This guy is playing word games. The 14th amendment clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." No commercial corporation is born or naturalized. The amendment does NOT establish a new definition of "person." It does NOT establish the United States as anything other than its definition in the Constitution.
This is what happens when you try to apply a specific technical meaning of a word backwards to cover the non-specific general meaning. It is analogous to saying "All automobiles are Cadillacs. And every car we drive is therefore a Cadillac, and there is only one automobile company."
His remarks on "chemtrails" are equally confused and mistaken. Contrails can be persistent and form only at high altitude. At low altitude they do not form and he had no grounds for expecting they would. The chemical test means only that he has air pollution, whether from surrounding traffic or meteor dust is impossible to say.
Just a distraction to fascinate and squander our attention. Our problems are simple and outright disregard of the Constitution, not recourse to any fancy alternative rationale.
I know you are an expert when it comes to word games. I've been there with you.
I also know the only reason you commented on this video is because of the chemtrail part at the end.
I stopped watching halfway through the video, I wanted to hear what he said about the Organic Act. I had no idea he talked about chemtrails at the end till someone mentioned it in the comments.
It is like you are the gatekeeper for all chemtrail conversations. It is like you consider yourself the censor for all chemtrail conversations, lurking in the corner, waiting. Do you have a little bell that goes off each time someone types the word "chemtrail"?
It is like you have a mandate to point out those pesky persistent chemtrails. A garbage theory that defies the laws of physics.
Cold air moving through a hot turbine creates condensation that instantly freezes at extreme altitudes. That frozen condensation creates the white contrail behind the plane.
At 30,000 and 40,000 feet altitude, the cruising altitude of most jet aircraft, air temperatures range from −40 to −70 °F.
As temperatures decrease, the water vapor content decreases as well. At 35,000 feet, the atmosphere is almost void of any humidity. The frozen condensation from the plane is almost instantly dissipated through sublimation because of the extremely low water content in the atmosphere. The graph below shows this. At zero degrees Fahrenheit, the Air Moisture Holding Capacity drops to near zero. At -50 F Air Moisture Holding Capacity is even closer to zero.
The extremely low temperatures and humidity cause rapid sublimation of the frozen condensation. Look at any normal contrail, they are gone within 10 seconds. There are no variables, temperatures at 40,000 feet are constantly near -50 and the Air Moisture Holding Capacity is always near zero. Trying to rationalize persistent contrails based on varying humidity is bullshit, check the graph
Any contrail that is persistent defies the laws physics. Persistent contrails contain solids that do not sublimate. Anyone pushing the theory of persistent contrails is spouting globalist lies. Any website explaining persistent contrails is funded by globalist scientists and organizations. Any federal agency pushing persistent contrail theory are also the same agencies pushing globalist climate change garbage.
I find that kinda weird. Almost like you are trying to protect someone or something. Your main objective, wait for chemtrail conversations, try to maintain relevancy in the background, snipping at people, discrediting posts you disagree with, then push the persistent chemtrail theory when the time is right. Looking at your input here, you joined over 2 years ago and have a post score of 694. You have not posted anything to the page for 3 months, yet here you are. You found a chemtrail video and piped in with your persistent contrail propaganda once again.
Here is a site below explaining your persistent contrail theory. Only explanation they give is high humidity, but I proved above that high humidity at that altitude is impossible. Look at the site, see the term Global? Look at the federal sponsors, all the same organizations pushing the global warming propaganda. The chances of probability conclude you are a globalist which explains why you hate conversating with us nationalists. Just don't have what it takes to fit in. Have a good day.
Contrails hang around for a long time. I recall as a little boy sitting in our back yard that jet airplanes would cross the sky and leave behind a long, persistent trail.
There is no violation of the laws of physics. First of all, you get the mechanics wrong. It is not cold air going through a turbine, it is VERY HOT air expanding through a turbine, containing water vapor. When the exhaust mixes with the very cold high-altitude air, the water vapor first freezes because the air is already saturated with water vapor. As your wonderful graphs show very clearly, the saturation level (absolute humidity) is next to nothing. So the ice crystals that have formed and and are further cooled to air temperature will have an even lower vapor pressure and will persist for a long time. And they do. The second website that you so kindly brandish actually mentions this specifically. You have only proved that you do not understand the physics of contrails. Just because you THINK that scientific authorities are wrong doesn't mean they are actually wrong. If I am allowed to make a bet about you, I will bet you have no technical degree that touches on this subject.
Contrails are only clouds. What you say necessarily implies that there can be no clouds at high altitude, but there most definitely are.
I happen to be an aeronautical engineer of 40 years, and have lived with the manufacture of airplanes that actually fly in this environment. I can't help it if you don't understand the concept of relative humidity. Or that low temperature ice will have a very low vapor pressure and thus a long persistence.
I have posted comments on all kinds of things, mainly where I see that facts or logic are in error. I have been a long-standing critic of "global warming." I'm not a globalist and you have no grounds for making such a slur, since I have never spoken in its favor. I am in fact a nationalist---but I am not a nitwit and I do not go along with ignorant and paranoid nonsense.
The chemtrail theory has been around since the 1990s'. That would make you aprox 25 years old if you saw them as a young kid. If people were not talking about them before the 1990's, it most likely means they didn't exist before that time. How did you become this fantastic aeronautical engineer at such an early age?
I myself used to sit with friends and we would try to imagine everyday objects in the cloud formations. This was 45 years ago, and I can say with 100% certainty, there were no chemtrails at that time. White fluffy cloud and deep blue skies and that is it.
I don't know who you are or who you think you are fooling. You can act like the world's greatest engineer and spout how smart you are, it means nothing to me. That is typically how people act who have lost a conversation and your words are quite telling.
Your explanation of special ice persisting longer than normal ice is garbage. Water freezes one way. I provided you the graph that says close to zero water consent can be held in temperatures below zero and you continue to say the air is saturated with humidity. The graph proves you and the second website are lying.
i can look to the sky and see a plane leaving a chemtrail in the sky with a plane combing by minutes later with a normal contrail that dissipates within 10 seconds. Both flying at the same altitude.
Deductive reasoning tells me you are a bullshit artist and no amount of telling me my facts are in error will change the things I see on a daily basis.
I am 57. I had never heard about Chem Trails until I joined here. Well, though, Alex Jones. I do not understand what the Conspiracy theory is about. And I could give two shits about it.
You guys specialize in being wrong. I am 72 and saw contrails when I must have been about 4 years old. They were undoubtedly B-52s on test flights from the Boeing plant in Seattle. Like chalk streaks across the sky. I also live south of a major international airport, and they are as common as clouds (and the Pacific Northwest is noted for clouds).
The reason that people didn't talk about them much until the 1990s is because it was only about then that passenger jetliners were flying close to 40,000 feet or higher. At those altitudes, the air is colder, depending on latitude (i.e., tropopause height). And at lower pressure, so the saturation vapor pressure would be much lower, and ice would stay frozen much longer. Military aircraft commonly flew at 50,000 feet, so it was no mystery that they would always generate contrails. On a very noteworthy summer at the University of Washington, a Fraternity brother and I noticed a contrail that was proceeding across the sky at an unusual rate. Trying to measure the angle rate and guessing the altitude was military (i.e., 50,000 ft), we estimated the speed as being about Mach 2+ and concluded it must have been an SR-71. That would have been the early 1970s (they entered service in 1966).
The "chemtrail" hypothesis (not analytical enough to be a "theory") is simple fancy. The proponents (like you) declare they know all about contrails, and you really don't know anything but falsehoods. You also don't like people who have credentials in the relevant fields, but that also comes with the false egalitarianism of the internet. You don't like it when experts apply their expertise, because the expert wannabees show up badly.
What I am saying is consistent with both the graph you presented and the other website. You are the one having the trouble making sense out of them. You simply don't understand what they mean.
The air has some water vapor content even at high altitude, albeit very small. The saturation vapor pressure is very low, close to zero on the arithmetic scale, but present nonetheless. The water vapor will freeze. If the temperature is cold enough, it will attain a temperature below freezing---and the vapor pressure of the ice crystal will be very low. (The vapor pressure is one 10,000th of sea level pressure at -50 C.) Low enough that it may take a very long time for it to dissipate, or possibly not at all, since clouds of ice crystals will have their own local atmosphere saturation high in water vapor. (Cirrus clouds, for example, can form as high as 66,000 feet, and they hang around for a long time. Contrails are only artificial cirrus clouds.)
Do you really know that airplanes are at the same altitude, or do they only appear to be at the same altitude? There will be a transition altitude where contrails will prevail. At altitudes below 20,000 feet, they generally do not form.
What you are seeing are contrails and your "bullshit" claim is itself bullshit. Your attempt to prove they are not is a failure, since you don't understand what you are looking at. The upper air is mostly at saturation humidity---which is a very LOW humidity. That's the part you don't understand. And if the ice gets down to the air temperature, it is so cold that its vapor pressure is very, very LOW. Just consider frozen ponds. They have a vapor pressure. Why don't they just go away by sublimation? But they don't. They persist. Because the vapor pressure is so low, the process is very slow. Antarctica is nothing but ice. According to your hypothesis, it should never persist. Tell that to Antarctica.
Here is the great problem of the Awakening: a little bit of knowledge and a huge dose of mistaken belief are almost insuperable obstacles to waking up to reality. You are there on the front lines. Have sympathy for the poor jerk who doesn't get all this conspiracy stuff...or the poor conspiracy buff that doesn't want to give up his paranoia.
This guy is playing word games. The 14th amendment clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." No commercial corporation is born or naturalized. The amendment does NOT establish a new definition of "person." It does NOT establish the United States as anything other than its definition in the Constitution.
This is what happens when you try to apply a specific technical meaning of a word backwards to cover the non-specific general meaning. It is analogous to saying "All automobiles are Cadillacs. And every car we drive is therefore a Cadillac, and there is only one automobile company."
His remarks on "chemtrails" are equally confused and mistaken. Contrails can be persistent and form only at high altitude. At low altitude they do not form and he had no grounds for expecting they would. The chemical test means only that he has air pollution, whether from surrounding traffic or meteor dust is impossible to say.
Just a distraction to fascinate and squander our attention. Our problems are simple and outright disregard of the Constitution, not recourse to any fancy alternative rationale.
I know you are an expert when it comes to word games. I've been there with you.
I also know the only reason you commented on this video is because of the chemtrail part at the end.
I stopped watching halfway through the video, I wanted to hear what he said about the Organic Act. I had no idea he talked about chemtrails at the end till someone mentioned it in the comments.
It is like you are the gatekeeper for all chemtrail conversations. It is like you consider yourself the censor for all chemtrail conversations, lurking in the corner, waiting. Do you have a little bell that goes off each time someone types the word "chemtrail"?
It is like you have a mandate to point out those pesky persistent chemtrails. A garbage theory that defies the laws of physics.
Cold air moving through a hot turbine creates condensation that instantly freezes at extreme altitudes. That frozen condensation creates the white contrail behind the plane.
At 30,000 and 40,000 feet altitude, the cruising altitude of most jet aircraft, air temperatures range from −40 to −70 °F.
As temperatures decrease, the water vapor content decreases as well. At 35,000 feet, the atmosphere is almost void of any humidity. The frozen condensation from the plane is almost instantly dissipated through sublimation because of the extremely low water content in the atmosphere. The graph below shows this. At zero degrees Fahrenheit, the Air Moisture Holding Capacity drops to near zero. At -50 F Air Moisture Holding Capacity is even closer to zero.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
The extremely low temperatures and humidity cause rapid sublimation of the frozen condensation. Look at any normal contrail, they are gone within 10 seconds. There are no variables, temperatures at 40,000 feet are constantly near -50 and the Air Moisture Holding Capacity is always near zero. Trying to rationalize persistent contrails based on varying humidity is bullshit, check the graph
Any contrail that is persistent defies the laws physics. Persistent contrails contain solids that do not sublimate. Anyone pushing the theory of persistent contrails is spouting globalist lies. Any website explaining persistent contrails is funded by globalist scientists and organizations. Any federal agency pushing persistent contrail theory are also the same agencies pushing globalist climate change garbage.
I find that kinda weird. Almost like you are trying to protect someone or something. Your main objective, wait for chemtrail conversations, try to maintain relevancy in the background, snipping at people, discrediting posts you disagree with, then push the persistent chemtrail theory when the time is right. Looking at your input here, you joined over 2 years ago and have a post score of 694. You have not posted anything to the page for 3 months, yet here you are. You found a chemtrail video and piped in with your persistent contrail propaganda once again.
Here is a site below explaining your persistent contrail theory. Only explanation they give is high humidity, but I proved above that high humidity at that altitude is impossible. Look at the site, see the term Global? Look at the federal sponsors, all the same organizations pushing the global warming propaganda. The chances of probability conclude you are a globalist which explains why you hate conversating with us nationalists. Just don't have what it takes to fit in. Have a good day.
https://www.globe.gov/web/s-cool/home/observation-and-reporting/contrails/the-science-of-contrails
Contrails hang around for a long time. I recall as a little boy sitting in our back yard that jet airplanes would cross the sky and leave behind a long, persistent trail.
There is no violation of the laws of physics. First of all, you get the mechanics wrong. It is not cold air going through a turbine, it is VERY HOT air expanding through a turbine, containing water vapor. When the exhaust mixes with the very cold high-altitude air, the water vapor first freezes because the air is already saturated with water vapor. As your wonderful graphs show very clearly, the saturation level (absolute humidity) is next to nothing. So the ice crystals that have formed and and are further cooled to air temperature will have an even lower vapor pressure and will persist for a long time. And they do. The second website that you so kindly brandish actually mentions this specifically. You have only proved that you do not understand the physics of contrails. Just because you THINK that scientific authorities are wrong doesn't mean they are actually wrong. If I am allowed to make a bet about you, I will bet you have no technical degree that touches on this subject.
Contrails are only clouds. What you say necessarily implies that there can be no clouds at high altitude, but there most definitely are.
I happen to be an aeronautical engineer of 40 years, and have lived with the manufacture of airplanes that actually fly in this environment. I can't help it if you don't understand the concept of relative humidity. Or that low temperature ice will have a very low vapor pressure and thus a long persistence.
I have posted comments on all kinds of things, mainly where I see that facts or logic are in error. I have been a long-standing critic of "global warming." I'm not a globalist and you have no grounds for making such a slur, since I have never spoken in its favor. I am in fact a nationalist---but I am not a nitwit and I do not go along with ignorant and paranoid nonsense.
The chemtrail theory has been around since the 1990s'. That would make you aprox 25 years old if you saw them as a young kid. If people were not talking about them before the 1990's, it most likely means they didn't exist before that time. How did you become this fantastic aeronautical engineer at such an early age?
I myself used to sit with friends and we would try to imagine everyday objects in the cloud formations. This was 45 years ago, and I can say with 100% certainty, there were no chemtrails at that time. White fluffy cloud and deep blue skies and that is it.
I don't know who you are or who you think you are fooling. You can act like the world's greatest engineer and spout how smart you are, it means nothing to me. That is typically how people act who have lost a conversation and your words are quite telling.
Your explanation of special ice persisting longer than normal ice is garbage. Water freezes one way. I provided you the graph that says close to zero water consent can be held in temperatures below zero and you continue to say the air is saturated with humidity. The graph proves you and the second website are lying.
i can look to the sky and see a plane leaving a chemtrail in the sky with a plane combing by minutes later with a normal contrail that dissipates within 10 seconds. Both flying at the same altitude.
Deductive reasoning tells me you are a bullshit artist and no amount of telling me my facts are in error will change the things I see on a daily basis.
I am 57. I had never heard about Chem Trails until I joined here. Well, though, Alex Jones. I do not understand what the Conspiracy theory is about. And I could give two shits about it.
You guys specialize in being wrong. I am 72 and saw contrails when I must have been about 4 years old. They were undoubtedly B-52s on test flights from the Boeing plant in Seattle. Like chalk streaks across the sky. I also live south of a major international airport, and they are as common as clouds (and the Pacific Northwest is noted for clouds).
The reason that people didn't talk about them much until the 1990s is because it was only about then that passenger jetliners were flying close to 40,000 feet or higher. At those altitudes, the air is colder, depending on latitude (i.e., tropopause height). And at lower pressure, so the saturation vapor pressure would be much lower, and ice would stay frozen much longer. Military aircraft commonly flew at 50,000 feet, so it was no mystery that they would always generate contrails. On a very noteworthy summer at the University of Washington, a Fraternity brother and I noticed a contrail that was proceeding across the sky at an unusual rate. Trying to measure the angle rate and guessing the altitude was military (i.e., 50,000 ft), we estimated the speed as being about Mach 2+ and concluded it must have been an SR-71. That would have been the early 1970s (they entered service in 1966).
The "chemtrail" hypothesis (not analytical enough to be a "theory") is simple fancy. The proponents (like you) declare they know all about contrails, and you really don't know anything but falsehoods. You also don't like people who have credentials in the relevant fields, but that also comes with the false egalitarianism of the internet. You don't like it when experts apply their expertise, because the expert wannabees show up badly.
What I am saying is consistent with both the graph you presented and the other website. You are the one having the trouble making sense out of them. You simply don't understand what they mean.
The air has some water vapor content even at high altitude, albeit very small. The saturation vapor pressure is very low, close to zero on the arithmetic scale, but present nonetheless. The water vapor will freeze. If the temperature is cold enough, it will attain a temperature below freezing---and the vapor pressure of the ice crystal will be very low. (The vapor pressure is one 10,000th of sea level pressure at -50 C.) Low enough that it may take a very long time for it to dissipate, or possibly not at all, since clouds of ice crystals will have their own local atmosphere saturation high in water vapor. (Cirrus clouds, for example, can form as high as 66,000 feet, and they hang around for a long time. Contrails are only artificial cirrus clouds.)
Do you really know that airplanes are at the same altitude, or do they only appear to be at the same altitude? There will be a transition altitude where contrails will prevail. At altitudes below 20,000 feet, they generally do not form.
What you are seeing are contrails and your "bullshit" claim is itself bullshit. Your attempt to prove they are not is a failure, since you don't understand what you are looking at. The upper air is mostly at saturation humidity---which is a very LOW humidity. That's the part you don't understand. And if the ice gets down to the air temperature, it is so cold that its vapor pressure is very, very LOW. Just consider frozen ponds. They have a vapor pressure. Why don't they just go away by sublimation? But they don't. They persist. Because the vapor pressure is so low, the process is very slow. Antarctica is nothing but ice. According to your hypothesis, it should never persist. Tell that to Antarctica.
Here is the great problem of the Awakening: a little bit of knowledge and a huge dose of mistaken belief are almost insuperable obstacles to waking up to reality. You are there on the front lines. Have sympathy for the poor jerk who doesn't get all this conspiracy stuff...or the poor conspiracy buff that doesn't want to give up his paranoia.