What should I believe about contrails?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


it's just astounding how far you missed the point by. We were discussing contrails. Those white lines that form behind airplanes. I even gave a description in the OP.

Is there some new form of logic at play here? Since the government is bad= anything we want to make up about them is true?

It's OK not to know the answer, but to flail around wildly as you have done is much like a temper tantrum. Put on your big boy pants and discuss the topic at hand.

BenReclused
reply to post by theMediator

 

Oh the chemtrail argument...where none of the sides really really know what they are talking about because we clearly have no proof that chemtrails do exist yet we have no proof that they don't.
Not much different than arguing on the existence of God.

No, there's a huge difference! The reality of contrails is based on physical evidence. When it comes to "Chemtrails" the argument is based on, ONLY, speculation.

See ya,
Milt

Can you even read properly? I didn't even write the word "contrail" in that phrase...
A huge difference indeed.

Oh the chemtrail argument...where none of the sides really really know what they are talking about because we clearly have no proof that chemtrails do exist yet we have no proof that they don't.
Not much different than arguing on the existence of God.

WonderBoi
What evidence do you need, when it is a known FACT that they're spraying silver iodide, aluminum, barium and various other "chemicals" in the air? Those "chemicals" mix with the "chemicals" in our atmosphere; which cause those trails to "linger".

It's NOT "meteorology". It's CHEMISTRY. Chemistry 1st; Meteorology second.

Well I haven't seen it from my own eyes...

While I'm very open minded, I'm always skeptic of everything if I have no first degree experience. I know about the existence of chemtrails/geo-engineering, yet, I have no first hand experience that either chemtrails are used in the skies all the time or that they aren't.

That's just the way I think about almost every subject.

reply to post by theMediator

Can you even read properly?

Considering your use of improper sentences, I did the best that was possible.

I didn't even write the word "contrail" in that phrase...

You didn't need to. "Contrail" and "Chemtrail" refer to the same phenomenon:

a visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

See ya,
Milt

network dude

To answer this question, lets first identify what a contrail is. A contrail is the condensation trail that is left behind by a passing jet plane. Contrails form when hot humid air from jet exhaust mixes with environmental air of low vapor pressure and low temperature. Vapor pressure is just a fancy term for the amount of pressure that is exerted by water vapor itself (as opposed to atmospheric, or barometric, pressure which is due to the weight of the entire atmosphere above you). The mixing occurs directly behind the plane due to the turbulence generated by the engine. If condensation (conversion from a gas to a liquid) occurs, then a contrail becomes visible. Since air temperatures at these high atmospheric levels are very cold (generally colder than -40 F), only a small amount of liquid is necessary for condensation to occur. Water is a normal byproduct of combustion in engines.

Link to source

So the big question is....... can I trust this information? Is it true? It sure does go along with everything I have learned through science.

If it's not true, why? If it is true..... then how can chemtrails even be considered?

Ha anyone actually attempted to answer this?

reply to post by mrthumpy


In the mind of a chemtrailer, that's a rhetorical question. You know, (one that's too inconvenient to answer).
It would make them have to asses their own beliefs and that would be like taking their God away.

network dude
reply to post by mrthumpy

 

In the mind of a chemtrailer, that's a rhetorical question. You know, (one that's too inconvenient to answer).
It would make them have to asses their own beliefs and that would be like taking their God away.

I suppose the ones that do are no longer chemtrailers

BenReclused
reply to post by theMediator

 

Can you even read properly?

Considering your use of improper sentences, I did the best that was possible.

I didn't even write the word "contrail" in that phrase...

You didn't need to. "Contrail" and "Chemtrail" refer to the same phenomenon:

a visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation.

See ya,
Milt

Wow, I am never ever debating with you again, your ego is way up there and your brain is probably dysfunctional.
The best part is, you'll never come to realize this in your lifetime.

When it comes to contrails, I would have to go 50/50 on them. It just seems to be a natural phenomenon with planes, where the that moisture is heated, then cooled. This is probably why they stay in the air, as people have explained to me.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if such a natural effect became more interfered with such as cloud seeding, or postion a few clouds else where. It just wierd how big the contrails get over time, to huge where it just blankets the sky.

Hell, I remember seeing 1000 ways to die, where the Russians were throwing concrete powder in the sky, so they could get the clouds to bond. The concrete ended up on a abusive pimps head.

That my opinion.

reply to post by Specimen


One thing to consider, regarding the point you mentioned about how big contrails get, is that apart from the fact that large commercial jets will continuously produce the moisture for contrails for as long as they pull air through the engines, there is also the matter that the largest of engines today, as used to power the A380 and 777-300 classes, can produce 100,000lbs thrust each, which is higher than the total amount of thrust produced by all four engines on a 1970's vintage 747-200 added together. So no, contrails today won't look like they did back then. It would be bizarre if they did.

reply to post by theMediator

Wow, I am never ever debating with you again, your ego is way up there and your brain is probably dysfunctional.
The best part is, you'll never come to realize this in your lifetime.

Debate, my ass!

It seems that all you're capable of, is posting personal attacks.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by waynos


I guess so. Since oil engines have improved dramatically since the 70's. Not only that, since they bond so much quicker and stronger due to the heat given off from those much powerful engines. Plus with all the humidity and haze from co2 emissions, could have a effect on its bonding.

Then yes, they would be dramatically different. But I'm no expert, this is just my conclusion through observation of my own skies and other posts and theories.

I can see why man made clouds through accidental effect of our planes can frightened people. Used to scare me too.

reply to post by Specimen


Even though the engines are greatly larger and more powerful, the exhausts are cooler now than on the older engines. The combustion is just the same, of course, but with a bypass ratio in the order of 9+:1 (90% of the exhaust was not mixed with fuel and burned) this makes for cooler AND cleaner exhausts than older engines. This means the moisture is preserved in the bypass air and freezes quicker following decompression behind the engine. And airlines love em because they cost less in fuel.