Chemtrails again

[1337m4n]

Tippit, like I said, nothing sprayed at 30,000 feet is going to be dense enough to do any damage whatsoever by the time it hits the ground. You're getting yourself scared over nothing.

My advice to you would be to chillax. Go to a bar, pick up a hot chick, take her to a nice movie, maybe have some smecks, and take a long, hot bath. Calm your nerves, and take a break from conspiracies. It'll be good for you.

 

[beachnut]

I'm talking about a pilot following another plane. You would be flying through it for a long time.

Since the wind can drift them, pilots tend to avoid flying through another planes contrail. In heavy traffic, this makes it look like they are laying patterns down.

You can offset. Never been a big problem. Just a cloud. As long as it is not fresh with turbulence.

 

[robinson]

I'm trying to make the point that normal traffic creates a situation where it LOOKS like a pattern is being "sprayed", when in fact it is just pilots avoiding the contrail. I can see how the paranoid would view it as a deliberate effect. A cross hatch pattern "directly over them", which could lead to the belief it is intentional.

While there are planes doing this all the time, you only see it when the weather allows persistant contrails.

 

[1337m4n]

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:


When I flushed just now, my toilet paper got shredded into pieces, instead of getting flushed away in one piece. It's never done that before.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:


When I flushed just now, my toilet paper got shredded into pieces, instead of getting flushed away in one piece. It's never done that before.

did you have mexican (thermite) or chinese (thermate) tonight?

 

[beachnut]

I'm trying to make the point that normal traffic creates a situation where it LOOKS like a pattern is being "sprayed", when in fact it is just pilots avoiding the contrail. I can see how the paranoid would view it as a deliberate effect. A cross hatch pattern "directly over them", which could lead to the belief it is intentional.

While there are planes doing this all the time, you only see it when the weather allows persistant contrails.

That is true. It does look like it is being sprayed, the core is clear until it cools. You are right sometimes there are distinct areas of no contrail and then contrail, and no contrail. The SR-71 would con, then stop as it passed to different levels.

 

[beachnut]

NO!! they're chemtrails coming from Jewish airliners because Jews don't like anyone looking at the sun for free.
*bong hit*

That was a secret

 

[1337m4n]

did you have mexican (thermite) or chinese (thermate) tonight?

It was Thai. And the spicy kind, too.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Maybe they're spraying Fabreeze.

 

[robinson]

I tend to avoid this entire part of the JREF. But if you are going to discuss CTs, I think it best to explain why somebody could come up with the CT in the first place, instead of acting like morons.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

It was Thai. And the spicy kind, too.

ahh.. you went "military grade"

 

[beachnut]

I tend to avoid this entire part of the JREF. But if you are going to discuss CTs, I think it best to explain why somebody could come up with the CT in the first place, instead of acting like morons.

I resemble that statement. But you got it, this CT is for MORONS, the ones who buy chemtail books

I first discovered the CT and it is real. I found an author who sells book and talks about chemtrails. I wrote him an email and explained it was H2O and CO2, he was polite and told me there was more to it.
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/
The CT is to sell books! That is the reason. He makes money. I left him to sell books to morons; I too could be a moron; I have proven it many times. But terminal stupidity cures use to be one scholarship away.
http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/
Money; we have to eat! Sell those chemtrail books.

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/ Found HIM. I wrote this guy years ago. He makes money off of the chemtails; this must be the internet selling idea 1007. Email him, he gave me a straight answer, I did not call him names, just reminded him of his fraud without mentioning it. A covert attempt to see what he was up to. He sells books and talks. Pure stupid, it exists, but this guy is making money from those who are, challenged with the facts?

That was easy to find, years ago, and it pops up a 5 or 6, searching chemtrails books.

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=chemtrails+books

The real CT, to sell books! Buyer beware.

Pure nut case stuff; the guy is a 9/11 truther also. http://www.willthomas.net/911/index.htm

 

[Unsecured Coins]

That was a secret

was being the operative word. I'm onto you, zionist! you and your gold foiled chocolate coins.

 

[beachnut]

was being the operative word. I'm onto you, zionist! you and your gold foiled chocolate coins.

.wondering why Bigfoot does not leave big piles of scat

Here we worry about the evil chemtrail capitalist, and bigfoot scat is piling up.

 

[Corsair 115]

Where did I allege anything other than what I witnessed, and photographed?

You've voiced the opinion that what you are seeing are not natural effects of aircraft flying through the atmosphere.

If the effect is an artificial one, then follow-up questions as to the nature of what the chemicals are and how long the spraying have been going on strike me as entirely reasonable. Particularly if one is convinced of the legitimacy of the chemtrail explanation, as I would expect such a person would want to investigate the subject in depth.

My father flew a B-17 in the war.

My respects to your father on his service. He must have some interesting stories to tell (assuming that he's ever spoken about his experiences).

The B-17 is probably my second favourite aircraft of WWII.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What does a contrail weigh?

I find that simple arithmetic is often informative in examining some of these sort of theories, to make an assessment of plausibility. How much vapour is there, by weight, in a contrail?

I just looked out of the window and saw a couple of airliners pulling contrails. Typically they will produce a pair of trails, which look roughly cylindrical and extend slightly beyond the wingtips. Assuming a wingspan of a little under 40 metres (about right for a 757, say) we can estimate that the radius of each cylinder is 10 metres, so the area is about 300 square metres (truncating pi to a single digit; this is order of magnitude stuff).

Now length. Let's take the example of an aircraft flying at a height of 10,000 metres (33,000 feet), passing overhead, and producing a contrail from horizon to horizon - not an unusual scenario, but about the maximum contrail length that can be seen by a single observer. Wikipedia gives a handy formula for estimating the distance from a point at altitude to the horizon; multiply the height in metres by 13, then take the square root, and the result is the distance in kilometres. When the airliner crosses my horizon, the point where I'm standing is at its horizon, so that's how far away it is. Multiply by two - it goes from one horizon to the other - and we get a total length of 690 kilometres (or about 430 miles). Multiply this by the area, and we have a contrail volume of about 200 million cubic metres.

Estimating the water content of a cloud is a very complicated business about which I know very little. However, let's make some estimates. The visibility of contrails tends to be very good, so optically they can be taken to behave something like cumulus clouds. A quick Google gives:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hv...ts=ajA-8jOQ2G&sig=afGWGOEF5AoW6NY2lSwWrRyyxLQ
Cumulus clouds vary in water content from 0.2 to 1.0 grammes per cubic metre. Let's take 0.5 as a sensible mid-range number.

That gives us a total weight of water in the contrail as about 100 million grammes, or 100 metric tons. And that's just the length of contrail we can see from a single point of observation - 430 miles is a pretty short distance for an airline flight. Just for comparison, the maximum payload of a C-17 Globemaster is 77.5 metric tons.

For me, that more or less proves that the source of contrail clouds must be atmospheric. There simply isn't enough payload capacity, even in the biggest airliners, to release that much of anything.

Dave

 

[bje]

There are good reasons that I could be wrong? That implies there is a possibility that I might not be wrong."

Therefore, you imply that you might be wrong.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge evidence, I'm familiar with contrails and "persistent" contrails, and none of that explains or justifies the spraying I saw being done by multiple planes that turned a blue sky into a hazy mist in just a short period of time.

Yes, you have persistently refused to acknowledge the evidence everyone has brought you in this thread. You have simply made unfounded assertions and claims based solely on what you imagine something should or should not look like. You are unable demonstrate what contrails could not look like.

In other words, I accept the possibilities that you offered for what I saw, but I am not convinced.

But you cannot give us evidence for what you claim you believe. The burden of proof is on you.

After all, I own my own experiences, and I have to weigh what is possible with what is likely, based on them. I reserve the right to not only be suspicious, but also to be wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts, Tippit.

 

[bje]

There are plenty of possible explanations for what I saw, some more "nefarious" than others.

You have given us no evidence, Tippit. You cannot just claim there are "possible" explanations, some "nefarious" , based only on what you imagined you saw. You have given no reason nor evidence.


"But the two most relevant possibilities are 1) A coincidence of an unusual number of planes for this area and unusual atmospheric conditions to produce persistent condensation trails turning a blue sky into a milky haze, and 2) Unknown planes spraying unknown substances for unknown purposes."

You have no basis for arriving at #2. What you think may be unusual cannot be inferred from the fact that you have never seen it before. Your explanation is no better than people who see lights in the sky at night, they don't look familiar to them, and then conclude they saw flying sawyers. No matter how you slice it, you saw something, and have tried to give an explanation to it, but you are unable to produce evidence.

Since I actually saw the planes emitting particulate, since I live in a rural area with almost no air traffic, and since the scope of these "condensation" trails was so immense so as to visibly alter the sky as far as the eye could see in 360 degrees, I have ruled out possibility #1. My photos don't really do justice as to how drastically the clear blue sky was altered.

Planes fly over rural areas. Jets do not always emit contrails; over time there are far more days with no contrails which means far less likelihood that you would see planes flying overhead.

You actually were very clear about your photos:

The photographs don't lie.
Did anyone actually look at my photos, and honestly conclude that those were condensation trails?

Since I don't consent to having anything sprayed on me, for whatever purpose, I have a problem with the only other possibility, even if whatever they're spraying is harmless.

Since you have provided not one iota of evidence for so-called "chemtrails", you have no basis for making any claim that you are being sprayed.

And you want us to accept that chemicals are being sprayed on us by nefarious elements in a secret program in broad daylight instead of at night when no one could see them?

How so, Tippit?

 

[bje]

I appreciate the links, however, since I didn't log the time and date, and since that feature on my camera was turned off, I don't have enough information to determine whether they were commercial airplanes. That isn't really relevant though, because again, I saw them spraying, and I saw them flying haphazard routes. The latter should be evident from the photos.

We are not talking about the past, Tippit. Pay attention: we are suggesting you use Flight Explorer for the future.

Again, you have no basis for concluding you saw spraying and have brought nothing to the table to support your claims.

 

[bje]

Where did I allege anything other than what I witnessed, and photographed?

From your first post, Tippit. Have you already forgotten?

"I've actually seen chemtrails with my own eyes, on a couple occasions, and photographed them once. The idea that they are simply contrails, and not the results of chemical spraying is ridiculous, because I've seen contrails under similar atmospheric conditions and they are easily distinguishable. The photographs don't lie. It's not a question in my mind that chemicals are being sprayed from airplanes, the question is what are they spraying and for what purpose."

Do you now retract that statement, Tippit? I hope you now understand why you should.