Gov't shutdown and Chemtrails link???

reply to post by Iwinder


Anyone who disagrees is labeled shill, disinfo agent, and worse. So yes, there is a sort of team mentality here. The ones that don't believe, and the Believers.

And I'm still waiting for someone to prove they're real in the first place.

reply to post by Iwinder


You allegedly have thousands of people in on this (depending on which version of the theory you believe), and not one of them has ever come forward. Not on their deathbed, not when they're leaving the job, nothing.

reply to post by Zaphod58


And of course it's not just on ATS that people looking for verifiable evidence get labeled - this is a YT video from New Zealand I have commented on - you can see how the conversation went once I suggested a rational explaination....

Did not see many chem-trails in my travels today. Saw this one flying high with a normal contrail which disappeared quickly, unlike chem-trails.

British Airways
Boeing 777-236ER
LGW London to TPA Tampa
registration - G-VIIP
altitude - 40,000 feet
speed - 467 knots
vertical speed - 0 feet per minute
track - 231 degrees
gps - 40.6754, -74.5906

link for aircraft photo at airliners.net
www.airliners.net... rt_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=15&thumbnails=

At 40,000 feet it should be real cold. Why is there no "persistent contrails" is what I'd like to know? The U.N. must be getting nervous. We can't fund the chem-trails much longer. What a relief! Fresh air!

Mikeultra
Did not see many chem-trails in my travels today. Saw this one flying high with a normal contrail which disappeared quickly, unlike chem-trails.

That's not how it works.

At 40,000 feet it should be real cold. Why is there no "persistent contrails" is what I'd like to know? The U.N. must be getting nervous. We can't fund the chem-trails much longer. What a relief! Fresh air!

Why should it be "real cold"? There are different variations of warming and cooling through the entire stratosphere. There are also different variations of different wind speeds, wind direction, and upper level moisture at different levels. We've been through this. What did you sample the atmosphere with to acquire your conclusion that it "should be real cold" at 40,000 feet?

reply to post by Mikeultra

At 40,000 feet it should be real cold. Why is there no "persistent contrails" is what I'd like to know?

Contrail persistence depends on the humidity, not temperature.
In order for contrails to persist the relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) must be 100% or greater.

The formation of persistent contrails occurs when the relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI) reaches or exceeds 100%.

www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

If it is cold enough contrails will form no matter what the humidity is. They will only persist if the air is saturated.

reply to post by Phage

When you used the word saturated, you mean with some chemical or biological agent, correct?

reply to post by Mikeultra


No. By humidity, which is water.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Are you suggesting water is not a chemical??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Oh tthhhbbbppptttt.

It's not in the sense that he means.

reply to post by Mikeultra

Relative humidity refers to how much water vapor is in the air.

Does anyone remember the topic???

Gov't shutdown and Chemtrails link???

--Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--


You are responsible for your own posts.


Let's please get back on track

AndyMayhew
reply to post by NONPOINT21

 

But why would anything in the US affect a global operation? 98% of the planet is not the USA

Or did you think that chemtrails only affected 2% of the planet?

I have been wondering this but then in my experience most of the chemtrail believers I encounter on the internet are from the US and most seem to think that the world begins and ends at the US border.

libertytoall
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I don't want anyone to get the wrong assumption that I'm blindly falling into the chemtrail crowd I simply haven't heard a convincing enough argument from either side. It certainly is suspicious looking which is why the conspiracy must exist to begin with. If I can identify the aircrafts markings on it's tail wing enough to make out colors and logo is there that big of an altitude difference? I would accept 1 - 2 thousand feet but not 10,000.. And when I say I witness 10 planes and then all of a sudden there's one with a trail I'm talking in a matter of 30 minutes.. The sky is very busy above my house and most aircraft are at similar altitudes 10 - 20 minutes before landing or after takeoff. Many times the plane is slightly turning and the trail follows and then 10 minutes later another plane will travel through the same "general" area and nothing. I almost never see the evaporating contrail I was so used to seeing growing up.

edit on 15-10-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

I live in an area between Leeds, Doncaster and Manchester airports, the latter is furthest away at around 80 miles away. Whenever I've been observing air traffic none of the aircraft using any of those airports has ever left a contrail. All the contrails have been left by traffic passing higher overhead between Europe and America.

When a plane is flying at 17,000ft following take of from Manchester it IS visually obvious that it is lower than a plane at 34,000, but on some days planes at 27,000 ft have not left a trail either, and this is impossible to judge visually.

You also mentioned seeing planes of the same type. Most airliners follow a pattern these days of two engines mounted under the low swept wings with a swept tail. Are you confident you would know a 737 from a higher flying 767 or even slightly higher 777? That's not meant to be cheeky, but there is a degree of difficulty in that.

So how do we explain a 95 degree sunny day, completely blue skies, and a plane at less than 12,000 feet making a sustained contrail? Do those temperatures change so dramatically with small elevation changes?? And why wouldn't other planes be creating the same trails as they pass over if they're similar altitudes? This has been my confusion/suspicion over the subject..

waynos

libertytoall
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I don't want anyone to get the wrong assumption that I'm blindly falling into the chemtrail crowd I simply haven't heard a convincing enough argument from either side. It certainly is suspicious looking which is why the conspiracy must exist to begin with. If I can identify the aircrafts markings on it's tail wing enough to make out colors and logo is there that big of an altitude difference? I would accept 1 - 2 thousand feet but not 10,000.. And when I say I witness 10 planes and then all of a sudden there's one with a trail I'm talking in a matter of 30 minutes.. The sky is very busy above my house and most aircraft are at similar altitudes 10 - 20 minutes before landing or after takeoff. Many times the plane is slightly turning and the trail follows and then 10 minutes later another plane will travel through the same "general" area and nothing. I almost never see the evaporating contrail I was so used to seeing growing up.

edit on 15-10-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

I live in an area between Leeds, Doncaster and Manchester airports, the latter is furthest away at around 80 miles away. Whenever I've been observing air traffic none of the aircraft using any of those airports has ever left a contrail. All the contrails have been left by traffic passing higher overhead between Europe and America.

When a plane is flying at 17,000ft following take of from Manchester it IS visually obvious that it is lower than a plane at 34,000, but on some days planes at 27,000 ft have not left a trail either, and this is impossible to judge visually.

You also mentioned seeing planes of the same type. Most airliners follow a pattern these days of two engines mounted under the low swept wings with a swept tail. Are you confident you would know a 737 from a higher flying 767 or even slightly higher 777? That's not meant to be cheeky, but there is a degree of difficulty in that.

I would not be proficient enough to tell the difference between models of aircraft all I'm saying is the aircraft are generally close enough that I can make out markings on the tail. Windows are visible on the outside of the aircraft. I would think an aircraft flying at 27,000 feet would be very difficult to easily make out the markings on the tail or any outline of windows.

Mikeultra


At 40,000 feet it should be real cold. Why is there no "persistent contrails" is what I'd like to know? The U.N. must be getting nervous. We can't fund the chem-trails much longer. What a relief! Fresh air!

If can get your head around this you are almost there Mike.

You are right, it is always very cold at that height and the trail will always freeze, as it is doing in your photo.

The variable is the relative humidity with regard to water and ice (RHW and RHI). When the RHI, RHW is less than 100%, the air is dry enough for the ice to sublimate. Therefore the trail disappears. This is also why people make the mistake of thinking there were fewer planes in the sky as all the trails left by the other traffic are long gone, often as soon as the plane itself has passed over.

When the RHI/RHW is high enough, it means the air is already holding all the water it can, therefore the ice cannot be sublimated and the trail cannot do anything but sit in the sky for hours. This can also tip the balance for natural cirrus formation and trigger that process, which is when they spread and form cloud cover.

It's what contrails do.

waynos

Mikeultra


At 40,000 feet it should be real cold. Why is there no "persistent contrails" is what I'd like to know? The U.N. must be getting nervous. We can't fund the chem-trails much longer. What a relief! Fresh air!

If can get your head around this you are almost there Mike.

You are right, it is always very cold at that height and the trail will always freeze, as it is doing in your photo.

The variable is the relative humidity with regard to water and ice (RHW and RHI). When the RHI is lower than 60%, RHW less than 100%, the air is dry enough for the ice to sublimate. Therefore the trail disappears. This is also why people make the mistake of thinking there were fewer planes in the sky as all the trails left by the other traffic are long gone, often as soon as the plane itself has passed over.

When the RHI/RHW is high enough, it means the air is already holding all the water it can, therefore the ice cannot be sublimated and the trail cannot do anything but sit in the sky for hours. This can also tip the balance for natural cirrus formation and trigger that process, which is when they spread and form cloud cover.

It's what contrails do.

And then those trails can move, expand, change altitudes, and hold together?? And then a aircraft can fly through an area where the contrail exists or existed and make no contrail?? It's such a sci fi phenomenon..

reply to post by libertytoall

So how do we explain a 95 degree sunny day, completely blue skies, and a plane at less than 12,000 feet making a sustained contrail?

Well, as far as that sentence goes, it cannot be a contrail. So it's worth looking more closely as there would be some other ideas/questions to be discussed.

Firstly how was 12,000ft determined? If you used a tracker did you also get the other info that they supply regarding model and operator?

Are you able to identify the tail logo?

How sustained was it? On another thread I posted a photo I took of a plane at an airshow creating a condensation cloud (not a trail) at only 500ft on a hot summer day. Aircraft can create these aerodynamic contrails at low level that can trail a little way behind the aircraft but they tend to disappear quite quickly. Was it this? If not how did the trail behave?

Regarding telling the model, it can be deceptive regarding height, for instance an ERJ170 follows the same layout at a Boeing 777 but seats only 70 passengers compared to the latter accommodating over 400 and being vastly larger. Perspective would make the look like two similar aircraft flying side by side if the 777 was a few thousand feet higher. That why it's best not to rely on eyesight alone.

reply to post by libertytoall

And then those trails can move, expand, change altitudes, and hold together?? And then a aircraft can fly through an area where the contrail exists or existed and make no contrail?? It's such a sci fi phenomenon..

They can move in the winds, which can be very powerful at those heights, why wouldn't they?

If they are expanding in a region where the conditions support that then there is every chance they will expand into each other, again, why wouldn't they?

who says they change altitudes?

And no, if the conditions support persisting contrails, no plane will pass through them and NOT leave one, it must be higher or lower.

It's all sci, no fi required.

waynos
reply to post by libertytoall

 

And then those trails can move, expand, change altitudes, and hold together?? And then a aircraft can fly through an area where the contrail exists or existed and make no contrail?? It's such a sci fi phenomenon..

They can move in the winds, which can be very powerful at those heights, why wouldn't they?

If they are expanding in a region where the conditions support that then there is every chance they will expand into each other, again, why wouldn't they?

who says they change altitudes?

And no, if the conditions support persisting contrails, no plane will pass through them and NOT leave one, it must be higher or lower.

It's all sci, no fi required.

edit on 16-10-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

You sound like Al Gore presenting an argument that makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is if contrail conditions form tube like invisible structures in the sky where planes just so happen to fly in the exact formation of relevant tubular atmospheric conditions. Sounds logical..

And then of course airplanes ALWAYS enter these conditions elongated allowing them to have a persistent trail from horizon to horizon. They NEVER hit these conditions from the side or at an angle that lets them travel through it and come out another place where the conditions are not right. Logic tells me this is a BS answer I'm being given.