How's the chem

[MaineShark]

If the government was responsible, why engage in a massive conspiracy at huge expense, when you can easily hire a few fanatics to fly planes into buildings?

They might fly them into the wing of the pentagon that Rumsfeld was in.

Uh, it would be simpler to just have Rumsfeld be someplace else...

Sometimes they probably do just hire a few fanatics .... but they didn't that day.

Every shred of evidence I've seen says otherwise.  But this probably isn't the place to discuss it.

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

All the sources that promote the chemtrails theory have trouble constructing complete, coherent sentences and paragraphs.

That is not true.

Perhaps it isn't true, but if that's the case, I have yet to see any such source.

I think someone quoted from the wikipedia article .... that is not too bad.

[Russell Kanning]

Uh, it would be simpler to just have Rumsfeld be someplace else...

I use to think that the 9/11 thing didn't make any sense either .... if I wanted to scare people, I would just poison the water.
But they didn't do that .... they chose this plan... where they blew up 3 buildings and went to war.

[MaineShark]

Uh, it would be simpler to just have Rumsfeld be someplace else...

I use to think that the 9/11 thing didn't make any sense either .... if I wanted to scare people, I would just poison the water.
But they didn't do that .... they chose this plan... where they blew up 3 buildings and went to war.

No argument that they are the sort to do that, but the methodology makes no sense.  It's easier to fly the planes into the buildings.  That's simple.  It involves few people, so the chance of a leak is small.

To mine the buildings and then blow them up would involve a massive conspiracy and would essentially guarantee leaks.  It's needlessly complex and just impractical.  Flying planes into buildings is simple and practical.

I odn't know that they actually did that.  The US gov't has often simply sat on knowledge that something was going to happen (Pearl Harbor, anyone?) and then used it as an excuse.  But I do know that the "massive conspiracy" theories don't hold water, any more than the similar claims involving the moon landing.  It's simpler to actually fly to the moon.

Joe

[SAK]

Since I started this thread, I get to put it back on topic

I didn't start this as a debate for 9/11 or for chemtrails.  If you want to debate either of these things, there should already be threads open.  If not, create one.

So for anyone here who KNOWS a thing or two about chemtrails (there must be some here) AND live in NH.  How's the chem?   Sounds a bit better than where I'm from.  They heavily spray here 4-5 times a week at least.

[Insurgent]

I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary. One more reason to move to New Hampshire, I guess.

Reason number #102 to move--state with least amount of chemtrail spraying in the country!  :icon_dance:

[forsytjr]

Here's a question for a jet pilot.  If you were flying, and you all of a sudden shut all engines off, what would happen?  How far can you "glide" with your engines completely off   Then ya just flick em right back on, eh?

You can watch chemtrail sprayers shut it off, go quite a distance, then turn it right back on.  My understanding is that if they are shutting their engines off, they would be coming down very fast.  So how can they leave a "contrail" and then stop leaving a contrail for a period of time, turn around in the sky, come back over and start leaving a "contrail" again?

I would say a fairly conservative glide ratio for a transport type aircraft would be 8 to 1 (high performance gliders get as much as 60 to 1).  So for every mile up they could go 8 miles.  So at 30k feet (or about 6 miles), they could glide 48 miles before hitting the ground.  It's a comlete myth propogated by Hollywood that if you loose your engines, you fall out of the sky.  It isn't so.  If planes were that bad at flying, they'd need some really huge engines, and we'd never make it anywhere.  Now some aircraft would loose hydraulics without any engines running, but I think most aircraft can fly without their engines (I know all the aircraft I flew could).  And yes, you can start your engines right back up using either the ram air effect that spins the engines in a glide, or by using battery power to run the starter motor. 

I would re-emphasize, however, that contrails have NOTHING to do with the engines.  They are produced by the lift of the aircraft, and the presence of water in the air.  I have personally produce a heck of a lot of contrails in my life, and I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that they are water vapor.  I can't vouch for what other people have put into their contrails, a conspiricy is certainly possible.  Contrails going on and off are caused by local variations in the amount of water in the air (the same reason we have cumulous clouds).  If there are people purposefully putting chemicals into the contrails, it would have to be a small subset of the pilots and aircrafts to have any hope of secrecy, IMO.  Bottom line is that there is a scientific reason for the existence of contrails.  There may be something nefarious going on in some cases, but I'd be surprised,  There are far more direct and accepted ways to screw the American people such as taxes, imprisonment, etc.

Sorry to continue the debate - but the question on glides was asked, so I needed to answer that.

[Russell Kanning]

It's needlessly complex and just impractical.
It's simpler to actually fly to the moon.

We are talking about the government ... they invented those characteristics.
Why haven't they gone again? They want to go again ... but it will take 20 years. I don't think they can do it.

[error]

They can't get to the moon again, until someone announces they're going to beat the U.S. to the moon. Then it will happen.

[MaineShark]

It's needlessly complex and just impractical.
It's simpler to actually fly to the moon.

Why haven't they gone again? They want to go again ... but it will take 20 years. I don't think they can do it.

That's 20 years of taxes...

Seriously, going to the moon isn't hard.  Most any aerospace company could build a craft and send it there in five years, given funding for the venture.

That's why they keep private companies out of space... NASA only works when it has a monopoly.

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

Seriously, going to the moon isn't hard.  Most any aerospace company could build a craft and send it there in five years, given funding for the venture.

Then we will soon see.

[Lloyd Danforth]

A private company would have to derive some sort of profit from going to the moon

[aworldnervelink]

I would re-emphasize, however, that contrails have NOTHING to do with the engines.  They are produced by the lift of the aircraft, and the presence of water in the air. 

Um... no. Most contrails that you see are caused by water vapor from engine exhaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

Trails can be caused by wingtip pressure, as discussed in the article, but those are usually fleeting.

[Braddogg]

How's the chem?  Tasty.  Num num!

[forsytjr]

Um... no. Most contrails that you see are caused by water vapor from engine exhaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

Trails can be caused by wingtip pressure, as discussed in the article, but those are usually fleeting.

OK, I stand corrected that engines can also produce contrails because of water vapor output - which certainly makes sense.  I read the wikipedia article different than you do, however.  Under the section on engines, it says they only last for a few seconds.  Under the wingtip section, it only says that these typically form at high altitutes.