Re: Chemtrails
 

Yes, you've got it wrong. A jet engine DOES add humidity to the air.

Jet fuel, like most petroleum derivatives is a HYDROCARBON. It is made up primarily of hydrogen and carbon, hence the name. Hydrogen burns by combining with oxygen from the air to produce water. Carbon burns by combining with oxygen from the air to produce Carbon Dioxide (or Carbon Monoxide if it burns incompletely).

Science experiment: wax is a hydrocarbon. Hold a cold mirror or piece of glass over a candle and notice that water condenses on it.

Don't they teach this stuff in science classes any more?

This NOVA article on contrails provides more information on the conditions under which contrails persist and even grow and spread. Scientists have long been concerned about the possible effects of contrails on climate. The shutdown of all air traffic for three days following 9/11 2001 provided a unique opportunity to study individual contrails and to measure conditions when there were no contrails:

Dimming the Sun: Are vapor trails from aircraft influencing the climate, and if so, should we worry?

Re: Chemtrails
 

[QUOTE=JesterTerrestrial;178537]Here are some photos of my beautiful view of the sky yesterday!!!

STOP CHEM TRAILS!!! TELL THE TRUTH!!!

:no:

QUOTE]


They were bad here today again , weren't they.

The planes flying into Toronto don't leave chemtrails. The contrails dissappear within minutes. It is these other planes that are criss crossing our skys with too much regularity lately. Wild how most people don't even notice.

Re: Chemtrails
 

This morning, somewhere around 09:00 the first (fat, huge) trails appeared. Spraying continued untill 12:00. The main 'target area' was right above the parcours of the Amsterdam Marathon, with 26.000 heavy breathing participants.
Wether or not long distance running is good for your health; today it is definetly not.

Re: Chemtrails
 

Jnana,
If you did read my post through and through you would notice that I corrected my statement in an edit shortly after making it. I just did not remove the original statement because it would give a false idea of actual knowledge, instead of post-learned information due to later research. ;)

However, you are right that these kinds of things aren't taught in science classes anymore. You get the general lowdown on how condensation works, but you would have no foundation to know that kerosene is a hydrocarbon. The second I found that piece of information, I corrected my statement because I do have knowledge as to how the basic chemistry around it plays out.

I will argue however that alot of what is taught in school is being weighted far too much as actual truth, and less to none as strong theories. Put up a logical question to a science teacher and your arguement will be dismissed with no good explanation as to why that hypothesis is false.

Fact is, two or more planes can be observed next to eachother in the sky, where one makes a large persistant contrail, whereas the others only make a small short one that dissipate immediatly behind them. Might be pockets of air and other factors playing in, but that would mean that one plane could manage to follow the same pocket of air across the entire sky, while the others manage not to enter one.

As long as I'm grounded on mother earth, with no possibility to check for myself why it happens as "they" say it does, I'll have to leave it with reasonable untested hypothesis. Maybe some day I'll get a more definitive answer which is not highly biased towards the science in question. "Respected" people refuse to test them, because they are "wrong".

I'm not overly concerned about chemtrails myself, in fact I'm not concerned about anything at all. As long as I'm strong in mind and soul, I know I'll be ok.
But I'm curious in nature, and want to find answers to pretty much everything that can be answered.

Re: Chemtrails
 

Another thought:

We can all agree that water vapour condensing in the troposphere makes clouds. We can agree that vapourized water from a jet engine can condensate into cloudlike structures IF the right conditions are there.

We know that above 7000m, Cirrus clouds occur. They are usually thin and widely spread, because the concentration of water vapour is sparse at this altitude. What I make of this, whenever there is no cirrus clouds occuring, conditions for these are not met above the mentioned altitude. This means the air contains so little vapour that clouds cannot be formed.

With this in mind, it should be logical to think that the vapour leaving the exhaust of a plane at marching altitudes would make thin, short contrails based on the claim from NOVA that contrails "feed" off the existing vapour in the air. No clouds = little to no water vapour to "feed" on and they would dissipate quickly.

On this very day, we have loads of cirrus formations in our sky. Only just did I see a plane fly through these. From what I've just learned, the likelyhood of this plane to make a long, persistent contrail should be quite high. However, this plane made a thin, but slightly longer than normal contrail. It dissipated within a minute.

It might be that planes make cirrus clouds, but how can they make a cloud formation which initially isn't there because the conditions for them being there is not met?