Friday, 24 February 2017

Chemtrails Eat Your Brain

I have held off writing this article for years. But I can do so no longer.

Before I continue, let me make a couple of things clear.

First, I am not an engineer, let alone an aeronautical engineer.

Secondly, I am not in any way part of, or affiliated to, any government or any aeronautical company in any shape and form whatsoever.

Having said that, however, even a basic knowledge of physics and engineering should be more than enough to allow any literate person to understand the points I’m making. And anyone who doesn’t is, probably, refusing to understand for reasons more ideological than anything.

Well, then.

There are two myths that just refuse to die, and which need to be buried at the crossroads, with a stake through their hearts, and their decapitated heads mounted on spikes so nobody ever brings them forth again.

Let’s take them one at a time.

The Chemtrail myth.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, with a Guantanamo Bay style isolation hood over your head, you can’t have missed this one. According to it, secret government/Rothschild/Illuminati/Whateveritis agencies are spraying us all with lethal cancer-causing/mind-controlling/insert your pet paranoia-causing “chemtrails” from aeroplanes, and the clear and dramatic proof of this is the long white lines left by said aeroplanes in the sky, which never ever appeared until a few years ago.



Balderdash, claptrap, and poppycock.

Let’s just check what the hell “chemtrails” are. They are, in proper parlance, known as “contrails” – short for “condensation trails”. And the reason for that is that they are...trails created by condensation.

This is how they are formed.

Aircraft engines, like any other engine running fossil fuels, (including your car engine), burn hydrocarbons. Kerosene, petrol, diesel, wood alcohol...these are all hydrocarbons.  When you burn hydrocarbons, you get carbon dioxide and water. It works like this:

If CH is the hydrocarbon, the number of carbon and hydrogen atoms in the molecule depending on the particular hydrocarbon, and O2  being oxygen, then

CH +O2 = CO2 +H2O

For the purpose of this article we can safely ignore the relatively small amounts of impurities, like carbon monoxide (produced owing to insufficient oxygen to allow full burning) and other impurities created as by products. The result of burning hydrocarbons is almost entirely carbon dioxide, which in the gaseous state is invisible, and water, which is assuredly not necessarily so.

And what, basically, is the function of an engine, including an aircraft engine? It is the production of energy by combining oxygen with hydrocarbons and burning them inside a part of the engine itself. That’s why it’s called an internal combustion engine.

Here’s a schematic of how this works:




Now, you’ll have noticed something: when you burn a fuel, you have to get rid of the by products before you can burn even more fuel in the same place, right? Suppose you burn coals in your fireplace, assuming you’re one of those people who still have a fireplace. Unless you remove the cinders and ash from the hearth, you can’t keep piling on more coals indefinitely, without having the whole mess spill out on to your polished hardwood floor and, more than likely, setting your house on fire. And unless you remove the soot clogging your chimney, you’ll soon find the smoke hasn’t anywhere to go, and it comes right back down and asphyxiates you. Right?

Now, unless your engine fuel is very, very dirty, and filled with an enormous amount of contaminants, you won’t have literal ash and soot. But you will still have all that carbon dioxide and water, and you have to get rid of it. In other words, you have to have an exhaust pipe.

It works the same way for a car engine as for an aeroplane. Engines need exhaust pipes.

This is not new. Even First World War aircraft like this German Rumpler C IV reconnaissance aeroplane had impressive exhaust stacks – so impressive that they climbed up right up in front of the pilot’s face, depriving him of a substantial part of his forward vision.






Now, there’s a peculiar property of water vapour, which you can test for yourself. If it’s a hot summer day, or you’re indoors and the heating isn’t malfunctioning, your breath will be invisible, even though you’re exhaling plenty of water-vapour laden air each time you breathe out. But if you’re in a freezer, or outside on a winter day, what happens?

The moisture in your breath condenses, that’s what happens. You find a little cloud forming around your nose each time you breathe out.

This is because of something called the dew point, the temperature below which the water in the atmosphere condenses from a colourless gas to a visible vapour. Look up at the sky. See those fluffy cloud-things? They’re made of droplets of drifting water vapour, which condensed out of the atmosphere when it grew too cool for them to exist as colourless gas anymore. And, unless you failed all geography classes, as well as basic observation, you’ll know that the higher you go, the cooler the air gets (as well as thinner, and the dew pint drops with lower pressure). So, the higher you go, the easier the water vapour condenses.

So let’s go over all this again.

First, an aeroplane, unlike a glider, needs an engine to push it through the air at a speed sufficient for airflow over the wings to hold it aloft.

This engine uses hydrocarbons as fuel, which it burns inside a combustion chamber, producing carbon dioxide and water as the end result.

Said carbon dioxide and water is released out into the atmosphere by means of one or more exhaust pipes.

When the temperature is cool enough, this water condenses, forming visible clouds of water vapour.

Am I getting the message through to you? An aeroplane, as it flies, emits engine exhaust, which contains water, which, if the atmosphere is cool enough, condenses into vapour. This vapour forms, like other condensed water vapour in the atmosphere, a cloud. And since the air being emitted by the engine is hot, it takes a fraction of a second to cool enough for the water to condense. All right so far?




But the aeroplane isn’t just hovering in mid air like a helicopter. It’s moving constantly, which means that the engine is moving, and the exhaust it leaves is also moving through the air. Therefore, the water vapour condenses behind it along its path of movement, in a long, thin, narrow cloud.

That’s all a contrail is...a long, thin cloud. That is all it is.

All right, now, I am already hearing the objections. Let’s take them one by one.

Objection: Nobody ever saw “chemtrails” before a few years ago. They are something totally new.

Response: Not true. Not the slightest bit true. Contrails have formed since the first plane ever flew high enough for the outside temperature to fall behind the dew point. There are plenty of photos attesting to that, as well as, you know, eyewitness accounts. Such as mine.

Back when I was a kid in the 1970s, a pair of Indian Air Force Canberra jets would regularly fly over this town. Many, many times I’ve seen the trails they’ve drawn in the sky, each twin-engined plane’s two white trails joining together and stretching out into a long, thin, white cloud which scratched across half the sky. You could just see the planes themselves, tiny silver dots at the tips of the trails. It was beautiful, and nobody ever suggested that they weren’t anything but what they were.

That’s because people back then weren’t necessarily looking for reasons to frighten themselves.

So why are people claiming that “chemtrails” are a new phenomenon?

Firstly, I’d say, because they never bothered to look up into the sky for themselves, to see what was going on, until panic-mongering websites told them to. Most people are amazingly, almost incredibly, unobservant, and since the current Mobile Phone generation can’t even get its head out of its screen long enough to cross the street, this isn’t getting any better.

Secondly, there are more planes flying than ever before, and higher than ever before. Obviously, they’re going to leave more contrails. Also, most planes these days are multi-engine, unlike previously, and exude more exhaust. You have more cars on the roads, you’ll get more traffic jams, and if they’re hydrocarbon burning cars, more exhaust smoke.  It’s the same bloody principle, people. Arrrrrghhh!

Here are contrails over Big Ben as the Royal Air Force tangled with the Luftwaffe over London during the Battle Of Britain in....1940. That's right, 1940.




Objection: Whether “chemtrails” are new or not, they are a way for governments/secret agencies/Illuminati to spread mind-control chemicals/cancer causing agents/whateveritis.

Response: Actually, that would be an incredibly stupid way to try and spread any such chemicals, because said chemicals wouldn’t descend on the earth like malevolent dew. They’d stay up there in the atmosphere and spread far and wide, dispersing before they might or might not descend, days or weeks hence, at some unpredictable point. There isn’t any point in putting stuff in the air over your city if it finally comes down, diluted to 1% of its initial concentration, in the middle of the ocean three months later.

There’s a very, very good reason why when people spray crops with insecticides from the air (or poor people in African countries with pharmaceutical products to test if they cause cancer), they do so from small aeroplanes with nozzles attached to the wings, flying very low and very slow. It’s the only way you can get any concentration of your chemical on target at all. There is no other way.




There are much easier ways of putting chemicals into your body anyway. It takes a special mindset to imagine that governments/agencies which can layer your skies with thousands of “chemtrails” can’t simply, you know, put things in your food or water, or spray your streets from tanker trucks in the name of “disease control”.

I’m not saying they’re doing that, but if they wanted to do it, that would be both a hundred thousand times easier and cheaper, and a hundred thousand times more likely to work.

In any case, there’s a much, much easier way to not just control your mind but to make you pay for the privilege.

It’s called television.


The 11/9 Jet Engine myth.

Before I start on this section of the article, I would like to clarify that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether the World Trade Centres (and Building Seven) were destroyed by aircraft strike or controlled demolition. I am not discussing that at all. And my own thoughts on that subject are totally irrelevant.

What I am talking about is an argument I’ve come across many times, which goes something like this:

“Jet fuel burns inside the engine constantly, and it doesn’t affect it. So how could it possibly melt steel beams?”

This “argument” achieves a remarkable feat. It actually shows a lesser understanding of engineering than I have. Believe me, this is an achievement.

There are various types of jet engines – ramjets, turbojets, etc – but they are all based on the same principle. The engine is in the form of a tube. Air is sucked in from one end of the tube, mixed with a spray of fuel to create a combustible mixture (fuel won’t burn if there’s no oxygen to burn it), ignited to provide exhaust gases, which are then expelled from the other end of the tube to push the whole thing forward. It’s Newton’s Third Law in action, baby.

As you can see from this schematic which I drew for your convenience, the fuel doesn’t burn in the engine at all; it burns in a tube of air, which is in constant motion, because the damn plane is moving forward. 




Even when the engine is on the ground, the air is in motion because the inlet pipe has a system of ducts and fans to keep the air circulating. The hot gases don’t even come into contact with the engine’s substance for more than a fraction of a second at all, and if it did, it wouldn’t matter because the heat wouldn’t have time to build up.

It doesn’t make the slightest damned bit of difference what the damn engine is made of. If the material could stand the stresses of flight and motion, even a jet engine made out of...balsa wood or tinfoil...would work.

Once again, I say unto you: Arrrrghhh!

Right, I’m done. I’ve had enough of tilting at windmills for today.

Bloody hell!






2 comments:

  1. Your physics is perfect. Of course, we know physics is wrong. The Bible says π is 3, and we know the Bible is always right: G_d knows more than any human scientist or mathematician.

    Contrails are very hard to see on prop planes, and I've never seen one. For one thing, prop planes don't fly very high, and for another, in summer, most cars don't have anything visible coming out of the exhaust because internal combustion engines don't produce that much water vapour per second, and prop planes have the same engines as cars.

    Jets always have contrails, since they fly much higher, and the engines work very differently from internal combustion engines.

    So contrails have been common only since jets, of which the first one was in '39 in Germany (a violation of the treaty of Versailles). After WWII, the US got most of the jet engine designers and had military jets in the '40s. I thought I remembered the start of commercial jets, but the first commercial jet flew in '49, before I was born. It was only flown by BOAC, had lots of problems, and tickets were much more expensive than for prop planes. The Boeing 707 started in '58, but, again, was too expensive for most people when it started.

    By the '70s, commercial jets were common in the US and Europe, and everyone served by US/UK/EU airlines should have seen a contrail. (I'm not sure when they became common in India, but the idiots spreading the conspiracy theories live all over, many in places where a few contrails might have been seen in the '40s, and where contrails were common by the '70s.)

    MichaelWme

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bill,
    Thanks for one of the best and easiest answers to the "chemtrails" crapola and the jet engine operation.
    I know I have seen actual news real footage of contrails of B-17's flying towards France/Germany from old WW2 films. Prop planes CAN fly high enough that they do form contrails. Of course you need to right weather conditions and the air temp at the higher altitude must be low enough. You may not get the contrails from a prop plane every day, but they DO happen.
    I agree with you about what passes as the current generation being so tied to their 'smart' phones/tablets that they cannot cross a street safely. Funny how we sell 'smart' phones to incredibly dumb people. We have college graduates who can do farce book, giggle searches, and just about nothing else. Oh, almost forgot, they can 'tweet'. Well, I have yet to find any job postings that use those 'qualifications' as listing for any job on offer. Makes me even more happy to be on the down hill side of life.

    ReplyDelete

Full comment moderation is enabled on this site, which means that your comment will only be visible after the blog administrator (in other words, yours truly) approves it. The purpose of this is not to censor dissenting viewpoints; in fact, such viewpoints are welcome, though it may lead to challenges to provide sources and/or acerbic replies (I do not tolerate stupidity).

The purpose of this moderation is to eliminate spam, of which this blog attracts an inordinate amount. Spammers, be warned: it takes me less time to delete your garbage than it takes for you to post it.

Proceed.