What I think Of Chemtrails

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, but it doesn't answer the fact, that if there's so much fuss about contrails/chemtrails, why there wasn't a simple public statement, explaining the fact of increased contrailing in the skies due to upgraded engines.
To be clear, you state that the checkerboard skies I observe since 2000, are because of different kind of jet-engines?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Tyrion79

And what major change occurred around 2000 that would cause more persistent contrails to form?

Maybe this? High-bypass turbofan engines.

By the mid-1990s all old jets had been upgraded to the new engine configuration and all new planes coming off the assembly line were equipped with the most modern versions. But this new next generation of jet engines had one curious "side effect." They produced contrails that can persist for more than 24 to 36 hours! Condensation trails from first generation jet engines generally only lasted for about 10 or 20 minutes and then they disappeared. But these new "chemtrails" persist all day long – and with 35,000 commercial flights in the US air lanes each day, these new persistent contrails produce numerous crisscrossing, tic-tac-toe patterns all over the sky. So, why do the new contrails now last all day long?

The black oily spot from the first generation engines quickly absorbed the heat from the sun and caused the ice crystal balls to melt within several minutes. When the ice crystals melt, they disappear.

The new ultra-clean exhaust of the next generation jet has no black oil spots in the center of the contrail ice crystal balls. The heat and light from the sun pass right through the clear ice crystals of these next generation contrails as if they were transparent. They do not absorb any solar heat and thus do not melt. They may remain frozen and persist, looking like long thin high cirrus clouds for 24 to 36 hours before they simply disperse but do not melt and disappear.

"Chemtrails" theory then, is that "normal" jet aircraft contrails disappear in a few minutes, whereas "chemtrails" persist for hours, and therefore are not "normal" and must contain some covert element to make them persist. This, however, is based on ignorance of aviation technological advancement and a working knowledge of atmospheric physics – neither of which were the general public kept abreast of by the mainstream media or public education. Persistent jet contrails can be entirely explained by science without having to resort to a "conspiracy theory" scenario. They appear to be no more than the natural result of the introduction of the hi-bypass turbo fan, improved jet fuel

www.jerryesmith.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

And nobody here is denying contrails.

The difference is that contrails dissipate, whereas chemtrails are formed using grid patterns and they spread out to form clouds that remain for hours blocking the sun and making the sky look dirty.

a reply to: Tyrion79

Because there's really not a lot of fuss being made about it. It seems like there is, but there really isn't.

a reply to: Tyrion79

Yes, but it doesn't answer the fact, that if there's so much fuss about contrails/chemtrails, why there wasn't a simple public statement, explaining the fact of increased contrailing in the skies due to upgraded engines.

Its a fact that only a small portion of people in the conspiracy crowd take notice. The public at large don't take too much notice.

If they do, they get online and most likely fall for many of the wild speculative ideas put forth about chemtrails due to a lack of knowledge of how the atmosphere works and how planes are different from now to 20 years ago.


Most people have other things in life to worry about and don't take it too seriously.

originally posted by: Tyrion79

I was NOT born out of an egg, as we say here in Holland,

Ehh, you sort of were. You were an egg before you were a zygote.....

That bit of fun aside, what would be the purpose for all of this "spraying"? The only thing I ever see talked about is population control by the always mysterious PTB. Obviously, that's silly. Unless said PTB are those sneaky underground dwelling reptilians.

a reply to: raedar

Contrails have been doing that as long as planes have flown. They reported the first contrail spreading into a cloud in 1918.

a reply to: raedar

The difference is that contrails dissipate, whereas chemtrails are formed using grid patterns and they spread out to form clouds that remain for hours blocking the sun and making the sky look dirty.

So you have studies meteorology and know that contrails cant dissipate due to weather conditions at flight altitude?

How many times is line going to be repeated, it was one of first lies or misunderstandings told about chemtrails.

Yes contrail sure can linger and spread eventually covering large portions of the sky from ones perspective.

a reply to: stosh64

Exactly. They started flying on the 777 in the mid 90s and now are standard on all aircraft.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: raedar

The difference is that contrails dissipate, whereas chemtrails are formed using grid patterns and they spread out to form clouds that remain for hours blocking the sun and making the sky look dirty.

So you have studies meteorology and know that contrails cant dissipate due to weather conditions at flight altitude?

How many times is line going to be repeated, it was one of first lies or misunderstandings told about chemtrails.

Yes contrail sure can linger and spread eventually covering large portions of the sky from ones perspective.

Does questioning someone's education suffice as debate?

Does saying one has misunderstood prove a point?

Sure, contrails can linger. I"m not speaking of contrails.

I am speaking of chemtrails that are a direct result of Geoengineering.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: raedar

Contrails have been doing that as long as planes have flown. They reported the first contrail spreading into a cloud in 1918.

Once again, I am NOT saying contrails do not exist.

I am NOT saying some contrails do not linger.

a reply to: raedar

And how do you tell the difference? No one has ever tested a contrail and found anything unexpected in them. Every description of a chemtrail perfectly matches how a contrail behaves.

a reply to: raedar

And some do. That doesn't prove anything. The only way to prove chemtrails are real is to test multiple contrails from different places, which has never been done.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

a reply to: Zaphod58

Many soil samples and snow samples have been conducted and show increased barium and aluminum.

And they have admitted to Geoengineering, they just slipped it in like it was some "new" thing, what, like a year ago? NOT NEW.

a reply to: raedar

Does questioning someone's education suffice as debate?

suffice as debate?

You said contrail dissipate and its chemtrails that linger, hence why I asked if you know what your talking about or simply parroting a YouTube video like so many chemtrailers.

Does saying one has misunderstood prove a point?

It can when it comes to saying contrails don't linger and should dissipate quickly.

I used to think it was misunderstanding but seeing as its still used today even though it has been shown numerous times to be incorrect its just flat out lying by those that have been show that that line of reasoning is incorrect either lying to themselves or lying to further an agenda they have where they have something invested in people believing in the chemtrail conspiracy.

Sure, contrails can linger. I"m not speaking of contrails.

I am speaking of chemtrails that are a direct result of Geoengineering.

Aha

a reply to: raedar

Which proves absolutely nothing. Both are naturally occurring, and are used in multiple sources on the ground.

a reply to: raedar

They've admitted to studying it. I haven't seen anything admitting it's going on, other than a private entity doing an experiment.

Alrighty! To sum things up atm:
- Checkerboard skies is a modern thing, due to new jet-engines
- I don't have to worry, because it's just progress of civilisation
- If I do want to get a tan in the future, I'd have to go to some place inaccessible by planes
- Dare not say, that it used to be different in the past, because you're eyes are seeing things differently

v] Check

Thanks guys!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: raedar

Which proves absolutely nothing. Both are naturally occurring, and are used in multiple sources on the ground.

So, soil samples would have to be taken to prove it. It has been done. But it proves nothing.

Got it.