Yes, tautological reasoning at its best. Or worst. X imples Y, and not-X also implies Y. Or in other words, Y depends not at all on X. Or in other words, my conclusion has nothing to do with the evidence.

In the conspiracy theory bizarro-world, that means the conclusion is so strong that there's no way it cannot be true. In the real world it means that the conclusion is simply asserted and arises from no process of logic or reason, nor can be tested. Sad.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

from another forum:

Why don't you gather evidence? See if you can get a small amount of money donated, then have samples taken from the so-called chemtrails, and then have those samples analysed by an independent firm? Have a firm chain of evidence established? That way the results could be presented without ambiguity. You could state:

"The sampling aircraft, a LR35, trailed behind the aircraft making the chemtrails, a KC-135, tail number 67-12345. The trails were being made in position xx.xxxN yyy.yyyW at 1000 CST on 23 JUL 08, at an altitude of 35,000 feet, whilst the KC-135 was traveling from VPS to LAX on a heading of 302 degrees magnetic, speed 285 KIAS. The samples were taken using method XYZ under the supervision of Prof B. Rainy, accredited as a chemtrail investigator by the Arizona Department of Chemtrail Investigation. The sample, under chain of evidence procedures to ensure no contamination could take place, was analysed by the US Chemical Testing and Analysis Labs of Buckmeister, AZ. US CTAL is accredited as a a Grade A facility under Regulation 123 of the US Chemical Testing Regulations. The analysis, shown in Annex A, show abnormally high levels of suspicium (Sm) and conspirion (Cp). The recorded levels were 3000 and 5000 parts per million, respectively. These are respectively 1000 and 2000 times higher than the normal safe limits according to data published by the EPA, FDA, and NOAA (see Annex B). There are no activities within 500 miles of the sampling area that are known to release suspicium or conspirion."

That would be evidence.... yet so far, no-one - let me repeat that: NO-ONE - has actually done the necessary evidence gathering exercise.

Now why would that be?

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Exactly. Some "chemtrail" believers will tell you that testing has been done but what they don't tell you is it has been done on samples collected on the ground. Why they think they can connect a sample on the ground likely contaminated by local pollution to a trail left 30,000 feet in the air nobody can ever figure out.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

Obviously by circular reasoning. The chemtrails are intended to disperse chemicals to us on the ground, therefore what we find on the ground ought to include material from chemtrails. If we therefore find harmful chemicals on the ground, then they must have come at least in part from the chemtrails. Therefore chemtrails have been proven to disperse harmful chemicals.

Bzzzt!

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The first time I heard this was from a carpenter after we'd both observed a contrail. I asked him, "Are serious?"

When he replied to the affirmative I asked him what were the combustive byproducts of jet fuel and atmosphere. He didn't even know what "combustive" meant, so I said, "when the jet fuel burns in the engines - what is the result? What chemicals result from the burning of jet fuel in the engines of a modern airplane?"

He didn't know.

So I explained it to him. At least he'd been through high school, and had known some chemistry. He also knew that in cold temps, water vapor condenses into clouds. Fortunately, he'd seen clouds, too.

After writing the chemical equation on the side of a 2x4, showing how water varpor was produced, and at an altitute where is was around 34 deg below zero, I asked him "what would happen?"

"It would condense?"

Then I pointed to the receeding jetliner, and asked him, "and what do you see happening?"

One less chemtrail conspiritorist in this world.

To this day, I remain absolutely amazed at how utterly ignorant most conspiracy theorists are about even the most basic of scientific knowledge.

Quite often, most willfully.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

"Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." - Heinlein

"Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite." - Heinlein

Now, remind me, where in the periodic table would these two elements be? I can't seem to locate them.

Ah! Maybe only the Illuminati Scientists know about these elements. Meanwhile, everyone else only sees the periodic table without these included. It's all part of the conspiracy!

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

Now, remind me, where in the periodic table would these two elements be?

Right under bolonium.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Really?

Well crud - mine must have a misprint. On mine, they're next to Bogusine (Bs).

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

I have visually observed that vapor trails from military aircraft are more pronounced than commercial craft. I am also convinced this has a perfectly rational explenation that has absolutly nothing to do with the chemtrail bs.

The two types of craft have distictly diffirent purpose and engine performance requirements are suitable to the task.

Right; commercial aviation engines are about fuel economy. Military aviation engines are generally about power.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Right; commercial aviation engines are about fuel economy. Military aviation engines are generally about power.

Agreed. Cannot find link but I read somewhere that exact composition of military fuel was classified. Do not know this personally. Even so it would be comparison of racing fuel to passenger vehicle fuel and nothing to do with chemtrails.

The military uses JP-8 while commercial aircraft uses Jet-A. I know they are similar enough that military aircraft can use Jet-A if they have to. Not sure about the difference. I personally observe the great majority of persistant contrails to be coming from commercial craft though. There are also not nearly as many military large jets as commericial jets as well.

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

I personally observe the great majority of persistant contrails to be coming from commercial craft though.

Since we observe opposite results it might have more to do with altitude, velocity, humidity, and other factors than fuel or craft?

I would say so yes. At least based on research I've done. It may have something to do with area as well. Perhaps the locations you are observing are close to military training areas?

__________________
"Eternal vigilance is the price of supremacy"
------------Mark Twain

"Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."

JP-8 is kerosene with some additives.
For the improvement of the corrosion protection they add:
– Apollo PRI-19 or
– Octel Am. DCI-4A or
– Hitec 580 or
– Nalco/Exxon 5403 or
– Mobilad F800 or
– IPC 4410 or
– IPC 4445

to the prevention of the freezing up they add:
– Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) or
– Anti Icing Additive (AIA) or
– PRIST or
– DICE

The difference between JET-A and JP-8 ist the additional anti icing additive.

EDITED TO ADD:
For the optimization of thermal stability they add a detergent/dispersant additive on soap basis in mixture with phenolic antioxidants.
Its composition is patent protected an not known.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916

Commercially you can also get Jet B, but I've never had occasion to deal with it. I think the military has other naphtha-based fuels (JP-8 is kerosone, as is the rocket propellant RP-1) such as JP-4 but I don't know of they're still used. Naphtha-based fuels are used in cold weather where heavier kerosene-based fuels get goopy.

The major departure from the military's general standardization on JP-8 is JP-5, which is for naval aviation. JP-5 has a high flash point that makes it safer to handle. I don't recall the precise differences.

The original question was whether the military had classified fuel formulations that increased the power of the engines. I don't see any evidence that they do, and the older military engines that I dismantled and fumbled my way through reassembling in college didn't belie any special fuel needs. The combination of engine design and fuel blend will naturally be manipulated to achieve the required performance, and that will be aided by the additives that create leniency in the fuel (e.g., thermal stability) that can be exploited by the engine design. (BTW, additive formulations that are "patent protected" cannot be unknown; the purpose of the patent is to put the details of the design into public record as a basis for challenging infringement in court.)

The JP-8 fueled F-16s from UANG and Hill AFB that fly frequently over my work places (especially today, since Pres. Bush is in town) do not leave contrails, but I believe that has much more to do with the constantly low humidity in Utah than with the fuel formulation.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

All the military stuff that flies over us is at minimum altitude on the way in over the North Sea or out from RAF Leaming up the road to do low level exercises over North Yorkshire Moors, so no contrails from them

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

There was also a special formulation for the SR-71. I think it was JP-7 and it had a very high flashpoint suitable for a hot airplane.

The JP-8 fueled F-16s from UANG and Hill AFB that fly frequently over my work places (especially today, since Pres. Bush is in town) do not leave contrails, but I believe that has much more to do with the constantly low humidity in Utah than with the fuel formulation.

I've seen F-16s pulling contrails in humid conditions.

Contrails are nothing new to jet engines. During WWII, piston powered military aircraft often pulled contrails when operating at high altitudes. I've read that the allied photographic reconnaissance pilots (who flew "alone, unarmed, and unafraid") used contrails to their advantage. They'd climb until they were just below the altitude where contrails formed and cruised there for the entire mission. The allied reconnaissance planes (primarily conversions of the Spitfire, Mosquito, P-38 Lightning and the P-51 Mustang) were fast enough that an enemy plane generally needed to dive to catch them. However, when the enemy planes climbed high enough to dive, they'd be pulling contrails which gave away their position. That gave the reconnaissance pilots a little warning and a slight edge to help them survive against long odds.

I read somewhere of the fears of WWII bomber crews when they were producing contrails. Gave them away big time to the enemy.

That might be true but having a massive formation of hundreds to thousands of planes was pretty hard to hide. The Germans had a sophisticated radar network that detected the bomber stream before it crossed the coast. The contrails might have helped the crews spot attacking fighters sooner, although they might have partially obscurred them, too. Hard to say. From what I've read and learned from discussions with WWII bomber crewmembers, they had a lot of things to be afraid of. Flak was probably the most dangerous thing they faced. Towards the end of the war, the Germans had a hard time mounting much fighter opposition to bomber attacks but flak continued to be a deadly threat the whole time.