I want to be a CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKER

reply to post by NeoVain


very true and yes this would be why they fly at these level. however this would mean you would see the edge of this contrail conducive air at some point. then the next trail would be bound to find that same edge near the same spot. as long as not to much time had passed. this is what i think should be seen
thanks Painfulhead

reply to post by Painfulhead

You've made a lot of excellent points, but don't bother becoming one, they're losing ground.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by MagicWand67

How would "chemtrails" be evidence of such activities being undertaken?


And there certainly no indication from your source that it is.

Any attempt to use the jet plane option today given the uncertainties as to impacts good, bad and ineffective would have to be considered “flying blind.” But as we grow closer to a point of no return, this is a trip we may have to take anyway.

www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

The density of aerographite is 0.18mg/cm^3. The density of air at IUPAC standard temperature and pressure (0 °C and 100 kPa), dry air has a density of 1.2754 kg/m3, which is 1.2754 mg/cm^3. I have no idea what altitude air has this density at.

But you already did half the work. Let me help you: The density of the tropopause(lowest layer above ours) is about 10% of your value.

A nonsensical question. Air "seeded" with anything that doesn't disolve into it does not change in density - the material beign seeded behaves according to its own density. And if air does become more or less dense (for any reason) then it moves - as it has always done - that is what makes windsand updragunghts and downdraughts.

Thei air itself does of course not change in density, but the density of the LAYER changes. This is all that is needed for layers to intermingle in areas such as heat exhange (Example: heat rises through the layers until the density becomes lower, where heat stops rising, over time vapourising water particles into clouds that later cool, and fall down in the form of rain)

No doubt you think yuo aer on to something amazing and Are trying to lead me to your conclusion so I will see the light myself.

however I am not interested in playing "20 questions" with you. .

It´s not 20, but how about 5? You are over halwfay there once you properly answer these 2...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Indeed - but what is it evidence OF??

It is a detailed description of different geoengineering techniques that are possible.

These techniques, if used, help to explain certain anomalies that the public has been noticing.

These anomalies, usually described as chemtrails, do not fit the profile of normal contrails.

These unusual contrails have been witnessed in conditions not normally conducive contrail formation.

These unusual contrail anomalies have thousands of intelligent people all over the world concerned about what they are seeing.

There is further evidence that these anomalies are having a negative impact on the health of people and the environment.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Thei air itself does of course not change in density, but the density of the LAYER changes.

No - if the density of the air doesn't change then the air does not move - the material suspended in the air moves.

This is all that is needed for layers to intermingle in areas such as heat exhange (Example: heat rises through the layers

Heat does not rise through layers - warm air rises because its density changes.

....until the density becomes lower, where heat stops rising, over time vapourising water particles into clouds that later cool, and fall down in the form of rain)

no - warm air might have water disolved into it from lower levels that will condense out as the air rises and cools, or it might be dry, in which case there will be no condensation, or somewhere in between.

however I am not interested in playing "20 questions" with you. .

It´s not 20, but how about 5? You are over halwfay there once you properly answer these 2...

no thanks - you are showing signs of major inaccuracies in whatever it is you think you have discovered. I am happy to correct any more misperceptions you have though.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thank you for making my point about nitpicking posts.

And how many of them spray their own families?

I don't know, I'm sure you are looking for an exact number so you can nitpick that? It seems quite a few are quite willing to do so, as there are industries that thrive on just that.

I do not know of anyone who grows tixic GMO's

Seriously? Are you that naive? I can walk two minutes down the street and talk to the farmer who grows Dekalb Hybrids on at least 1,500 acres, which is a Monsanto brand of GMO maize RoundUp ready corn. 90% of the corn and soy fields in this country are GMO. Get a clue.

Indeed - and yet spraying a crop with toxic materials is not the same as spraying families - somehow little or none of that toxic material actually makes it to peopel these days

Ah, playing the pedantry game? It is quite the same, as shown in my other examples. Actually, RoundUp is a systemic pesticide, which means the plant absorbs it which means...dum dum dum YOU EAT IT!

no - adding fluoride at levels often found or even exceeded in nature has no knwon toxic effect at all.

This seriously made me laugh. Let me know where you found your fountain of Youth naturally producing toxic chemicals that is a by-product of the nuclear, phosphate and aluminum industries. There is overwhelming evidence showing what you just said is pure bull.

No - your examples simply do not stack up at all - you are using scaremongering disinfo to try to replace your lack of any actual evidence

That is quite a reprehensible tactic.

If you stuck to the facts and admited that there is just no evidence for this hoax then you could move onto something that perhaps does actually exist and where you might be able to have some beneficial effect.

Yes they do, you just choose to deny, deny and deny some more. Facts are facts, as much as they may suck. I am not trying to scare anyone. Maybe you should consider a career in stand up comedy, I think that would suit you better because I can't stop laughing at your posts.

reply to post by NeoVain

The density of the topmost layer(ionosphere) is about 10% of your value.

False. By a long shot. Your premise is off to a bad start.
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Indeed - but what is it evidence OF??

It is a detailed description of different geoengineering techniques that are possible.

Yep - that's not a secret.

These techniques, if used, help to explain certain anomalies that the public has been noticing.

I don't think so - as far as I can see tehy would all be invisible to the naked eye so you'd never see them at all.

These anomalies, usually described as chemtrails, do not fit the profile of normal contrails.

i have not seen any anomalies that do not look like contrails

These unusual contrails have been witnessed in conditions not normally conducive contrail formation.

Not hat I am aware of - lots of people say that - no-one seems to have any actual information to back it upthough.

These unusual contrail anomalies have thousands of intelligent people all over the world concerned about what they are seeing.

Indeed - and IMO the way to stop people being concerned is to stop spreading disinfo and scaremongering about contrails.

There is further evidence that these anomalies are having a negative impact on the health of people and the environment.

What is that further evidence? Again I am aware of none.

I have certainly seen allegations that chemtrails cause morgellans, headaches, flu, depopulation, etc - but again no actual evidence connecting the 2 other than "I saw a chemtrail and then I got a...(pick symptom/affliction of your choice)..."

reply to post by Phage

How would "chemtrails" be evidence of such activities being undertaken?

Because moisture in the air is absorbed better by certain substances than others. Particularly substances like sulfur dioxide.

Exhaust that contains more sulfur dioxide or other hygroscopic CCN will be more likely to create a persistent contrail than normal jet exhaust would.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain

 

The density of the topmost layer(ionosphere) is about 10% of your value.

False. By a long shot. Your premise is off to a bad start.
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

if I read that correctly the .18mg/cm^3 exists at about 30,000m altitude - say 100,000 feet - where the density is given as 0.1841 kg/m3

reply to post by MagicWand67

Exhaust that contains more sulfur dioxide or other hygroscopic CCN will be more likely to create a persistent contrail than normal jet exhaust would.

Is this your opinion or can you provide some studies which demonstrate this?

Do you know the conditions under which persistent contrails form? It has little or nothing to do with absorption of water.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Yeah, that's how I see it too.
I wonder how well aerographite holds together under low pressure.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Phage

 

How would "chemtrails" be evidence of such activities being undertaken?

Because moisture in the air is absorbed better by certain substances than others. Particularly substances like sulfur dioxide.

Exhaust that contains more sulfur dioxide or other hygroscopic CCN will be more likely to create a persistent contrail than normal jet exhaust would.

It doesn't take much in the way ofCCN to make a persistent contrail - somewher I read that the actual water content of the exhaust is only about 1% of the water in a visible contral - the rest is atmospheric water. Once a contrail starts the ice crystals themselves provide all eth needed CCN for persistence if conditions are right.

Therefore it seems unlikely that adding more CCN would have much effect on the formation or persistence of a contrail.

reply to post by Phage

Do you know the conditions under which persistent contrails form? It has little or nothing to do with absorption of water.

Yeah I knew you would nitpick my choice of words.

CONDENSATION

Go ahead and play stupid. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

reply to post by MagicWand67

Actually I tend to rely on what people say rather than try to figure out what they meant.

Do you know what conditions are required for the formation of persistent contrails? Can you explain what difference hygroscopic particles would make?

Any studies to back up what you said?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Therefore it seems unlikely that adding more CCN would have much effect on the formation or persistence of a contrail.

It's not just the amount of CCN. It's the type of CCN.

Hygroscopy

Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract and hold water molecules from the surrounding environment. This is achieved through eith]er absorption or adsorption with the absorbing or adsorbing material becoming physically 'changed' somewhat, by an increase in volume, stickiness, or other physical characteristic of the material, as water molecules become 'suspended' between the material's molecules in the process.

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Thank you for making my point about nitpicking posts.

And how many of them spray their own families?

I don't know, I'm sure you are looking for an exact number so you can nitpick that? It seems quite a few are quite willing to do so, as there are industries that thrive on just that.

I am sorry that you think that pointing out errors of logic in your posts are nitpicking.

But if you do not know numbers then you really have no basis for saying that hetere are a lot, or a few, or tryingto give any quantity at all.

And to defend yourself for making such an inaccurate statement is pretty dishonest.

I do not know of anyone who grows tixic GMO's

Seriously? Are you that naive? I can walk two minutes down the street and talk to the farmer who grows Dekalb Hybrids on at least 1,500 acres, which is a Monsanto brand of GMO maize RoundUp ready corn. 90% of the corn and soy fields in this country are GMO. Get a clue.

and what is toxic about them?

I know a lot of GMOs are grown - but you said TOXIC - so again -how about backing up your claim?

Indeed - and yet spraying a crop with toxic materials is not the same as spraying families - somehow little or none of that toxic material actually makes it to peopel these days

Ah, playing the pedantry game? It is quite the same, as shown in my other examples. Actually, RoundUp is a systemic pesticide, which means the plant absorbs it which means...dum dum dum YOU EAT IT!

And it breaks down. Have you seen how much glysophatetactually ends up in plants we eat?? the figure is essentially none - it breaks down to Carbon dioxide.

no - adding fluoride at levels often found or even exceeded in nature has no knwon toxic effect at all.

This seriously made me laugh. Let me know where you found your fountain of Youth naturally producing toxic chemicals that is a by-product of the nuclear, phosphate and aluminum industries. There is overwhelming evidence showing what you just said is pure bull.

Natural water fluoridation exists all around the world - if you did not know that then you really need to do more research into the topic other than various conspiracy sites!!

1mg/litre is the level that fluoridated supplies get. In some places the natural level can be as high as 4mg/litre or higher and natural fluoride gets removed.

No - your examples simply do not stack up at all - you are using scaremongering disinfo to try to replace your lack of any actual evidence

That is quite a reprehensible tactic.

If you stuck to the facts and admited that there is just no evidence for this hoax then you could move onto something that perhaps does actually exist and where you might be able to have some beneficial effect.

Yes they do, you just choose to deny, deny and deny some more. Facts are facts, as much as they may suck. I am not trying to scare anyone. Maybe you should consider a career in stand up comedy, I think that would suit you better because I can't stop laughing at your posts.

I am sorry that you have bought into all the scaremongering carp that exists on these topics - I guess it's not your fault - there is so much scaremongering propaganda out there and people who turn it up to make money from teh fear of others - but you could do better with a little effort.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Thei air itself does of course not change in density, but the density of the LAYER changes.

No - if the density of the air doesn't change then the air does not move - the material suspended in the air moves.

Not only are you incorrect, this is beside the point. Of course the air moves when it is displaced by the material being infused, but the air movement have nothing(or very little) to do with my point. Are you trying to derail by nitpicking/grasping at straws?

This is all that is needed for layers to intermingle in areas such as heat exhange (Example: heat rises through the layers

Heat does not rise through layers - warm air rises because its density changes.

First part is correct, but you forgot to mention why. Heat does not rise through layers BECAUSE the air density is lower. If the air density is the same, the layers will intermingle(in effect become one layer) and heat will rise through them both.

....until the density becomes lower, where heat stops rising, over time vapourising water particles into clouds that later cool, and fall down in the form of rain)

no - warm air might have water disolved into it from lower levels that will condense out as the air rises and cools, or it might be dry, in which case there will be no condensation, or somewhere in between.

You clearly did not get at all what i was trying to say there, as you didn´t even care go quote the entire sentence. Try again, with less obvious legerdemain pls.

however I am not interested in playing "20 questions" with you. .

It´s not 20, but how about 5? You are over halwfay there once you properly answer these 2...

no thanks - you are showing signs of major inaccuracies in whatever it is you think you have discovered. I am happy to correct any more misperceptions you have though.

edit on 3-3-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

The inacurracies so far are entirely yours, and mostly stemming from your inaccurate understanding of my statements it seems, so i will forgive you for such a rude comment,.. this time.

But it is becoming more and more apparent that your interest in getting the truth out seem to be far overshadowed by your interest in finding flaws to nitpick(even if you fail at it) which leads one to wonder why?

reply to post by Phage

Can you explain what difference hygroscopic particles would make?

by an increase in volume

en.wikipedia.org...

Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract and hold water molecules from the surrounding environment. This is achieved through either absorption or adsorption with the absorbing or adsorbing material becoming physically 'changed' somewhat, by an increase in volume, stickiness, or other physical characteristic of the material, as water molecules become 'suspended' between the material's molecules in the process.