Chemtrails?

[Enemem]

What is so nutty about what I just said, exactly?


Maybe you're right, it wouldn't be so difficult. But it would be such an insignificant amount of chemical content in relation to the fuel itself that it would not make any difference at all.

Inventing stuff that no-one's said is nutty. Also called straw-man argumemnt. Holds no water.

If you didn't mind aeroplanes falling out of the sky, no, no reason at all.

​

Yeah, because fuel additives make planes crash.

@Azureman - HAARP.

 

[Famine]

Yeah, because fuel additives make planes crash.

If the jet engine can't burn it, yep - either through engine failure itself or just plain underfuelling. If half a percent of the weight of fuel is a mysterious additive the engine can't burn, your plane will fall 40 miles short of its Transatlantic destination.

And if it can burn it, there's not much use feeding it into jet engines and hoping it'll do something when it comes out the back. Because it's been burned.

Chemtrails don't exist.

 

[Ryanswannell]

Inventing stuff that no-one's said is nutty. Also called straw-man argumemnt. Holds no water.

Example?

Yeah, because fuel additives make planes crash.

Let's say we filled your car up with whatever fuel it runs on, and then throw in some of these magical additives you mention. I doubt it would run as smoothly .

 

[Enemem]

If the jet engine can't burn it, yep - either through engine failure itself or just plain underfuelling. If half a percent of the weight of fuel is a mysterious additive the engine can't burn, your plane will fall 40 miles short of its Transatlantic destination.

And if it can burn it, there's not much use feeding it into jet engines and hoping it'll do something when it comes out the back. Because it's been burned.

Chemtrails don't exist.

View attachment 149499​

Err. Put extra fuel in. So it doesn't run out. Not rocket science.

Additives[edit]
The DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel, including:[12][13]

• Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, e.g., AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;
• Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as a component, is an example
• Corrosion inhibitors, e.g., DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;
• Fuel system icing inhibitor (FSII) agents, e.g., Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense.
• Biocides are to remediate microbial (i.e., bacterial and fungal) growth present in aircraft fuel systems. Currently, two biocides are approved for use by most aircraft and turbine engine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs); Kathon FP1.5 Microbiocide and Biobor JF.[14]
• Metal deactivator can be added to remediate the deleterious effects of trace metals on the thermal stability of the fuel. The one allowable additive is N,N’-disalicylidene 1,2-propanediamine.

View attachment 149499
Which one's you ?

 

[Venom800tt]

Jet aircraft tend to be very picky about fuel weight, as it is factored into takeoff performance, range, flight time, etc. Most commercial aircraft cannot take off with full fuel, full cargo, and full passengers. You have to sacrifice something, and usually that is fuel for short flights, or passengers for long flights. Cargo tends to not be sacrificed unless you can't meet the weight and balance with the other two (commercial airliners carry freight for postal services).
Adding more additives (that somehow can survive combustion) would reduce the energy density of the fuel, therefore hurting range and engine performance. All the additives used in fuel today are in very, very small amounts as to not damage performance or the engine/fuel system itself. They also have to be extensively tested as to not hamper things in the amounts that they are in.
So slapping some mystery chemical for "chemtrails" would not only require extensive testing in engines, but also in entire aircraft. That is a very long and expensive process that is also very expensive (wee FAA). Also there is the fact that airlines won't tolerate anything that will reduce performance of their fuel, as fuel cost is the prime factor in if they make money or not.
And I still want to know what chemical that can survive turbine engine combustion chambers, which can be as hot as 1800-2000C (3272-3632F) in a modern gas turbine...
Anyway as a commercial aircraft mechanic myself, I still think the whole chemtrail conspiracy is all fake. It just won't work with a jet aircraft.

 

[Famine]

Err. Put extra fuel in. So it doesn't run out. Not rocket science.

No, it's jet science.

Incidentally, more fuel = more weight = more fuel needed - and aircraft only have a limited fuel supply because they have finite fuel tanks. Unless you're positing in-flight refuelling (which requires more planes with more fuel and even more fuel to carry the extra fuel to refuel the plane), it's a non-starter.

You can't just go adding weight to planes unless you actually want plane crashes.

the DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel, including

All of which are burned in the engine and used as preservatives for the fuel tanks, fuel lines and engines themselves. Thus fitting category 2 of "chemicals you can put into jet engines":

And if it can burn it, there's not much use feeding it into jet engines and hoping it'll do something when it comes out the back. Because it's been burned.

Which one's you ?

The picture was unrelated to anything. I thought that was the fashion now.


Chemtrails don't exist. You have to be literally completely ignorant of how jet engines work to even begin to believe they're a possibility for commercial airliners. Luckily @Venom800tt has just perfectly explained why to you.

 

[BobK]

Don't hold your breath - this is the same guy that admitted to having no understanding of economics while endlessly declaring the evils of capitalism and wealth.

Excuse me, you're absolutely right. I stand corrected and withdraw the "bright laddie" comment. Or at least the "bright" part. Furthermore, it looks like "commercial aviation flight(fuel) planning" is another subject in the same category as "economics" with regard to understanding or lack thereof.

 

[homeforsummer]

I've often thought life must be quite depressing for conspiracy theorists. Particularly with regards to bunkum like chemtrails. You spend your whole life worrying about something that isn't happening (or purports to make you mad - because the ones not worrying about daft stuff the government isn't doing are the mad ones, clearly). Same applies to racists. Or homophobes. How horrible it must be to have to think about the things you hate so frequently. Poor souls.

Still, a nonexistent substance coming out of jet exhausts clearly outweighs the benefits of being able to move three billion people a year around the globe with vastly greater efficiency than at any other point in human history. Damn those miraculous jet airliners. Damn them!

 

[GTP_Ingram]

*Clicks on thread* Oooh chemtrails, I've never heard of them before, I wonder what they are?

*Discovers what chemtrails are* Ah. Never mind.

 

[Zenith]

Aerodynamics don't real.

 

[Liquid]

This thread needs locking. Pure and simple.

 

[Keef]

Secondly, I see no reason why chemical additives to normal aeroplane fuel, wouldn't be easy to be done secretly.

Here's some fodder for you. There is a chemical additive added to some jet fuel and I'm in charge of the lever. Sometimes I do it without telling anybody. It's called a Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) and it's added to the fuel of jet and turboprop aircraft which don't have onboard fuel heating equipment. Jet fuel has small amounts of water embedded in it microscopically which cannot be removed and these water molecules can freeze at altitude and clog up fuel filters with ice. That's not a good thing. Therefore, FSII.

More fodder: All military jet fuel is already impregnated with FSII. Many of their planes like helicopters and fighter jets don't have fuel system heaters because it's more expensive, heavier, and is just another thing to potentially fail, so they order all their jet fuel with the same stuff to remove the potential for mishaps. So there's your proof that the government is in on it too.

Now, for an actual explanation. This embedded water is obviously heated into water vapor when the fuel is burned. The jet exhaust is full of particles to which the vapor clings, causing clouds. Also, supercooled water molecules can exist at high altitudes which also get consumed by the engine, adding to the effect. At low altitudes, such as during landing and takeoff, the clouds and vortices you see are caused by air pressure/temperature differentials. Aerodynamics. Crazy.

Err. Put extra fuel in. So it doesn't run out. Not rocket science.

Err. Flight planning actually is a complex science, far too complex for me to explain to you in detail, so I'll just say that fuel amounts are planned rather carefully and putting extra fuel in for no reason is not something that is done. One of few reasons an airliner would ever tanker fuel is because the fuel at its departure airport is significantly cheaper than at its arrival airport. Even then, the amount of tankered fuel will be small because the airplane has specific altitudes, speeds, times, and various weights at different points of the flight that it must meet with surprisingly close tolerance. If an airplane were to tanker fuel this will be compensated for by the dispatcher during the planning process. Airline dispatch is indeed a science, another one that I'm nearly certified in.

 

[Lizard]

Err. Put extra fuel in. So it doesn't run out. Not rocket science.

Additives[edit]
The DEF STAN 91-91 (UK) and ASTM D1655 (international) specifications allow for certain additives to be added to jet fuel, including:[12][13]

• Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, e.g., AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;
• Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as a component, is an example
• Corrosion inhibitors, e.g., DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;
• Fuel system icing inhibitor (FSII) agents, e.g., Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense.
• Biocides are to remediate microbial (i.e., bacterial and fungal) growth present in aircraft fuel systems. Currently, two biocides are approved for use by most aircraft and turbine engine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs); Kathon FP1.5 Microbiocide and Biobor JF.[14]
• Metal deactivator can be added to remediate the deleterious effects of trace metals on the thermal stability of the fuel. The one allowable additive is N,N’-disalicylidene 1,2-propanediamine.

Considering any one of those problems those things are designed to prevent can bring a plane down or at least add to it's maintenance costs significantly I can understand all of those being added.

Also your put more fuel in is a laughable idea. For a quick and very rough idea play War Thunder on realistic or sim and compare things like take off run, speed, agility, fuel efficiency (the plane may be burning at the same rate at full tank but it is going slower) etc between a full tank and minimum fuel load. Then scale it up.

Also think that less efficiency means that prices are higher. Any company in their right mind would want to try and reduce costs if they can.

 

[Azuremen]

@Azureman - HAARP.

Still not getting how a picture with no explanation or clear relation is evidence as the nature of your post suggests.

Also, learn to spell my username, especially considering after the first six letters I am the ONLY suggestion when using the @ tag.

Excuse me, you're absolutely right. I stand corrected and withdraw the "bright laddie" comment. Or at least the "bright" part. Furthermore, it looks like "commercial aviation flight(fuel) planning" is another subject in the same category as "economics" with regard to understanding or lack thereof.

He has claimed being to university, but the endless ignorance on all topics paired with the cumbersome grammar make me wonder more and more.

 

[Lizard]

1 thing I must ask. What is the supposed purpose of these "chemicals"?

 

[The Stig Farmer]

1 thing I must ask. What is the supposed purpose of these "chemicals"?

MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING CONSPIRACY DURR

Probably.

 

[orimarc]

1 thing I must ask. What is the supposed purpose of these "chemicals"?

PROVING THAT HITLER SUNK THE TITANIC TO BUILD A TIME-TRAVEL MACHINE AND BUILD THE PYRAMIDS WITH THE HELP OF ALIENS WHO IN TURNED CAUSED 9/11, YOU SHEEPLE!

Because if we're mocking conspiracy loonies, let's make sure to do it properly.

 

[CodeRedR51]

All those chemtrails I see every day must not be doing much for making clouds around here. It's quite sunny outside.

 

[Enemem]

Now you all make valid points. However amongst the posts above, there are some which ask more questions than provide answers.

@The Stig Farmer -- I didn't say that.
@haitch40 -- Don't know. And you'll be telling me lead, isn't an additive.
@Azuremen -- Touchy one aren't you! My profuse apologies for spelling your name wrong. Having chastised me, then you go and tell everyone, that I'm an idiot at grammar. You do lose a bit of respect, when you miss commas out. And nice contribution, by the way.
@Keef -- I understand that it may be technical calculating the amount of fuel for a trip, but your answer doesn't exactly say that it's impossible. If it's possible, then it's possible.
@Liquid -- Best post in thread. Now explain to me why it should be locked?
@homeforsummer -- hey I do this for fun. I'm not going to worry about it. But thanks for your concern.
@Venom800tt -- Good point, I don't know. If chem-trails exist, then there could only be two methods of dispersal, via the fuel from separate tanks.
@BobK -- must be nice to know everything. Can you tell me what the last thing that you didn't know was, and when you knew it?
@Famine -- Only impossible, from your perspective if it's a fuel additive. If it's dispersed separately then could it be possible?

You lot are probably the most hostile,bad humoured people, I've ever come across. And yeah, maybe I should get out more. I ask a question, pose some of my own answers to questions that have subsequently been asked, and you go insult me. Good job. If you don't want to talk about chem-trails and there existence or not, then why comment? (I fully expect this question to be ignored, but hey prove me wrong).

Do you want this thread closed so that nobody else can participate in a week/month/year or so?

 

[Liquid]

Because we have had this topic before, linked thrice already, and we're just going in circles just like we did in the previous thread.

It was locked then for a reason, and nothing has changed.

 

[Enemem]

Because we have had this topic before, linked thrice already, and we're just going in circles just like we did in the previous thread.

It was locked then for a reason, and nothing has changed.

And a thread can't go in circles because ? If you don't like circles that's not my problem. If anyone has anything to contribute in the future, then they'll start a new thread and that's surely more ridiculous than closing this one.

Not really right, that the default is lock down is it?

 

[homeforsummer]

You lot are probably the most hostile,bad humoured people, I've ever come across.

That's not really the case. You've just triggered our bad "bollocks" allergy.

And to answer your question, we're at liberty to respond to anything we choose.

The issue arises when several people give educated responses as to why something is bunkum, and it's ignored and countered with various strains of conspiracy tosh.

There are some things that simply aren't real, regardless of how many loony-penned websites you read.

 

[Exorcet]

Now you all make valid points. However amongst the posts above, there are some which ask more questions than provide answers.

@The Stig Farmer -- I didn't say that.
@haitch40 -- Don't know. And you'll be telling me lead, isn't an additive.
@Azuremen -- Touchy one aren't you! My profuse apologies for spelling your name wrong. Having chastised me, then you go and tell everyone, that I'm an idiot at grammar. You do lose a bit of respect, when you miss commas out. And nice contribution, by the way.
@Keef -- I understand that it may be technical calculating the amount of fuel for a trip, but your answer doesn't exactly say that it's impossible. If it's possible, then it's possible.
@Liquid -- Best post in thread. Now explain to me why it should be locked?
@homeforsummer -- hey I do this for fun. I'm not going to worry about it. But thanks for your concern.
@Venom800tt -- Good point, I don't know. If chem-trails exist, then there could only be two methods of dispersal, via the fuel from separate tanks.
@BobK -- must be nice to know everything. Can you tell me what the last thing that you didn't know was, and when you knew it?
@Famine -- Only impossible, from your perspective if it's a fuel additive. If it's dispersed separately then could it be possible?

You lot are probably the most hostile,bad humoured people, I've ever come across. And yeah, maybe I should get out more. I ask a question, pose some of my own answers to questions that have subsequently been asked, and you go insult me. Good job. If you don't want to talk about chem-trails and there existence or not, then why comment? (I fully expect this question to be ignored, but hey prove me wrong).

Do you want this thread closed so that nobody else can participate in a week/month/year or so?

To be fair, nothing you posted was exactly revolutionary. There is a video of a plane landing in poor conditions, at night, and recorded by a 1 hectapixel device. You say it looks strange to you. Other people with various technical background don't see anything strange. I post what you posted down to what looks like the same aircraft, minus pitch darkness and negative picture quality and explain it (though in a pretty blunt, but not at all insulting manner). I don't think the responses you got were all that unreasonable.

Maybe people are poking a bit of fun, but there isn't really much to discuss here.

Also, yes chemtrails may be possible, but in the same sense that Zeus lands a UFO on Mt Olympus and says the last 2000 years of his absence has been a test.

Putting the whateveritis on board separately from the fuel leads to the same issues on weight, etc. Only now there needs to be hidden tanks of unknown size put on the plane. This seems kind of absurd without the direct invovement of the manufacturer and/or airline at least.

 

[Scaff]

You lot are probably the most hostile,bad humoured people, I've ever come across. And yeah, maybe I should get out more. I ask a question, pose some of my own answers to questions that have subsequently been asked, and you go insult me. Good job. If you don't want to talk about chem-trails and there existence or not, then why comment? (I fully expect this question to be ignored, but hey prove me wrong).

OK I will prove you wrong by replying to this specific part.

People comment in the vain hope that by providing detailed explanations (from people who have a solid background in these areas) that you might actually take some of it on-board rather than dismissing it almost out of hand and simply repeating nonsense.

Quite frankly that you have "Belief is the death of intelligence....." in your signature is rather ironic given that you are quite happy to 'believe' unsupported nonsense and ignore actual valid evidence.

 

[orimarc]

And a thread can't go in circles because ? If you don't like circles that's not my problem.

Because it means someone (or maybe everyone!) is either wrong, stubborn, or not understanding properly (or maybe all three).

Besides, if someone wants to contribute to the discussion, if would be wise beforehand to check what has been said and explained in other threads about the same thing.

 

[Dagger311]

Everyone knows chemtrails were developed by Nazis secretly attempting to cause America's shrubbery to grow so high, we won't see them invading. They're dropping liquefied plant growth chemicals all over the country.

 

[Azuremen]

@Azuremen -- Touchy one aren't you! My profuse apologies for spelling your name wrong. Having chastised me, then you go and tell everyone, that I'm an idiot at grammar. You do lose a bit of respect, when you miss commas out. And nice contribution, by the way.

I am hoping, for your sake, that this is some poor attempt at irony with how you've gone about using commas. If it is not, please don't use commas as they only make your posts less clear - which is saying something.

This topic, chemtrails, has been covered at length in the past and you've brought nothing new to the table. Compounding is how you wave your arms about and make a fuss on topics you clearly have no understanding of, then getting defensive when people lose patience because they tire of your repetitive nature.

 

[Crispy]

Putting the whateveritis on board separately from the fuel leads to the same issues on weight, etc. Only now there needs to be hidden tanks of unknown size put on the plane. This seems kind of absurd without the direct invovement of the manufacturer and/or airline at least.

Not only that, but when shadowing my father (Who works with an airline that uses B737's) I viewed blueprints for the work done on the planes as well as a completely stripped plane under service. (Minus fuel tanks, wings, and skin) There's no "hidden" tanks which is, like you said, absurd.

I used to believe in Chemtrails. Not like the mystery chemical to indoctrinate the people, but as a fuel additive that would cause condensation in areas with high sunlight. That's less absurd, but still absurd.

 

[Lizard]

@haitch40 And you'll be telling me lead, isn't an additive.

What? Of course it is and it serves a purpose. It stops knocking (premature ignition) in the engine.

 

[Pupik]

@prettymucheverybody - Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you are. Looks weird to me.

And just because something looks weird...doesn't mean it is.

Also, @FakeStrawmanArgument 👎

With all the alcohol, tobacco, drugs, food additives, degrading plastics, rotting garbage, man-made radioactivity, toxic waste dumps, Superfund sites, air pollution, war; along with political misinformation, lies, greed, deceit, graft, corruption; and a glut of other known and stated hazards that already exist... Who the hell has to time to think anyone has time to think that there's another conspiracy like this that hundreds of thousands of folks have been able to keep a lid on for decades?