CHEMTRAILS ONCE AGAIN MASKING THE SUN Northampton

Contrails...

There is justifiable paranoia and then there is out right
stupidity.

Airplane exhaust is what keeps everyone on board an airliner alive. The air used to pressurize the cabin is taken from the engines.

and then there is stupidity by design. level II.

get a brain moran!

these chemtard shills are only helping the airlines get away with their pollution by attempting to marginalize anyone who has concerns about airplane exhaust.

wonder why it's not a major topic of concern like auto exhaust or oil drilling?

Just based on the sheer amount of it, the toxicitiy and harmful effecst on the biosphere it certainly should garner a lot more attention than it does. Thanks chemtrailtards.

can a person really be this ignorant by accident? or do they shill for Boeing?

they certainly do not pump burned fuel exhaust into the cabin. there are lawsuits against even the smallest leaks ongoing. maybe you'll get a shill bonus for that whopper.

[link to edition.cnn.com]

here watch CNN and see how pleasant it is when airplane exhaust enters the cabin. Fine if you don't take it from me, listen to your own pilots and flight crew.

It's water vapour you idiot. Not fuel vapour.

Incorrect.
The upper aircraft (Boeing 757) flies at FL370 (37.000 feet), the lower aircraft (Airbus A330) flies at FL390 (39.000 feet).

This is plenty distance to allow significant atmospheric differences to exist.

Try to learn a thing or 2 about aircraft before you speak.
The air in the cabin is drawn from compressor stage of the engines. It is after this stage where the fuel is added.

In case of engine failure fumes from the engine may indeed come in the cabin via the airconditioning system.

It might surprise you, but I am an airline pilot.

You wrote you could see relative distances between similar aircraft.



So I decided to put it to the test by showing 2 aircraft of which I know the altitude next to each other.

I'm not surprised. Even dumb saudi visitors with quetionable visas can be trained to fly planes and get certificates.

We are clearly talking about the toxic effects of airplane exhaust - and not air drawn from compressors, an entirely different thing. Exhaust from planes is agreed by most to be what comes out of them (that is why it is called exhaust.

That you would confuse issues and admit to associations with air industry makes you look even more like the shill.

Airplane exhaust is toxic to the environment, and has been destroying the upper atmosphere steadily, unopposed for decades. Why do you think that is? We know how much you guys spend on publicity.

In that case you should have been more specific, don't you think? After all bleed air also comes out of the engines.

No one denies that flying is harmful to the environment. But so is all motorized traffic.

How come you find the need to degrade others by empty words?

Thanks, I may have been scanning that article a little to fast as I do not see in it that JET A-1 fuel was used, can you point to the section where it mentions it?

I was able to tell , despite not knowing their altitude that they were within 6000ft of each other . If i cant tell that from a random photograph the its more than plausible that ive seen aircraft at similar altitudes leaving two types of "contrail" that behave in a completely different manner . That would imply either they are not using the same fuel or one is not a convential contrail but something else .
I see a few posters on this thread from various places seeing the same things . Ive also read articles about cloud seeding and weather manipulation and that proves that putting things into our atmosphere from aircraft isnt exactly a new phenomena .

Here:

The analysis of the two fuel samples taken from the tanks of the B707 and the A340 reveal a combustion heat of 43.2 MJ¢ kg¡ 1 and hydrogen content of 13.7%for both samples, aromatics of 18.3 and 18.6%, and sulfur content of 120 and 380 mg¢ kg¡ 1 for the B707 and A340, respectively.These values are within the expected range of most aviation fuels23 and imply an emission index of EIH2O of 1.22. According to previous experiments and model results with much larger differencesin fuel properties,11,19 we expectthat the different fuel properties have no in� uence on the threshold conditions for contrail formation.

As it is mentioned to be in the range of most aviation fuels it is only natural to assume they both used JET A1 as this is by far the most common gas turbine fuel used in civil aviation.

because what the chemtrailtards do is violence. by detracting from real concerns and marginalizing people who legitimately have beefs with airplane exhaust - they help to sustain the poisoning of the atmosphere by everyday airplane exhaust.

whenever there is a seeding or spraying it is reported. there's enough actual info about this available everywhere - which makes you wonder why the chemtrailtards do it at all on such days?

can you imagine if hundreds of people started to voice their concerns about airplane exhaust when they see it over chicago on days like this? with just one chemtrailtard you can neutralize hundreds of would be 'pains in the ass'

You simply don't know the exact or relative altitude of the aircraft. Therefore you can't claim anything regarding the difference in contrail formation because even the minimum separation of 1000 feet is enough to cause such differences while even neglecting the differences between the 2 aircraft themselves.

When you see 2 different clouds in the sky, do you also think one is fake because it seems to be at a similar altitude?


Can you please explain how you are able to ignore all variables in contrail formation?

judging by your comment, is it safe to assume that you do nothing that causes air pollution?
You don't drive a car, you don't use goods transported to you, you don't use electricity? You don't have heating in your house?

085: We are not saying that normal airline exhaust is a good thing......just as we would not stick our nose inside an automobile exhaust pipe.

Your argument is pointless.


I would rather see people walking more and taking the train.


What we are saying is that.....IN ADDITION TO YOUR NORMAL EXHAUST....IN ADDITION TO IT.....IN ADDITION TO IT......THERE ARE OTHER TOXINS BEING DUMPED ON US.


1 PLUS 1 EQUALS 2.......TWO THINGS NOT GOOD FOR US.

No. One plus one equals one. It is all the same. It is airplane exhaust.

Until you go up and sample it yourself, then analyze it in a lab you have nothing.

We already know about cloud seeding and what those planes drop (metals mostly) some even shoot rockets of silver iodide into fronts to make rain (sometimes too much huh China? Russia?) sometimes they use dry ice.

So if you want to rail about airplane exhaust and how it harms the planet, it would be a much more effective use of everyone's time and energies.

To marginalize real concerns about pollution and atmospheric damage from planes is nothing more than asshole behavior. If you are going to be an asshole, then I'll talk to you like an asshole ok?

When i see two clouds in the sky , guess what , i see two clouds in the sky . When i see a contrail , i see a contrail etc etc...... IF two similar aircraft at similar altitudes are burning similar fuel (of the kind you assumed in a previous post) then the contrails should be similar . Why are the ones i see not similar ? Why do similar aircraft make contrails that disappear and others leave a haze across the sky ?

Surely as a pilot , you will be as qualified as anyone to explain fully what i see . Go on , knock yourself out , im all ears....

nice strawman argument.

I certainly don't try to marginalize and put ridicule on people who have legitimate concerns about pollution. not like you do.

asshole.

This is simply not true because you neglect a lot of variables.

- Aircraft close to each other are never at the same altitude because minimum vertical separation requires this.
If they are at the same altitude they must be a great distance apart depending on the (relative)speed of the aircraft and the navigation aids used.
Because of this you cannot say they both fly in the same meteorological conditions.
- The type of aircraft and engines. How similar in appearance they may be, a DC-10 and MD-11 or a B757 and A321 will produce different contrails.
- The age of the engines
- The applied powersetting.

When taking the above into mind it is clear that aircraft that look similar and seem to be at a similar altitude are not required to produce similar contrails.
[link to e.imagehost.org]

From more recent experiments.

Parametric studies of contrail ice particle formation in jet regime using microphysical parcel modeling

Abstract.

Condensation trails (contrails) formed from water
vapor emissions behind aircraft engines are the most uncertain components of the aviation impacts on climate change.
To gain improved knowledge of contrail and contrail-induced
cirrus cloud formation, understanding of contrail ice particle formation immediately after aircraft engines is needed.
Despite many efforts spent in modeling the microphysics
of ice crystal formation in jet regime (with a plume age
<5 s), systematic understanding of parametric effects of variables affecting contrail ice particle formation is still limited.
In this work, we apply a microphysical parcel modeling
approach to study contrail ice particle formation in nearfield aircraft plumes up to 1000m downstream of an aircraft engine in the soot-rich regime (soot number emission index >1×1015 (kg-fuel)&#8722;1) at cruise. The effects of dilution history, ion-mediated nucleation, ambient relative humidity, fuel sulfur contents, and initial soot emissions were investigated.
Our simulation results suggest that ice particles are
mainly formed by water condensation on emitted soot particles.
The growth of ice coated soot particles is driven by
water vapor emissions in the first 1000m and by ambient relative humidity afterwards. The presence of chemi-ions does not significantly contribute to the formation of ice particles in the soot-rich regime, and the effect of fuel sulfur contents is small over the range typical of standard jet fuels. The initial properties of soot emissions play the most critical role, and our calculations suggest that higher number concentration and smaller size of contrail particle nuclei may be able to effectively suppress the formation of contrail ice particles.
Further modeling and experimental studies are needed to verify if our findings can provide a possible approach for contrail mitigation.

[link to www.atmos-chem-phys.org]

They meant to say that because the difference in fuel properties is less than anticipated in the models, they don't expect much difference.

Your point being?

Never saw that shit growing up. Ever. Now..I see them every few days. Not every day..EVERY FEW DAYS.

What cracks me up the most..Is these debunkers.They constantly show up on each thread. If it wasn't a big deal..then why bother trying to debunk chem-trails?

And before you go all debunker on me..and assuming shit..

Military brat here. I lived on all kinds of Air Force Bases.

So ya..I watched the sky alot.