Chemtrail Poll . . . do you think chemtrails are real? See the Results NOW!

What is your definition of Chemtrail?

What is your definition of Contrail?


The only thing I would remotely call a chemtrail would be the spray or dust being released from an aircraft doing an agricultural application. These sorties are carried out at very low altitudes and under strict guide lines pertaining to weather.

A contrail is the exhaust trails left in the sky by jet aircraft, under certain weather conditions these trails can persist or linger.



Exactly right. Con-trails are water vapor that the atmosphere could not absorb because the relative humidity of the air was too high. When the atmosphere can't absorb the water vapor, it freezes to condensation nuclei and becomes visible.

Don't you chem-tards think that if they really were trying to kill your lame asses off spraying chemicals that they'd figure a way to make it invisible? It'd be easier to just put the shit in the water supply and you'd never know the difference.

Instead, George wants you to believe that tens of thousands of professional pilots and tens of thousands of mechanics are willing to do the dirty work and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM refuses to do it nor will they come forward to spill the beans on the operation.

You fucks needs to form a cult. Call it the "Chem-tard cult."

Moreover, no pilot would allow their fuel to be contaminated with chemicals.


Your are right . . . no pilot would allow their fuel to be contaminated with chemicals (knowingly) . . . what about all the chmeicals they don't even think about that are already there . . . . it is a complex story! BTW Metals like Lead don't just burn up . . . they are there after 2000 degrees of heat.

[link to www.csgnetwork.com]
AVIATION FUEL ADDITIVES

Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications.

A few additives in common use are as follows:

1. Anti-knock additives reduce the tendency of gasoline to detonate. Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) is the only approved anti-knock additive for aviation use and has been used in motor and aviation gasolines since the early 1930s.

2. Anti-oxidants prevent the formation of gum deposits on fuel system components caused by oxidation of the fuel in storage and also inhibit the formation of peroxide compounds in certain jet fuels.

3. Static dissipater additives reduce the hazardous effects of static electricity generated by movement of fuel through modern high flow-rate fuel transfer systems. Static dissipater additives do not reduce the need for `bonding' to ensure electrical continuity between metal components (e.g. aircraft and fuelling equipment) nor do they influence hazards from lightning strikes.

4. Corrosion inhibitors protect ferrous metals in fuel handling systems, such as pipelines and fuel storage tanks, from corrosion. Some corrosion inhibitors also improve the lubricating properties (lubricity) of certain jet fuels.

5. Fuel System Icing Inhibitors (Anti-icing additives) reduce the freezing point of water precipitated from jet fuels due to cooling at high altitudes and prevent the formation of ice crystals which restrict the flow of fuel to the engine. This type of additive does not affect the freezing point of the fuel itself. Anti-icing additives can also provide some protection against microbiological growth in jet fuel.

6. Metal de-activators suppress the catalytic effect which some metals, particularly copper, have on fuel oxidation.

7. Biocide additives are sometimes used to combat microbiological growths in jet fuel, often by direct addition to aircraft tanks; as indicated above some anti-icing additives appear to possess biocidal properties.

8. Thermal Stability Improver additives are sometimes used in military JP-8 fuel, to produce a grade referred to as JP-8+100, to inhibit deposit formation in the high temperature areas of the aircraft fuel system.

POWER BOOSTING FLUIDS


JP-8 is formulated with icing inhibitor, corrosion inhibitors, lubricants, and antistatic agents, and less benzene (a carcinogen) and less n-hexane (a neurotoxin) than JP-4. However, it also smells stronger than JP-4. JP-8 has an oily feel to the touch, while JP-4 feels more like a solvent. Workers have complained of smelling and tasting JP-8 for hours after exposure. As JP-8 is less volatile, it remains on the contaminated surfaces for longer time, increasing the risk of exposure.[4]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]




George, let me help you out here. TEL (tetra-ethyl lead) is an additive they put in Avgas. That is stuff we burn in small general aviation piston-driven airplanes. No con trails or chem trails there George.

Airliners and the USAF use JP-4, not JP-8. I have no clue who uses JP-8. Maybe the navy.

I would like to add to the mix a list of musical artists whom have made mention of the phenomenon, some directly, some indirectly:

Beck - Chemtrails (on the Modern Guilt Album. This tune is almost a cover of aphrodites child - the four horsemen)

Radiohead – Sail to the Moon. (Brush the Cobwebs Out of the Sky)

The Good, the Bad & the Queen - Kingdom of Doom "there's a noise in the sky, following all the rules and not asking why"

Gorillaz - Rhinestone Eyes "same time every day, same routine, a clear target in summer, when skies are blue. it's part of the noise when winter comes, it reverberates in my lungs, natures corrupted, in factories far away"

Black Eyed Peas - Where is the Love?




There are others I cannot think of right now, please add

Your are right . . . no pilot would allow their fuel to be contaminated with chemicals (knowingly) . . . what about all the chmeicals they don't even think about that are already there . . . . it is a complex story! BTW Metals like Lead don't just burn up . . . they are there after 2000 degrees of heat.
[link to www.csgnetwork.com]




George, let me help you out here. TEL (tetra-ethyl lead) is an additive they put in Avgas. That is stuff we burn in small general aviation piston-driven airplanes. No con trails or chem trails there George.

Airliners and the USAF use JP-4, not JP-8. I have no clue who uses JP-8. Maybe the navy.

are you not seeing persistent Contrails or Chemtrails over Denmark?



sometimes if a plain spray in the morning, it can been see all day as cloud/fog


like milky white or how, should i explain it.


DANE

The entire state of Florida is about to Drown in a
Toxic Soup of Benzene,Hydrogen Sulfide,Corexit and who
knows what other kind of Toxic bull shit,And You Stupid
Chemtards are still Yappin about ChemTrails...WTF??

STFU With Your Stupid,Imaginary-fairy-tales!!!


Chemtrails....

You fucks needs to form a cult. Call it the "Chem-tard cult."

Who said that Chemtrails are always visible? Who said Chemtrails were designed to poison people?

Your are right . . . no pilot would allow their fuel to be contaminated with chemicals (knowingly) . . . what about all the chmeicals they don't even think about that are already there . . . . it is a complex story! BTW Metals like Lead don't just burn up . . . they are there after 2000 degrees of heat.
[link to www.csgnetwork.com]




George, let me help you out here. TEL (tetra-ethyl lead) is an additive they put in Avgas. That is stuff we burn in small general aviation piston-driven airplanes. No con trails or chem trails there George.

Airliners and the USAF use JP-4, not JP-8. I have no clue who uses JP-8. Maybe the navy.

I assume prior to unleaded gasoline the TEL was also in Jet Fuel . . . am I incorrect? The point is the lead when burned in 2000 degree heat did not disappear into soot.

You fucks needs to form a cult. Call it the "Chem-tard cult."

Who said that Chemtrails are always visible? Who said Chemtrails were designed to poison people?



Now you're finally starting to wake up.

Now you're changing the subject and you're trying to save face behind redefining the term "Chem-trail."

Before it was "what goes up must come down."

Now, you're trying to say there never was any intent to poison people.

Ha ha... Got ya, bitch!

Your are right . . . no pilot would allow their fuel to be contaminated with chemicals (knowingly) . . . what about all the chmeicals they don't even think about that are already there . . . . it is a complex story! BTW Metals like Lead don't just burn up . . . they are there after 2000 degrees of heat.
[link to www.csgnetwork.com]




George, let me help you out here. TEL (tetra-ethyl lead) is an additive they put in Avgas. That is stuff we burn in small general aviation piston-driven airplanes. No con trails or chem trails there George.

Airliners and the USAF use JP-4, not JP-8. I have no clue who uses JP-8. Maybe the navy.

I assume prior to unleaded gasoline the TEL was also in Jet Fuel . . . am I incorrect? The point is the lead when burned in 2000 degree heat did not disappear into soot.

Your are right . . . no pilot would allow their fuel to be contaminated with chemicals (knowingly) . . . what about all the chmeicals they don't even think about that are already there . . . . it is a complex story! BTW Metals like Lead don't just burn up . . . they are there after 2000 degrees of heat.
[link to www.csgnetwork.com]




George, let me help you out here. TEL (tetra-ethyl lead) is an additive they put in Avgas. That is stuff we burn in small general aviation piston-driven airplanes. No con trails or chem trails there George.

Airliners and the USAF use JP-4, not JP-8. I have no clue who uses JP-8. Maybe the navy.

I assume prior to unleaded gasoline the TEL was also in Jet Fuel . . . am I incorrect? The point is the lead when burned in 2000 degree heat did not disappear into soot.



Ok, George, I am going to stop insulting you. Here it is, straight-up.

Back in the '70s general aviation gasoline was called 100 - 130. It was green and guaranteed a 100 octane at a lean mixture setting and a 130 octane at a rich mixture setting. It had a shit load of TEL in it. That TEL fouled the shit out of the plugs in a typical general aviation engine. Eventually, they came up with 100LL. The LL stands for "low lead." It's blue and has a shit load less TEL in it. In college (I went to Embry Riddle Aeronautical University) they taught me why there was so much TEL in 100-130, but I forgot why that was - it was 30 years ago.

I have owned my own airplane for decades.

Anyway, I have no idea whether there was ever any TEL in jet fuel. It has been known forever that there are living microbes in jet fuel, but they never were a factor in reduced power output of a jet engine. I have no idea why they'd add something to kill the microbes - they're no big deal.

Here's the point to the chem-trail deal... the chem-tards don't stop to think that the pilots will be gassed after they land. Who the hell thinks tens of thousands of pilots would poison the atmosphere when they would really be fucking not only themselves, but their own families?

Do the chem-tards really thing pilots would be immune from all this poisoning?

You are much closer to chemical poisoning on the street outside your house where the wind isn't blowing the shit away from you at 100 mph like it is in the jet stream. Anything spewed out the back of a jet over this country won't hit the ground until it's over Europe or Asia and by then it will be so widely dispersed that it won't be a factor to anyone.

Excellent questions. Seriously.

As to knowing whether we're conning, there are two ways:

First, if you're flying a fighter (I was an F-16 pilot) your wingman will tell you when you start to con. Being line-abreat, they can see your 6:00 and can see it. We used to climb up to find the con altitude before a mock battle because we wouldn't want to give our position away - we'd climb to find the con flight level (flight level is altitude) and then fight below that altitude. The con flight level changes with the charachteristics of the atmosphere. Every hour it's different at every altitude, so we'd have to check it before every engagement.

Second, in an airliner where you have no wingman that can check your 6:00, the only way I was ever able to tell if we were conning was to look at other airplanes at close to my altitude, OR, if the sun was at the right angle - looking at my shadow. The airplane and the con cast a shadow - if the sun is at the right angle you can see it.

As to the fuel - yes. The fueler who pumps fuel into the jet gives us a "report" (fuel slip). That report indicates the quantity of fuel, the tanks the fuel was put in to and the type of fuel that we were fueled with.

As an interesting aside - since jet fuel weighs approximatly 6.7 lbs per gallon and since .67 (decimal shift intended) is mathematically two-thirds... it was easy to check the weight of the fuel in the airplane.

If they pumped 10000 lbs of fuel into the airplane, you divide 10,000 by 2/3 (when you divide by a fraction you multiply by the inverse of the fraction - 10,000 x 3/2 (or 1.5) - disregarding the decimal) and you get 1500 gallons.

So, when you're pumping jet fuel, take the pounds and multiply by 1.5 and you get gallons divided by ten.

Now, as to these aerial photos you have - these are air-refueling tanker tracts. In a war, you have to have many gas stations in the sky. Tankers orbit waiting to give gas to returning fighters. That is what those cons are - unless they're photoshopped.

As to the oval cons in a previous post, that is an FCF tract. I was an FCF pilot. FCF stands for "Functional check flight." Whenever a military or commercial jet has an engine change or a flight control change, it has to be tested on a flight before it can be used operationally. Those tests have to be conducted withing a certain airspace. So, the pilot goes out a ways and then turns and comes back towards home base. They have to stay in military airspace. If they get back home and the test isn't complete, they turn away and do it again. There is no conspiracy there.

By your definition of "chemtrails," you may as well be arguing that every car, bus, motorcycle, snowmobile and boat is a chemtrail generator.

Excellent questions. Seriously.

The entire state of Florida is about to Drown in a
Toxic Soup of Benzene,Hydrogen Sulfide,Corexit and who
knows what other kind of Toxic bull shit,And You Stupid
Chemtards are still Yappin about ChemTrails...WTF??

STFU With Your Stupid,Imaginary-fairy-tales!!!


Chemtrails....





Big mistake buddy! You just seriously contradicted yourself by mentioning Corexit.

typical

By your definition of "chemtrails," you may as well be arguing that every car, bus, motorcycle, snowmobile and boat is a chemtrail generator.

By your definition of "chemtrails," you may as well be arguing that every car, bus, motorcycle, snowmobile and boat is a chemtrail generator.



And that being the case, I have no idea why you'd feel the need to debate it or try to convince someone that you're right.

What's news about a moped and a weed eater throwing off exhaust?

Excellent questions. Seriously.


May I ask your opinion on two additional questions?

1. Is it possible that some new fuel additive could be much more capable of forming nuclei than previous additives? Thus the longer persistence of trails and the eventual fromation of cirrus clouds?

Note: It has been implied by NASA that the smaller the particulate nuclei the more albedo effect the curris clouds that form from them have . . . thus a cooling effect on the earth.

2. Is it possible that there has been a real increase in persistent trails and resulting cirrus clouds?

Note: My personal observations seem to show this. This is a hard one to pin down . . . because you never see the number of jeeps on the road until you buy one yourself . . . that is, can we really go back and count the trails and cirrus clouds in years past and compare them to recent frequency?

Excellent questions. Seriously.


May I ask your opinion on two additional questions?

1. Is it possible that some new fuel additive could be much more capable of forming nuclei than previous additives? Thus the longer persistence of trails and the eventual fromation of cirrus clouds?

Note: It has been implied by NASA that the smaller the particulate nuclei the more albedo effect the curris clouds that form from them have . . . thus a cooling effect on the earth.

2. Is it possible that there has been a real increase in persistent trails and resulting cirrus clouds?

Note: My personal observations seem to show this. This is a hard one to pin down . . . because you never see the number of jeeps on the road until you buy one yourself . . . that is, can we really go back and count the trails and cirrus clouds in years past and compare them to recent frequency?

By your definition of "chemtrails," you may as well be arguing that every car, bus, motorcycle, snowmobile and boat is a chemtrail generator.

By your definition of "chemtrails," you may as well be arguing that every car, bus, motorcycle, snowmobile and boat is a chemtrail generator.

And what is the definition you derive from my posts . . . I have said the issues are very complex . . . and the science is complex and the variation possible in the atmosphere is always changing. You want simple answers you need to go to a different Thread.

Excellent questions. Seriously.


May I ask your opinion on two additional questions?

1. Is it possible that some new fuel additive could be much more capable of forming nuclei than previous additives? Thus the longer persistence of trails and the eventual fromation of cirrus clouds?

Note: It has been implied by NASA that the smaller the particulate nuclei the more albedo effect the curris clouds that form from them have . . . thus a cooling effect on the earth.

2. Is it possible that there has been a real increase in persistent trails and resulting cirrus clouds?

Note: My personal observations seem to show this. This is a hard one to pin down . . . because you never see the number of jeeps on the road until you buy one yourself . . . that is, can we really go back and count the trails and cirrus clouds in years past and compare them to recent frequency?

quote:George B]


Excellent questions. Seriously.


May I ask your opinion on two additional questions?

1. Is it possible that some new fuel additive could be much more capable of forming nuclei than previous additives? Thus the longer persistence of trails and the eventual fromation of cirrus clouds?

Note: It has been implied by NASA that the smaller the particulate nuclei the more albedo effect the curris clouds that form from them have . . . thus a cooling effect on the earth.

2. Is it possible that there has been a real increase in persistent trails and resulting cirrus clouds?

Note: My personal observations seem to show this. This is a hard one to pin down . . . because you never see the number of jeeps on the road until you buy one yourself . . . that is, can we really go back and count the trails and cirrus clouds in years past and compare them to recent frequency?



Sure, I'm happy to tell you everything I know.

As to your first question - fuel doesn't cause condensation nuclei. Burning a pound of fuel causes a pound of water vapor. Once the water is created the question is, will it be visible or not? If the atmosphere cannot absorb the water, it will be visible. The vapor forms on condensation nuclei that already exists in the atmosphere (dust and shit). Cloud formation is basically the same exact thing via a slightly different process. With cloud formation, air is driven UP (up meaning the air gets cooler). Cool air can hold LESS water vapor than warm air can. As moist air is cooled, the air reaches its saturation point and can no longer hold any more water. Then, the water comes OUT of saturation and forms on condensation nuclei becoming visible as a cloud. If the air is below freezing, it will form as ice crystals.

No fuel additive that I know of can chance the amount of water the atmosphere can hold and that is the limiting factor.

Point #2... if you don't believe me, ask a meteorologist - call the channel 7 news weatherman... Cirrus clouds are the jet-stream blow off of enormous thunderstorms. A thunderstorm grows to the point where the top enters the jet stream and starts to blow downwind. It can blow hundreds of miles downwind of a thunderstorm so to the unaided eye there is no correlation between the two - but one creates the other.

If you look up and see cirrus clouds, look down wind (generally west) 500 miles or so. You'll likely find a cold front or something that created a line of thunderstorms.

No fuel additive that I know of can chance the amount of water the atmosphere can hold and that is the limiting factor.

I don't doubt your conventional answer; however, some of the research I have read indicate that contrails are thought to form persistent contrails which eventually form cirrus clouds.
CONTRAILS AND CIRRUS CLOUDS
Patrick Minnis
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton VA, USA [link to www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu]