Whatever they are, they are not normal cloud formations

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: network dude

ultra fine particles. Can you point to where it said "nano particles" ?

And when you resort to claiming anyone is paid to disagree with you, it only shows that you are a complete and total idiot. You are not mentally equipped for the discussion at hand. It's time to leave, educate and come back when you can talk with the adults. (call it a pet peave)

What do you think ultrafine particles are?

Nanoparticles are particles between 1 and 100 nanometers in size. In nanotechnology, a particle is defined as a small object that behaves as a whole unit with respect to its transport and properties. Particles are further classified according to diameter.[1] Ultrafine particles are the same as nanoparticles and between 1 and 100 nanometers in size, fine particles are sized between 100 and 2,500 nanometers, and coarse particles cover a range between 2,500 and 10,000 nanometers.

Encouraging me to educate myself...lol. Ignorance and arrogance, sums up your behaviour pretty well, of a brainwashed adult.

Insulting me, where are the admins now? Like I said, double stadards for everyone to see. And a information flow control comes when this comment gets a snippet for no reason aka manners violation. What a load of crap.

I`m leaving anyway...

Yes you are leaving, you said that.

Nano particles, you suggested that they are man made and nefarious. then use the term ultra fine to manipulate your theory into making sense. It just doesn't work like that. If they meant nano particles, they would have said nano particles. they didn't. You are reaching. it's obvious.

And about the rest, read it again, and see if it's personal, or generic. If you feel it's personal and directed at you alone, please use the alert button. let a moderator know what you feel about the post and let them do their job. It's how this all works. If they feel I did something wrong, the post will be deleted and I will be dealt with accordingly.

But seeing as how saying that someone is a shill is against the T&C, I'd suggest you think hard about it.

a reply to: network dude

I am actually not claiming one thing or the other. I don't care if it is a chem-trail. Contrails seem to fit the bill just fine.

Why have they becomes so dramatic? Sky milking clouds that eat the blue. Stationary bands as clouds race by.

For some reason 'it' is taking place. It may be shear numbers.

I do not like anything 'terra-forming' and then dismissed in flippant manners.

And, is it not simply easy enough to speculate? However, we are not allowed formulation... other than that which has been agreed on the status quo, the royal we, the imperial science.

Yet, we as people have been 'preached' the truth so many times only to have found them to have been so wrong so many times.

The stock answer.

It's contrails.

Is not good enough for now. They behave, different.

a reply to: network dude

Nano particles, you suggested that they are man made and nefarious. then use the term ultra fine to manipulate your theory into making sense. It just doesn't work like that. If they meant nano particles, they would have said nano particles. they didn't. You are reaching. it's obvious.

What`s obvious is that you don`t have a clue how to get out of the mess you have gotten yourself into. So according to you, a car and an automobile mean different things? You have just proved further that you are brainwashed and need to have answers served on a plate or it doesn`t make any sense to you. Typical.

And about the rest, read it again, and see if it's personal, or generic. If you feel it's personal and directed at you alone, please use the alert button. let a moderator know what you feel about the post and let them do their job. It's how this all works. If they feel I did something wrong, the post will be deleted and I will be dealt with accordingly.

About the rest, you are not making any sense whatsoever....

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude

I am actually not claiming one thing or the other. I don't care if it is a chem-trail. Contrails seem to fit the bill just fine.

Why have they becomes so dramatic? Sky milking clouds that eat the blue. Stationary bands as clouds race by.

For some reason 'it' is taking place. It may be shear numbers.

I do not like anything 'terra-forming' and then dismissed in flippant manners.

And, is it not simply easy enough to speculate? However, we are not allowed formulation... other than that which has been agreed on the status quo, the royal we, the imperial science.

Yet, we as people have been 'preached' the truth so many times only to have found them to have been so wrong so many times.

The stock answer.

It's contrails.

Is not good enough for now. They behave, different.

The sheer number of planes in the sky easily answers why there are so many contrails. It's changed so much from when we were all young and laid on the grass looking at clouds. It's something that those who adamantly push the chemtrail theory seem to miss. How could there not be a sky full of trails if the conditions were right?

Of course anything is 'possible', but the stock, standard boring answer seems to fit the narrative quite well. But the good news is, nobody is ignoring it. The effect contrails have on us is being studied.

lol, so you think these particles never reach the surface? No rain at your place? Weird. It might not be inefficient, if you want to spray everywhere.

Well just consider this:

At what altitude do airliners cruise?

At what altitude do rainclouds/rain form?

If you look it up, you'll notice that in general rainclouds form at a much lower altitude. Airliner cruise at 30.000 ft and higher, where no rainclouds are found.

So no, particles sprayed at cruise altitude don't nescessarily get rained down. They can float around indefinately, depending on whatever currents they happen to be in.

In fact, if you look up the Porton Down experiments, you'll find that even spraying from LOW altitude planes (as in tens of feet) resulted in less predictable outcomes, so they concluded that spraying from ships and land-based spraying devices was more efficient if you want to affect the population. Now imagine how inefficient spraying from cruise altitude is compared to low altitude. You'll juyst be putting a bunch of stuff in the air, and 99,999 percent will never be effective if your aim is to have the stuff do something to people. Quite the way to inflate your budget too.. just spray EVERYWHERE in the hopes that somehow it will one day come down and stick to someone in enough quantities to accomplish the intended goal.

It's so typical for chemtrail believers to come up with this silly stuff. Ever wonder why no-one ever takes you guys seriously? Try and think things through a bit before you come here and make silly claims.

Anyway.. i'm still not entirely clear on a few things.. maybe I missed it, but I hope you can provide a few quick answers here, just to refocus our efforts:

1: What is being sprayed?
2: Who is spraying it?
3: What is the effect supposed to be?
4: How are they spraying it? (are commercial airliners being used, or is it a military operation? something else?)
5: What is the evidence for all of this?

It'd be nice if you could provide some concrete evidence. I can come up with a bunch of conjecture myself, and that way I can seemingly rationalize all sorts of flights of fancy, but let's try to avoid that. Let's stick with tangible evidence, if at all possible.

Good luck

a reply to: Newt22

Do you think that a Boeing 777 or Airbus A380 are using the same engines that the 767 and A340 were using when they entered service in the 80s? Engine technology has gotten far more advanced in 20 years, and are leaving contrails at lower altitudes than they were then. Combine that with staggering numbers of aircraft flying now, and you have more contrails being left than at any point in history. There were 895 million passengers flying in the US alone last year.

originally posted by: Newt22


That seems likely because the target is always moving.

Chemmies are the ones that keep moving the goalposts, but let's have a look at what you're saying;

I have lurked this subject quite awhile. I have seen people come out saying

"Prove it, let me see it.." so the videos came out.

Some criss-crossed tic tac toe looking skies.

Why do you feel that these "tic-tac-toe" patterns should be acceptable as proof of chemtrails? They certainly prove that aircraft have crossed paths, but then all aircraft kind of have to cross paths with many others, given that flights can travel in any direction. What can these videos possibly show about *what* is coming out of the planes?

Next it was

"I want samples..."

Samples were taken on cars right after low hanging product was filmed - still not good enough.

"Where did the samples on the car dust come from... certainly not the sky..."

Even though the people filmed it and took samples. NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

What low hanging product are you talking about? Contrails generally do not exist below about six miles altitude so do you mean fog and mist? Also, it's a pretty basic concept of proof that the sample should come directly from the object under study, not miles away. How about if you were convicted of a murder because your DNA was found six miles away from the scene of the crime? You seem pretty lax on what you find acceptable.

Then, we hear arguments of. "You know how big that plane would be?"

All the while it is obvious it would be as big as a plane, because, look how it is ALREADY leaving all the benevolent 'things' behind regardless of its make up - exhaust is exhaust and adds no more to the plane then the plane was already designed to accommodate.

Simple point here. Burning 1 tonne of fuel CREATES 1.25 tonnes of water. In addition to that there is the ambient water that is present in the air. This air is saturated to 100% RHI if the trail persists and spreads. This is all water that is NOT actually carried by the plane and which forms the contrail. If the chemtrail were something sprayed by the plane and not water ice, then it would need to be carried by the plane. Quick maths based on the water content of a cloud, extrapolated to calculate the volume of a contrail quickly shows this to be impossible. Unless you know nothing about maths, clouds or planes and just think they are spraying.

The U.S. government banned Lead in gas because of accumulation in soil samples on road-ways, and, we were not talking a lot - primarily for lubricant in the combustion chamber - but I digress. So, the big aircraft needed for tons o'chemicals is kind of facetious - I guess it would be as big as a firefighter tanker.

You're gonna need to explain the relevance there, the beginning and end of that passage seem unconnected to each other.

Which brings us to the old...

"No way can they cover that much ground blah blah blah."

But, they can. They do. Naturally, through combustibles - before or after the chamber - both are patented. Again, I will point back to the Lead Ban and the lowly auto. Enough toxins released to actually ban. The cars 'putted' that poison in minutia compared to the MASSIVE fuel and exhaust flow a jet engine requires.

'Combustibles before or after the chamber' means what? In terms of cars putting out negligible amounts. How many millions of cars are there? And are they six miles high or at the same level as you, spewing right into the air you breathe? Hmmm?

Let's look at those Fire Tankers. They actually put out huge fires with them. Saturate the area with that Red Fire Retardant. So, instead of a ton of chemicals released every foot, how about a teaspoon. Dusted, spread by exhaust. Super nucleic actuators, not a lowly rain drop, but, metal dust. Aluminum. Barium.

What will the proof required be next. A baggy held in the jet wash?

Good point. Fire tankers are exhausted in seconds, their load disbursed in less than a mile. If chemtrails hundreds of miles long were to be spread in tiny amounts, a teaspoon you suggest, how do you explain the thick visible clouds behind the aircraft? Those thick trails by an aircraft that looks like a pinprick ahead of it? If the planes wingspan is 150ft (perfectly average), the trail being left would be something like 600ft across or more and is thick enough to be fully visible to the naked eye from six miles below. A teaspoon of dust spread by the exhaust? Please explain that utterly bizarre suggestion. How can anything OTHER than water in the air and produced by combustion create a trail like that?

a reply to: awareness10

Well to name a few reasons why you should would be because you claimed something is fact, this is a discussion forum, I asked, I asked nicely, you should have no issue posting studies that back your point (unless such studies don't exist), and I believe deep down you do care about the truth/aren't an ideologue.

a reply to: waynos

Hold On... Wait a minute here... "Who just saw some t&#@ties?" "Raise your hand if you just saw some t^%^&$ties?" "Ok, then ya all just need to chill a bit."

I am not saying one thing or another on chem-trails, or contrails...

I am talking about your moving 'goalpost'... that's it, and, how the attack is the same rhetoric every time.

And your evidence that anyone is wrong.... is that contrails do exist?.?...

I agree they do.

However, these persistent, strange buggers are fishy.

So I might as well ask you why then. You feel they are just Contrails? That nothing is ever dispersed by plane/jet? It is all water? Then state it and let the other people wag chin on there speculations.

Your ideas of how ambient air and moisture somehow deny the other person whom is saying it may be something different,is just as evasive, on a different angle. If it is not a contrail in the first place, then using a contrail makeup does not make sense in comparison.

Yes, I know contrails exist... Still doesn't answer why it is just flat out 'weird' behavior for a cloud, line, fluffy nothing.

Actually - I can not even prove a CONTRAIL by your arguments to you. It's just that you signed off on Contrails and how they work. Fine. I don't care what altitude a contrail forms at. I am not convinced they are Contrails so why would a contrail prove anything.

But it does not stop the 'weirdness' of it all. These things behavior is very different. Which is why people are bringing it up. They are not stupid. They never wanted rounds and rounds of soft ridicule. They want to know why it is doing now, what it is doing now... and Contrails is what they get.

I have lived in a city edge, most of my life... this is important because I live where they stack planes.

We watched them all the time.. We loved contrails... they seemed magical then. The contrails of 1994 and before always behaved like, well, contrails... High, way up there. Singular... in most cases they didn't fluff out the sky - they did get big, and the existence bigness made us watched them more.

They never stayed all day.

They never had another plane go threw the trail while not leaving it's own... I saw that happen this year and it freaked me out.

I always thought chem-trailers really drank the kool-aid. Now, I am having a hard time explaining away the creeping bugs.

I would like a discussion, without all the vitriol... but that seems impossible, as even speculating seems to cause people to melt down a little.

Also, I live by a place where flights pretty much route a certain way for that period of time. I know this because I have been here so long, and, know people that know why are flights overhead are the way they are... So we always watch them. It is classified so we always sort of chuckle.

Anyway hope you get that point - my overhead flights are routed. We watch the skies here - I guess it is a little weird.

In 1997 and before... Never cross-hatched patterns. And I am sure a Contrail can cross hatch.

See it shouldn't even take place over my houses air. Because the reason contrails cross-hatch, would not be allowed here.... They fly between Upside down Wedding Cakes here... the higher the further you have to be. Windershins, never crossing. Or you are not allowed in the 'other' air space. Classified.

I have some very specific routes overhead and the consistent contrails, chem what evers don't follow the other 90% of flights.

I don't know what chemicals they are made of, my eyes do not do chemical analysis. I didn't even mention chemicals like Aluminum Dust.

But some of these things are acting weird. Even stuff people don't say. Like rainbow edges in a lot cases But then you realize the sun is at an odd angle to make a rainbow. Then you wonder why light is going through that medium, not at 22 degrees, is causing a refraction? Which is when water turns refractory. Then 'what' needs to be reflected on, because water is not supposed to do that.

Just how persistent is persistent? On windy days the chem/con/whatever stay all day now milking up the sky. Why milk up the sky so much?

Is it normal jet wash? It was just never like this... One contrail whiting out everything. Then what is it doing up there?

And every time someone asks, we get Contrails.

Fine, but then the over-blow.

The examples of how inefficient it would be. When we know our very American government has sprayed the public... it has been disclosed. We also know the technology is sound. To use Airplanes to introduce 'whatever' aluminum chafe for communication purposes and military, sometime for weather watching. We seed clouds, fly through clouds with sensors wide open. We have products that can be introduced through fuel sources, or after the fuel is burned using the thrust to push product out - in Airplanes - already. Sometimes the burn process the products out into a more vapor like consistency. In just normal, non nefarious applications.

But the deniers never say... Seeder, or weather release, or military exercise communication enhancement.

It is always Contrails, then... you're dumb - and the same examples why. Contrails. And you shut down the other guy, shut down the conversation.

Wayno - I know tankers dump a lot. I never said the product people are wondering about was that. Nor would I believe it needs that kind of saturation. Nor does it ever look like a tanker. I brought up tankers for the reason that they are USED, even though they are small in comparison, to the blazes they fight. Plus, do have an effect, or they would not be used. There is a precedent to use air to disperse chemical... that's it.

Ok, I am going to mow my lawn.

a reply to: Newt22

From Jan 1997 to December 1997 there were 7, 744, 214 total passenger flights. All flew a set jetway on their routes, so had fairly predictable flight paths. From Jan 2015 to December 2015, there were 9, 074, 686 total passenger flights. Those flew the quickest, most efficient route to get to where they were going, which included just a straight line flight instead of following set jetways, as they had in the past.

Those aircraft also use much more fuel efficient engines, with a much higher bypass ratio which means they leave contrails where previous engines didn't.

A340 using high bypass turbofans flying next to a 707 using low bypass turbofans:



As for fire fighting aircraft, the current largest aircraft used for fire fighting is a 747-400 that just got certified to fight them. It's capable of carrying 19,600 gallons of retardant/water. The system is designed to dump that rapidly as they fly, not trickle it out. They can do multiple drops, but it's all going to come out fast, not leave a trail behind them.

As for them being contrails, persistent contrails are a well documented phenomenon going back to the early 1900s, around WWI. What we see act like persistent contrails, form exactly when consistent contrails would form, and meet every criteria for persistent contrails. Why would you then say they're not? That's like saying you saw a fish swimming, it was in water, exactly where predicted, so it must be a duck.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Again... another to trot out a point. Contrails. Even a picture of what looks like 2 jets and their special foils.

Fine, yes, it makes a contrail.

I am not saying the weird ones the OP saw, or the weird ones I have witnessed are contrails, you buying off that they are contrails is NOT enough nor should it shut this down.

Why are they SO persistent. One Line, all day... did the 191# Contrail study go into that, or did it just hang around a little longer then the others... Those used to be the persistent ones, the long ones. Now we have all day activity... that is not right.

I don't care if there were contrails found in 191# that are persistent - what was it's time length?

How persistent were they because these ones are LONG ball...Start in A.M., stay, growing whiter and denser. That is some pretty amazing energy from jet-wash.

But you keep stuffing that argument down a throat.

Oh and thanks for the other point made... the passive aggressive slap back with the fish/duck comment...

Ok.. those fish, that duck. Close your mind to every OTHER thing in or of the water.

I brought up specific flight requirements that do not matter as to numbers, just direction, but nothing is mentioned.

I brought up refraction, from a so called 'water source' but there was no way we had a 22 degree Sun to Vapor angle, yet, Contrails again.... And that is NOT possible unless the contrail has another chemical in it besides water.

Water vapor.

I am going to stop now... We know. Contrails. But I'll reply later... just be cool people. ..Like Admire the Distance and Network Dude.

Screw it, no one is interested in anything but being right. There's no point in trying.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You know what... You're right. Let me go back over your replies again. Sorry about my bad vibe your way. And also to be fair, you have been and have many right points. Everything is what you say it is, but, is it all the time?

a reply to: Phage

For me. They are. But not all the time which is maddening.

I, like many, am in the Tech Field and there is one really knarly point that overlaps this from my work... A totally broke problem on a network is almost better then a problem that sometimes works.

It is what I seen, and my memory.

and it all so damnable.

a reply to: Newt22

The chemtrail theory in a nutshell. Those trails just look weird and I refuse to believe any explanation that doesn't confirm my beliefs. To reinforce that I'll also make stuff up to make the trails sound weirder.

News flash: The weirdness is all in your head.

a reply to: Newt22



No need to be defensive, sorry if my reply came across as an attack on you. I did specifically keep my responses aimed at the points you raised, as they should be, rather than yourself. Maybe, with almost half a century around aviation behind me I forget that the bleeding obvious to me, isn't necessarily obvious to everyone else. The reason I broke your post down into the individual points like that was to keep that focus. As I have again.

The goalposts have never moved on this side of the debate. Something is not proof or evidence if it is too vague or too far removed to support the claim it's being presented for. That's what I was trying to show in my last reply. Likewise when pictures are faked or claimed to show something they don't (such as the ridiculous "chemtrail plane interior" photos) they aren't evidence of anything except that chemtrail promoters lie.

And your evidence that anyone is wrong.... is that contrails do exist?.?...

I agree they do.

However, these persistent, strange buggers are fishy.

No, my position that people are wrong about chemtrails is based on my experience that every time anyone has pointed them out, they are NO different to contrails I've seen and photographed many times as an aviation photographer and the only reason they are being called chemtrails is because that person thinks they are different to their own idea of what they perceive a contrail to be. Like your own last sentence there, for example. Why are they fishy? Only you can say what you saw, so what is your perception of a contrail and what you expect from it, and why is this one different from that? I think that may be a good place to start a discussion, if we can.

I know things are dispersed by planes. Fire retardant, insecticide, oil spill chemicals, cloud seeding etc etc. But the white lines in the sky that people call chemtrails have never ever been demonstrated to be anything other than contrails. People just say they are chemtrails because they've read the bull on the Internet and run with it. I don't do that. An agenda led website telling me to fear chemtrails is not sufficient reason to believe they are right. This especially applies to websites and sources repeatedly caught flat out lying (stand up geoengineetingwatch, What In The World Are They Spraying, Rense etc).

If it's not a contrail, why is it not a contrail? What does it do that a contrail does not? So far, people can only point to persistence and spreading. This shows a basic lack of understanding of the phenomena anyway. This lack of understanding is what allows chemtrail fear to take hold in the first place. Let me put a point to you and then ask you a question. It is a known and proven fact that when a contrail spreads out it does so by triggering nucleation of ice crystals in highly saturated air, using the water that is already present and resulting in a layer of cloud. So, if that is unbelievable to you, how can that effect be created by a chemical reproducing itself endlessly so it can spread out without becoming invisible through dispersal?

Why is water freezing a less credible explanation for something that has happened every day for a century (and naturally forever) than a magical self replicating secret chemical?

I genuinely don't know why you think contrails never persisted and milked out the sky as you put it before 1997. I sincerely hope it's not just something you read online. But I know for an absolute and provable fact that they did. I do know however that the massive growth in air traffic and the general switch from older, more polluting engine types to modern turbofans with high bypass ratios HAS seen a genuinely big increase in the amount of contrails being generated. Whether that in itself represents a problem is already a matter of debate, but they are still contrails.

To my eyes, chemtrail theory DEMANDS you either believe in impossibly big and complex scenarios or ignore them altogether. That's why if you talk to any genuine aviation professional, you'll see that they regard chemtrail theory as being on a level with flat earthers and just too ridiculous to take seriously at all.

a reply to: Newt22


Something else to consider, because you remarked How trails and clouds look weird these days.

Does this picture look weird to you? If it does, could it be that water vapour in the air can behave in ways you don't fully understand? Or is this a chemtrail too?

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

Funny how you discuss someone being in a mess they can't get out of when everyone of your replies has tried to move the goalposts...unsuccessfully I might add.

It's amazing to say the least.

a reply to: Op3nM1nd3d

As I said before the Case Orange BS is just that BS and has been discussed many times right here at ATS...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I should also ask if you have read so called smoking gun you think that report is, because if not you should as I have when it first got discussed here many years ago...and guess what it has nothing that proves chemtrails exist, but feel free to provide where that so called smoking gun does.

Again just tossing out things such as that without actual knowledge of the paper shows you have no clue as to what your talking about.

What's next...

Kucinich and his silly bill that he didn't even write.

Owning the weather 2025 by the AF.

You only have so much BS that you can present that shows nothing and proves even less.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Newt22
a reply to: network dude

DELETED POST BY ME

edit on 29-6-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-6-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)