|
|
|
|
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 2:21:05 PM | Some people have already done a decent job of explaining how contrails occur, and that they are normal and caused by humidity levels in the atmosphere.
Instead I will explain, using simple math, why "chemtrails" are not really possible.
Let's say that "chemtrails" are sprayed to form a cloud the width of the wingspan and the height of the tail.
A 747-400 has a wingspan of 64.4m, a tail height of 19.4m and cruises at 500km/h.
This means every MINUTE of "chemtrial" production, the plane would be producing a cloud 10,833,333m3 in size.
With contrails, this is rather meaningless since the moisture comes from the jets intakes. But it is an entirely different story when you are claiming the clouds are actually some sort of chemical cloud.
I can't really tell you about the visibility of conspiracy substances, but let's say it can make a visible cloud with only 1 part per million (I doubt anything would be visible 20,000ft away at that concentration). That would mean for every minute of "chemtrail" production would require 10m3 of product. Considering the length of some of the contrails I have seen, I do not believe it would be possible for an aeroplane to carry enough chemicals to produce a cloud of similar size.
One of the posters above has his profile picture of himself in uniform in the captains chair of what looks to be a midbody airliner (possible a 737-800). Maybe people should listen to him, it is his job to know about these things.
Also I grew up in an airline family, I have 5 pilots in my family, I have friends who are pilots, and none of them believe that contrails are actually chemicals being put into our atmosphere.
If "chemtrails" were real, and have been spraying over North American cities for the last decade, you would think at least one person would come out and tell the world what they have seen. We have not heard from one person with any qualifications to say "chemtrails" are real.
Even 9/11 conspiracies have found some officials to question the official story. With "chemtrails" all we hear from are the typical conspiracy theorist, with no scientific background in meteorology, aerospace engineering, or any science that could logically explain how the "chemtrails" are produced.
And if you are still worrried, just make sure you always have a tinfoil hat handy, in case the chemtrails are trying to read your mind. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 2:37:32 PM | Well, if you look up Dukky's reference to 1953 - zinc cadmium sulfide, there's no doubt the militaries in both the Americas and in Europe conducted 'experiments' involving the populations on both continents by spraying things from aeroplanes. Here's a scary quote....
Cadmium released from 44 long range trials for which data are available, and extrapolated to a total of 76 trials to allow for trials with incomplete information, is about 1.2% of the estimated total release of Cd into the atmosphere over the same period. "Worst case" estimates are 10 µg Cd inhaled over 8 years, equivalent to Cd inhaled in an urban environment in 12–100 days, or from smoking 100 cigarettes. A further 250 kg ZnCdS was dispersed from the land based sites, but significant soil contamination occurred only in limited areas, which were and have remained uninhabited. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740210/
And this is reassuring...
Information on how zinc cadmium sulfide affects human health is sparse, but data from animal tests indicate that the compound, when taken orally, has no short-term toxic effects; nor was it found to be a skin or eye irritant. Because limited laboratory research on the toxicity of zinc cadmium sulfide has been performed on animals, and no data exist on humans, the committee based its conclusions about the ability of the compound to cause cancer on what it called a "worst-case" assumption: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=5739 | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 4:05:41 PM |
Unless... you think I am also one of "them."
I don't know dude, you just might be.You DO look kinda like a bug in your profile pic. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 4:13:20 PM | I'm not quite as concerned about the possible toxicity of the inhaled Cadmium in 1953 as I am about the car chrome. We got the car in 1961 (used -- so it was already some years old) and I remember the chromed bumpers (they were gorgeous...They really knew how to chrome in those days -- probably used more nickel). The car was a bit long for our existing garage, so the doors were often left open, shielding the front bumper and exposing the rear. One day I noticed that the chrome on the rear bumper had bubbled horribly. (Needless to say, my dad was none too pleased about it!) The front bumper was still fine. As a kid, I knew little about chemistry, or what might cause something like that, so I didn't think much more about it at the time. I remember my dad talking to some friends (who had developed a similar problem) and they were chalking it up to "sh¡tty chroming" at the factory.
Looking back, I wonder what garbage chemicals did that to the bumper and did I breathe any of it? If so, what did it do to me? A lot of people I know have died of cancer, and while there were probably a myriad of much more likely causes, different in each case, there is always a little nagging doubt.., Did so & so die as a result of one of the experiments? If I get cancer, what will have originally caused it? Granted the probabilities are vanishingly small, but not non-existent and that enrages me, in particular because nobody asked us for our permission...They just went ahead & did it. THAT I will not forgive!...EVER
@ super ryan
Instead I will explain, using simple math, why "chemtrails" are not really possible.
Your math is flawed. For one thing, the particulates are released from nozzles that are probably only an inch or so in diameter. Bear in mind that the spray only has to go a distance of about 100 km before "refills" are required. I took the liberty of doing a few simple calculations (simplifying where possible) and the result I get is quite different than yours:
I can't post the calculations here, simple as they are, but they show a cloud of nearly total opacity at 100 meters diameter. Assuming 10% opacity is still a very well defined cloud (especially considering how much light aluminum oxide probably reflects), I'd say a "cloud" of 1000 meters diameter (circular cross section of contrail) would still appear very much like a heavy cloud. Add to that the "flattening" effect resulting from temperature differential with respect to the atmosphere, and it could probably spread to a 2 kilometer width by the time it starts really losing opacity and looking much like a diffuse cirrus cloud. I'll grant you that I could be out by a factor of perhaps ten (probably about two -- these are VERY informal approximations), but I think I've made my point that it is anything but impossible to physically produce a "chemtrail" with a solid particulate spraying apparatus (which ought to be good news to the patent holders). | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 4:37:59 PM | None of which answers the basic question, why would anybody bother. Really! And why has no one come forward with information about some covert government/illuminati/mason/alien conspiracy? Then there are the physical problems of where to fit all this "chemical" in passenger jets.
You mentioned not being able to see the plan or markings. Well, unless you've got one of these:
http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/20military.html
...you're not going to see much. Even really good amateur photos of the ISS have a fair bit of processing done to them. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:13:01 PM |
Then there are the physical problems of where to fit all this "chemical" in passenger jets.
I've already said they aren't commercial jets...leastways they have no airline markings. These jets appear to be tankers, moreover, they are flying well below 35000 ft., usually about 25,000 and no...they aren't circling the airport, but they do turn around (sometimes). It has also been well established what aerosol is usually used. There are high concentrations of barium and aluminum oxide in powder form.
The only things I can think of are that they may have implemented Edward Teller's program to boost the planet's albedo (and forestall global warming), or perhaps Haarp is "blasting " holes in the ionisphere that they are trying to cover. There may well be other reasons, weather control comes to mind, but the government's silence on the matter indicates that there's something they don't want us to know; which only makes me more curious, since we have no reason whatsoever to trust the ba$tards. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:22:41 PM | Or....they're not spraying anything but hot kerosene exhaust into very cold air.
Duks, you live in Winnipeg. I used to live there. If anyone should know what exhaust in cold air looks like it's us! | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:47:18 PM | If anyone should know what exhaust in cold air looks like it's us!
that's why I'm so interested in the phenomenon. I was looking into it years before it became a popular conspiracy theory. Like I said before, in the mid-nineties They just sort of "sprang" on the scene. I've been looking up at jets most of my life (I used to enjoy identifying them when I was younger). I remember talking to one of my professors in Applied math about his work optimizing exhaust duct shapes for noise reduction and I remember seeing those designs become a reality, as the jets over winnipeg became much quieter. The exhaust ducts on the tankers I see dispensing aerosols are an order of magnitude quieter than that. It's almost spooky; they can be right overhead at 20000 ft. and you can barely hear them. Maybe it's a side effect of the aerosols, I don't know, but I rather suspect they are designed to be unobtrusive to keep people from looking up and paying attention.
It is virtually certain that they are dumping a lot of aluminum & barium into the atmosphere. Why, I don't know. I DO know that the clouds & trails play hell with my observing on many nights and it never used to. Maybe I should ask some of the old timers at RASC if they've noticed the change over the years -- We can't all be wearing tinfoil hats. lol | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 8:09:57 PM |
I looked up and saw the entire sky cris-crossed with about a dozen of them.
That's the same typical pattern I've seen. The program, whatever it was, must have stopped because I've seen no reports anywhere of chemtrails persisting. The contrails are natural and do persist but we know what those are. The chemtrails, we still don't and, like JustDukky, I trust the military about as far as I can throw them.
This is the same government that experimented with LSD early on in San Francisco and, of course told nobody about it. This it the same government that brought you agent orange and I'd be willing to bet those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't told about the health consequences of depleted uranium either.
This is the same military who outright lied about the cause of death of that sports figure (can't remember his name) who could have easily gotten on with a pro team but joined the military instead and got killed with friendly fire. The military lied about that because bush was having a tough time and they needed a national hero and a story to take the heat off bush.
Would the government lie to the public over chemtrail exlperiments? Ohhhh no.
You people that call it a conspiracy like you label everything else are so incredibly freaking gullible you can be sold anything. THe government loves people like you because you suck up everything you're told and accept it as gospel. You're the ones with the tin hats one. You're fools.
I also taught flying and I know what the hell a contrail is. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/27/2009 9:06:10 PM | Hey blues
How do you tell the difference between a plane that is cruising by at 25,000 feet, and one crusing above at 30,000 feet?
How do you tell the difference between a contrail, and a chemtrail? I would like to know, so as to be able to cover my pool before all that nasty stuff hits my water.
Paul K | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 5:02:47 AM |
You people that call it a conspiracy like you label everything else are so incredibly freaking gullible you can be sold anything. THe government loves people like you because you suck up everything you're told and accept it as gospel. You're the ones with the tin hats one. You're fools.
What a wonderful world you live in, bluesman.
Okay, graft, corruption, kick-backs, incompetence...those are far more believable traits of "gubmint" than...well, pretty much every other thing you seem to suck up with glee. And they also come with something you seem to lack the concept of - a surprising thing, for a "lawyer." It's called PROOF.
So really, who's the gullible one, here?
I also taught flying and I know what the hell a contrail is.
However, you clearly don't know what the hell "plausible" and "evidence" are. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 7:58:05 AM |
Unless... you think I am also one of "them."
knowing how "they" operate, i find the whole idea rather silly. because if you really believe some covert branch of the military, or gov. is spraying you with chemicals why in hell would they do it during the day when you could see it? wouldn't it be much more "covert" and just as effective to do it during the night when you were asleep and couldn't see it? and why at such high altitudes? i would think a good share would end up in the ocean or in unpopulated areas ..... what a waste of good (and probably very expensive) chems! | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:01:01 AM | I have heard about the spraying over Winnipeg in the early 50s. I checked it out because I have a friend who grew up in Winnipeg in the early 50s and has MS today. It seems like Barium is a main cause and is a main ingredient in the Chemtrails. I have personally watched these Chemtails since the late 90s in the skies over my head.
The 1977 Senate hearings confirmed that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. The 1994 Rockefeller report concluded 100s or 1000s of military personnel were also subjected to secret biological experiments for the last 60 years. The German government has admitted to the chemtrails spraying on National Television, but lied, saying they are not harmful. These are Government facts.
The video link supplied further up this thread is accurate and contains very valid footage. The video puts the point across nicely. There are many other good homegrown videos. I could of taken tons of footage myself with what I have personally seen.
I don’t know the real reasons for filling or skies with these chemtrails. It would be nice to know the truth as to why.
More importantly … is the simple fact that we are being sprayed with a chemical concoction that is very unhealthy for our planet and us. Many scientists have have examined the fallout on the ground and have come forward with what the chemtrails contain in the way of chemicals etc. Chemtrails are not healthy for humans or other life forms.
All the evidence is in the skies right over our heads. Just simply look up at the skies both day and night. It is also very easy to know chemtrails are unhealthy.
Enjoy your day ... Love and Peace | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:05:48 AM |
I don’t know the real reasons for filling or skies with these chemtrails. It would be nice to know the truth as to why.
The truth is, they're not. You're looking at airplane exhaust.
A more important question is why people prefer to believe this nonsense rather than ask themselves a simple question....why? | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:28:44 AM | | It's more then simple plane exhaust. Normal airline planes leave very little exhaust. The chemtrails have so much it is a joke. It lingers for hours. It turns a blue sky white. It is not just the chemicals that are a concern, it's the blocking of the sky. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:49:58 AM |
It's more then simple plane exhaust. Normal airline planes leave very little exhaust. The chemtrails have so much it is a joke. It lingers for hours. It turns a blue sky white.
Did you not read my first post? About weather? Have you not noticed that long duration contrails are usually associated with incoming precipitous weather systems? (No, they don't cause 'em, either, before you go there. Weather is entirely too complex for something as simple as a passing jet to influence.)
Conversely, short duration contrails result from high pressure, low humidity weather systems. Simple as that. Nothing more complicated, really. In fact, I use the length of contrails as an indication of what kind of weather to expect for observing with my scope. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:23:47 AM | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8NmzfjIkI0
You are in denial. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:29:57 AM | You are in denial.
No, just common sense. What some of us like to call "informed." But thanks for your concern.
Edit: and did you notice the period after 9/11 there were none of these "chemtrails?" One would think, if "they" had so much power, they could have easily launched their "missions" regardless, dontcha think? | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:38:36 AM | | This is simple plane exhaust...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66QssHrbDm4 | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:41:21 AM | Hi Aimee
I asked a while back on how to tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails. Can you tell me how to tell the difference?
Paul K | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:47:39 AM | As no one has answered these relevant questions yet, they bear repeating:
How do you tell the difference between a plane that is cruising by at 25,000 feet, and one crusing above at 30,000 feet?
How do you tell the difference between a contrail, and a chemtrail?
OK, the first question is pretty much directed at JustDukky and his claims. Good luck with that answer, btw.
The second question, however, is for anyone to answer... anyone at all...
You are in denial.
Yes. We deny the validity and veracity of many youtube videos. For example, someone could show a picture of a fallen down tree-- that is not sufficient evidence of an alien landing there (to me, at least).
The German government has admitted to the chemtrails spraying on National Television, but lied, saying they are not harmful. These are Government facts.
You mean this debunked story?
http://contrailscience.com/germans-admit-they-used-duppel/ | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 9:53:36 AM |
This is simple plane exhaust...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66QssHrbDm4
Actually, yes. And do you notice the cirrostratus and stratocumulus clouds? Clear indications of weather coming in. I'll bet you shortly after he shot that video, it rained. Or, at the very least, a day or two of overcast skies. New World Order? No, just simple meteorology.
Before you get too much into this nonsense, I'd strongly suggest you read up on the subject of weather. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 10:00:33 AM | I use the length of contrails as an indication of what kind of weather to expect for observing with my scope.
Now that many reach from almost one horizon to the other and turn into pseudo-cirrus clouds (an abrupt change from before about 1995, when that NEVER happened), when I see ANY on a given day, I generally don't bother setting up my scope. | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 10:56:09 AM |
How do you tell the difference between a plane that is cruising by at 25,000 feet, and one crusing above at 30,000 feet?
I used to like spotting & identifying planes, so many years ago, I made a little sort of low power (5x) spotting scope with a reticule for angular measurement. If I could identify the plane, I could work out the distance based on angular measurement of wingspan or length. Timing the passage across the FOV of the scope allowed me to work out the speed it would be travelling at.
After awhile, you kinda get a feel for the altitude & velocity of planes (as long as you can identify them) without the scope. Not as exact, but still a good ballpark figure. Most of the "chemtrail" planes appear to be either (KC?) 135s or 167s. Their flightpath is low and straight, so they obviously aren't in any kind of "holding pattern" for landing at the airport, and they are flying too low & slow to be simply overflying Winnipeg, so what are they doing?
How do you tell the difference between a contrail, and a chemtrail?
That's easy I never saw a chemtrail for 30 years (lots of contrails though). Since about 1995, I see them all the time, mostly on "unmarked" aircraft. (identified commercial aircraft seem to still produce regular contrails as far as I can tell)...What's changed?...Why with only some aircraft?...Did Jet fuel undergo a major change in 1995?...Doubtful, since most aircraft seem to produce regular contrails.
I think these questions are reasonable, yet anytime I've asked them, I've been given the usual bullsh¡t spiel about "normal contrails" they give to everyone else. Sorry. I'm not that stupid; if they were normal contrails I wouldn't be asking about them. I need better answers and I'm not getting them from the people who ought to know. This alone tells me something is being hidden from the general public. If they aren't telling us, it's probably because they don't want us to know. Well I didn't know I was used as a human guinea pig and it isn't a nice feeling; certainly one that doesn't exactly engender trust in government. The best assumption is that they are lying their a$$es off. They always did before; why should they change now? | |
|
| chemtrails
Posted: 10/28/2009 11:14:00 AM | Hey dukky
You seem to be very well versed in the difference between "chemtrails" and contrails, and you wrote:
"That's easy I never saw a chemtrail for 30 years (lots of contrails though). Since about 1995, I see them all the time, mostly on "unmarked" aircraft. (identified commercial aircraft seem to still produce regular contrails as far as I can tell)...What's changed?...Why with only some aircraft?...Did Jet fuel undergo a major change in 1995?...Doubtful, since most aircraft seem to produce regular contrails."
Again we, ingorant of such differences, need to know how to tell the difference between "chemtrails" and contrails. HOW can I tell the difference? What does one look like, and what characteristics does each have that is different than the other?
Oh, and when a plane is cruising at 35,000 feet, can you see the markings on it to identify it as military or civilian? And, if you can ID the difference, how do you do it? Does the "chemtrail" result after being mixed with the jet fuel, or are there "sprayers", for lack of a better word? If the airplanes that are emenating the "chemtrails" are civilian, then considering the chemicals that are in the "chemtrails", wouldn't you be able to test the internals of the jet motors for traces of such chemicals? How about testing the fuel NOT burned for these chemicals, as there is always fuel left over in the tanks? AND, if so, why hasn't that been done yet?
Enquiring minds need to know.
Paul K | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
