Raise Your Hand If You Think All Chemtrails are Contrails

a reply to: realeyesreallies

But they've made zero impact on the chemtrail/contrail debate obviously. Still There. Independent publicly funded tests should be put along side.

And unless those tests show something they want to see, the "chemtrail" crowd will ignore them. Just as they ignore the existing studies. Because the "chemtrail" crowd is not the least bit interested in facts because they "know what they see." They know contrails can't persist and spread. They know contrails can't turn into cirrus clouds.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
I am 52 years old and these things have not been around all my life, they just began in the last 10 to 15 years with regularity.

If they were all normal then they would have been around all my life.

So the 787 uses exactly the same technology as the 707?

Do you have any idea how fast aircraft technology changes? Technological changes means that other things are going to change too. Significantly more efficient engines mean more contrails, and more contrails that persist. Persistent contrails have been seen since 1918, and are well documented.

a reply to: Zaphod58
No Zaphod. Persistence is determined by ambient relative humidity. The advent of high bypass engines does not affect persistence.

In order for contrails to persist the air must be saturated or very nearly so. In order for them to spread it must be supersaturated.

The formation of persistent contrails occurs when the relative humidity with
respect to ice (RHI) reaches or exceeds 100%.

www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

Contrails persist if the ambient humidity is larger than saturation humidity over ice surfaces (relative humidity over ice RHi larger than 100 %). In such ice-supersaturated air masses, the ice particles within the contrails grow by deposition of water vapour molecules from the ambient air. Contrails may persist as long as the ambient air in which the contrail forms stays ice-supersaturated

aero-net.info...

I don't know that I've ever seen a chemtrail - so as far as I know all contrails look like contrails, and otherwise your question has no meaning.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
I
I am 52 years old and these things have not been around all my life, they just began in the last 10 to 15 years with regularity.

I'm 56, and they haven't been around all my life either.

I first saw them in the late 1960's, when the local airline started flying B737-200 jets in place of Viscount turboprops.

But I've seen them ever since then.

and I started working on those jets as an apprentice mechanic in 1976 and have been involved in aviation, mostly maintenance, ever since.

If they were all normal then they would have been around all my life.

There is no reason to believe that is true.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree There are chemtrails. It was the summer of 1998 I think I first noticed them. I was going on walks with my daughter, a toddler at the time, at all times of the day. I knew these 'jett trails' were different. I knew something had changed. I would watch normal ones fade away and see some stay for 6 hours at a time. I got on the internet and then, it took longer to find things, but I found a site with hundreds of pictures of what I had noticed. I saw the word chemtrails for the first time. I could see if it was made up and people coming across the term on the internet were 'sucked into' a scam. But not when people go looking for answers as to why something has changed and is different and find the explanation after.
On days of the most chemtrail activity, I would see planes crisscrossing the sky all day, leaving so much behind, the entire sky would almost be covered by 5pm. I can't be told that is normal.

a reply to: reldra

what changed??

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: reldra

what changed??

The appearance of some of the jet trails/contrails, the number and how long they would stay in the sky.

I think there is more too it than that. If it were concrete the debating would be over and instead it grows world wide.

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: Phage

And it's documented that with the new high bypass turbofans contrails and persistent contrails form at altitudes they didn't with low bypass turbofans. I know it's determined by relative humidity, but it's shown that newer engines create them where older engines didn't.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: reldra

what changed??

The appearance of some of the jet trails/contrails, the number and how long they would stay in the sky.

well numbers are just numbers - more aircraft mean more contrails....and persistence is just a matter of humidity - but since there's more aircraft there will be more contrails, and of course more of them will persist.



there's nothing new about large number of contrails, nor persistent contrails - eg London 1940:

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Phage

And it's documented that with the new high bypass turbofans contrails and persistent contrails form at altitudes they didn't with low bypass turbofans. I know it's determined by relative humidity, but it's shown that newer engines create them where older engines didn't.

It's my conjecture that the bypass air cools the exhaust down enough to form droplets while it's still pretty dense. The more droplets/volume you have as nuclei the more likely you are to start a cascade in a saturated atmosphere.

a reply to: Bedlam

Which is pretty similar to the explanation I read somewhere talking about the newer engines.

a reply to: Phage

The phrase where there is smoke there is bound to be fire....Certainly contrails can have these characteristics, but anyone that doesn't think chemtrails exist just because they haven't published verifiable information for public consumption is delusional. There is no way you will ever convince me otherwise.

As to what they are being used for I don't have a clue, but they exist.

Just like 9/11 happened and they covered that up, they hide facts when they want to.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I know it's determined by relative humidity, but it's shown that newer engines create them where older engines didn't.

Yes, newer engines will produce contrails under conditions which older engines may not. Conditions which are marginal for contrail formation.

That has nothing to do with persistence however. Persistence occurs because ambient conditions do not allow the ice crystals to sublimate. Under such conditions, both older engines and newer engines will produce contrails.

a reply to: Phage

And newer engines persist more than older engines. Also documented.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Also documented.

Citation?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Lets take this down the path from the chemtrail to where it might start and then look to see how unlikely it all is.

Planes
1. 1000s of planes everyday dumping chemicals. Must be airlines since that is the only thing that has that numbers
a. Is it in the fuel? Well chemicals burned in a jet engine would not survive.
b. Is it sprayed from secret tanks? There are no nozzles and there is no secret tanks in the planes unless 150,000 Boeing employees are all keeping a secret, as one example.

Infrastructure
1. Huge factories needed to make the stuff
a. huge storage
b. massive supplies needed
2. Large transportation system
3. Massive number of people "In the know"

Physical nature
1. Water makes clouds and is very light with H2O. That is basically 10 total electrons protons and neutrons to make one molecule of water. Very light and so clouds/water vapor float. If the chem trails were water vapor in the air condensed by the heated exhaust we would see floating trails. If it was chemicals with large atomic structures they would fall to earth, and so if visual, would look like rain.
2. Why dump them at 35,000 feet just to see parts per trillion happen? In Vietnam chemicals were sprayed close to the ground and fell like rain.
3. Would not a test of the air, water, plants, blood, etc. prove it all? There are 1000s of schools and independent labs that would love to prove this if it was real, unless they are all "In the know" too.

In the end we either have a massive system of 100,000s (millions?) of people involved all keeping a secret, we have a massive infrastructure all invisible and secret, and we have 1000s of secret planes, or we do not have chemtrails....

When we actually look at what it would take to turn all your contrails into chemtrails we have nothing but fluffy contrails as proof...hmmm what do you think they are?

Extrozero, you're trying too hard.
Take a rest.
We need new arguments, not the old ones, over and over again.
You need to change the formula.
Your formula of denial of the obvious is too similar to the 9-11 denial formula.

And anyway, it has already been revealed that "cloud seeding", (as they are now calling it, to soften the landing on the sheeples' ears), has recently been revealed in the mass media forums.
Chemtrails is real and happening in our skies.

Too late to deny!

a reply to: Starling

And anyway, it has already been revealed that "cloud seeding", (as they are now calling it, to soften the landing on the sheeples' ears), has recently been revealed in the mass media forums.

Cloud seeding has been general knowledge for decades and it has nothing to do with "chemtrails." Here is a thread about it from 2004.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is cloud seeding.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Starling

And anyway, it has already been revealed that "cloud seeding", (as they are now calling it, to soften the landing on the sheeples' ears), has recently been revealed in the mass media forums.

Cloud seeding has been general knowledge for decades and it has nothing to do with "chemtrails." Here is a thread about it from 2004.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is cloud seeding.

No Phage, you are misunderstanding me.
Just recently there was an article in the 'mass media' about 'cloud seeding', as they described it, on the Australian continent and was used to explain those cross-hatch patterns of smoke trails being painted in our skies, worldwide.
The act of disseminating 'chemtrails' was clearly described, as well as their consequences to change our weather.