be seen with the naked eye but it is still there, obscuring the sky. Everything about it is unnatural and this can be seen by observing.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by flyswatter

 

In WWII we learned that contrails can persist...for maybe 15 minutes. That's a guess. It's difficult to say how much less than 15 minutes they persisted because, in WWII, the sky was filled with bombers and fighters and weather and smoke and flak. So it's understandable, that in a sky like that, it would be difficult to time the persistence of an individual contrail, but, from those who were there, we can read that they persisted for perhaps 15 minutes.

When a volcano erupts and propels ash high into the atmosphere, the obscurant properties of the ash don't last forever because several things happen. The ash particles, even though many of them start out very small - nano size - want to get together. They want to clump together and they do. This makes larger and larger particles. These larger particles fall-out, rain-out and evaporate out and that's the end of it.

Lab engineered nano-size particles, ultra-fine particles, aerosols...can be created with some properties useful for persistence and useful as reflectants. Why is persistence useful? It saves money. Means you don't have to do it again so often. Also, if the reason is to obscure the sky, there is less chance that someone will see anything incoming. An engineered nano-size particle has a surface area that is out of proportion to its' size. This is because the atoms collect at the surface rather than being distributed throughout and that is because this size of particle straddles two worlds and so has behaviors from two different sciences mixed into one particle.

2nd, nano particles can be charged or hold a charge so that they repel each other. This means that they don't want to get together and form clumps and don't. That means that they won't rain-out, fall-out or evaporate out so soon but will persist which is the idea. They are engineered to stay small. They're smart.

Persistent contrails and chemtrails are different primarily in the outrageous persistence of the chemtrail. It lasts and spreads and lasts and finally spreads out too thin to even be seen with the naked eye but it is still there, obscuring the sky. Everything about it is unnatural and this can be seen by observing.

I absolutely see what you're saying here. But the problem with your statement of "everything about it is unnatural and this can be seen by observing" is that simply observing tells you absolutely nothing. Observing tells you that there is something white in the sky, and that is really about it. Past that, what you are doing is hypothesizing as to what the white stuff could be, because you have no evidence of what it actually is.

Those that believe what you are seeing is contrails have enough evidence behind them and study of contrails to choke a horse. Those arguing the point on here are not always highly educated or knowledgeable about contrail science (such as myself), but they have the science to point to as a reference. That is the big difference between you and the contrailers - they can point to scientific fact to back up much of what they say. You can point to theory, and while having a theory is not a bad thing, attempting to say it is fact is wrong.

I am still completely open to hard evidence of chemtrails. The planes, the spraying mechanisms, the pilots doing the spraying, anything like that. Just SOMETHING that can be verified to at least some degree. I cant rightfully say with 100% certainty that this evidence does not exist, but I have yet to see it. Most of what people have tried to present are videos of contrails and pictures of aerial refueling planes on tarmacs, and we all know where those attempts at proof have ended up.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by flyswatter

 

In WWII we learned that contrails can persist...for maybe 15 minutes. That's a guess. It's difficult to say how much less than 15 minutes they persisted because, in WWII, the sky was filled with bombers and fighters and weather and smoke and flak. So it's understandable, that in a sky like that, it would be difficult to time the persistence of an individual contrail, but, from those who were there, we can read that they persisted for perhaps 15 minutes.

From WW2 we can easily deduce that a single contrail in a sky with few aircraft and little or no flak can persist for a whole day and spread out to make an artifically induced cloud.....but only if we actually look at het evidence and don't make assumptions to suit preconceptions:

The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.

-Antoine de Saint-Exupery, in "Flig ht to Arras", written about recce flights over German forces in 1940. The author was killed in 1944.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by flyswatter

 

In WWII we learned that contrails can persist...for maybe 15 minutes. That's a guess.

Well, you guessed wrong.

Why do you continue with this charade...this FALLACY that contrails can only persist for 15 minutes at most??

Can you explain why a cirrus cloud can persist for longer than 15 minutes but a contrail cannot?

Can you explain why the 1970s persistent spreading contrails were so common as to merit increased scientific study...such as :

ciresweb.colorado.edu...

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
R.G. Knollenberg
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 29, Issue 7 (October 1972)

"It is often observed that contrails spread considerably...Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed...If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails."

and this one:

journals.ametsoc.org...

Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget
Peter M. Kuhn
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970)

"The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight."

and this one:

docs.lib.noaa.gov...

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WEATHER MODIFICATION BY AIRCRAFT CONTRAILS
WALLACE B. MURCRAY
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, College, Alaska
October 1970

(in this one they actually study ground level persistent contrails)

"The writer himself has seen instances in which a single contrail seemed to grow until it became an overcast covering the whole sky."

So, clearly the scientific and historical evidence - indeed the basic physics of ice in a saturated environment- clearly refute and destroy your claim of only 15 minutes...

...not to mention the science of contrail persistence being "new"

...Once again ol' Luxor crashes and burns on the ramparts of fact and logic.

reply to post by flyswatter


It's interesting, to me, that you would assess, somehow, that:

Those that believe what you are seeing is contrails have enough evidence behind them and study of contrails to choke a horse.

The formation of a persistent contrail requires a very specific set of circumstances. These circumstances have been well known since WWII because in WWII the lives of pilots and crew were endangered when a persistent contrail pinpointed their location. Because of this, even in that early day, several fixes were tried. One was to change altitude slightly and another was to adjust for exhaust heat. In other words, getting the craft into a place with just slightly less available moisture might fix the problem and making the exhaust, temporarily, just a bit hotter (thus vaporizing the water) might also fix the problem.

Since that time, charts have been developed and fuel additives have been experimented with in order to give the military stealth. Even an 'invisible' craft is dead in the water if it's flaming a contrail behind it.

This very specific set of circumstances for the perhaps 15 minute persistent contrail is never shown in a chemtrail thread in this forum. It's not shown because it is, first of all, impossible to show. Radiosonde, the weather balloon attachment that sends back data on humidity and altitude, is unavailable for the bulk of atmosphere. Weather balloons are limited but the sky is huge. Unmarked planes, military planes and even commercial planes can opt out of displaying their location and altitude for the public. It gets filed and displayed to some traffic controller somewhere but it doesn't have to be public - on the boulevard.

So contrailers, when they see a persistent something in the sky, assume that it is a contrail because what else would it be? They come along and say well the humidity was such and such at such and such an altitude and that must be what happened here because that is what we expect to see so that is what we see. This has nothing to do with the meeting of parameters for each individually outrageously persistent contrail.

In WWII, a cloud corridor (an area of aerosol particle saturation as well as added water vapor) was created because there were a thousand bombers in the air. In WWII, most of the persistent contrails include extremely cold weather, on the ground as in the air, and weather fronts. I've seen contrailers put up pictures of dog fights in the sky from WWII and claim that these explain the loops we see today in chemtrails. It's laughable. But the main thing here is that these contrails persisted for a relatively short time and that they persisted in bad weather or the beginnings of bad weather.

People living in the desert or studying in the desert, like Carnicom, one of the greats of beginning chemtrail observation, weren't seeing any fronts. There wasn't any weather. They were measuring altitude and humidity and coming up short. The data and the original persistent contrail parameters were not supporting what they were seeing.

I am still completely open to hard evidence of chemtrails. The planes, the spraying mechanisms, the pilots doing the spraying, anything like that. Just SOMETHING that can be verified to at least some degree. I cant rightfully say with 100% certainty that this evidence does not exist, but I have yet to see it. Most of what people have tried to present are videos of contrails and pictures of aerial refueling planes on tarmacs, and we all know where those attempts at proof have ended up.

If you're looking for hoses and vats of chemicals, you'll be looking for a long time. All that stuff is history and maybe one day it'll be de-classified but I doubt it. If you want to see the high tech weather modification that cloud seeding, for instance, has become, with flares and canisters from air or ground and cellular detonation and structures disguised as just about anything - I can show you that. If you want to understand lidar and how a satellite array constantly monitors the fake cirrus thickness of our atmosphere - I can explain that. If you want to understand how a persistent contrail that fades to cirrus has become an indication of drought instead of rain - I can explain that. If you want to talk about sulphur in jet fuel - I can talk about that.

Weather modification has gone high tech. This isn't the dark ages anymore. There's a lot going on if you only have eyes to see it. And all you really have to do in order to begin to understand what has happened is remember what the sky, at night, used to look like, from your location, and then take a look at it now.

reply to post by luxordelphi

In WWII we learned that contrails can persist...for maybe 15 minutes. That's a guess. It's difficult to say how much less than 15 minutes they persisted because, in WWII, the sky was filled with bombers and fighters and weather and smoke and flak.

Do I really need to ask for a link that shows persistent contrails last for maybe 15 minutes?

Originally posted by luxordelphi

If you're looking for hoses and vats of chemicals, you'll be looking for a long time.

'cos it doesn't exist?

All that stuff is history and maybe one day it'll be de-classified but I doubt it. If you want to see the high tech weather modification that cloud seeding, for instance, has become, with flares and canisters from air or ground and cellular detonation and structures disguised as just about anything - I can show you that.

not new, not done from airliners - so not exactly "high tech" at all

If you want to understand lidar and how a satellite array constantly monitors the fake cirrus thickness of our atmosphere - I can explain that.

Measures stuff doeesn't it - how does that modify the weather?

If you want to understand how a persistent contrail that fades to cirrus has become an indication of drought instead of rain - I can explain that.

Explain it to the New Zealanders complaining that MORE rain follows chemtrails will you?

If you want to talk about sulphur in jet fuel - I can talk about that.

so can pretty much anyone with a modicum of technical knowledge - and you can test the sulphur level in aircraft fuel - go buy some and take to any lab....

So what about it?

Weather modification has gone high tech. This isn't the dark ages anymore.

You mean apparently except for cloud seeding from the ground - which is still prety much as it has always been?

There's a lot going on if you only have eyes to see it. And all you really have to do in order to begin to understand what has happened is remember what the sky, at night, used to look like, from your location, and then take a look at it now.

Oh cool - no different then - thanks!

Originally posted by luxordelphi
The formation of a persistent contrail requires a very specific set of circumstances. These circumstances have been well known since WWII because in WWII the lives of pilots and crew were endangered when a persistent contrail pinpointed their location. Because of this, even in that early day, several fixes were tried. One was to change altitude slightly and another was to adjust for exhaust heat. In other words, getting the craft into a place with just slightly less available moisture might fix the problem ...

Altitude change - yep, no problem - except bomber altitudes were set by the mission plan and not allowed to be changed.

.....and making the exhaust, temporarily, just a bit hotter (thus vaporizing the water) might also fix the problem.

and if you need a better indication of your lack of knowledge....there it is

The exhaust temperature is plenty hot enough to vaporise the water - always has been - it is when it cools that water becomes visible. Making it a few degrees hoter is only going to wear the engine out faster, and perhaps put the formation of the contrail a few more inches further back since it wil ltake a little more time to cool!

Please - try not to demonstrate ignorance.

reply to post by luxordelphi

It looks exactly like the chemtrail clouds we all were talking about not 6-7-8 months ago or less.

Well then you will enjoy this....

Yeah, those are real Chemtrails.

reply to post by F6Zman

Yeah, those are real Chemtrails

So I take it you can tell the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail,correct?

Well would you care to share that knowkedge with the rest of us,we would love to hear it.

reply to post by luxordelphi

People living in the desert or studying in the desert, like Carnicom, one of the greats of beginning chemtrail observation, weren't seeing any fronts. There wasn't any weather. They were measuring altitude and humidity and coming up short. The data and the original persistent contrail parameters were not supporting what they were seeing.

Carnicorn finally posted some hard data to back up his horse dung? Where? This would be a first...