I think chemtrails are real breaking news

Unregistered said:
This forum is doing nothing more than planting seeds in peoples minds.....seeds of confusion and doubt.
Click to expand...
Please point out anything that you find confusing, specifically.
If you feel that this site is more confusing than another, please cite the site which clears up your confusion. I'd like to see it.

unregistered said:
Contrail, chemtrail, schmiltrail.......call it whatever you want it but you have already 'confessed' that planes are releasing chemicals so it doesn't matter what name you want to assign to it.
Click to expand...

Please point out specifcally where you found this confession.If you are talking about the ordinary products of jet fuel combustion, well, planes are releasing the exact same chemicals that the Toyota Prius's engine does. Are you outraged at the Prius?

Or are you concerned about state permittted cloud seeding? If so, show me where you have publicly commented on the public permitting process all of these states use when they issue public permits before the cloud seeding companies get permits. Cloud seeding is not what people are calling "chemtrails" or "geoengineering". Equating either of those with cloud seeding is actualyl confusing the two issues completely. You claimed that we were sowing doubt and suspicion? Better look at the desperate people trying to hold onto chemtrails by bringing twin engine two-seat airplanes doing cloud seedng into a claim that contrail lines made by wide bodied jets flying at 30-49,000 feet are cloud seeding!


unregistered said:
I agree that there is no 'scientific' proof that 'they' are spraying us with chemicals but there is ample evidence that there is something wrong with our skies (caused by planes or do you want to disagree on that too).
Click to expand...

Answer what Mick asked.


unregistered said:
You are totally making a fool of yourselves and quite frankly I don't think you are not concerned with the truth at all
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't think we are not concerned with the truth at all. You still haven't shown us anything you find here which is untrue, so we agree, totally, on that.

unregistered said:
because if you were than you would support any investigations against government programs who admit that they are spraying chemicals in the air for weather modification purposes (that really sounds a lot like chemtrails but again, it doesn't matter what you call it, just observe and understand history).
Click to expand...

Weather modification is permitted by the states under state laws. If you think that there needs to be an investigation into weather modification in your state, by all means do so and show us what you have done, but in the fifteen years I've been watching this, not a single person like you has ever formally asked their state's weather modification board to investigate anything. If you find I've missed your effort, please direc me towards it. If you can supply good reason to expend resources on such an investigation, I will fully and publicly support you. So, please state for the record exactly what you would have investigated, and show us what your efforts have been so far. I'm betting you never have done anything, and that you never will.
Game on?

unregistered said:
I also know that you guys have a really smart answer to my comment and that is ok. Your responses are often very well constructed but lacks the necessary common sense to understand there is more going on that you think. Many government programs are born in secrecy, especially when it concerns an experiment. You cannot possibly disagree that there have never been controversial government programs/experiments and in light of geo engineering, chemtrais or contrails are no different. You prefer to maintain naief and trust your government because they always have the best interest in mind for you. As far as I know you haven't shown any concern about the chemicals put out in the sky by our governments or private companies by order of the government and my guess this is because then you would have to go against the government which I am sure you are a part of in some form or fashion. In any other case, you simply don't have the balls to stand up for yourself, let alone for the people around you.
Click to expand...

Ah, so what we should do is to simply accept that you people's claims are a big secret and that is why in 15 years no evidence, no names, no photos, no documents, no lab reports, nonothin has ever supported you claims.

You want to talk about secrets?

Well, maybe you need to ask A.C. Griffith, Clifford Carnicom, William Thomas, Michael J. Murphy, G. Edward Griffin, Dane Wigington, Francis Mangels, Mauro Oliveira and some more about all the secrets they have been holding back from YOU. When you get them to reveal all, then you will understandEXACTLY what chemtrails are all about.
see:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/26...hemtrails-Information-Freedom-Aagreement-quot
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Planting a seed ...

of doubt, deception, confusion and that is basically your agenda. Chemtrails, contrails, schmiltrails......it doesn't matter because you have already 'confessed' to the fact that 'they' are spraying chemicals in the sky. You call it what you want and we call it what we want, it is still the same. Besides, if you don't have to have scientific proof that chemtrails don't exist, why do we have to give you scientific proof that they do? The fact is, there are too many anomolies and facts (such as government admitting that they run programs on weather modification) to suspect that there is more going on than what you think. Apart from the fact that there are weather modification programs, there is the 'natural' pollution from the jet fuel emissions and the side effects of the persistent contrails on the atmospheric conditions (increase in atmospheric temperature, decrease of necessary vitamin D for humans, decrease of photosynthesis for the growth of plant life etc).

Sometimes you have to use common sense and have a sense of history to understand the big picture. Sure, if you want to be naive and believe that the government has never conducted any experiment without the knowledge of the public, be my guest but you have to live with that. Of course you don't believe that the government never lies and they would never lie about something as important as this, right?! Let's hope you are right and what I believe in is simply a theory but conspiracies are everywhere all the time and history has proven that more than once. At least we are critical and the government always need to be scrutinized by the people and apparently you don't think so.

So I don't believe that you are really concerned with the truth because if you were, you would be leading or at least supporting an investigation in to the government weather modification programs and the very likely negative effects of them on my and your health. I imagine you don't want to do this because I am sure you are supported by some agency (if not, congratulations on your work and perhaps you will be nominated for the Nobel Peace prize but since Kissinger and especially since Obama, it has become meaningless) that invest a lot of time and effort to plant a seed of doubt into people's mind which of course is quite simple. Just like 9/11, all you have to do is deny deny deny which you have also done so eloquently. Like many others of your kind, you have failed the Litmust test and therefore you have lost all credibility and cannot be trusted with even the most simple physical science.

Some final comments/questions you can reflect on:

What is your main concern that someone believes in chemtrails?

If scientific proof is so important to you, why don't you advocate for or support an INDEPENDENT scientific study that takes samples of the emissions from the jet fuel in all corners of the world but especially in the United States and Europe. Sure, this will cost money and time but at least we will have scientific proof. Until then, it is your word against mine. Any of your explanations against chemtrails may be true and it may not be!!!

Do you support climate modification programs? (do you believe they can help the planet or mankind?)

Do you have an answer for everything when it comes to chemtrails? If not, share that with us.

Is there ABSOLUTELY no chance that what we are observing, are chemtrails?

Have you learned anything from all the interactions? if so, what is it?
 
You didn't really understand much of the underlying message, did you? You people are such egomaniacs and can only see black or white. I have no problem with you believing what you believe (well, that is not entirely true but to some extend it is). Besides, you only respond to things you want to respond to or have an answer for. Why do I have to have scientific proof if you don't? Don't tell me because I have the burden of proof, we are not in a court. How could I proof to you that chemtrails exist? In other words, what evidence are you looking for? Right now, I have just as much evidence for chemtrails as you do but when I say 'yay' you say 'nay'. AGAIN, WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?


 
The point is not that there is proof that there are no chemtrails.

It's that there's no evidence that there are chemtrails.
 
But if there were, how would you proof it? Wouldn't you want to have samples from the contrails? Since we don't have them, there is no evidence so you are right. However, I cannot imagine that you are happy to win an argument this way.
 
No, I mean visual evidence. Like them looking different, or lasting longer.

At the moment is seems like you have two things that look identical, but you claim that some are different. So how would we know which to test?

What do you think is the difference between a persistent contrail and a chemtrail?
 
How many contrails would have I have to test, and show to be water vapor, before I proved that chemtrails did not exist?

How many chemtrails would you have to test, and show that they were chemicals, before you demonstrated chemtrails existed?

The above questions have real answers. What are they?
 
I don't necessarily think that there should be a difference and that is why I think that the evidence is in the pudding. It is known what the ingredients are of the emissions from a jet engine. This may differ from engine to engine or different fuel types, i am not sure but I do believe that there shouldn't be any high levels of heavy metals in those emissions and definitely no barium. So, with or without certain ingredients, this makes up the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail, right?
 
Okay, so chemtrails look and behave exactly like contrails, even though they have a different chemical makeup?

But why would you believe that those chemicals are in the jet exhaust?

Is there any evidence that suggests those chemicals exist in jet exhaust?

If not, then why would you test for them?

You see - you can't just take action on every spurious thing based on "you can't prove that it is not so". I can't prove that my neighborhood cats are not KGB robot spy cats, but I'm certainly not going to start cutting them open without some good evidence.

So what evidence would you put forward to justify testing contrails for chemicals?
 
Haven't they found extremely high levels of barium and aluminium on the ground at Mt. Shasta?(http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x1176011800/New-tests-find-trace-or-no-aluminum-in-area-water)

I am not sure why I have to spell this out for you because I am sure you know exactly what you have to put forward to justify testing contrails for chemicals. Unless you can make a river go up, finding heavy metals as high up as on Mt. Shasta can only come from above. What about the increase in respiratory problems? Not evidence but an increase in respiratory conditions is caused by pollutants and chemtrails could be one of them, just saying.
 
awake101 said:
Haven't they found extremely high levels of barium and aluminium on the ground at Mt. Shasta?(http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x1176011800/New-tests-find-trace-or-no-aluminum-in-area-water)

I am not sure why I have to spell this out for you because I am sure you know exactly what you have to put forward to justify testing contrails for chemicals. Unless you can make a river go up, finding heavy metals as high up as on Mt. Shasta can only come from above. What about the increase in respiratory problems? Not evidence but an increase in respiratory conditions is caused by pollutants and chemtrails could be one of them, just saying.
Click to expand...

Except that air quality is better, not worse.

And you do realize that mountains are full of metallic compounds? Where do you think metals come from??
 
so there you go, enough justification for testing contrails for chemicals. Are you against testing contrails for chemicals?

But you chased me around the bush because this is just semantics. Testing contrails for those specific chemicals or other 'foreign' chemicals will be proof that chemtrails exist. I hope you can agree with me on this.

What is up with the formation of persistent contrails. Is the balance between temperature and humidity absolute? I mean, what conditions give no contrail at all, a little (20 minutes) or very long (hours). Does this mean that a persistant contrail (hours) outside of these atmospheric conditions (you know the numbers) is by definition a chemtrail?
 
awake101 said:
so there you go, enough justification for testing contrails for chemicals. Are you against testing contrails for chemicals?

But you chased me around the bush because this is just semantics. Testing contrails for those specific chemicals or other 'foreign' chemicals will be proof that chemtrails exist. I hope you can agree with me on this.

What is up with the formation of persistent contrails. Is the balance between temperature and humidity absolute? I mean, what conditions give no contrail at all, a little (20 minutes) or very long (hours). Does this mean that a persistant contrail (hours) outside of these atmospheric conditions (you know the numbers) is by definition a chemtrail?
Click to expand...

Its a variety of factors that are needed to result in saturation of the air with respect to water vapor, so that the vapor condenses. Its not absolute in terms of humidity and temperature, since some types of jet engines are more prone to contrailing than other types, as evidenced by the photo of an Airbus A340 next to a Boeing 707, and only the Airbus is making a contrail.

But persistent contrails have been noticed for decades, so this mistaken chemtrailer belief that persistent contrails never happened until recently, is totally incorrect
 
Not against it, go for it if you all want. But its not going to happen though. I remember chemtrailers talking about this in 1999 and never doing it. Well some may have gave money to try, but I think Will Thomas kept it.
 
I wish these chemtrailers would test a contrail. Of course we would never hear the results. They wouldn't match their beleifs.
 
Awake, none of us is against testing. I have advocated for over a decade for fuel to be tested. Show us even one chemtrail believer site which has done so. None ever have.

You ask some basic questions about ordinary contrail formation and persistence. This should have been thoroughly addresed at the chemtrail believer sites, but hasn't because to do so would demonstrate that in every respect there is no difference between the behavior of ordinary contrails and what you call chemtrails. Don't blame us for your lack of this information, because it is fully discussed at contrailscience.com.

Now, as for the testing. DesO said that the tests would not be shown by chemtrail believers if the results didn't support the chemtrails claims. This is true. I have repeatedly asked for claimed tests to be shown. All my requests were denied by your people. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/26...hemtrails-Information-Freedom-Aagreement-quot

Now, as for your lack of understanding, besides contrailscience.com, read the links I give, follow all the references, and come back and tell us where we went wrong:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/3837

Understand that this information has been given to one of your leaders, G. Edward Griffin, who says that this is an issue amounting to a "Crime Against Humanity". One month has elapsed since Griffin was given this information.

There has been no response.

This is your leadership.

Unresponsive. Uncooperative. Unwilling to change when shown incorrect.

Rather than berate us, perhaps you should consider helping us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is up with the formation of persistent contrails. Is the balance between temperature and humidity absolute? I mean, what conditions give no contrail at all, a little (20 minutes) or very long (hours). Does this mean that a persistant contrail (hours) outside of these atmospheric conditions (you know the numbers) is by definition a chemtrail?
 
​

I am sure you have seen it a million times but I am curious to what your explanation is for the contrails in this video. Especially at 2 minutes where there are 2 clearly marked trails coming out of the wing engines and then there is a third trail from the tail that is barely visible and doesn't persist (all at the same time, under the same atmospheric conditions). Also at 7.24 there is a clear beginning of the persistant contrails from 3 planes side by side and you can see a plane without any trail. First, why would there be 3 airliners flying so close together and how is it possible that against a clear blue sky these persistant contrails start so abruptly?
 
awake101 said:
... if you don't have to have scientific proof that chemtrails don't exist, why do we have to give you scientific proof that they do?
Click to expand...

Wow. So, everything is real until somebody proves it isn't real?

If i can't prove i DIDN'T steal a car last night, you believe i stole a car? I can't prove i haven't been to the moon and made sand castles ... are there sand castles on the moon?
 
Des O said:
I wish these chemtrailers would test a contrail. Of course we would never hear the results. They wouldn't match their beleifs.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Much of the problem is, there is an entire industry built around conspiracies … speaking tours, DVDs, documentaries, TV shows (Ancient Aliens), radio shows. Real proof is not in the best interest of the conspiracy money machine.
 
awake101 said:
What is up with the formation of persistent contrails. Is the balance between temperature and humidity absolute? I mean, what conditions give no contrail at all, a little (20 minutes) or very long (hours). Does this mean that a persistant contrail (hours) outside of these atmospheric conditions (you know the numbers) is by definition a chemtrail?
Click to expand...

The air needs to be cold enough and humid enough.

Basically (assuming it's cold enough) it needs a relative humidity with respect to ice of above 100%. Simplifying a bit, if it's 100%or above it will persist indefinitely, if it's below 100% then it will fade away, the speed determined by the humidity. If it's much above 100% the ice crystals will grow in size.

100% RHI is about 60-70% RHW (the normal measure of relative humidity, with respect to water).

If a contrail forms in conditions that it is impossible for contrails to form in, then it's likely not a contrail.

HOWEVER, the atmosphere is hugely variable, and RH aloft is only measured every 12 hours at stations 200 miles apart. So it's very hard to do more than get a rough prediction of what the RH is.
 
awake101 said:
​

I am sure you have seen it a million times but I am curious to what your explanation is for the contrails in this video. Especially at 2 minutes where there are 2 clearly marked trails coming out of the wing engines and then there is a third trail from the tail that is barely visible and doesn't persist (all at the same time, under the same atmospheric conditions).
Click to expand...


Probably the galley dumping water. It's a "drain mast", see this example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/downintheblue/437444219/

Also at 7.24 there is a clear beginning of the persistant contrails from 3 planes side by side and you can see a plane without any trail. First, why would there be 3 airliners flying so close together and how is it possible that against a clear blue sky these persistant contrails start so abruptly?
Click to expand...

Who knows? But planes fly together for many reasons. And how do you know they are "airliners"? Maybe they are military?

They are probably climbing or descending through a layer of humid air.

Note above you said "the same atmospheric conditions" - well consider that jet travel at 500 mph. How long does it take to travel from one atmospheric condition to another?

Consider if it's foggy at your house, but not foggy 1/10th of a mile away. Are the atmospheric conditions the same in both places? Clearly not, and a jet can travel that distance in less than a second.

Even in a clear blue sky, the conditions are not the same everywhere. The amount of water vapor in a clear blue sky is just as variable as in in a partly cloudy sky. It's just all under the threshold for visibility.
 
awake101 said:
But you chased me around the bush because this is just semantics. Testing contrails for those specific chemicals or other 'foreign' chemicals will be proof that chemtrails exist. I hope you can agree with me on this.
Click to expand...

I agree, but's it's not just semantics. It's cold hard logic.

Let's say we rent a plane, we go test a contrail. There are two possible outcomes - we either find chemicals or we do not.

What would these two outcomes prove?

FINDING CHEMICALS = EVIDENCE OF CHEMTRAILS
NOT FINDING CHEMICALS = EVIDENCE OF NOTHING EITHER WAY

So given that I fully expect a test of a contrail to find nothing, and hence prove nothing, then why exactly should I do it?

Let's say you claimed there were unicorns in some fields is Wyoming. I say there's no evidence of that. You say I should go to Wyoming and take photographs of a field. If a unicorn shows up, then that would be evidence of unicorns. I respond that I can't photograph all the fields in Wyoming, and a photograph of an empty field proves nothing.

How is this different?
 
Quite true. Just because a single contrail was shown to have not been the nefarious brew of chemicals that they think make of persisting contrails, not a single one of them would change their mind. They would say, that every contrail has to be tested.

They use that reasoning when I have told them to try and use programs, websites, etc to identify aircraft. They insist that unless you can check them all out, why then bother. Maybe its more of just kind of rationalization to just stay inside their comfortable delusion than anything else.

Chemtrailers could learn quite a it about aviation and aircraft if they tried, but they actually try hard not to.

So Mr Awake, if you think that Tanker Enemy videos are valid, which obviously you do if you are linking to them, how do you think Airbus A340 airliners are being used, and what about the trails condensing at some distance behind?
 
Who knows? But planes fly together for many reasons. And how do you know they are "airliners"? Maybe they are military?

Maybe military you say? Now that is interesting, just saying.

They are probably climbing or descending through a layer of humid air.

Probably? or not?

Probably the galley dumping water. It's a "drain mast", see this example:

The example doesn't look anywhere near like the plane in the video link I attached. I know that you have a hard time explaining all of this considering how many times you mention "probably". I am also aware that there is no hard proof for chemtrails but there are clearly trails that you only have a vague explanation for that cannot be checked.
 
But my point is that there's no good evidence for chemtrails.

We KNOW that there are things like contrails, drain masts, military planes flying in formation, etc. There are things that are known to exist that match existing observations very well.

But you want to introduct this new thing, "chemtrails", to explain something that's already perfectly well explained by existing things.

If we've got trails that look like contrails, and act like contrails, then why exactly do we need chemtrails to explain them?
 
Awake-

here is a useful, interactive applet that shows some of the various parameters of contrail formation and persistence (It does not take into account the type of engine or the thrust level of the engine). Notice how you can move the parameters around in mid-flight to show how varying conditions from spot to spot can change the visual nature of the trail (remember, the atmosphere moves like a fluid and as such as lots of variability- layers and pockets- it is not a uniform parcel of air):

http://itg1.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap15/contrail_applet.html


As for testing and sampling trail directly from the plume...many atmospheric scientists HAVE sampled contrails in the atmosphere over the last decade and none, that I am aware of, have reported finding anything other than would be expected in a "normal" contrail.

However, private citizens could hire a plane to sample a trail or 10 of your choice- should you so choose:

http://www.weathermodification.com/environmental-monitoring.php

http://www.weathermodification.com/aircraft.php
 
In the beginning of the video link it shows that trails are appearing one by one, why????

By the way, I really don't buy into your explanation about the 'drain mast', especially not when you look at the video and compare it to the example you gave me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iB_VIZuWVA&feature=related In this video at 57 seconds you see a plane releasing something, is that what you call drain mast or something else? If so, that looks totally different from the one in the other video.

I really believe that these are important differences that cannot be explained through the examples that you are giving.
 
Would you mind responding to this:

In the beginning of the video link it shows that trails are appearing one by one, why????
 
I flew from Orlando to Baltimore on the 17th. I've seen several postings on the internet from that day in which people insisted that they were being sprayed. Natural cirrus and contrail cirrus were very prevalent from FL to VA between 29,000 and 34,000 feet. The plane that I was on was leaving a trail (plane and trail were casting a shadow on the cirrus below us). I was sitting in the back of the plane and there was nothing visible being sprayed from the engines or wings. The trail was condensing behind the plane. I saw air traffic going the other way leaving trails that stretched as far as the eye could see. Same thing, just condensation behind the plane.

This guy was in JAX. The flight I was on hit contrail altitude just south of JAX. One of the trails in that photo very likely came from my flight.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread798502/pg1
 
awake101 said:
Would you mind responding to this:

In the beginning of the video link it shows that trails are appearing one by one, why????
Click to expand...

I will respond, but I have something to say first.

Can you acknowledge that the image in the video you referenced (at 57 seconds) looks very much like the 747 supertanker owned by Evergreen Aviation, the same 747 supertanker they are marketing as a firefighting craft?

You asked a question, and I tried to answer it as truthfully and to the best of my abilities as possible. Then you completely disregard my efforts and "ya, but..." into something else.

If you're just going to ignore my answers, is there any reason I should bother answering any question you ask?
 
awake101 said:
Would you mind responding to this:

In the beginning of the video link it shows that trails are appearing one by one, why????
Click to expand...

You mean this?



It's probably due to slight variations between the engines, most likely very small throttle variations. Slightly warmer engines will result in the trails starting slightly later.

Now, you were asked if you agree that's Evergreen Aviation's supertanker?
 
Last edited:
I wonder if different exhaust temperatures for the 4 engines will affect contrail formation too?? They will have an allowable temperature range of a few 10's of degrees, with an upper bound that they have to stay below to stop components overheating..
 
You have to look at the mixing curve to visualize what's going on.

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/contrail-edu/resources/Contrail_Formation_English.pdf




The exhaust gas starts out at point B, and mixes with the ambient air until it arrives at point A. If on the way it passes through the "cloud" region, then a contrail cloud will form.

So any change in the temperature or moisture (humidity) at point B could make a difference. Consider the marginal case, where the orange line only just skims the edge of the "cloud" region. Then a very small change in temp or humidity at B (or A) could move it in of out of the region.
 
Last edited:
I think he claim that the puny drain mast water and the APU contrails being claimed as "chemtrails" is very funny!
The claim falls flat when the APU and drain mast trails are seen to dissipate immediately, and yet the engine exhaust contrails are persistent. Tankerenemy is claiming that non-persistent trails are chemtrails!
Yes, very amusing when these folks debunk themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ManInBlack
UFO video used by News Nation...Real or Fake?
Replies
6
Views
3K
ManInBlack
ManInBlack
Edward Current
Why no *attempted* imagery of major UFO experiences?
Replies
18
Views
2K
flarkey
flarkey
Mick West
The "Chandelier" UFO
2
Replies
69
Views
12K
FatPhil
FatPhil
flarkey
Mass UFO Sighting at Area 6, Nevada [Starlink]
Replies
18
Views
6K
Mendel
Mendel
MonkeeSage
Orange light over Kyle, Texas March 2022
Replies
6
Views
1K
MonkeeSage
MonkeeSage

Latest posts

Back
Top