Chemtrails on private jets?

I only recently learned about chemtrails, i know a lot of airplanes use them (or all?). But what about private jets of celebrities? I think it would make sense that the private jets would cause even more. They it would directly serve the elites interest. Or would they not want to involve themselves directly so they create an aura of plausible deniability? Has anyone ever used a private jet tracker to see if they cause chemtrails?

a reply to: futurehobo

If you care to research this from an agnostic position, look into how contrails form, and why they form.
Then you can ask those questions like "if 'they' are spraying bad juice from 30,000ft, how do they keep themselves from being sprayed with it?"

The real problem with the chemtrail conspiracy is people cannot explain what a chemtrail really is, and those who insist they are real, won't do the obvious and get an air sample to prove they are real. There is no future in that, as they likely aren't "chemtrails" but more likely "contrails". But I'm just a nut on a conspiracy site, you will be warned about the mean people via PM's, and I am one of them.

If you have questions, please ask, if not, have a super day.

All aircraft create "chemtrails" depending on the temperature and humidity of the part of the atmosphere through which they are flying. They can even be created at ground level ....

The big concern is that these trails primarily comprise of frozen dihydrogen monoxide. A deadly substance - everyone who has ever come into contact with it has died. Usually within 100 years years .....

a reply to: futurehobo

So you recently fell for the internet scam about contrails? Chemtrails aren't real, and never have been. There is no aircraft that can carry enough material to spray from horizon to horizon the way it's claimed. Everything that they claim is a chemtrail is a normal side effect of aircraft flying in extremely cold air.

The link below is to several pictures of chem trail like equipment.

contrailscience.com...

a reply to: futurehobo

Yeh Chemtrails are really simple contrails like Zaphod58 and others have suggested.

The conspiracy has been debunked.

The crap is in the fuel.
If I drive my car with it's functioning catalytic converter in below freezing weather, the exhaust gasses ought to produce a fog bank just like the exhaust gasses from a jet, or at least not just a puff that dissipates immediately.
My own hot breath on a frigid day should cloud me in a veil of frozen water vapor to choke me out.
I won't be gaslighted by people who are afraid to think they've been lied to.
I have eyes that see, and my brain is connected to my eyes, not to the TV.

originally posted by: ToddB
The crap is in the fuel.
If I drive my car with it's functioning catalytic converter in below freezing weather, the exhaust gasses ought to produce a fog bank just like the exhaust gasses from a jet, or at least not just a puff that dissipates immediately.
My own hot breath on a frigid day should cloud me in a veil of frozen water vapor to choke me out.
I won't be gaslighted by people who are afraid to think they've been lied to.
I have eyes that see, and my brain is connected to my eyes, not to the TV.

does your car drive at 25k feet with -70C temperatures?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ToddB
The crap is in the fuel.
If I drive my car with it's functioning catalytic converter in below freezing weather, the exhaust gasses ought to produce a fog bank just like the exhaust gasses from a jet, or at least not just a puff that dissipates immediately.
My own hot breath on a frigid day should cloud me in a veil of frozen water vapor to choke me out.
I won't be gaslighted by people who are afraid to think they've been lied to.
I have eyes that see, and my brain is connected to my eyes, not to the TV.

does your car drive at 25k feet with -70C temperatures?

Right-o. Some people don't know this, but even prop driven aircraft can produce contrails. Even back in the days of prop-driven airliners, Convairs, DC-4s, 6s, etc you'd see contrails all the way across the sky. They weren't even jets. It's about altitude, temperature, and moisture. The appearance of contrails on any aircraft (prop, jet, or anything that produces exhaust) depends on a specific set of those conditions, and since the atmosphere varies over distances (air masses with high moisture moving into areas with different pressure, temperature, etc) the length or "strength" of the contrail will vary, with some aircraft appearing to produce none at all.
The air density and the temp above, say, 25k' is extremely low. The trick here is air density AND temp AND moisture (visible or not) all come into play. Not just temperature.
You just don't get the right combination of conditions at surface level for your car to leave a contrail from your house to your place of work. :-)

a reply to: ToddB

And exactly what crap is that? You do realize that the fuel goes through the combustion chamber, and is ignited to 3600 degrees, right? So exactly what is being added to the fuel that can handle temperatures that high, and isn't going to screw the engine up? If it's organic, it's not going to handle temperatures that high. If it's non-organic it's going to damage that engine. That means that engine isn't going to last as long as it normally would, requiring overhaul at shorter intervals, and costing a lot of money.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
The big concern is that these trails primarily comprise of frozen dihydrogen monoxide. A deadly substance - everyone who has ever come into contact with it has died. Usually within 100 years years .....

Isn’t that a major greenhouse gas? Like. Plants literally live on it!

Nobody can prove one way or the other whether chem-trails are being sprayed or not, but coming to a conspiracy website and claiming it's not possible is weird.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

We can prove that the so called evidence provided is pure BS made up, faked, or misunderstood. And can show that what people are seeing is perfectly normal. So using the "coming to a conspiracy site and saying it's not possible" logic, we should believe everything posted on ATS, since it's a conspiracy site?

I have seen the skies change. Geoengineering is real. Parking a high pressure system off the american west coast has occurred. There was another "heat dome" over the american mid-west last summer. I have seen samples taken while flying thru everyones "con-trails." This stuff eventually falls to the earth vegetation dies from the top down. Wildfires burn hotter. The national weather service does not allow discussion of their work. SO, when all is done and studied, either the earth's atmosphere has changed to allow for lingering con-trails....OR....the emissions of jet aircraft have changed significantly.

i've been looking up to the skies since the early 80's and my father was a jet mechanic in vietnam (where weather-modification was pioneered)

originally posted by: futurehobo
I only recently learned about chemtrails, i know a lot of airplanes use them (or all?). But what about private jets of celebrities? I think it would make sense that the private jets would cause even more. They it would directly serve the elites interest. Or would they not want to involve themselves directly so they create an aura of plausible deniability? Has anyone ever used a private jet tracker to see if they cause chemtrails?

None of the chemtrail planes will show up on any flight tracker app because they're not private planes and they're not airliners. They're military planes.

originally posted by: ToddB
The crap is in the fuel.
If I drive my car with it's functioning catalytic converter in below freezing weather, the exhaust gasses ought to produce a fog bank just like the exhaust gasses from a jet, or at least not just a puff that dissipates immediately.
My own hot breath on a frigid day should cloud me in a veil of frozen water vapor to choke me out.
I won't be gaslighted by people who are afraid to think they've been lied to.
I have eyes that see, and my brain is connected to my eyes, not to the TV.

They're adding Graphene to the fuel now.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ToddB

And exactly what crap is that? You do realize that the fuel goes through the combustion chamber, and is ignited to 3600 degrees, right? So exactly what is being added to the fuel that can handle temperatures that high, and isn't going to screw the engine up? If it's organic, it's not going to handle temperatures that high. If it's non-organic it's going to damage that engine. That means that engine isn't going to last as long as it normally would, requiring overhaul at shorter intervals, and costing a lot of money.

Graphene

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Robert Reynolds

We can prove that the so called evidence provided is pure BS made up, faked, or misunderstood.

What have you proven and in response to what?

And can show that what people are seeing is perfectly normal.

You can show that what I've seen is perfectly normal?

So using the "coming to a conspiracy site and saying it's not possible" logic, we should believe everything posted on ATS, since it's a conspiracy site?

That's a patently absurd misrepresentation of what I was implying. It's not about believing everything, it's about not claiming that you've proven anything when you know that you haven't. You can't verify the contents of a single vapour trail.

Saying the evidence is questionable is on thing, but saying it's not happening is another.



What's your interest in this subject?

a reply to: kittywrangler

Jet engines are quite a bit different now than they were 30ish years ago. Starting in 1993 or so high bypass turbofans became the norm. They will leave contrails where lower bypass engines don't. They did a test once using an A300 series aircraft, flying a couple hundred feet beside a 707. The Airbus was leaving contrails while the 707 wasn't. Aviation changes faster than just about any other industry out there. The 767 was the first high bypass turbofan user, and entered service in 1982. At the time, the bypass ratio on that engine was roughly 4.8:1 (roughly, because it had multiple engine options). In 1993, the 777 entered service, with an engine that has an engine with a bypass ratio between 4.8-6.4:1 for one engine, 8.4-9 on another, and 6.4 on the third. The current 777s coming off the line all use the same engine, with a bypass ratio of 9:1. The 777-8/9 family will have an engine with a bypass ratio of 9.9:1. So in 40 years, engine technology has doubled the bypass ratio of engines. To compare that, the bypass ratio of the JT3D, used on the 707, had a bypass ratio of 1.42:1.

a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

Which will cause damage to the engine. Jet engines aren't designed to handle foreign substances. Even things like fine dust causes wear to the engines.