Useful Chemtrail Debunking Images and Infographics

I think either the change in the chemical balance of the atmosphere is creating this effect, OR -- there are just more aircraft in the sky.
Both.

Your use of "chemical" was incorrect. "Physical" would be better. The use of more aircraft in the same physical space each day makes that airspace WETTER, in that there are more water molecules (from combustion) in it, to the tune of a MILLION TONS of water.

Of course it will diffuse away from that layer (between 30,000 and 40,000 feet) on a daily basis, and will be renewed by the next day's flights.

But that increased wetness will surely precipitate heavier trails.

There are fifty times more aircraft in the sky than there were in the early sixties, so of course there are more trails.

You been flying my plane all night. :cool:
You've been baiting a poster for no practical reason I can see.

.
 
Last edited:
You're arguing about something he never said. Go through all the posts in the thread, at no point has November said he believes that persistent contrails are chemtrails, he merely asked if we could point him in the direction of photos that prove they've been around for a long time. We did.

Yes, true, however, if November would simply read contrail science then he wouldn't have made a post like this.

Maybe he doesn't believe in chemtrails, fair enough, what's his point with this line of questioning? It's already been hashed out here and on contrail science many many times.

I would assume then, that the humidity in the L.A. area right now - would be 60-70%. Is that about normal?
Do you think that the ice-supersaturation requirement is present right now?
Is it normal for the skies over L.A. to get that cold -- above several thousand feet?

I think what I'm getting at, is -- people should pay attention to conditions when they see jet trails persisting and expanding.
It seems odd for jet trails to do this over very dry areas.

The NASA site is fine, but people would just presume that if the gov is doing the chemtrailing, of course the gov would know where they will appear, so of course the gov/NASA would put out scientific-sounding reports to explain them away -- ahead of time.

People might be able to do their own predictions -- based on humidity and climate in their areas at the time -- if they understood the basics of why they form and when.

The question remains as to why most people I know -- who grew up or were around in the 60's -- don't recall seeing these things expand in the sky like they do now. There were jets and jet trails for sure. But not ones that did this -- to most people's recollections.
 
What about the trails formed by space shuttle launches or, on a different but similar note, the cloud trail formed behind Mir and Columbia as their debris re-entered the atmosphere. I have not been able to find any information as to how long they persisted, only videos of each as the cloud trail forming on youtube.
 
I don't think either of those produce trails of condensed water, so they are not probably not relevant in a discussion about (water) condensation trails - contrails.
 
I don't think either of those produce trails of condensed water, so they are not probably not relevant in a discussion about (water) condensation trails - contrails.

The Space Shuttle did, the main engines burn hydrogen and oxygen. The trail can last for hours:

 
What about the trails formed by space shuttle launches or, on a different but similar note, the cloud trail formed behind Mir and Columbia as their debris re-entered the atmosphere.

Reentering Space-Debris, like old Satellites or Rocket Parts will be mostly vapurized due to their high speed when they are reaching the mesosphere at around 80 Km altitude.

This, for example was the reentering of a soyuz third stage over Germany from Christmas 2011

awww.allmystery.de_i_t3JzTri_1.jpg
 
Capture.JPG


Nope... no such thing as a 'HAARP cloud' , just making this sh!t up as they go.... it is a dust cloud.

Here is the actual story....

Earlier this year, a gigantic wall of dust and water hit Onslow in Western Australia. This strange phenomenon was the result of a thunderstorm that picked up masses of sand and dust before dumping it off the coast of Onslow. During the event, the Bureau of Meteorology recorded wind speeds of up to 102km/h.
Content from External Source
Dust storm towers over West Australian ocean

 
Hi, what I'm after is a picture or facts showing how many staff are required to operate maintain a passenger jet eg a group photo. Web search has failed me here.

My line of debunk is to show how many souls are required to say nothing to no one while allegedly operating filling & flying the tanks. My guess is about 100 heads per big plane. eg cleaners air frame pilots/crew fuelers avionics caterers painters mechanical etc etc the list goes on

Oh and if can pictures or facts of how many staff operate a main airport control tower who again would know and need to not tell as they assist the safe flight and tracking of said spraying.
 
Hi, what I'm after is a picture or facts showing how many staff are required to operate maintain a passenger jet eg a group photo. Web search has failed me here.

My line of debunk is to show how many souls are required to say nothing to no one while allegedly operating filling & flying the tanks. My guess is about 100 heads per big plane. eg cleaners air frame pilots/crew fuelers avionics caterers painters mechanical etc etc the list goes on

Oh and if can pictures or facts of how many staff operate a main airport control tower who again would know and need to not tell as they assist the safe flight and tracking of said spraying.


Delta Airlines has over 12,000 pilots, that's a good start. I'm not sure how many mechanics, 6,000-10,000, is a guess. Management has gotta be in the hundreds. Cleaners and ground crew has got to be 20,000 plus. Plus, additional vendors for avionics, engines, air frame, outside of Delta. I can't break it down for just one aircraft, it's too complex.

That's just one airline.
 
Hi, what I'm after is a picture or facts showing how many staff are required to operate maintain a passenger jet eg a group photo. Web search has failed me here.

My line of debunk is to show how many souls are required to say nothing to no one while allegedly operating filling & flying the tanks. My guess is about 100 heads per big plane. eg cleaners air frame pilots/crew fuelers avionics caterers painters mechanical etc etc the list goes on

Oh and if can pictures or facts of how many staff operate a main airport control tower who again would know and need to not tell as they assist the safe flight and tracking of said spraying.
i would doubt the vast majority of those people would know anything about it. or care to question it. (air traffic controllers, caterers, painters, cleaning crews etc) wouldn't know.

maintenance, the guys who load the chemicals, probably pilots and the FAA inspectors should be aware of such things. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/
 
i would doubt the vast majority of those people would know anything about it. or care to question it. (air traffic controllers, caterers, painters, cleaning crews etc) wouldn't know.

maintenance, the guys who load the chemicals, probably pilots and the FAA inspectors should be aware of such things. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ash/ash_programs/hazmat/
It all depends on the following :

1) Do you you believe every persistent contrail is a Chemtrail or not?

2) Do you believe the Chemtrail substances are fuel additives or are they from a separately equipped spraying system?

3) Do you believe just the military or are all commercial aircraft are potentially involved?

Whether or not we think it is all nonsense the above questions would govern how many people the believers think are involved . . .
 
It all depends on the following :

1) Do you you believe every persistent contrail is a Chemtrail or not?

2) Do you believe the Chemtrail substances are fuel additives or are they from a separately equipped spraying system?

3) Do you believe just the military or are all commercial aircraft are potentially involved?

Whether or not we think it is all nonsense the above questions would govern how many people the believers think are involved . . .
This Poll from 2011 might shed some light on the issue . . . it is from a Conspiracy Forum:

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?

Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . 38.5% (1126)

No, I do not . . . 22.8% (668)

Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas 17.8% (522)

Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. 9.8% (288)

Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines 5.6% (163)

Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. 5.4% (159)

Blank (View Results)(551)


Non-Blank Votes: 2926
Content from External Source
 
Maybe it is time to relaunch this Poll and see if the opinions have changed since May 2011 . . . ?
 
I'm guessing we're a tad off topic here... but yea, it doesn't. :p
Well the poll does target the core believers . . . it is obviously not scientific . . . but images are a key element in believers passion for the subject . . . if images were used from this Thread it might be interesting to see the response . . .
 
Last edited:
Well the poll does target the core believers . . . it is obviously not scientific . . . but images are a key element in believers passion for the subject . . . if images were used from this Thread it might be interesting to see the response . . .
i think its better to use the same photos. the problem is the questions tell us nothing. the second yes question almost tells us something until they add in 'and other agendas'. and the third yes, should read "yes but they are cloud seeding, chaff etc."
 
i think its better to use the same photos. the problem is the questions tell us nothing. the second yes question almost tells us something until they add in 'and other agendas'. and the third yes, should read "yes but they are cloud seeding, chaff etc."
Hmmmm. . . You mean not changing from the same photos in the existing 2011 Poll? As far as changing the questions from the original (I agree they could be improved) . . . wouldn't it make it harder to determine if there had been any change in attitude since 2011?
 
Hmmmm. . . You mean not changing from the same photos in the existing 2011 Poll? As far as changing the questions from the original (I agree they could be improved) . . . wouldn't it make it harder to determine if there had been any change in attitude since 2011?
no. because the poll you show doesn't tell us anything anyway except 77% believe somewhat, somehow, in some kind of chemtrails. that info doesn't help @derwoodii determine how many people would need to be involved to pull off a conspiracy.

plus we don't know if people just couldn't decide which question to mark yes. the first question is a great big anything goes question. they could mark a different question yes this time anyway.
 
no. because the poll you show doesn't tell us anything anyway except 77% believe somewhat, somehow, in some kind of chemtrails. that info doesn't help @derwoodii determine how many people would need to be involved to pull off a conspiracy.

plus we don't know if people just couldn't decide which question to mark yes. the first question is a great big anything goes question. they could mark a different question yes this time anyway.
My real desire is not to determine how many people (knowledgeable operatives) advocates think it would require to pull off a Chemtrail program but to see if images (for example the ones found on this Thread) can influence people's belief in chemtrails (either for or against) . . Since people are reinforced continually by looking into the sky and further influenced by media to believe . . . can images also persuade doubt about the belief? And can a repeat of a previous poll with new images show that . . . or would a newly constructed poll be better ?
 
Last edited:
My real desire is not to determine how many people (knowledgeable operatives) advocates think it would require to pull off a Chemtrail program but to see if images (for example the ones found on this Thread) can influence people's belief in chemtrails (either for or against) . . Since people are reinforced continually by looking into the sky and further influenced by media to believe . . . can images also persuade doubt about the belief? And can a repeat of a previous poll with new images show that . . . or would a newly constructed poll be better ?
oh well, of course then. I'd still fine tune the questions though. might as well get as much data as you can while youre at it.
 
oh well, of course then. I'd still fine tune the questions though. might as well get as much data as you can while youre at it.
OK . . . help me out . . . Word a Poll you would use . . . you have a maximum of Twelve exclusive single response options . . . for one question . . . Post it here or send it to me in a PM . . .
 
Last edited:
They need to get with the times, and add this to their additional css definitions :)

Code:
img {
max-width:100%;
height:auto;}

I agree, Mick. It causes no amount of problems and hassle, but they simply won't make it more user friendly!
 
ok thanks the all the reply's and if any thing like shot of all the involved staff crew standing below a eg A380 be handy.
Thou yes this path does beg many more details of who & how many etc but my thought was to show the number of heads required to get a big jet aloft
 
oh and thanks teej for the links to Professional Pilots Rumour Network some very helpful threads in there and many contributors from my own OZ land. I'd not known of this site.
 
Most airlines, depending on their style of operation work on around 7 crews per airframe; pilots and flight attendants. Airlines are a 24/365 operations so for every maintenance/support worker required, multiply that 3.5 or so. The numbers add up very quickly.

The staff who would have to know about any "spraying" are all upper level and most middle level operational management, pilots, aircraft engineers, most maintenance personnel, refuelers, cargo and baggage loaders, flight planning officers and load control officers. In most countries, airline board members would also be required to know and accept the risks of being found out.

If found out doing something illegal, all of the above could be subject to criminal charges including breaking environmental laws and laws regarding the operation of high capacity aircraft.

Airlines are certified to operate by their various regulators such as the FAA or JAA and generally have compliance requirements to these laws delegated to officers of the airline. Dereliction of those requirements would mean revocation of the permit to operate and the airline would be shut down.

Spraying anything, such as crop dusting, is highly regulated. Any spraying equipment is required to be certified as airworthy by the regulators, aircraft manufacturers and equipment manufacturers so either the spray equipment is uncertified or the various regulators are "in on it" as well.

You just can't put new equipment on a heavy jet and go flying. Any new equipment needs to be rigorously flight tested and certified airworthy by both the manufacturer and regulator.

The list of ordinary people who would have to be "in on it" is enormous and to date not one has come forward to expose this "genocide" and "crime against humanity." None ever will.
 
Back
Top