Wayne, as I responded to you privately, my questions are rhetoric and are in reality reasons why Chemtrails do not exist.

Therefore I am not interested in debating the question of chemtrails as applied to commercial airlines because if they DO exist as described by the theory, after 17 years of flying inside these supposed chemtrails, I should be dead of heavy metal, barium, strontium poisoning; or or at the very least, heavily afflicted with the nebulous “Morgellons” disease.

I am not.

Neither is any other pilot or flight attendant or frequent flyer I know.

This is where the reality diverges from the theory.

Now if you can supply practical answers to my questions, even though they are rhetoric, I will listen.

To anyone here who believes that commercial airlines are not involved in chemtrailing, but also believes that any persistent contrail must be a chemtrail, be advised that the A330’s I fly regularly emit persistent contrails. Therefore according to your theory, I am involved in Chemtrailing. You cannot have it both ways.

I have noted the various responses to the question of contrails v. chemtrails over the last few weeks. Interesting to say the least. I am not in the least interested in arguing with anybody. All I am doing is stating facts as I know them. Prior to commencing my flying career of over 48 years, I was an aircraft maintenance engineer. I believe there are contrails and there are chemtrails which are put about by governments for nefarious purposes. I do not believe that there are any chemtrails made by commercial aircraft as it is not possible to contaminate the fuel with the kind of chemicals used and it certainly could not be done in secret as engineers and pilots know their respective aircraft intimately and no equipment required would escape notice.

The various claims made about “persistent” and “spreading” contrails are quite laughable in the very least and preposterous at most. Given the right ambient conditions for contrails to form, it is just not feasible that an aircraft of any size could make such a difference to the surrounding atmosphere, with its minuscule input of water from fuel, and minuscule heating of the air passing through its engine/s to make any appreciable difference to the parcel of air it is moving through to effect the surrounding atmosphere to the extent that it creates cloud. It is just dream-time stuff and not within the realms of the laws of physics. The ice formed by condensing water vapour emitted from exhausts simply mixes with the more dominant surrounding atmosphere and is absorbed into the surrounding temperature/humidity continuum and the effect of the engine/s on the air parcel is neutralised by the mixing.

To believe that an aircraft engine, or engines, can have such an effect on a large parcel of air as to make cloud reeks of fanciful reasoning. I have made contrails and flown through my colleagues contrails and watched them disappear in line with what the ambient conditions dictate. I have never seen “persistent” contrails.

For those who wish to argue that there are no such things as chemtrails please do so, but science does not, as far as I can determine, support such theories. Quite apart from this, the German and US governments have admitted that they make chemtrails for weather control purposes and a little research tells us that geo-engineering for weather control is facilitated by the chemtrails in combination with the now 7 HAARP stations across the globe. Cheers.

I already told Mike Glynn privately what my preconditions are for embarking on discussion with him, and he does not intend to meet them, and does not care about the fact that he does not. He also provided this interesting information:

“I have joined a Facebook group that is suing over Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails. Not because I believe for a second that they will be successful, but because I wish to see an end to this as I believe that if it continues to gather steam then pilots and aircraft will be placed in danger by extremists. By advising them on aviation matters for the lawsuit I can assist in the ending of this question. Search for Chemtrail and Geo-Engineering lawsuit on Facebook. The owner of that group, Robert Forgette will vouch for me.”

Leonard, you say that you do not believe commercial aircraft are involved in chemtrailing, yet I can show you many videos of verifiable commercial jets making persistent contrails. I can show you a video of Julia Gillards VIP aircraft doing the same over Melbourne. So those are persistent contrails and not chemtrails. If so, why?

You post reveals you know little about the amount of water created by jet fuel combustion. The ratio of water created to fuel burnt is 3-1. That’s right, you burn a tonne of Jet A1 then you create 3 tonnes of water… More than enough to create a persistent contrail in a saturated atmosphere. Check the science if you do not believe me.

I would like to invite Michael Glynn on our show for an interview, and if both parties agree, I would like to also invite Leonard Clampett on to advance the chemtrails argument. Please contact me via the website if you are interested.

Thanks for your contributions.

FYI: I am the admin and host of the radio show

Hereward, my roster permitting, I would be delighted.

Great! Our show broadcasts live in the US on Wednesdays at 8:00PM EDT - if that time does not work for you we can pre-record.

Join in the largest stand ever against chemtrails.

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/peaceinspace/2012/06/join-in-.html

To Michael Glynn,

Claiming that burning Avtur or JetA1 produces water in amounts far exceeding the capacity to do so is fairy floss in the land of physics. However, I am not arguing with you over that as it would be insane to do so. It baffles me how you can make such a claim that burning a tonne of fuel produces 3 tonnes of water. I would have thought that, with your professed expertise, you would be skilled in the use of water detection paste which is used every time fuel is added to any turbine fuel tank to ensure there is no water present in amounts that would cause combustion problems. A Boeing 747 burns about 5 tonnes of fuel per hour. Going on your claim that means there is 15 tonnes of water being exhausted from four engines combined every hour. Where does that water come from? From an engineering viewpoint it is not possible.

Cheers,

Leonard, the water, along with CO2 and a few other gases is created by the combustion process. In fact the amount of CO2 produced is more than 3 times the weight of fuel consumed. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Also, a 747 burns approximately 12 tonnes per hour when heavy, reducing to a tad under 10 when it lightens.

If Leonard Clampett’s stance represents a refusal to appear on Hereward Fenton’s radio show I congratulate him on adopting it.

Like the Protestant Reformation in its stance against the Catholic priesthood, civil society must today emancipate itself from commecial journalists, the commercial media and other would be mediators.
http://epamaegina.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/independent-citizens-assembly/

I hope that Michael Glynn ends up talking to himself, or to Hereward Fenton.

Leonard Clampett,

I am amazed that, as a former aircraft mechanic, you do not seem to have learned about fuel combustion.

Here is the formula (balanced equation) for kerosene combustion:
2 C12H26 + 37 O2—> 12 CO2 + 13 H2O

If you are wondering about the “miraculous” increase of mass, have a look at the 37 O2. That’s the amount of oxygen needed for combustion. It is taken from the environmental air.

Checking out Robert Forgette                         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t66YhAiofIk

He is on the opposite side of the argument to Michael Glynn. Making Michael Glynn’s references to him inscrutable to me. I wonder if Michael Glynn will be following Robert Forgette to the “new site” that Mr. Forgette tells us about.

Wayne Hall,

do you realize that you are confusing even chemtrail believers with your stance?

By the way, I have read the paper you linked - nothing in it about chemtrails. Everthing this watchdog group is referring to is “discussed”, “suggested”, “proposed” or “intended”. They mention the well known sulfur proposal (the artificial volcano eruption) and that’s it. Not a word about jet trails.
Is that your much-advertised “different level”??

I think it’s time that you step down from your “elite” socket and join the discussion with us plebeians.

If you further refuse to make your point about chemtrails, then I’m afraid it is you who will be ignored for sheer single-mindedness ...

I made it perfectly clear what the orientation of the ETC Group is to geoengineering and told you what I thought the reasons were for that.  I invited both you and Michael Glynn to contact them and ask them if they thought the moratorium on geoengineering was being implemented. Neither of you has agreed to do so, or even try, despite the fact that - as I said - I am taking a risk making this proposal to you for the reasons you yourself just indicated. They may tell you something very different from what I would say and what I believe. 

Your declining to do as I request indicates that you are willing to talk only to the uninitiated and the know-nothings on this subject.

By the way, here is one of the videos that Michael Glynn recommended:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tCGHLOLYnw&feature=plcps

Wayne,

While Leonard sorts out his combustion equations, a quiet word. Robert Forgette knows I do not believe in chemtrails. That entire group knows because I told them all. My entire involvement in this debate is spurred by a fear, based on an increasing number of public threats to pilots and aircraft that I have witnessed, that some extremists will soon take direct action that will result in a tragedy.

That group wishes to take the issue to a court of law. This seems to be a better way to settle the question than mindless abuse on various forums, so I have volunteered to act as an aviation adviser to them. Robert agreed and so far the arrangement is working well. There are numerous hoax videos around that I have advised them to disregard. A plan to launch a sampling rocket in order to obtain a chemtrail sample, was advised against. I don’t argue with them, just advise on aviation.

Can I say that your insistence, on a thread devoted to discussing the differences between contrails and chemtrails, that I contact some fringe group regarding some watered down- non binding moratorium on Geo Engineering to ascertain whether or not it is being upheld, is baffling at the very least. In the context of the thread, who cares???

You insistence that others follow your red herring before you will debate them reveals a narcissistic personality trait. Good luck with that…

To say it for the umpteenth time: I think the contrails versus chemtrails debate is the LAST way to understand anything about what is happening, and what is being proposed.

To judge from his video, Robert Forgette is having some problems with his group and is working on To say it for the umpteenth time: I think the contrails versus chemtrails debate is the LAST way to understand anything about what is happening, and what is being proposed.

To judge from his video, Robert Forgette is having some problems with his group and is working on a strategy for weeding out people he regards as not helping with his objectives.

If you asked me to try to contact him to cross check what he says about you and your role in his group and what you yourself say (this is the equivalent of my proposing that you should contact ETC) I would do so. a strategy for weeding out people he regards as not helping with his objectives.

If you asked me to try to contact him to cross check what he says about you and your role in his group and what you yourself say (this is the equivalent of my proposing that you should contact ETC) I would do so. (Even though Robert is clearly a much more marginal person than the ETC people).

The combustion process does nothing, in supplying the energy released from fuel burned, other than change compounds, elements and substances into their other forms. Any water contained in a parcel of air entering a combustion chamber is first reduced to steam, then a gas and then condenses as it is cooled post exhaust into visible water vapour i.e.contrail. So we are now told that a Boeing 747 with 4 engines takes in 36 tonnes of water along with its 12 tonnes of fuel and does what with it? I won’t argue with the claim as it is apparent that arguing with that is an exercise in nonsense. Add to that the claim that there is another 3 tonnes of CO2 being emitted I am wondering how all this is supposed to translate into “spreading” contrails, which do not exist to my knowledge and experience. All that is done when an aircraft passes by is the atmosphere is heated, then naturally cools to its pre-passage temperature and there is a very, very slight rise in the humidity of the air passed through as a very minuscule amount of water is exhausted from the combustion process.

Leonard,

The chemical equation given by Josh explains it all. Kerosene and ambient oxygen in=large amounts of water and CO2 out. That is basic science and not in dispute. So yes, a 747 flying in saturated air will tend to produce a large contrail which may persist, depending on the conditions.

The following video is from a fellow named Peter Kusznir, who is convinced that people like me are spraying people like him. He constantly films the Qantas flights to and from Johannesburg. These are aircraft I have several thousand hours personally flying. Therefore I tend to take what he says rather personally. What you will see is a 747 making a large persistent contrail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7z8NRse1RQ&sns=em

On Peters channel, if you can stand the language, you will also see the video I referred to before; Julia Gillards VIP 737 from 34 Sqn RAAF doing the same thing. This gets Peter rather flummoxed as well it should. The PM of Australia… Or at least her personal aircraft, spraying her home town? Bad politics at least…. Or the story of the century if it was true. Fortunately for Julia, it isn’t.

Wayne, obviously the thread isn’t heading where you would wish. I suggest starting another one tentatively entitled “Discuss-Fringe group achieves non-enforceable moratorium on geo engineering related to bio diversity”.