I can understand Hereward’s problem because has been given an unviable brief. He has been told that his task has been to prove that “chemtrails are contrails” and he has conscientiously set about trying to do what he has been asked to do.

Anyone who agrees to accept funding for a particular purpose has to consider the viability of what is being required.

I was involved in the attempt to set up a branch of Friends of the Earth in Greece. It was in the mid nineties, at about the time that the ground was being prepared to try to secure political support for the EU’s projected task of extending the emissions trading scheme to aviation.

We won the mandate, but then one of the first things Friends of the Earth asked us to do was to campaign for acceptance of an increase in the price of air tickets. Along with one or two colleagues, I perceived the non-viability of the campaign: to ask people to agree to pay more to travel by air was not a route to anywhere. We therefore disembarked from the project of trying to become Friends of the Earth, Greece.

Hereward is persistent. He is still trying to persuade himself, and the world, that chemtrails activists’ (and informed specialists’) lack of interest in engaging in debate on the terms of Hereward’s brief shows something negative about them, rather than about his own brief.

Here in Greece, among the people I have been talking to, the subject has been “how can one know” that Cyclone Sandy was a deliberate attack on New York and the Eastern seabord of the U.S., rather than an example of “geoengineering gone wrong”.

The question was asked to me by the secretary of the conservative parliamentarian Kostas Kollias, who has been the most dismissive of official “explanations” of what people are seeing in the skies.
http://www.enouranois.gr/english/indexkollias_eng.htm

It just so happens that this secretary is a close relative of two key people in the Open Meeting of Citizens of Aegina (former “indignados”), who have been resisting involvement with the chemtrails subject, because of the influence in Greece of the leftist SYRIZA party on the “Indignados”.

Being outflanked “on the Left” by a conservative parliamentarian is not a pleasant experience for fiercely radical “civil society” activists.

The American chemtrails activist Dane Wigington gave this answer to the question I asked above:

“First, the modeling from almost all sources predicting the 90 degree east turn 5 days out. All the models are one way or another the product of the geoengineering players. This was a completely unnatural course.

Second, the HAARP signal detection over NY prior to the strike as the storm was nearing the point of turning was the strongest ever recorded. This signal focused over NY bulges the atmosphere over that area creating a “vacuum” underneath to help pull the storm in.

Next, there was massive spraying of the storm. It should have been stronger, not weaker. With a 940 millibar pressure center and a 1000 mile circulation, it should have been a cat 3 or 4 storm. They delivered a “measured blow” exactly where they wanted it. We can all speculate as to all the reasons why. There is more data on our site. geoengineeringwatch.org”

related ...

“..... Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. “

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=674

im sorry to say hereward, that i wont be available for any interviews either, ill be busy those days.

perhaps we could schedule something though to debate the evidence of flight 77 hitting the pentagon or not… let me know if you ever find any, and ill check my schedule then.

best regards!

agin mee

@ Hereward if you not too busy during the great debate ranting about contrails and evil chemtrailers maybe you could get around to considering conflated issues like climate change and giving us your opinion regarding should we even be considering climate management and the suitability of weather modification programs such as the Satellite Weather Modification System (SWMS) using earth satellites to harness solar energy to modify the thermodynamics and composition of the earth’s atmosphere. 
http://www.google.com/patents/US5984239

 
@Wayne Hall unlike the need to broaden this current dialogue and the underlying climate change discussion, it is a discussion for another place why some operating from the darkwebz choose anonymity and avoiding being linked to a government supplied corporate sponsored commercial & legally binding identity. Considering what some extreme radicals call the increasing police state ushered in under cover of ideals like cyber activism is violence etc it’s rumoured some brownshirt thugs do it for nothing other than because they can & the LULZ they get from teaching others the techniques and value of anonymity.  If other’s are inspired to learn and practice surf sec after seeing this blog than that alone is reason enough in itself, even if poor “OP” says we are not welcome.

TAFKAA sorry I don’t follow much of your above posting. Too many initials, too many esoteric references. If you really want to say something to me you’ll have to make it simpler. If you are not talking to me specifically, however, don’t worry about it.

Leonard Clampett said:

“the engine used does not determine a contrail, it can be a piston engine or a turbine. It is ambient conditions that predicate contrails obeying the laws of physics and thermodynamics.”

That is correct.

“The only moisture that comes from combustion is from the hydrogen molecules and they are not overly saturated as there is no water in fuel in aircraft. Ergo, the only moisture emitted from an exhaust came from the intake air and minuscule amounts of hydrogen.”

This is incorrect - not because I say so (plus Qantas pilot Michael Glynn), but because it contradicts basic chemistry.

Here is the (simplified) formula for kerosene combustion, but the process in any combustion engine is similar:

2 C12H26 + 37 O2 = 24 CO2 + 26 H2O

Two (large) molecules of fuel react (burn) with 37 pairs of Oxygen atoms.

The product of that reaction are 24 molecules of Carbondioxyde and 26 molecules of water - which were not in the intake air.

Your car and the plane you are flying are emitting water vapor all the time.

Wayne Hall,

it is likely that there is a difference in shape between spontaneosly occurring cirrus clouds and contrail-induced cirrus. Obviously the linearity of the contrail will influence the form of the resulting cirrus.

Both are made of water ice crystals though.

Leonard Clampett,

There is a nice picture of traffic in Alaska here:

If it’s cold enough, the water vapor in car and heating exhaust becomes visible and even freezes (high relative humidity, small spread).

This is the whole page about “contrails on the ground”:
http://contrailscience.com/ground-level-contrails/

In the pre-Copenhagen period, when securing support for extension of emissions trading into aviation was an important priority, “aviation cirrus” had a bad name. Its negative characteristics were emphasized. There are many examples on this already quoted site
http://deoxy.org/meme/AviationSmog:
“Aerosol particles from aviation—comprising soot, metals, sulfuric acid, water vapor, and possibly nitric acid and unburned hydrocarbons—may influence the state of the atmosphere in many ways. These particles may provide surfaces for heterogeneous chemical reactions, both in the exhaust plume and on regional and global scales; represent a sink for condensable atmospheric gases; absorb or scatter radiation directly; and change cloud properties that may affect radiation indirectly. Persistent contrails can directly cause additional cirrus clouds to form. In addition, aerosol particles may enhance sedimentation and precipitation of atmospheric water vapor, hence affecting the hydrological cycle and the budget of other gases and particles.”

In a later phase, after some years of attempted cultivation of public support for “solar radiation management” positive (cooling) characteristics would begin to be attributed to this same phenomenon of “contrail cirrus”.

As far as I can see, nothing has changed other than the agenda.

There could be no possible basis for making the absurd claim that aircraft condensation trails are comprised simply comprised of “ice” other than the requirement of rhetorical exaggeration in tedious “contrail vs chemtrail” exchanges with chemtrail activists.

it is likely that there is a difference in shape between spontaneosly occurring cirrus clouds and contrail-induced cirrus. Obviously the linearity of the contrail will influence the form of the resulting cirrus.

Both are made of water ice crystals though.

both may contain ice crystals, more accurately.. other than that its a fair statement of the obvious… that they look different, but i think the videos distinction between normal cirrus and contrail cirrus went well beyond the obvious artificial shape and appearance of contrail cirrus.

and when it is observered that there is no spontaneous cirrus occurring and the only cloud cover that spreads and persists over the course of the whole day, day after day after day, originates from aircraft, and while other aircraft display contrails that do dissipate rapidly, it is not unreasonable to assume that the likelihood of conducive weather conditions for persistent contrails to exist over such an extended period would be quite low, and that there may be ( likely ) other elements contained in the trails other than ice crystals.

a photo of traffic exhaust in alaska is not evidence that this is unreasonable.

many believe the CON-trail science site is about as useful in finding more than one opinion expressed regarding this topic as is the jref site in relation to information/truth about 9/11.

disingenuous.

@Wayne Hall,  TAFKAA may wish to respond and I would be interest to hear that but incase not, let me put it in my profane term’s even the uninitiated should be able to comprehend. 

You questioned AnonVZero about posting anonymously.  A name is what binds an individual to the government and it’s laws of the land.  Much of the lands has been occupied by corrupt police-state authorities and we use our anonymity to fight back.  Some of us don’t give a rats ass about the chemtrails v contrails argument but enjoy seeing you guys go round in circles about it.

As the arrogant admins of this site carry on just like corrupt government and seem to enjoy blocking and banning and hypocritically feigning being a victim of the same and as we defend their right to free speech, we decided here would be a great place come when teaching noobs web anonymity basics.

It was recently decided that we now use this otherwise “worthless” in our eyes thread as a practice range for testing and teaching others various technologies and anonymity techniques.  The site admin was told cyber activism is not violence but he disagrees so we think he needs personal demonstrations. 

Westbro baptist church have a right to free speech as do scientology, just as we have a right to appose extreme stupidity, however we see fit.  When someone gets rubbed up the wrong way that is not our problem.

Thank you Josh for the URL

as it clearly demonstrates that the fog being induced is from the heated exhaust emissions. You will note, if you have been to such places where the ground temperatures become low enough for this regular occurrence at such places, that the fog only lasts a very short time. It does not take over the surrounding atmosphere and bend it to its condition. This is the result of the water vapour in the air being processed through the engine in a similar fashion to what happens at altitude with other engines. The fog is then warmed to the surrounding temperature by natural balance and dissipates the same way it does at altitude. The idea that this fog could so influence the surrounding atmosphere, as is posited by those who believe in “persistent” contrails turning into vast sheets of cloud, is so far removed from what is possible under the laws of physics and thermodynamics as to be quite funny. The idea that ice crystals formed by engine exhausts draw moisture from the surrounding atmosphere and “grow” is an ambit claim because it seems to say that the minor can fully influence the major. What happens is that natural equilibrium ensures that balance is restored after an aircraft passes.

Whilst returning to Australia one day, flying in formation, I was wingman to my leader and I slipped behind and below him to take a look at his undercarriage. While I was there he poured a cup of hot water down his piss-a-phone (the pilots relief tube operated by utilising the pressurisation of the aircraft). The water froze instantaneously and small chunks of ice hit my aircraft. They then descended under the effect of gravity (naturally) and would have melted and been absorbed by the surrounding atmosphere. It was a clear day at 25,000 feet and not a cloud in the sky as is normal on winter days when we see real contrails. What has never been explained is why we see chemtrails, which some seem to believe are contrails, on days, and at altitudes where the ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Contrail over Brisbane airport at 10,000 feet on a summer morning? Cannot happen. It was a chemtrail no doubt in my mind. Unexplainable by chemtrail deniers.

in the upcoming interview with mike ( hyperbole ohh noes theyre going to shoot us out the sky!! ) glynne..

http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/jet-pilots-fear-chemtrail-attacks/story-e6freqwf-1226508708721

in order to determine if he possesses more than a “room temperature IQ”

would you kindly ask him if he agrees or disagrees with the government position on 9/11, or if he agrees with the majority of the worlds population that the official position on 911 be utterly impossible.

also, be interesting to know a few more details and see some examples of all these threats

“Threats to shoot down aircraft or harming pilots are becoming more prevalent, overt and alarming,”

and exactly what weapons he imagines chemtrail activists are hiding in their cupboards that are capable of bringing down aircraft.

From the Courier Mail item dated November 01, 2012;

“Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said: “The trail that you see from the ground is water vapour. It’s like on a frosty winter’s morning when you go outside and breathe. What comes out is your hot, warm, moist breath and when it hits cold, dry air you get condensation. It’s exactly the same with aircraft warm air comes out of the engine and hits the cold dry atmosphere.”“

What he did not say, or that was edited out, is that as soon as the two merge and balance the contrails disappear, and is the reason why you do not see contrails in cloud at all.

This statement tells us about contrails and why chemtrails are not contrails.

I believe that one of the easiest ways to understand the problem is by comparison. Can those who refute the idea of chemtrails see by example what happens if we were to pour a litre of water at, say, 35 degrees Celsius into a container with 1,000 litres of water at, say, 15 degrees Celsius.

Would the 1 litre warm the 1,000 litres or would the 1,000 litres cool the 1 litre? The answer is called equilibrium and I suspect with such dilution there would be no change in temperature of the 1,000 litres but the 1 litre would be rapidly cooled to the same temperature as the surrounding 1,000 litres. This is only a small scale comparison because an aircraft would be putting out thousands of litres of exhaust gas into billions upon billions of litres of its surrounding atmosphere as it transits and balance would reign supreme as in this comparison.

When you say something is correct or incorrect, Josh, be reminded that it is your opinion on correctness, not a fact.

Depending upon another’s opinion, such as Mike Glynn, or relying upon a QANTAS (QANTAS is an acronym, it is not Qantas) employee to give credence to your opinion is not exactly science.

Chemtrails exist even if you do not like, know or understand, according to me experience and observations over some 50 years enjoying our skies across the globe.

Leonard Clampett said:

“the engine used does not determine a contrail, it can be a piston engine or a turbine. It is ambient conditions that predicate contrails obeying the laws of physics and thermodynamics.”

That is correct.

“The only moisture that comes from combustion is from the hydrogen molecules and they are not overly saturated as there is no water in fuel in aircraft. Ergo, the only moisture emitted from an exhaust came from the intake air and minuscule amounts of hydrogen.”

This is incorrect - not because I say so (plus Qantas pilot Michael Glynn), but because it contradicts basic chemistry.

Jok3r thank you for the explanation.

Living in Greece as I do, where mass demonstrations and strikes have become an everyday phenomenon, we have become familiar with the activity of “anonymous” (i.e. masked) ostensible opponents of state oppression, who take every opportunity to smash and wreck everything they can in the course of demonstrations. In recent years this has included what used to be the most stylish and elegant cinema in Athens, now a charred ruin, a bookshop frequented by “progressive” intellectuals, and numerous other buildings and facilities. My local post office was burned down in one demonstration not too long ago. The mass transit system in Athens is comprised of an old-style electric railway, where some remnant of traditional trade union organization seems to persist, and a modern metro, built for the 2004 Olympic Games. The two coexist uneasily. Anonymous graffiti writers and vandals have totally ruined much of the rolling stock of the electric railway, smashing its windows and covering entire carriages, indeed entire trains, with spray paint.

Perhaps some of the protagonists in these fiestas of anonymous criminality imagine themselves as warriors against the state. I would like to see them doing whatever they are doing in such a way as to be identifiable. Fortunately I don’t spend most of my time in Athens but outside of it, in a smaller community where it is much more difficult for anything (or perhaps not ANYTHING, but anyway most things) to be done anonymously. I prefer to live, and indeed to try to be an activist, in such an environment where one knows with whom one is dealing.

This thread may be as worthless (or rather futile) as you say, though it seems to me that it at least has some intellectual content. Certainly it is run by people who should be ostracised and treated like social outcasts. But in order for there to be outcasts there has to be a society from which they can be cast out, and in that society people must have names and stable identifies. They do not have to have “the right to free speech”. The world is going to come to a sticky end unless a competing political entity can be constructed that does not fetishize the “right to free speech”, which is a “principle” that needs to be appealed to only by those with agendas they do not wish to declare: scoundrels.

Wayne Hall, you have finally shown your true colours apparently:

They do not have to have “the right to free speech”. The world is going to come to a sticky end unless a competing political entity can be constructed that does not fetishize the “right to free speech”, which is a “principle” that needs to be appealed to only by those with agendas they do not wish to declare: scoundrels.

For some time now you have been tacitly endorsing the abusive statements made by others, but you have now joined the ranks of the abusers yourself.

In declaring your intention to deprive me of my right to free speech you have crossed a line. You and your friends who post here are in breach of every guideline and standard of civilised discourse.

I am not closing the thread yet. This is just an assessment of the situation.

Would you like to clarify or retract anything you said?

Hereward Fenton you are the one controlling this forum and you are the one who has the ability to deprive me of my “right to free speech”, not the opposite.

I have never in my life had to resort to an appeal to my “right of free speech” in order to attract attention to what I want to say. I do not propose to start doing so now.

Leonard Clampett said:

“Depending upon another’s opinion, such as Mike Glynn, [...] to give credence to your opinion is not exactly science.”

The chemistry of combustion is not a matter of opinion. Ask not just Michael Glynn, ask any professional jet pilot, chemistry teacher, atmospheric scientist. Ask Google, at least.

Are you aware that your “no water from combustion” and “supersaturation doesn’t exist” statements are actually new scientific theories?
Now you would have to show the scientists of the world why your theories are better than previous ones, even if they are overthrowing the entire knowledge collected so far.

If you can do this, it will be a revolution.

Wayne Hall,

just because you are trying to hide your insults behind many words, they are still what they are. They are noted, as is your consent to others being abusive.

I found that insults often tend to come up if factual arguments are running out.