Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chemtrails, not by Jack White.


Jack White

Recommended Posts

15.00

Jack,

What's the difference between contrails and chemtrails?

And what's the purpose of it, if intentional?

Thanks,

BK

Bill...that is simple to answer, but difficult to prove because the program is secret.

CONTRAILS have been observed ever since the advent of high flying aircraft. Internal combustion

engines, both piston and jet, burn a combustible aircraft fuel, typically gasoline or kerosene. Being

liquid, some parts of the fuel enter the atmosphere as hot exhaust. When this heated vapor hits

the cold air, it condenses into visible "steam". You have observed this yourself if you ever have

started your car on a cold morning, when you see a cloud of steam come from your tailpipe as the

hot moist air becomes visible. This steam quickly dissipates as soon as it reaches the ambient temperature

of the surrounding air, and quickly "evaporates".

CHEMTRAILS, on the other hand, are laid daily in our skies by the hundreds by military aircraft (see

attached), which spray a particulate matter of unknown composition to cover the sky with artificial

clouds, FOR AN UNKNOWN PURPOSE. Chemtrails DO NOT EVAPORATE but remain in place for

hours as artificial clouds, until dispersed by upper level winds. Some of the particulate matter

has settled to the ground and been collected; tests have shown it to be mostly thin slivers

of aluminum, barium, and other chemicals.

There are many theories suggested for this secret program. The leading theory has to do with

combatting GLOBAL WARMING by creating artificial cloud cover to shade the earth from heating.

This was suggested years ago by Edwin Teller, father of the nuclear bomb, who predicted that an

"artificial umbrella" would be needed in the future to protect the earth from the sun. There are

several other theories, but most have to do with weather control, HAARP, etc. However, these

are just theories; the real purpose remains secret. It is a worldwide program, being reported

in every part of the world except China.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bill...from the internet, a list of the ten leading theories regarding the purpose

of the Chemtrail spraying program:

Complied list of the 10 most likely theories concerning chemtrails:

1. To mitigate global warming and the rapid collapse of Earth's ecosystems by patching the ozone holes, to increase the planetary albedo, and to shield terrestrial life from the infrared, ultraviolet and cosmic rays from space.

2. For global weather modification to counter the effects of global warming, utilizing synthetic cloud making to control precipitation.

3. For Defense applications: concealment from aerial and satellite observation, to facilitate a new military communications system, to defend against incoming ICBMs (when combined with ELF and EMP waves), to facilitate an advanced military 3D imaging system.

4. As a delivery system for mass immunizations, or genetic modification without the knowledge of the population.

5. In conjunction with HAARP array to sterilize areas contaminated with biotoxins and toxic molds.

6. As a vehicle for mind control transmissions.

7. To shield the U.S. from ELF/Scalar weather control transmissions from Russia and China.

8. To facilitate electromagnetic mind control technologies to subjugate and control human populations physically, mentally and spiritually.

9. As a delivery system to facilitate global population reduction to sustainable levels in accordance with New World Order directives.

10. A combination of the uses listed above, as this technologies applications are quite versatile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15.00

Jack,

What's the difference between contrails and chemtrails?

And what's the purpose of it, if intentional?

Thanks,

BK

Bill...that is simple to answer, but difficult to prove because the program is secret.

CONTRAILS have been observed ever since the advent of high flying aircraft. Internal combustion

engines, both piston and jet, burn a combustible aircraft fuel, typically gasoline or kerosene. Being

liquid, some parts of the fuel enter the atmosphere as hot exhaust. When this heated vapor hits

the cold air, it condenses into visible "steam". You have observed this yourself if you ever have

started your car on a cold morning, when you see a cloud of steam come from your tailpipe as the

hot moist air becomes visible. This steam quickly dissipates as soon as it reaches the ambient temperature

of the surrounding air, and quickly "evaporates".

CHEMTRAILS, on the other hand, are laid daily in our skies by the hundreds by military aircraft (see

attached), which spray a particulate matter of unknown composition to cover the sky with artificial

clouds, FOR AN UNKNOWN PURPOSE. Chemtrails DO NOT EVAPORATE but remain in place for

hours as artificial clouds, until dispersed by upper level winds. Some of the particulate matter

has settled to the ground and been collected; tests have shown it to be mostly thin slivers

of aluminum, barium, and other chemicals.

There are many theories suggested for this secret program. The leading theory has to do with

combatting GLOBAL WARMING by creating artificial cloud cover to shade the earth from heating.

This was suggested years ago by Edwin Teller, father of the nuclear bomb, who predicted that an

"artificial umbrella" would be needed in the future to protect the earth from the sun. There are

several other theories, but most have to do with weather control, HAARP, etc. However, these

are just theories; the real purpose remains secret. It is a worldwide program, being reported

in every part of the world except China.

Jack

I thought you said that these "chemtrails" were sprayed by military aircraft? The picture you posted is not of a military jet in service. If they were all sprayed by military jets, then why is it that one can look at them through binoculars and see commercial markings? Why is it that one can use the program Flight Explorer which shows commercial flights in near real time and match them up to flight above leaving these "chemtrails" otherwise known as persistent contrails?

For William Kelly, it is interesting to note that the first so called fact about "chemtrails" is a demonstrable lie. They say that contrails evaporate and "chemtrails" do not but ever since contrails were first observed, it was known that given the right conditions contrails could persist and spread out. Also note that the only samples that have been taken have been collected on the ground. How do they KNOW that it then came from these "chemtrails" when there are many other likely sources right there on the ground? Aluminum and Barium are two chemicals both found in industrial air and water pollution. Why don't the believers in "chemtrails" hire a plane and collect a sample from a trail in the air? It has been years since this has first been suggested and this has not been done. Perhaps they are scared of what they WON'T find?

William, you don't have to take my word for it. There is penty of science to back it up. I've posted quite a bit of it on this board in this thread

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=11963&st=0

Why would V and X formations be considered odd? Is jet traffic not supposed to cross paths occasionally? see attachment

Jack, I've asked before and you've repeatedly ignored the question. Would you say that persistent contrails do not exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some have suggested that I have defamed Mr. Lewis by asking whether his

air force job is connected with chemtrail operations. He explained what his

job consists of, and I accepted that explanation. I do not understand how asking

whether someone is participating in a "legal" government operation is defamatory.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some have suggested that I have defamed Mr. Lewis by asking whether his

air force job is connected with chemtrail operations. He explained what his

job consists of, and I accepted that explanation. I do not understand how asking

whether someone is participating in a "legal" government operation is defamatory.

Jack

Jack:

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? It is a legal political party in the US, and you guys have to nominate a party when you register to vote, so I don't see how the question might be defamatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some have suggested that I have defamed Mr. Lewis by asking whether his

air force job is connected with chemtrail operations. He explained what his

job consists of, and I accepted that explanation. I do not understand how asking

whether someone is participating in a "legal" government operation is defamatory.

Jack

While the line of questioning was defamatory, I didn't bother to complain about it (I asume someone else did) as I thought it was obvious just how absurd the question was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.carnicom.com/rh1.htm

THE RH DECEPTION

Clifford E Carnicom

May 21 2001

THE RH DECEPTION

Much ambiguity has been circulated regarding the effect of humidity upon the persistence of contrails, or vapor trails. Numerous sources, without exception, state that such vapor trails (composed of water vapor by historical and conventional definition) may persist for "extended periods" under conditions of "higher" relative humidity. Unfortunately, it is apparent that quantitative information attached to these repeated generalizations is lacking. Even the recently issued "fact sheet" under distribution by a combination of federal agencies, including the EPA, NOAA, the FAA and NASA falls victim to this same deficiency.

Observations by this researcher as well as countless citizens of the country for the past 2 1/2 years have revealed the glaring inconsistencies of the official positions and statements made in contrast to the physical reality of a tragically altered atmosphere resulting from the aircraft operations under examination. These records have been most dramatically illustrated in the arid high desert regions of the southwestern United States, where the physical contradictions with the proffered official positions are at the level of absurdity.

The presentation made herein will demonstrate a realistic, and I might add, quantitative assessment of the expected effect of humidity upon what we all now witness on a day to day basis. The foundation of this argument will rest on what can be called a "Relative Humidity Thought Experiment", which seeks to establish a realistic model upon which to base any quantitative examination. This work can be compared at a later point with a rather interesting discussion and dialogue between a curious citizen and three scientists from the United States Department of Energy on this same topic. That discussion follows at the end of this report.

Let us begin by imagining one of two extreme situations at either end of the relative humidity scale. To start, imagine you are in the middle of a fog bank, and an aircraft whizzes by your face leaving the most dense vapor trail (composed of water vapor, of course) possible from the exhaust emissions. Let us assume that we hold the temperature constant for these experiments. The question is, would that trail evaporate? Would it dissipate? The expected answer must be no. Although the visible vapors would eventually mix with the surrounding fog bank, they would not change form. This leads us to conclude that if the atmosphere was at a pre-existing level of saturation (i.e., 100% relative humidity), a vapor trail would not be expected to dissipate or evaporate, although it would continue to mix with the surrounding environment.

Now examine the opposite end of the spectrum. Imagine you are in the desert, the driest desert possible, and the air around you has absolutely no moisture within it (i.e., 0% humidity). The same aircraft zooms by your face, and leaves you with the same question, will the trail evaporate or dissipate? The answer this time must opposingly be yes, and it must dissipate at the maximum rate that is possible for the given temperature. So with the desert, a maximum rate of evaporation is achieved, and for the fog bank an evaporation rate of zero is earned. To assign a sense of scale to this problem, let us call the maximum attainable rate of evaporation as 1 and the rate of zero evaporation as, well, zero.

It is now time to introduce the model. First, it shall be done narratively, and secondly, within the world of mathematics. The conceptual basis for the model is as follows:

The rate of evaporation is inversely proportional to the humidity itself.

This is the fundamental premise of this work which must be examined with a fair degree of thought. Conceptually, this premise states what has just previously been reviewed. It states that the greater the level of relative humidity that exists within the atmosphere, the slower the rate of evaporation of moisture within it. Conversely, the lower the level of moisture within the atmosphere, the greater the rate of evaporation. Both of these tenets are fundamentally sound, as is demonstrated through the thought experiment described earlier. It will be of interest to scrutinize the mildly variable Department of Energy - Argonne Laboratory responses stated at the end of this report which, incidentally, have provoked this inquiry.

We must now convert the conceptual formulation into a statement of mathematics to achieve any quantifiable results. It is as follows:

E = (1 / k) * RH + C

In this equation, E represents the rate of evaporation, and RH represents the relative humidity itself, and it will be expressed as a decimal value (100% = 1.0; 0% = 0.0). C represents an arbitrary constant, and k represents a proportionality constant.

For those with an interest, this equation results from the differential equation:

dE = (1 / k) * dRH

where dE represents the instantaneous change in the evaporation rate and dRH represents the instantaneous change in relative humidity.

This equation is an ordinary, first order and separable differential equation. It can therefore be readily solved through integration of both sides of the equation. This leads to the general solution given above.

We now need to solve for k and C. This can be accomplished with the initial conditions that we have already discussed within the thought experiment.

The first case is that when RH = 0, E = 1.

Therefore,

1 = 0 + C

or C = 1

The second case is then when RH = 1, E = 0.

Therefore,

0 = (1 / K) * (1) + 1

or

0 = (1 / K) + 1

or

K = -1

Therefore our specific and final solution is:

E = 1 - RH

Non-linear model extensions of the current discussion have also been considered, with no real impact on the final conclusions that result from this work.

It is now of much interest to examine the results of using this equation under the range of circumstances that can be expected in the real world. The results are somewhat enlightening, especially with respect to the abundant generalizations that have been included within the many official responses to citizen inquiries regarding the aerosol operations.

Here is a tabulation of the results, where the relative humidity will now be expressed as a percentage for convenience sake. Recall that a rate of evaporation of 1 means that maximum evaporation will occur at the given temperature, and zero evaporation means that no evaporation will take place (i.e., hydrostatic stability has been achieved).

Relative Humidity(%)

Rate of Evaporation

0

1.0

10

.90

20

.80

30

.70

40

.60

50

.50

60

.40

70

.30

80

.20

90

.10

100

0.0

We can also translate these results into a tabulation of a "persistence factor", i.e., if the rate of evaporation is zero, the vapor trail is expected to persist indefinitely (disregarding any mixing of mediums within the environment). Therefore the reciprocal of the rate of evaporation leads to this factor of "persistence" under the circumstances considered.

Relative Humidity(%)

'Persistence' Factor

0

1.00

10

1.11

20

1.25

30

1.43

40

1.67

50

2.00

60

2.50

70

3.33

80

5.00

90

10.00

100

Infinity

This means for example, if a vapor trail under conditions of 0% humidity was, hypothetically, to last for 10 seconds and the relative humidity was instantaneously increased to 50%, the trail would be expected to persist for approximately 20 seconds (2.00 *10sec) instead. More realistically, if the relative humidity was 30% and a vapor trail was to last, hypothetically, for 15 seconds, and the relative humidity was suddenly increased to 60% (a reasonably high value under commercial flight conditions), the trail would be expected to last approximately 26 seconds ((2.50 /1.43) * 15secs.).

This formulation and the results now reveal some rather enlightening conclusions. Before embarking further, it is worthwhile to mention that the upper atmosphere at flight levels may generally considered as a relatively arid environment. It is not uncommon, as countless examinations throughout the previous two years plus have disclosed, for the relative humidity at flight altitude to range between 10 and 60 percent. This should not be surprising in any particular way, since it is easily established that most cloud layers form at lower altitudes where the moisture levels commonly exceed relative humidity levels of 70%. This is not the case for upper regions of the atmosphere, which is the favored domain of jet aircraft traffic. As a case in point, during congressional hearings regarding the environmental effects of projected supersonic flight traffic at 65,000 ft., the expert testimony explained that "persistent contrails" would not be a factor as the relative humidity at that level commonly is approximately 5%. My own computations and analysis of radiosonde observations as well as those of those of the witness in this case are in complete concordance. It is fair to state that the upper atmospheric regions are generally more arid than the lower counterparts, with relative humidity levels commonly within the range that has been stated. Extreme upper levels of relative humidity within the flight corridor region are uncommon, and again are in complete agreement with our common sense observations. It is interesting to note that one study involving persistent contrails by NASA focussed on a SINGLE persistent contrail under conditions of uncharacterisically high relative humidity. The examination of relative humidity data (reported with respect to water vapor per conventional standard) in a quantitative sense is now required for anyone that wishes to justify the existence of so-called "persistent" vapor trails on a regular basis. This is the epitome of requirements if the area under consideration is the arid southwestern desert of this country, where this work has been developed.

It may be recalled that an earlier study assessed the expected times for contrail, or vapor trail dissipation. The results of that model are in complete agreement with the observation, common sense and experience base that has accumulated during the last 50 years, i.e., vapor trails routinely dissipate within a matter of seconds, and the extreme range extends at most to a couple of minutes under usual conditions. That particular model was developed independently of any effects from relative humidity, and it is a function of the particle size, the surrounding temperature and the amount of energy placed into the system via solar radiation.

If we now wish to develop the model further, and include the expected effects from relative humidity, we learn that the model is not affected significantly by any commonly encountered levels of humidity at those upper altitudes.

Even at a relative humidity level of 70%, which must be considered quite high for the commercial flight domain, a factor of 3.3 against the maximum evaporation rate of a completely arid environment must be considered as relatively minor. Most of us would have a difficult case of making the argument of a persistent vapor trail within a moisture-free environment, and more realistically we would expect dissipation within a matter of seconds (disregarding deliberate aerosol injections). To multiply a few seconds by a factor of 3.3 leads to no real world change in the situation at hand.

One of the accomplishments from this most current analysis is that generalized statements regarding the effect of humidity upon the duration of vapor trails can no longer be accepted without further definition. It can be seen that the effects of humidity upon vapor trail evaporation rates are generally insignificant and minor within the historical reference frame of human experience, physics, chemistry, meteorology and common sense observation. To offer any extraordinary and exceptional circumstances to the American public as an explanation for the events now witnessed on a regular basis is deceptive, disingenuous and a prevarication. It is important that the citizenry educate themselves on the facts and physics of the world around themselves to serve the purpose of establishing the truthfullness of that which the public is subjected to without their consent.

That truth now includes overwhelming evidence that the populace has been systematically subjected to a covert, extensive and sustained project of aircraft aerosol dissemination without their consent. Biological components repeatedly identified within atmospheric samples during that same time period remain equally distressing and disturbing. Let it be reiterated that the United States Environmental Protection Agency remains in possession of one of those samples referred to, and to date refuses to acknowledge the existence of that sample or to disclose the results of any testing.

The need for accountability, disclosure and Congressional hearings to serve the rights of the people of this nation and the world remains paramount.

Clifford E Carnicom

Authored at Rio Chama

May 19 2001

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that it was the author, NOT I, who suggested that those like Mssrs Lewis and Burton are disingenuous deceptive prevaricators regarding

Chemtrails being Contrails, on the basis of his study of relative humidity conditions necessary for persistent contrails.

QUOTE:

To offer any extraordinary and exceptional circumstances to the American public as an explanation for the events now witnessed on a regular basis is deceptive, disingenuous and a prevarication. It is important that the citizenry educate themselves on the facts and physics of the world around themselves to serve the purpose of establishing the truthfullness of that which the public is subjected to without their consent.

That truth now includes overwhelming evidence that the populace has been systematically subjected to a covert, extensive and sustained project of aircraft aerosol dissemination without their consent. Biological components repeatedly identified within atmospheric samples during that same time period remain equally distressing and disturbing. Let it be reiterated that the United States Environmental Protection Agency remains in possession of one of those samples referred to, and to date refuses to acknowledge the existence of that sample or to disclose the results of any testing.

UNQUOTE

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If at first you don't understand the process, throw something that looks like math at it and try to obfuscate it.

The author conveniently forgets (doesn't know?) that the extremely cold temperatures at the altitudes of persistent contrails also have an effect on their ability to persist. He also ignores the fact that often when one sees persistent contrails or what he thinks are "chemtrails" at the very same time there are high cirrus clouds at the same altitude. If cirrus clouds can form and exist in those conditions then why couldn't contrails (which are effectively clouds as well) exist in the same conditions?

I also found funny this quote from the "article".

Biological components repeatedly identified within atmospheric samples...

What the author forgets is that samples collected on the ground (which are all they have ever gotten) are not "atmospheric" samples. Not once has a "chemtrail" believer done the simple task of chartering a plane and actually collecting samples in situ. If just ONE "chemtrail" believer could actually collect a sample from within a trail, and get it analyzed and it actually contained a fraction of what they are claiming it does, I would be interested in listening to them. As it is though, they have been complaining about the trails for at least the past 10 years and nobody has bothered to do so yet (or if they have they didn't like the results).

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that it was the author, NOT I, who suggested that those like Mssrs Lewis and Burton are disingenuous deceptive prevaricators regarding

Chemtrails being Contrails, on the basis of his study of relative humidity conditions necessary for persistent contrails.

Jack

No and likely nobody would have thought you were, but by mentioning it yet again and attaching names to the phrase "disingenuous deceptive prevaricators", you are effectively suggesting that now. But you knew that already didn't you?

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...