"Smoking Gun" evidence of chemtrails?

I remember growing up as a kid and seeing contrails. I remember talking to my grandmother about what makes them, because as far as I knew she knew everything in the universe. I remember her saying that they're made of smoke, that only jet planes make them, and that whether or not they disappeared had to do with temperature (and surprisingly only a third if this was wrong, which is surprising since I think she made the whole lot up). She then asked if I remembered how grandpa's car belched thick blue clouds whenever it cold, but in the summer it was just a little white puff when it switched gears. She said this was the same thing, just on the ground. (Note: I know now that none of this is correct and my grandpa's car was just a piece of crap)

This, to my mind, meant my grandpa's car was jet powered, and the only jet powered car I knew of was the Batmobile so obviously he was Batman.

This was... Late 80's I think? Not too late, since once I discovered Ninja Turtles Batman was dead to me. But, yeah, that's what I remember: Sometimes contrails didn't disappear, therefore Grandpa was Batman.


I remember asking my Dad about vapor trails as we called them, and him explaining very well the science behind them. As a child I was fascinated with the trails in the sky and used to watch them frequently. This was in the late 70's and early 80's in northern Canada. Persistent contrails are definitely nothing new.

As to the post I quoted, grandma was not so far off. The same can be seen here every winter, particularly when temps drop to the sub -30°C range. On the more humid days, as evidenced by hoar frost on everything, vehicles, diesels in particular will leave large vapor clouds hanging at every intersection. These clouds persist to the point they become a definite traffic hazard, as they will impact visibility for several minutes at times. Given the fuel burned can be measured in liters not in tons as with a jet, its surprising to me there are actually not more lingering contrails in the sky.
 
particularly when temps drop to the sub -30°C range.

Yes. And, here is a photo of jet engine contrails at ground level (because of the very cold ambient temperatures):


(It's actually from contrailscience.com).

Note, also, it is a Boeing 737-200. In mention this (though many might not have noticed) because those airplanes were powered with Low Bypass Turbofan P/W JT9D engines. Compared to the next iterations of the B-737, the -300 and subsequent. They are all equipped with High Bypass Turbofan engines, the CFM56 series.
 
Yes. And, here is a photo of jet engine contrails at ground level (because of the very cold ambient temperatures):


(It's actually from contrailscience.com).

Note, also, it is a Boeing 737-200. In mention this (though many might not have noticed) because those airplanes were powered with Low Bypass Turbofan P/W JT9D engines. Compared to the next iterations of the B-737, the -300 and subsequent. They are all equipped with High Bypass Turbofan engines, the CFM56 series.


I see that's a Canadian North plane. I've flown with them to Norman Wells in the North West Territories. was a fun flight, incredible views.

Actually, on a second look it sure looks like that picture was taken in Norman Wells.
 
Check out the third video. Who knows how a solution containing barium and aluminium would behave in the combustion zone of jet engine. Given that it's not the sort of solution you would expect to find floating round in the atmosphere, I doubt anyone had bothered to run a whole lot of it through an engine to find out.

Really? And what would barium and aluminum do to "geoengineer" the earth miles below? Coalesce into bulldozers in midair and smash them into the ground at terminal velocity? If it is about "population control", wouldn't Ebola, Marburg, Black Plague, smallpox and Polio work better [...]? It sure would be cheaper.

Kat said:
One problem here, WeedWhacker -- the first video right away boasts about putting 4 1/2 tonnes of water a minute through the engine. So why not a liquid with barium or aluminium in it? all these highly technical details, half understood, only further the evidence for the trails. They cam ingest birds, what harm would a bit of second-hand chemtrail do? (does it cause aircraft cancer, like second hand tobacco?)
((ooops did I just start another one?))


Because the aircraft would have to haul all that weight aloft, and to do what? (Besides help Alex Jones sell his snake oil to treat something that doesn't exist)

Do you people realize that you're accusing EVERY airline and private plane pilot (except the bug smashers who barely can clear the local flora) and EVERY military pilot, and every person who does aircraft maintenance on both military and civilian planes ALL over the world of crimes against humanity, including crimes against themselves and their families, because they ALL make the same kind of contrails and while these guys are home having diner, somebody else is "spraying" 24/7?

People keep using the term "geoengineering" but most, if pressed, couldn't explain the meaning nor how it is being done. So let me help:
"engineering geology, or geotechnical engineering deals with the discovery, development, and production and use of >>>subsurface earth resources<<<<, as well as the design and construction of earth works. Geoengineering is the application of geosciences, where mechanics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and geology are used to understand and shape our interaction with the earth. Geoengineers work in areas of (1) mining, including surface and subsurface excavations, and rock burst mitigation; (2) energy, including hydraulic fracturing and drilling for exploration and production of water, oil, or gas; (3) infrastructure, including underground transportation systems and isolation of nuclear and hazardous wastes; and (4) environment, including groundwater flow, contaminant transport and remediation, and hydraulic structures." (Hence the comment above about bulldozers forming in midair and crashing to earth)

Can anybody explain how supposedly spraying some mystery chemical(s) at 35,000-45,000 ft. will accomplish "geoengineering" miles below?

[...] this is how those mysterious "grid patterns" are formed. [...] (see the first video, "contrails over the Pine Mountain Club")

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=contrails over the mountails&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=E21F626AE3547839AFD5E21F626AE3547839AFD5


[edited for politeness]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People keep using the term "geoengineering" but most, if pressed, couldn't explain the meaning nor how it is being done. So let me help:
"engineering geology, or geotechnical engineering deals with the discovery, development, and production and use of >>>subsurface earth resources<<<<, as well as the design and construction of earth works. Geoengineering is the application of geosciences, where mechanics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and geology are used to understand and shape our interaction with the earth. Geoengineers work in areas of (1) mining, including surface and subsurface excavations, and rock burst mitigation; (2) energy, including hydraulic fracturing and drilling for exploration and production of water, oil, or gas; (3) infrastructure, including underground transportation systems and isolation of nuclear and hazardous wastes; and (4) environment, including groundwater flow, contaminant transport and remediation, and hydraulic structures." (Hence the comment above about bulldozers forming in midair and crashing to earth)

Can anybody explain how supposedly spraying some mystery chemical(s) at 35,000-45,000 ft. will accomplish "geoengineering" miles below?

Well, to be fair to the chemtrail believers, they are using the term "geoengineering" in the sense of climate engineering, specifically solar radiation management.

However they conspicuously fail to explain how solar radiation management (spraying aerosols into the stratosphere from modified aircraft or rockets) would look like contrails at half the altitude, or why none of the proposed geoengineering chemicals have ever been found.
 
Well, to be fair to the chemtrail believers, they are using the term "geoengineering" in the sense of climate engineering, specifically solar radiation management.

Not just chemtrailers

This is from the BBC website dated Nov 28th http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30229874


Imagine the trouble that would ensue if China resorted to desperate measures to cool its climate but the result was that the Indian Monsoon suddenly failed.

Or that India tried to head off a rise in temperatures only to find that Pakistan suffered from massive flooding.

Or that the United States took drastic action to fight global warming and then saw that great tracts of Africa were suddenly left without any rain.

These are some of the nightmare scenarios conjured up by the latest thinking on what might go wrong if we try to intervene in our climate through what is known as geo-engineering.
Content from External Source
The article goes on to raise some serious issues,

Yet another source of opposition is from those who fear that intervening with the climate is bound to backfire and that the law of unintended consequences means that the harm caused will be far worse than expected.

During a debate at a conservation conference in Barcelona in 2010, environmental campaigners were outraged by plans by a private company to conduct geo-engineering experiments in the ocean.

The idea was to see if carbon dioxide could be trapped and buried by fertilising the waters with iron to encourage plankton to bloom.

Similar experiments carried out by an Indian-German team did not work as well as hoped....

....
Would solar shielding launched by one country trigger a drought in another? Would that be a cause for war? Would anyone ever really know that the geo-engineering was to blame?

If planes were launched to make the stratosphere more reflective, how long would it take for them to have a cooling effect? What if it took years or even decades to know if the technique was working or that it was causing weather turmoil elsewhere?

And, in regions of the world already fraught with tension, how would it look to a nervous country if a far larger neighbour filled the skies with squadrons of jets?

Inevitably, given the scale of any of these operations, the military would have to be involved so, even if the purpose was genuinely benign, and was being conducted in the global cause of cooling the planet, the deployments might easily look like an act of war.

One answer is that if climate change proves to be as far-reaching and pervasive as some projections suggest, it is bound to escalate tensions regardless of any geo-engineering: that as pressures mount on vulnerable areas, vast populations could be on the move anyway, with or without attempts to block the sun.

The authors of the recent research are adamant that the risks are so great that any studies or experiments need to be as open as possible - and that actual operations, however distant in the future, must be governed by international treaty.

But that is a very big ask.

Of all the challenges with geo-engineering - the technological hurdles, the enormous gamble with weather patterns, the dangers of conflict - perhaps the greatest is diplomatic.

The past 22 years have seen the world repeatedly fail to agree to cut greenhouse gases to tackle global warming.

How much harder would it be to get it to agree on last-ditch measures that many would brand as hare-brained and dangerous?
Content from External Source
There was another Geo-engineering article on the BBC site a few days earlier. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30197085


Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say.

That is the conclusion of a new set of studies into what's become known as geo-engineering.

This is the so far unproven science of intervening in the climate to bring down temperatures.

These projects work by, for example, shading the Earth from the Sun or soaking up carbon dioxide.

Ideas include aircraft spraying out sulphur particles at high altitude to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes or using artificial "trees" to absorb CO2.

Long regarded as the most bizarre of all solutions for global warming, ideas for geo-engineering have come in for more scrutiny in recent years as international efforts to limit carbon emissions have failed.

Now three combined research projects, led by teams from the universities of Leeds, Bristol and Oxford, have explored the implications in more detail.

The central conclusion, according to Dr Matt Watson of Bristol University, is that the issues surrounding geo-engineering - how it might work, the effects it might have and the potential downsides - are "really really complicated".
Content from External Source
It also contains a few paragraphs that will have the CT crowd wetting their knickers at percieved proof of cliamte engineering

One simulation imagined sea-going vessels spraying dense plumes of particles into the air to try to alter the clouds. But the model found that this would be far less effective than once thought.

Another explored the option of injecting sulphate aerosols into the air above the Arctic in an effort to reverse the decline of sea-ice.

A key finding was that none of the simulations managed to keep the world's temperature at the level experienced between 1986-2005 - suggesting that any effort would have to be maintained for years.

More alarming for the researchers were the potential implications for rainfall patterns.

Although all the simulations showed that blocking the Sun's rays - or solar radiation management, as it is called - did reduce the global temperature, the models revealed profound changes to precipitation including disrupting the Indian Monsoon.
Content from External Source
But also goes on to mention to explain that these ideas probably wont work...

Prof Piers Forster of Leeds University said: "We have found that between 1.2 and 4.1 billion people could be adversely affected by changes in rainfall patterns.

"The most striking example of a downside would be the complete drying-out of the Sahel region of Africa - that would be very difficult to adapt to for those substantial populations - and that happens across all the scenarios."
Content from External Source
and
According to Prof Steve Rayner of Oxford University, it is easier to devise the technology than to understand its effects or how its use should be governed.

"If you were just thinking of the capability of putting sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, that you could do in less than two decades - whether you would know it was smart to do it in less than two decades is another question.

"We don't know enough - we have a few islands of knowledge in a sea of ignorance and it's absolutely worth knowing more. There is the potential that some of these technologies may be part of a broader tool kit of ways in which we can better manage climate change.

"People decry solar radiation management as a band-aid but band-aids can be useful for healing."
Content from External Source
Over all two very interesting articles, that do give a balanced view of the whole geo-engineering concept, but I can see the CT's cherry picking a few quotes and using them as part f their smoking guns, (if they haven't already)
 
Well, to be fair to the chemtrail believers, they are using the term "geoengineering" in the sense of climate engineering, specifically solar radiation management.

Yes, and that's actually the more common usage now. A quick scan of Google News indicates that over 90% of the usages of the term in the last month refer to climate engineering.

It's also used as shorthand for geotechnical engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotechnical_engineering
 
It burns at ~4000c. Aluminium oxide does not burn but it would also destroy the engine via abrasion/erosion leading to unbalancing of the turbine and catastrophic failure.


Greetings Ladies and Gents,
I couldn't resist my ha'penny worth on this subject.
TWC. Re. combustor working temps, not strictly true.
Depending on engine type, (and here I am excluding shall we say certain military small types) the normal working temperatures to be expected in the Combustion Chamber (Can) range generally from 2000 to 2,400 deg. C. This scope extends from small corporate turbofans through the spectrum of engines ending at very large, extreme by-pass ratio turbofans such as Trent and GE 90.

Our experience has found that at the above menteioned temperatures were insufficient to be completely carbonised during the working process.
In 2010 volcano Eyjafjallajökull erupted and suddenly civil air traffic was overnight crippled. Immediately we began to resurrect the old Speedbird 9 scenario.
After initial analysis it was found that the the biggest 'gremlin' in the 2010 cases was lesser due to abrasive damage but more attributed to silicates drawn through the Low Pressure (LP) Compressor (Fan), the air that was then directed into the LP and subsequently HP Compressor caused a measurable amount of erosion, but once having been introduced into the Can and expelled towards the HP Turbine the drama started.
Findings were that although we were not reaching temperatures that would fully melt Silica, deposits of Silica were found directly downstream of the Can and were blocking the cooling perforations of the Nozzle Guide Vanes (NGV).
NGV's are cooled by relatively cool air taken from a stage of the compression cycle, the vane are perforated, much like a tea bag, and 'cool' air is passed through them to preserve their longevity. Ingestion of volcanic ash led to blocking of these holes, reduced cooling and to component thermal (and structural) distress. Maintenance action? Reject the engine for overhaul.

Should the claims of Alcan/Sunpat/Sarsons be believed, we would be seeing all manner of In Flight Shut Down (IFSD) events
 
Greetings Ladies and Gents,
I couldn't resist my ha'penny worth on this subject.
TWC. Re. combustor working temps, not strictly true.
Depending on engine type, (and here I am excluding shall we say certain military small types) the normal working temperatures to be expected in the Combustion Chamber (Can) range generally from 2000 to 2,400 deg. C. This scope extends from small corporate turbofans through the spectrum of engines ending at very large, extreme by-pass ratio turbofans such as Trent and GE 90.

Our experience has found that at the above menteioned temperatures were insufficient to be completely carbonised during the working process.
In 2010 volcano Eyjafjallajökull erupted and suddenly civil air traffic was overnight crippled. Immediately we began to resurrect the old Speedbird 9 scenario.
After initial analysis it was found that the the biggest 'gremlin' in the 2010 cases was lesser due to abrasive damage but more attributed to silicates drawn through the Low Pressure (LP) Compressor (Fan), the air that was then directed into the LP and subsequently HP Compressor caused a measurable amount of erosion, but once having been introduced into the Can and expelled towards the HP Turbine the drama started.
Findings were that although we were not reaching temperatures that would fully melt Silica, deposits of Silica were found directly downstream of the Can and were blocking the cooling perforations of the Nozzle Guide Vanes (NGV).
NGV's are cooled by relatively cool air taken from a stage of the compression cycle, the vane are perforated, much like a tea bag, and 'cool' air is passed through them to preserve their longevity. Ingestion of volcanic ash led to blocking of these holes, reduced cooling and to component thermal (and structural) distress. Maintenance action? Reject the engine for overhaul.

Should the claims of Alcan/Sunpat/Sarsons be believed, we would be seeing all manner of In Flight Shut Down (IFSD) events


Hi WBTC, nice to see someone here with some in depth engine knowledge. My reference to AL burning at ~4000C presupposed that it doesn't require that temperature flame to get it to burn in the first place. The other caveat was that pure aluminium is highly reactive and I personally doubt it could be used in any Geoengineering program because of this.

Maybe someone can clear that up.
 
Remember the flap over the aluminum armor on early Bradley IFVs? The spall that broke off the inside after they took a hit was pyrophoric. Not something I'd recommend running through a jet engine.
 
Thank you for your generous compliment TWC.
What I omitted to state at the end of my post (due Cabernet Sauvignon induced dis-orientation) was that the mere presence of metals, Barium, Aluminium, Calcium, (insert you own metal here Chemchaps) in elevated quantities and prolonged exposure to such will lead to massive engine performance degradation and ultimately to engine failure.
When a airline buys an airframe with desired engine, the engine alone (singular) is, being the most expensive Line Replaceable Unit (LRU), also the largest investment risk due to cost and unforeseen future of that component.

Airlines do not take financial risks lightly as we all know. Should the claims of the Chem lobby have any gravity, lest any credible evidence, would members of IATA sit idly by and be forced to fly through such airspace with the consequence of engine failure as a result? Would members of IATA risk their commercial name and corporate finances, leaving the shareholders aside at this point, to willingly continue flight ops into known hazardous conditions?

I have read and giggled, and on the old plum, even been a protagonist in fuelling the debate, but having both military and civil (ATPL) as the most part of my life since I was 17 (now in my fifties) I read with disgust the outpourings of what I can only describe as seriously deranged mentality of those who advocate downing of {sic} them f**kers.

I could of posted more of the P6 APU photo shopped stuff, and funny to us it was but there is a scenario in my head that an airliner on APP can be compromised by whatever, thanks to these idiots. The following news reports report as ever: X hundred dead, the Chemtrail lobby claim bodies were either set there by 'the Masters'.
Surely advocating promoting such actions constitutes an act of terrorism. God forbid these poor lost souls should ever find the means.

WBTC
 
Last edited:
So now, Ladym, I've laid my credentials before you, backed with solid fact and published findings.
May I invite you and your associates to challenge my statements. Please be aware that youtube does not constitute as credible evidence, as do unqualified statements from the equally unqualified 'experts' that seem be endlessly regurgitated whenever your beliefs are challenged.
Here's your big moment, Ladym ....shoot me down.
I promise no Fox1, Fox2 or Fox2 on my behalf, we're just using words and intellect here

With respect,
Way behind the Curve
 
Thought I'd chime in, because I've had similar experiences with childhood memories:
I grew up in southern germany, where it rains quite regularly, with annual rain amounts around 800 liters per square meter. And yet I've got almost no recollection of rainy days during my childhood. Of the top of my head I can only remember less than 5 days with rain.
The explanation is very easy:
On a rainy day I was sitting inside, reading or watching TV, and thus not having very memorable experiences. As soon as the weather permitted outdoor activities I was outside, playing, getting scars, etc. Those are the things I remember. I also didn't notice contrails during my childhood, although I've seen them on family photos that were taken at that time.

The point is, human memory isn't perfect. Not remembering things doesn't mean they didn't happen. They just might not have been important to you at that point in time.
On the other hand, I have clear childhood memories of contrails over London in the late 1950s and 60s. I even remember being curious about why some persisted while others didn't.
 
Back
Top