Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: CIA director talks Chemtrails

  1. #11
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    1,365
    Thanked 1,296 Times in 707 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    I'm still agnostic and in information-collecting stage.

    Here's a an image of WW2 bomber contrails (1944):
    Name:  6ab2defaa5091ea867759e422b8c7d39.jpg
Views: 23
Size:  40.9 KB

    Note that the contrails dissipate after about a dozen plane lengths or so. In the "WW2 contrails over Belgium" video, it was a wintry sky and the length of the contrails is not so obvious.

    Here's a video I found yesterday that makes a compelling case for chemtrails:




    Pax

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (11-16-2017)

  3. #12
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,147
    Thanks
    1,018
    Thanked 1,283 Times in 769 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    I'm still agnostic and in information-collecting stage.
    That's a wise position to take...

    From my perspective that above video makes a compelling case for another under researched example.

    All I see is contrails. Some of his 'commentary' footage is flawed, especially using two craft side by side...they're not. Flight altitudes will be very different, including possible temp variations. Difference in colour of trail and light refraction was the 1st thing I thought of due to altitude differences. To say the colour difference is from a magnetic compound make-up is pure speculation. Jet engine type and age do produce contrail variations. (Read further below).

    His data analysis of altitudes, temps, moisture, etc, is not what I call compelling. The dude has no expertise in determining such data as proof that contrails 'cannot' form. This is another point of mine. Youtubers in this context are generally lazy and most aren't specialized in the respective fields they're associating with. Most certainly do not produce quantified factual data as proof, but plenty of poorly edited pseudo-journalism. Granted, some of it can appear compelling from an inexperienced and unqualified truth-seeker's perspective. Taking footage, using another's footage, using data that doesn't take all factors into account, is typical of a Youtuber's self prescribed expertize.

    Here's some interesting data I've found concerning jet engines, fuel type, water production etc...to support my argument above.

    Firstly, Engine types:

    The classic demonstration of high bypass engines producing more contrails is the study:
    Ulrich Schumann and Reinhold Busen, 2000, Experimental Test of the Influence of Propulsion Efficiency on Contrail Formation.

    Supporting data but heavy going

    For a direct test, a formation flight of two different large jet air- craft was arranged, wing by wing, during an ascent and a descent of the aircraft. Contrail formation and ambient conditions were observed simultaneously from a research aircraft. The two contrail forming aircraft were 1) a Boeing B707-307C built in 1968 and equipped with four jet engines of type PW JT3D-3B with bypass ratio of 1.4 and 2) an Airbus A340-300 built in 1998 with four jet engines of type CFM56-5C4 with bypass ratio of 6.8.
    ...
    A contrail was observed to form during ascent first behind the A340 at 7:28:40, at flight level 33,300ft. The B707 continued to ascend nearby without a contrail (Fig. 2). About 50 s later, at altitude of about 33,700 ft, a contrail formed also behind the B707 at 7:29:30. The contrails were observed to be forming very suddenly and persisted thereafter. During descent from flight level 35,000ft, the contrails disappeared first behind the B707 and disappeared shortly thereafter behind the A340.
    ...
    As documented in several photographs, an altitude range exists in which the A340 causes contrails while the B707 causes none. Figure 2 shows this fact during ascent and Fig. 3 during descent. The photographs show the contrails best during descent due to the more favorable sun and Falcon positions relative to the two other aircraft. We clearly see the four contrails forming from the four engines of the A340 while the B707 is seen flying without contrails.
    Name:  01.jpg
Views: 21
Size:  70.1 KB
    the newer high-bypass A340 produces contrails more frequently than the older, low-bypass B707

    This supports the higher level of contrails we see today as the engine tech changed including the 7-8 fold increase in aircraft since the 70's.

    Although the contrail factor for an individual aircraft varies as flight parameters change, Schrader (1997) pointed out that one can use representative values for the contrail factor that account for the generic propulsion efficiencies of typical engine types when preparing contrail forecasts used for different types of aircraft at the same time. This procedure is currently followed by the AFWA, which produces separate contrail forecasts for high-bypass, nonbypass, and low-bypass engine types. Because propulsion efficiency is highest for high-bypass engines and lowest for nonbypass engines, high-bypass engines have the highest contrail factors, and nonbypass engines have the lowest contrail factors (Schrader 1997).
    Name:  001.jpg
Views: 21
Size:  201.2 KB
    Chemtrail'ers have made claims that in previous decades (generally the 1980s and before) there were no persistent contrails, and that the contrails we see now are something new. But this new spin on the chemtrail theory seems to be arguing the opposite - that older planes would make contrails, and new planes will not.

    The thinking behind the "high-bypass = no contrails" seems to be the idea that the contrail is made from the air that an engine pushes backwards. This is incorrect. Simply pushing air does not create an exhaust contrail. An exhaust contrail is created from, as the name implies, the exhaust of the the engine.

    Jet fuel:

    Fuel is essentially Kerosene, a hydrocarbon = hydrogen and carbon. It consist of blends of over a thousand chemicals, primarily hydrocarbons (paraffins, olefins, naphthenes, and aromatics), additives such as antioxidants and metal deactivators, and countless impurities. Principal components include n-heptane and isooctane..."The results of burning them along with the kerosene is the same. Carbon Dioxide and Water.

    It burns in the air (oxygen) to make dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2)

    Since the oxygen adds to the mass, burning a gallon of jet fuel actually makes more than a gallon of water.

    A330 creates about 7 tonnes of water per hour during cruise. About 13 tonnes per hour on takeoff.

    Hydrocarbons are substances made of hydrogen and carbon
    Jet fuel is a mixture of hydrocarbons (similar to gasoline)
    Hydrocarbons burn in oxygen (in the air)
    Hydrogen + Oxygen = Water (H2O)
    Carbon + Oxygen = Carbon dioxide (CO2)
    So when jet fuel is burnt, it makes water and carbon dioxide.
    Because you are adding lots of oxygen, the amount of water produced is slightly more than the amount of fuel burnt.
    Last edited by Ross; 11-16-2017 at 04:23 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (11-17-2017)

  5. #13
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    1,365
    Thanked 1,296 Times in 707 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    The following video avoids getting bogged down in the physics of high altitude condensation by making at least one simple observation ...
    continuity. Persistent condensation trails are debatable ... but what about intermittent trails created by the pilot or some person in control turning the sprayer on and off. The following video appears to show supposed condensation trails being turned off and on. Check from @2:20 to @6:00 minutes.



    A smoking gun? What can possibly explain the trail being manually controlled (as observed in the video) other than chemicals being sprayed? If genuine contrails are being turned off and then on again, then that would imply the jet engines were being turned off for a period, and then turned on again ... and the probability of that occurring is close to one over infinity.

    The possible phenomenon of persistent contrails (even though, IMO, the science has yet to be fully elucidated, free-falling ice crystals withstanding) ... forced me into an agnostic view. After watching this video, I'm a little bit less agnostic than I was yesterday.

    For even if we accept that condensation trails can persist for much longer than I had originally thought, that doesn't necessarily mean that all long trails must be condensation trails. The observation of jetliner trails being turned on and off is reasonable proof of spraying.


    Pax

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (11-17-2017)

  7. #14
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,147
    Thanks
    1,018
    Thanked 1,283 Times in 769 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Persistent condensation trails are debatable
    No Zook, it's not debatable. I've provided irrefutable evidence showing they can and do persist dating back 70-100+ years of Scientific atmospheric observation analysis and later, jet engine properties (post #6)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    A smoking gun? What can possibly explain the trail being manually controlled (as observed in the video) other than chemicals being sprayed? If genuine contrails are being turned off and then on again, then that would imply the jet engines were being turned off for a period, and then turned on again ... and the probability of that occurring is close to one over infinity.
    What your looking at is 'aerodynamic contrail' and patchy humidity.

    Easy to summize above quote based on a visual only, coupled with the narrative from the cameraman, come pseudo meteorologist, come his irrefutable claim...Proof that Chemtrails Are Real!

    Another example of a less than qualified person adding to the Chemtrail argument, offering up a poorly researched area of his observations.

    Below I have another video, same thing. Irrefutable evidence-switching on and off spray nozzles.


    From Dane Wigington, for geoengineeringwatch.org

    Pay close attention to the red circle's added to footage, this they say as 'irrefutable evidence' being spray nozzles...

    Those are actually static wicks -- Basically these are wires screwed to the airframe.
    Their purpose is to discharge the static electricity that an aircraft picks up moving through the air - especially in clouds.


    Also, take notice of the passionate, easy to believe narrative from the voice over. From one of the loudest groups of this conspiracy, geoengineeringwatch.org

    Anyone with little or zero expertise in the field of meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, Aircraft engines and fuel types, are easily duped...which is why this particular theory has so easily grown into a massive conspiracy.

    I've shown you undisputable scientifically verifiable evidence, that contrails can and do linger, that they can and do form cirrus type clouds.

    I've shown you engine types, scientific and engineering specs irrefutable evidence that high-pass over engines (since the 1990's) produce more contrails than older engines, that of the low-pass over type.

    I will also show you that the on/off behavior is not due to spray-nozzle switching and everything to do with 'aerodynamic contrails' flying through patchy humidity.

    But first...here's an explanation that accompanies the video I posted.

    This video contains some of the most compelling footage yet captured of the
    ongoing atmospheric aerosol spraying assault. Countless people ask me how we
    can prove that jet aircraft are spraying in our skies.
    Here's the answer. Because we have up close
    film footage of these jets spraying. Turning on and off, period . That's the end of
    any debate on the matter
    In the effort to awaken others to the critical climate engineering issue if
    they refuse to accept what they can see with their own eyes
    there's nothing more you can do for them.
    Move on to others that are ready to face reality.
    The greatest line ever perpetrated on populations around the planet is the
    fallacy that the lingering expanding jet trails we see in our skies is just
    condensation.
    It is not.
    Film footage like this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that
    what we are seeing in our skies are sprayed aerosol dispersions that are
    part of the ongoing global climate engineering solar radiation management
    assault.
    These programs are decimating hearse life support systems there nothing short
    of omnicide for planet Earth
    They must be stopped.
    Videos like this are the most exceptional of tools in the battle to
    reach a critical mass of awareness regarding the climate engineering issue
    we must all use every tool at our disposal
    Every day counts.
    This is Dane Wigington, for geoengineeringwatch.org
    It continues: The video description:

    The geoengineers continue to ramp up their ongoing aerial bombardment of planet Earth. In order to wake up the sleeping masses to the war being waged against them in skies around the globe, visual proof is essential. Numerous forms of jet aerosol dispersions have been captured on film which inarguably reveal that elements are in fact being sprayed into the atmosphere. Footage of "on and off" dispersions from jet aircraft at cruising altitudes prove that what we are seeing is NOT CONDENSATION. ALL commercial flight carriers and ALL military tankers are equipped with a "high bypass turbofan jet engine". This type of jet engine is essentially a jet powered fan and is thus, by design, nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under the most rare and extreme of circumstances. Even then, only a short, very rapidly dissipating, trail could ever be produced from a "high bypass" jet engine due to its design characteristics. This 2 minute video is exceptional and inarguable up-close film footage of an aerosol spraying assault. We must all make our voices heard in the most critical battle to expose and halt the climate engineering insanity. My deepest gratitude to Douglas Huang for capturing this extremely compelling video footage.
    Now here's a couple of their mistakes. I call it laziness and or deliberate...

    It states: ALL commercial flight carriers and ALL military tankers are equipped with a "high bypass turbofan jet engine.

    There are still some low-bypass in service, commercially and militarily, albeit not many.

    Then it states: This type of jet engine is essentially a jet powered fan and is thus, by design, nearly incapable of producing any condensation trail except under the most rare and extreme of circumstances. Even then, only a short, very rapidly dissipating, trail could ever be produced from a "high bypass" jet engine due to its design characteristics.

    Absolutely incorrect...I provided the correct analysis of these engine types yesterday. Here we again see poorly researched content and then it goes on to say : This 2 minute video is exceptional and inarguable up-close film footage of an aerosol spraying assault.

    Now here's the data:

    From the: The Journal of Atmospheric Sciences

    Read here

    The video actually shows an aerodynamic contrail. It's caused by the drop in pressure over the wing causing water to condense out of humid air. It goes on and off because humidity is sometimes patchy, as seen by clouds being sometime patchy.

    Local variations in atmospheric relative humidity, which can be caused by numerous processes.

    Most pilots really like to keep their engines running, and engines run in a fairly consistent manner in cruise, so the gap is likely due to small variations in atmospheric conditions.

    a region where the ambient air is not supersaturated with respect to ice

    The relative humidity is not constant at flight altitude. In the gap it is lower than ice saturation. This can be caused by the thin cirrus that is visible. The cirrus crystals consume the water vapour in excess of saturation and start to sink due to gravity. But even without a cirrus, the relative humidity field is very variable.

    heterogeneity [variation] in ice-superaturation field

    Atmospheric wave structure, which causes spatial variations of temperature, which in turn changes relative humidity structure.
    Name:  000.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  289.6 KB

    In a recently published paper, atmospheric scientists specializing in contrails were asked what caused various photographed phenomena that "chemtrail" believers frequently identified as evidence of a secret large scale atmospheric spraying program. They unanimously identified the photos as ordinary contrails, and gave physical explanations for the various things shown in them.

    Here's an interesting photo with explanation. This photo has done the rounds as "spraying aerosols" yet you can clearly see the exhaust contrails and not from spray nozzles. This particular photo is excellent at showing the sheer amount of contrail that can be produced.

    Name:  3ca0d16b45d6e2e7a645aadc2965c833.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  22.2 KB

    the aircraft is flying through a very moist region of the atmosphere (RHice >100%) and generating very heavy condensation trails. Moisture levels are so high that uniform-sized ice crystals are forming in the pressure wake of the aircraft fuselage and are scattering solar radiation to produce the atmospheric optics seen in the photo.

    Very high humidity, much greater than ice supersaturation, in the layer results in formation of dense contrails. The faint flat trail in the middle is likely the secondary contrail formed by the detrainment of part of the wake vortices. The small particles and thinness of the center contrail together with the viewing and illumination angles can result in a "rainbow" effect. formation of an airframe contrail induced by the reduced air pressure on top of the wing.

    These are contrail forming in the wake of the aircraft engines, from aircraft emitted and the ambient water vapour. The coloured structures between the contrails are likely to be aerodynamically formed contrails of less ice water content but different crystal structure. There are well investigated examples of this kind in literature.

    It seems that the plane is flying in air of very high humidity (maybe in the tropics). Many ice crystals are formed in the contrails that take up a large amount of water vapor. At the same time it seems that there is some kind of trail inbetween the main trails that account for the rainbow colors which would mean that aerodynamic contrails have formed as well. The rainbow color in aerodynamic contrails have been shown to indicate the size of the ice crystals. As the crystals grow the color changes so that there is a spectrum of colors in different distances from the air plane

    Different types of contrails: spectrum contrails from Aerodynamic effect, others from normal Schmidt Appleman formation

    The wings produce lift and hence above the wing the pressure is low. Hence the air flowing over the wing is cooled adiabaticly, reaching fast large supersaturation and and hence forming of many small ice particles. Optical refraction leads to the nice colour spectrum.

    Engines are producing a dense contrail due to high water vapor content of exhaust and ambient air producing mixing supersaturation. Aerodynamic contrail is formed by the wing. These are probably producing liquid droplets which a refracting light like a rainbow.

    The dense trails are persistent contrails. The rainbow spectrum in between is an example of Iridescent aerodynamic contrails (AerC). AerC be differentiated from jet contrails as soon as they display iridescence which requires an angular distance from the sun of less than about 30°.

    The dense trails are contrails, line shaped clouds forming behind an aircraft if the ambient air is cold enough. The rainbow spectrum are due to the formation of Iridescent aerodynamic contrails.

    The phot shows 4 exhaust contrails fromign fromengine emissions and in addition a thin ice cloud forming becasue of low pressur over the wings in ambient air that is very humid and cool (so-called aerodynamic contrails)

    See publications by Gierens et al. (2009) dn Kärcher et al. (2009):

    The dense trail is a normal exhaust contrail formed by the water vapour from the engines, the rainbow-coloured trail in between is likely due to aerodynamic effects (aerodynamic contrails).
    Last edited by Ross; 11-18-2017 at 01:30 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (11-17-2017)

  9. #15
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    1,365
    Thanked 1,296 Times in 707 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross View Post
    No Zook, it's not debatable. I've provided irrefutable evidence showing they can and do persist dating back 70-100+ years of Scientific atmospheric observation analysis and later, jet engine properties (post #6)
    Debatable? Irrefutable? Until someone explains how ice crystals can remain suspended for hours at a time and not be subjected to free fall, it is very much debatable and the establishment observations and analyses remain insufficient (and require more than us taking them at their word). They, who had planned the Manhattan Project under secrecy; who had executed false flags like the Lusitania sinking, the Pearl Harbor attacks, the unethical Tuskegee syphillis experiments, Operation Paper Clip, etc, etc. ... all more than 70 years ago.

    To wit, the shadow government was already well-entrenched back then that it belies rational sense to extend benefit of doubt to it. Objective verification must come from outside government sources and literature. As for analysis of condensation trails, I'm not a total novice. I have some basic idea about stuff like triple points, phase diagrams, eutectic temperatures, gas laws and real gas behavior, etc. ... to at least ask legitimate questions. The question of free falling ice crystals remains unanswered to any degree of satisfaction, Ross.

    So far no one on the establishment side of things as presented other possibilities for persistent "alleged contrails". How about incomplete combustion products? Now that's a possibility.

    My brain sufficiently tickled, I went and googled for incomplete combustion products of jet fuel and found this link:
    https://www.nap.edu/read/11180/chapter/5#32

    Some of these other byproducts might create persistent trails independent of the conditions required for condensation. We would then have to investigate the free fall rates of each byproduct to see if any could be expected to remain airborne for hours thus creating the optics. That sorta thing. Just pointing out long trails in 1957 or earlier and calling them condensation trails seems rather unscientific to me. Getting back to ice crystals, they either free fall ... or they don't. If they don't, someone needs to explain the reason why they don't. That would be scientific. Arguments by appealing to authority are fallacious arguments, IMO.

    What your looking at is 'aerodynamic contrail' and patchy humidity.

    Easy to summize above quote based on a visual only, coupled with the narrative from the cameraman, come pseudo meteorologist, come his irrefutable claim...Proof that Chemtrails Are Real!

    Another example of a less than qualified person adding to the Chemtrail argument, offering up a poorly researched area of his observations.

    Below I have another video, same thing. Irrefutable evidence-switching on and off spray nozzles.


    From Dane Wigington, for geoengineeringwatch.org

    Pay close attention to the red circle's added to footage, this they say as 'irrefutable evidence' being spray nozzles...

    Those are actually static wicks -- Basically these are wires screwed to the airframe.
    Their purpose is to discharge the static electricity that an aircraft picks up moving through the air - especially in clouds.
    I'm not interested in spray nozzles and spray mechanisms and speculations. Any controlled opposition can hijack this discussion by misdirection. They did it with 9/11 and alleged "pods" under the aircraft that hit one of the twin towers. They can easily do it by pointing to static wicks and what not.

    I am interested in on/off spray patterns. It trips the light fantastic to suggest that the on/off spray patterns (observed in multiple videos during my research) is unambiguously the result of local atmospheric differences. We'd have to give undue benefit of doubt to even consider such a possibility, let alone have absolute certainty about it. The default intuition and high probability is that an on/off spraying switch is being operated to account for the intermittent spray patterns.


    Also, take notice of the passionate, easy to believe narrative from the voice over. From one of the loudest groups of this conspiracy, geoengineeringwatch.org

    Anyone with little or zero expertise in the field of meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, Aircraft engines and fuel types, are easily duped...which is why this particular theory has so easily grown into a massive conspiracy.
    You don't need expertise to ask critical questions, especially when there is massive amount of evidence to suggest that the experts are not being forthright and that their so-called "expertise" is counter-intuitive to observation and insider witness testimony that confirms that geoengineering of the atmosphere is taking place.

    I've shown you undisputable scientifically verifiable evidence, that chemtrails can and do linger, that they can and do form cirrus type clouds.
    I think you meant contrails in the above. I'll give you that Freudian slip, Ross; your subconscious is telling you things that your conscious is not willing to admit.

    I remain somewhat agnostic, even now, because I want to give every opportunity for the "condensation trails" absolutists to make their case. On balance, however, I see more evidence for the "chemtrail" absolutists. And I say that as one who cannot easily be duped, especially when science and critical thinking is involved.


    Pax

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (11-17-2017)

  11. #16
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,147
    Thanks
    1,018
    Thanked 1,283 Times in 769 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    You don't need expertise to ask critical questions
    I'll answer in more detail tomorrow...but for now your quote above was to my
    Anyone with little or zero expertise in the field of meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, Aircraft engines and fuel types, are easily duped...which is why this particular theory has so easily grown into a massive conspiracy.
    That was referenced to the narrator's of the chemtrail videos expressing with certainty ( not asking critical questions) that what they are showing is 'Proof that Chemtrails Are Real'

    That's my point, Zook. I've asked critical questions which is detailed in all of my posts...due to my lack of knowledge in this debate.

    Half of these fools post unchecked and poorly edited versions of what they think is happening...AND stating it as truth...

    Yes, certainly a Freudian slip, and that you understand...

    Don't worry, this investigation is far from over...I'll be back...
    Last edited by Ross; 11-17-2017 at 09:55 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (11-18-2017)

  13. #17
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,147
    Thanks
    1,018
    Thanked 1,283 Times in 769 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    Until someone explains how ice crystals can remain suspended for hours at a time and not be subjected to free fall,
    Ok, you're confusing yourself with this 'free fall notion'...

    We know that contrails are formed through various processes, primarily the water in jet exhaust (and there’s a ton of it as I explained thoroughly in post #12), mixes with wet cold air, and condenses and freezes into ice crystals.

    We also know there are variations regarding, altitudes, jet engine type, fuels etc, but the primary processes are warm, wet and cold air mixture.

    We know that Contrails can fade away, and contrails can persist and spread. And it all depends on the air they're formed in.

    When the conditions are right, (the air wet and cold enough) the trails can stay around for a long time. Dryer and they fade quickly.

    Now, Contrails can be regarded as a type of Cirrus cloud, made from the same chemistry processes.

    So let's look at these properties, here's the Scientific explanation:

    The most common form of high-level clouds are thin and often wispy cirrus clouds. Typically found at heights greater than 20,000 feet (6,000 meters), cirrus clouds are composed of ice crystals that originate from the freezing of supercooled water droplets. Cirrus generally occur in fair weather and point in the direction of air movement at their elevation.

    Cirrus can form from almost any cloud that has undergone glaciation and can be observed in a variety of shapes and sizes. Possibilities range from the "finger-like" appearance of cirrus fall streaks to the uniform texture of more extensive cirrus clouds associated with an approaching warm front.

    Fall streaks form when snowflakes and ice crystals fall from cirrus clouds. The change in wind with height and how quickly these ice crystals fall determine the shapes and sizes the fall streaks attain. Since ice crystals fall much more slowly than raindrops, fall streaks tend to be stretched out horizontally as well as vertically. Cirrus streaks may be nearly straight, shaped like a comma, or seemingly all tangled together.
    So there's the Scientific principle of the 'ice crystal formation and free fall' which interestingly they don't call free fall, but rather fall streaks, which is obvious once the properties are understood. Now I certainly hope that has answered your quote here:
    I'm not a total novice. I have some basic idea about stuff like triple points, phase diagrams, eutectic temperatures, gas laws and real gas behavior, etc. ... to at least ask legitimate questions. The question of free falling ice crystals remains unanswered to any degree of satisfaction, Ross
    Also corrected my Freudian slip. Changed the word Chemtrail to Contrail.
    Last edited by Ross; 11-18-2017 at 03:06 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (11-19-2017)

  15. #18
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    1,365
    Thanked 1,296 Times in 707 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross View Post
    Ok, you're confusing yourself with this 'free fall notion'...

    We know that contrails are formed through various processes, primarily the water in jet exhaust (and theres a ton of it as I explained thoroughly in post #12), mixes with wet cold air, and condenses and freezes into ice crystals.

    We also know there are variations regarding, altitudes, jet engine type, fuels etc, but the primary processes are warm, wet and cold air mixture.

    We know that Contrails can fade away, and contrails can persist and spread. And it all depends on the air they're formed in.

    When the conditions are right, (the air wet and cold enough) the trails can stay around for a long time. Dryer and they fade quickly.

    Now, Contrails can be regarded as a type of Cirrus cloud, made from the same chemistry processes.

    So let's look at these properties, here's the Scientific explanation:

    So there's the Scientific principle of the 'ice crystal formation and free fall' which interestingly they don't call free fall, but rather fall streaks, which is obvious once the properties are understood. Now I certainly hope that has answered your quote here:

    Also corrected my Freudian slip. Changed the word Chemtrail to Contrail.
    Well, you have raised enough uncertainty and my own research hasn't been able to disprove the existence of persistent condensation trails that I will abandon the notion that condensation trails necessarily have to be short.

    I did some studying myself to arrive at this point:
    http://www.eso.org/~rfosbury/home/Eo...tals-fall.html

    beginExcerpt
    This brings us to one of the most interesting aspects of atmospheric halos. How do crystals fall and what causes them to settle into particular orientations? When an object falls slowly enough, the air moving past it flows in a smooth, ordered way without the appearance of any turbulence in its wake. This is called 'laminar flow' and it is what aircraft designers attempt to achieve around a wing - even though it may be moving very fast. An ice crystal is not much like a wing but there are circumstances where it can be surrounded by such a laminar flow. For this to happen, the crystal must be small and light enough to fall slowly: in practice less than about 30 cm/s. The size at which this speed is reached for ice is about 0.1-0.2 mm, depending on shape (see box). Larger crystals fall faster and consequently generate a turbulent flow around them.
    end


    I'm satisfied that top speed of the slowest ice crystals (attained with laminar flow) is probably 30 cm/s or 0.3 m/s, which is considerably slower than the speed of the largest raindrops (10 m/s). (Yes, Ross, I got the latter info from a NASA website.)
    https://pmm.nasa.gov/resources/faq/h...raindrops-fall

    So there's a delta factor of 33. So the slowest ice crystals will take about thirty times longer to fall then raindrops. So theoretically, ice crystals can linger for a long time before they leave the optical range that produces long trails.

    Conclusion: condensation trails can be much longer than I had originally thought.

    Followup question: are all long trails then necessarily condensation trails?

    To answer the followup, the on/off spraying patterns observed in multiple videos need to be explained.


    Pax

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (11-19-2017)

  17. #19
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,147
    Thanks
    1,018
    Thanked 1,283 Times in 769 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Quote Originally Posted by Zook_e_Pi View Post
    Conclusion: condensation trails can be much longer than I had originally thought.

    Followup question: are all long trails then necessarily condensation trails?

    To answer the followup, the on/off spraying patterns observed in multiple videos need to be explained.
    I posted earlier in the Moon hoax thread saying you're stubborn...in this case, on this thread, you have removed some of that idea...

    Q1: Maybe not, and I can't say with certainty. My entire point in all above posts was to illustrate the inaccuracies...and tons of them, which do no favours for the serious researcher. Only the lazy 'surface' investigator's information and that's a crime...it only adds to the already polluted media portals especially when many re-post that info as reliable.

    Q2: I have addressed that. The difference between an 'aerodynamic contrail' and patchy humidity. re-read above posts.

    I also provided static wicks which are all over the net stating they're spray nozzles...your reply to that was
    I'm not interested in spray nozzles and spray mechanisms and speculations. Any controlled opposition can hijack this discussion by misdirection.
    ...You should be interested because the pseudo researchers use that as evidence supporting spray nozzles...leading to a discussion by misdirection.
    Last edited by Ross; 11-19-2017 at 04:04 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (11-19-2017)

  19. #20
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,142
    Thanks
    1,365
    Thanked 1,296 Times in 707 Posts

    Re: CIA director talks Chemtrails

    Let me clarify, when I said I'm not interested in spray nozzles and mechanisms, I'm basically saying that I'm not interested in pseudo-researchers.

    Spray patterns are more important than spray mechanisms, at least to me.


    Pax
    Last edited by Ross; 11-19-2017 at 04:43 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •