• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Were Chemtrails BS too?

Started by Daggit, December 21, 2014, 12:14:22 AM

Quote from: Pale Horse on February 09, 2015, 02:22:37 PM
Airplane emissions are some the worst polluters there are... Flak gets stuck on your eyeballs. People have "floaties" swimming around on the lens of their cornea because of airplane pollution. It's an epidemic.  Their exhaust are not just simple vapor as you mentioned previously.  There are molecules of shit, shit-particles, coming out the butts of those airplanes. We should sue them. Class-action lawsuit for "flak-floaties," on everyone's eyeballs. Well, at least everyone who works outside.

I'm gonna remind you this summer, when one of your precious sunny days disappears because of "Persistent Contrails" aka "ChemTrails"  ... What are your most clear and sunny months? I will remember and look for a day that gets ruined. Then I will ask you what your grandkids did that day... (they stayed inside and played video games).   

High speed, electro-magnetic trains would be a preferable method of continental travel. Screw the airlines. and their super flawed technology. I want my blue sky back.

Yes, aircraft carry many tons of fuel for transcontinental and international flights.  That fuel creates emissions, but that is not what you are seeing when you look at contrails.  As above, the contrails are just suspended droplets of water and ice taken out of the atmosphere. I'm not positive, but even with all that fuel I think aircraft remain one of the most fuel efficient ways to move people.  There is no road friction and they fly where the air is thin so less energy required.

Gas turbine engines themselves are an efficient engine technology (something I would like to see in cars), and if they did spew particulates like diesel engines or coal electrical plants, I should think the consequent erosion on the turbine blades would be a serious problem.

Eye floaters are a natural part of aging.  The vitreous in the eye becomes viscous with age and pulls away part of the retina, which can break off or bleed and form the floaters.  I've never heard of aircraft emissions playing into this but I'm willing to learn.

I like your idea about high speed train networks.  As I said, I dream of vacuum tunnel trains criss-crossing the country.  But two thing have to be kept in mind.  People will not give up their conveniences or liberties, and transportation systems can end up sinkiing the debt if they can't make up much of the costs in fares.  Solutions have to be developed with these considerations.

Quote from: Pale Horse on February 09, 2015, 04:13:00 PM
Why didn't you just say "catapult" ... If you're gonna solve all our problems, at least use the common vernacular.
A trebuchet has that swingy part underneath it.

Quote from: Pale Horse on February 09, 2015, 04:13:00 PM
Why didn't you just say "catapult" ... If you're gonna solve all our problems, at least use the common vernacular.

because a trebuchet isn't a catapult anymore than using a rubber band to launch a paperclip is...  8)

maureen

volcano Popocatépetl and contrails- Mexico City airport is on the other side of the volcano

VtaGeezer

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on February 09, 2015, 04:17:56 PM
I'm not positive, but even with all that fuel I think aircraft remain one of the most fuel efficient ways to move people.  There is no road friction and they fly where the air is thin so less energy required.

Gas turbine engines themselves are an efficient engine technology (something I would like to see in cars), and if they did spew particulates like diesel engines or coal electrical plants, I should think the consequent erosion on the turbine blades would be a serious problem.

Well, no.  Airplanes are the least efficient form of transportation. The first use of energy by an aircraft is to lift its weight and keep it aloft by generating lift over the wings.  The rest of its energy is to overcome the resistance of the air which is substantial.  Wheeled vehicles need only overcome friction and resistance.  Water transport is the most fuel efficient form of transportation, rail next. 

Diesels are the most efficient internal combustion engines but very heavy.  Gasoline is next. Gas turbines are considerably less efficient but can generate huge power output from a small, light engine.  A lot of research was done with gas turbines in vehicles in the '60s.  Chrysler even built some gas turbine test cars and one of the recipients lived not too far from me when I was in HS.  I used to see it around town.  There was also a turbine Indy car.  Turbines in cars didn't work out; IIRC, due to manufacturing cost, but the 70s oil crisis would have crushed them anyway.


Quote from: VtaGeezer on February 10, 2015, 01:43:55 PM
Well, no.  Airplanes are the least efficient form of transportation. The first use of energy by an aircraft is to lift its weight and keep it aloft by generating lift over the wings.  The rest of its energy is to overcome the resistance of the air which is substantial.  Wheeled vehicles need only overcome friction and resistance.  Water transport is the most fuel efficient form of transportation, rail next. 

Diesels are the most efficient internal combustion engines but very heavy.  Gasoline is next. Gas turbines are considerably less efficient but can generate huge power output from a small, light engine.  A lot of research was done with gas turbines in vehicles in the '60s.  Chrysler even built some gas turbine test cars and one of the recipients lived not too far from me when I was in HS.  I used to see it around town.  There was also a turbine Indy car.  Turbines in cars didn't work out; IIRC, due to manufacturing cost, but the 70s oil crisis would have crushed them anyway.

I've studied the gas-turbine powered cars of the 70s -- copied and examined all the information I could find on them.  Studied all the components and materials.  Produced my own layout for one.  They were on par with modern internal combustion engines for efficiency -- I think Volkswagon in particular produced a competitive model in perhaps the early 80s. More importantly to me, they burn fuel more completely and provide better emissions profiles.  The gas-turbine is inherently more efficient than internal combustion but those early cars sufferd from materials and manufacturing limitations.  Internal combustion engines have to cycle the combustion chambers between hot and cold.  A gas-turbine engine splits these up by location, so the expansion turbine stays hot and the compressors stay relatively cool.  The gas-turbine engines had some problems, like lag at stop lights and expense of manufacture, so they were mostly abandoned when the price of oil came back down.

The reason the engines didn't perform better from an efficiency standpoint was entirely due to materials limitations.  The exhaust gases have to be cooled before impinging on turbine blades because even nickle superalloys can't withstand the full heat.  But modern material science offers more options.  Ceramics have been investigated extensively but still lack the required toughness.  I think amorphous nickle alloys could be used right now in combination with ceramics and advanced manufacturing techniques that weren't available in the 70s.  There is a company called Liquid Metal that does produce amorphous alloys, but it remains a mostly unknown material which has not been investigated in this context.  It has great potential for high temperature applications as it did twenty years ago when I first researched it.  Add in natural gas as the fuel source and Bob's your uncle.

At least that was my take.

Sorry, gas-turbine inefficiencies also occur in cars due to constantly changing engine speeds.  It's been a long time since I've looked at this.


In fact... forget everything I just said.  I've been out of this too long to discuss it intelligently.

Grov505th

guess they have been doing Chemtrails since the 1940's...... ;D


Pale Horse

Quote from: Grov505th on February 10, 2015, 09:16:32 PM
guess they have been doing Chemtrails since the 1940's...... ;D

That may be so, but they sure didn't white-out the sky for the entire day like it does now. Something is qualitatively and quantitatively different. Please watch some videos, read some existing literature and read NASA papers on the subject and you will see for yourself that it's very real. NOT a Conspiracy! It is reducing photosynthesis. It's provable.
Listen to NASA, not me… follow the links, PLEASE.  Forward the dialog, quit the pettiness… oh wait, BellGab, I forgot the rules.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5is16A8pfw&feature=youtu.be

Don't have time to watch videos or read NASA sponsored research ….. LOOK UP and see for yourself.  Increased humidity, decrease sunlight. IT"S CRAZY. I'm not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5is16A8pfw&feature=youtu.be

Pale Horse

Quote from: Grov505th on February 10, 2015, 09:16:32 PM
guess they have been doing Chemtrails since the 1940's...... ;D


Here's an excellent 15 minute public presentation that includes a lot of different expert testimony. To deny that this is a real phenomenon is to be proved a dangerous fool later on down the road. Watch this and see for yourself. Change your mind for a change.

Pilots, Doctors & Scientists Tell Truth about Chemtrails [Excerpts]

Short testimony from lots of experts in aviation and air quality.

Pale Horse

This scientist died shortly after going on C2C to talk about the "Persistent Contrail" problem.
BREAKING CHEMTRAIL SCIENTIST MURDERED AFTER GOING ON NATIONAL RADIO

Warning: George Noory can be heard in this video.



Jackstar

Huh. I saw this thread pop up and I wondered, "why have I never seen this and participated before?"

And then I remembered: this is the thread that was started after my posts about geoengineering were deleted and I was banned. Again. I forget which time that was--fourth? Fifth? I should really keep a diary. Oh well. They would just have it burned in the raid.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgpqIaTDSVA

Pale Horse

Quote from: Jackstar on July 11, 2015, 12:57:27 PM
Huh. I saw this thread pop up and I wondered, "why have I never seen this and participated before?"

And then I remembered: this is the thread that was started after my posts about geoengineering were deleted and I was banned. Again. I forget which time that was--fourth? Fifth? I should really keep a diary. Oh well. They would just have it burned in the raid.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgpqIaTDSVA


Welcome back, my friend. Tried to hold down the fort in your absence but was also shouted down and banned, though not for posting about ChemTrails, excuse me, I mean Persistent Contrails.

Pale Horse

Whatever you do, be careful not to mention Vaccine Industry Secrets or 9/11 factoids.  You will not like the responses. Best to keep that stuff tucked deep inside your tinfoil hat, brothers. These people seem to only like ghost stories and fairy tales.


Then again, I could be bitter, having just been unbanned.

Jackstar

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on December 21, 2014, 12:15:11 AM
Yes.

a/s/l?


Quote from: DanTSX on December 21, 2014, 12:16:15 AM
Chemtrails were never really a big C2CAM topic.

What planet were you on in the late 90s? It clearly was not the one with the radio stations I was getting then.


Quote from: laserjock on December 21, 2014, 12:49:04 AM
chemtrails is major bullcrap.  There is a good movie based on the idea though, fantastic movie, a must watch:  _Snowpiercer_.

Isn't this the asstard who wrote the obnoxious "fuck you, good bye" post the other day? I guess he was changing his cover identity.



Quote from: Pale Horse on July 11, 2015, 01:02:03 PM
Welcome back, my friend. Tried to hold down the fort in your absence but was also shouted down and banned, though not for posting about ChemTrails, excuse me, I mean Persistent Contrails.

Thanks, Trooper. I'm going to put you in for a commendation in my report. This thread is a fuckin' goldmine.



Quote from: Paper*Boy on December 21, 2014, 06:11:17 AM
What were they supposed to be? 

Has it turned out to be correct going on 20 years later?

Bwhahaha. I'm going to have a paroxysm all over up in here. Comedy gold.


Designx

It was the perfect topic since just about anyone could go outside and see contrails and we don't look up at the sky as much as we used to so it's rather surprising to see for some people. I think the same about shadow people since most everyone has seen something unusual from the corner of thier eye even if it's just the result of the physiology and aging of the eye.

Robert

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on December 21, 2014, 03:30:24 AMPeople have been conditioned by shows like that to believe they are looking at chemtrails.  They still talk about them as if they are real and obvious.  But they're identical to the contrails I watched forty years ago when I was a kid.  There are just more of them because there are more planes in the air, and people look up when they hear the stories.  I've noticed people don't usually look up when they hear a plane.  They do when they hear about chemtrails, and then they notice the characteristics of regular contrails for the first time and believe the hype.
Just so.  Promoters keep purporting characteristics distinguishing chemtrails from contrails, but they don't stand up.  The hypotheses about the use of airliners to disseminate chems are ridiculous, because nobody would try to do it that way.

Funny, though, how as the years have gone by, the believers in chemtrails have stopped reacting in horror and now are like, "Oh, tsk, tsk, more chemtrails, aren't they awful?  What's for dinner?"

Meanwhile, how can contrails "white out the sky" in the sense of producing greater avg. cloud cover?  Any humidity subtracted from the air by condensation means less humidity for cloud formation elsewhere.  The contrails can't affect the equilibrium, the most they can affect is the kinetics.

Jackstar

If you are both saying that the contrails from 40 years ago look identical to the contrails of today, you are both lying.

onan

Quote from: Jackstar on July 12, 2015, 04:54:44 PM
If you are both saying that the contrails from 40 years ago look identical to the contrails of today, you are both lying.

http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/

Jackstar

Yeah, and? They look different now. They behave differently, they show up under a wider variety of conditions, et cetera, et cetera


There are verifiably chemicals in the fuel. There are observed trails in the sky. Yet, when someone puts "chem" and "trail" together in a sentence, a gang of thugs materializes out of the forum darkness, screaming "HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT LIZARDS ARE POISONING OUR WOMEN???"

That social phenomenon in and of itself deserves some study, but really, let's get back to the nanotech clouds, shall we? Amateurs.


Jackstar

QuoteI present evidence that the toxic substance is coal combustion fly ash. Clandestine dispersal of coal fly ash and the resulting liberation of highly mobile aluminum, I posit, is an underlying cause of the widespread and pronounced increase in neurological diseases and as well as the currently widespread and increasing debilitation of Earth's biota.







albrecht

the chemtrails are causing very suspicious events such as rainbows in our backyards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8

onan

At my house, there were contrails... perhaps chemtrails yesterday... and today, it rained.


Jackstar

I just heard Alex Jones going off on some troll who accused him of being part of the geoengineering coverup conspiracy.

I love this stuff. I'm eating it up with a spoon. This is like that one time in seventh grade when all the girls showed up with the same hair in the same jumper.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod