Chemtrails: Debunking the Peristent Contrail myth

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Most chemtrails are no doubt for Weather Modification such as the seeding of rain clouds.

Persistent contrails /chemtrails - ie manmade cirrus clouds - occur at too high an altitude for cloud seeding (weather modification as it's technically known) - particles for cloud seeding need to be sprayed at the lower altitude at which rain clouds form. 6,000ft rather than 30,000ft

Cirrus does not produce rain (although occasionally you may see virga fall from it)

The only effect that persistent contrails have is daytime cooling / nighttime warming (net effect is a slight warming according to current studies) - if weather moodification is the aim then all it's doing is causing global warming ....

Incidently, peristent contrails frequently occur ahead of an approaching frontal system. Not necessarily an active one though, especially over continental areas. So they may precede rain, or may precede a period when predicted rain fails to arrive. They do occur at other times, of course, especially during colder weather. But for centuries sailors have used the appearance of high level clouds as an indicator of a front approaching - nowadays they look at aircraft contrails .... (try if you ever spend a few weeks sailing out in the Atlantic )

you asked for your points to be addressed - so here goes

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.
The very deliberate MOVEMENTS of these particular jets.

what is a deliberate movement - and how do you deternmine which is deliberate and which is not ?

please show me an example of a non deliberate jet movement

1- They take no known flight paths. That is, they do NOT follow normal air traffic routes.

please demonstrate the basis for this claim

i) what database are you using to determine what are ` normal air traffic routes `

ii) please show evidence of aircraft deviating from those routes

2- It is NEVER a single jet. Or even two. Or even three. This occurs ONLY with tens of aircraft, I counted no less than 11 in a very short span of time the other night, (20 -30 minutes) and missed many others since it was obvious they had recently left trails.

if the contidions for contrail formation exist in a certain section of airspace , then EVERY aircraft that flies through that area will leave a contrail

also contrail formation persistance is very altitude sensetive - a jet flying just 3 thousand feet above another can have very different contrail charateristics

3- The odd flight patterns that are obviously connected by always less than 10-15 degrees. If it were a normal flight path, then the same route would be flown, every time.

those are flight corridors - all aircraft on a given course fly

also aircraft are required to maintain a seperation distance - a certain number of thousand feet both vertical and horizontal from other aircraft

this is to avoid collisions and avoud aircraft being affected by turbulance from others

4- Each new jet usually lays down a trail that is about normally about 5-7 degrees from the previous one, suggesting that that the new pilot is well aware of where the previous pliot had just flown.

see above

5- In no instance have I EVER observed these very striking flight operations, with multiple jets emitting a NORMAL contrail *. In other words, every single instance of these peculiar flight patterns ARE accompanied by the mysterious "ever expanding contrail".
EVERY single instance.

so you are simply ignoring any evidence that does not fit your belief - thats very dishonest

Show me a paper on non-standard flight patterns as described above, instead.

what makes a flight pattern " none standard " - show me that you are aware of all airfraffic patterns and how you judge which is standard and which is not

* Even tho I have witenessed single jets at similar elevations AT THE SAME TIME as these operations emitting normal contrails, on many occaisions.

the key word is " similar " how do you determine relative altutude ? i really want to know - because its very hard to make accurate altitude readings from the ground without training and equipment

conditions for contrail formation are altitude sensetive - a jet at one altitude will experience different conditions to one flying 5k feet below it

why is that so hard to grasp ?

just look at clouds - ever noticed how different types - which rewure different temperature , humidity and pressure can exist at different altutudes in close proximity , sometimes even appearing to be " stacked "

[edit on 22-10-2007 by ignorant_ape]

reply to post by Essan


bloody good post

the only thing i can add is that :

both contrails and clouds are condensate formations - thier formation - apperance and persistance is determined by :

humidity
temperature
atmospheric pressure

all three charteristics vary with altitude and location

chemtrail proponents accept that different clouds form at different altutudes at different times and have variable persistance and apperance

why is the fact that contrails have variable persistance , formation and apperance at different altitudes and locations soo bloody hard to grasp ?

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I am seeking a sample of the colored fuel, not a chemtrail. A sample from a plane or a tanker will do nicely.

I fueled commercial airliners for a number of years, and the fuel is the same clear to slightly yellow, as all other fuels. There was no colored fuel on jets as of 2000-2001, and believe me because I have gone home covered in the stuff right down to it being in my boots.

Now Skydrol is a nasty pinkish/purple color that could be taken for red. In addition, there is a type of red grease that I have seen in the wheel wells (MOBIL28-5 RED GREASE MIL-G-81322), but that is the only reddish fluid I’ve ever seen on an aircraft.

Other then that you have Oil, which looks like normal oil, Lavfluid which is the run of the mill blue water in the toilet, and potable water.

Those are the only liquids put onto a normal jet aircraft…

If you are looking for Red Fuel, this is what I found out on red dye being added to fuel:

What fuels must be dyed and/or marked in some way?
Non-road (e.g. agriculture and construction equipment) diesel must contain a red dye to identify spills and leaks. Beginning June 1, 2006, non-road diesel is not required to contain red dye when it leaves the refinery gate and may be dyed at the distribution terminal. On-road diesel fuel must not contain this red dye.
Home Heating Oil must contain the marker Solvent Yellow 124. Because the marker is not visible, any marked heating oil must also contain a visible trace of red dye. All on-road and non-road diesel must be marker free.

Fuel dyes are dyes added to fuels, as in some countries it is required by law to dye a low-tax fuel to deter its use in applications intended for higher-taxed ones. Untaxed fuels are referred to as "dyed", while taxed ones are called "clear".
For example, in United Kingdom the "red diesel", gas oil for heating, is significantly cheaper than heavier-taxed diesel fuel, but it is a different fraction, containing more sulfur. Using it in diesel engines is therefore damaging both to the environment and to the tax collectors, therefore the authorities want it deterred; addition of a dye is one of the methods.
Aviation gasoline is also dyed, both for tax reasons (avgas is typically taxed to support aviation infrastructure) as well as safety -- there being obvious and disastrous consequences of fuelling an aircraft with the wrong kind of fuel.

As you can see here there is still no red-dye used in the JP’s as they fall into Codes 52 to 58, dyed codes are 80 to 88.

Now Av-gas is not the same thing as Jet Fuel, Av-gas is aviation gasoline, jet fuel (JP-4, JP-5, JP-8, etc) is kerosene/diesel. Av-gas is only used in certain piston type engines, not in modern turbines.

Point is, if your looking for red fuel, your looking for the wrong type of fuel.

If you want a sample from an airline, see if you can get a maintenance department to give you some sumped fuel. Sumping is when we would take a special tool, attach it to the wing tanks, and pee off about a gallon or so to clear the condensation water from the tanks. Its nasty, and highly contaminated with water and possible bacteria/fungus, but it is the correct type of fuel. You would have to account for that in your testing, and only sample from the bottom of the sample you were given, where there is more gas and less crap. When you let the sample settle the water/sludge will settle to the top and the fuel to the bottom, same as it does in the wing.

Your other option is to get some from a local private airport, its going to run you about 2 or 3 bucks more a gallon then regular gas. Make sure to bring your own container though, and be prepared to wait until they have to fuel something else. I know that I would have been ticked off if I had to rig up a truck to pump out a gallon of gas, and would have stood a good chance of telling someone to get lost. Also don’t tell them your planning on testing it, they may take you from someone that is investigating their fuel being contaminated, which is a big deal to them. Tell them you need it for a research project or an experiment or something, so your not directly telling them your going to test it, but not really lying either.

Either way its all a waste of time/money as your not going to find anything anyways. The specific weight and pressure density of the fuel is well known for fueling purposes and it would be widely know if that changed.

[edit on 10/22/2007 by defcon5]

Red dye is used in jet fuels as a fuel leak detector at the engine test cell. However not all testing facilities use the dye. I have worked at different facilities and of the four, two did and two did not.

The dye is not added to the fuel used to service aircraft but only for testing of the engine while on the cell and test cells fuel tanks only. Then only if the facility uses it (not required).

As stated in another post, avgas gets dye JP does not. On another note, 110 low lead is blue.

Nice thread Essan

Just to throw in my two pennies .....

Unless you have a laser rangefinder (which you couldn't use because painting planes with lasers is illegal, and fairly stupid), or a properly calibrated radar set, preferably with a second station to corroborate the findings it is nigh on impossible to figure out the altitude of an aircraft beyond a normal frame of reference such as a known landmark, and even then you would only really know if the aircraft is passing directly infront of it.

You can estimate it in your own mind, but you may be suprised to know that you are off by a considerable margin. The reason for this is because there is no frame of reference in the sky, and your eyes therefore have difficulty perceiving the "depth" at distance.

30,000ft is 5.68 miles. The angle of observation from the ground means that a plane travelling at 25,000ft and one at 30,000ft will appear almost identical in size, even though they are seperated from each other by nearly a mile,

In atmospheric terms thats enough distance to incorporate a thermal inversion and a change in temperature of half a degree, maybe more, which then could have the effect of one jet producing a trail while another doesn't, or one producing a more persistent trail and the other one dispersing faster.

Civil aircraft flight patterns, whilst usually sticking to certain "tracks" may also vary if conditions are les favourable, and in and around airports there are stack patterns and hand off zones for various controllers to ensure that the planes either get up into the air or land safely.

Military patterns are different, planes often fly in formations if they are heading in the same direction for combat practice purposes (long range combat air patrols, locating and forming onto tankers, escorts into hostile zones etc).

Military planes also have slightly more powerful engines, and fighters have afterburners which up the temperature at their exhausts. Military pilots will kick in the burners from time to time to form up if need be, and sometimes they will dump fuel, all of which can contribute to the formation of temporary trails.

I think alot of chemtrail "theory" is ignorance of stuff like this. Its not a simple subject at all.

People assume that the air above them is the same as it is at ground level - its not. The atmosphere is more like a series of layers - its fluidic, it gets colder as you get higher and pressure changes. Also, From what I've seen of the "chemtrail" proponents most of them have little or no knowledge of aircraft, aviation procedures and operations.

A little knowledge is, as they say, a dangerous thing.

(On a side note, for SR71 and F-117 operations Lockheed developed a fuel additive it called "Panther Piss" which stopped contrail formation in order to make their planes even harder to spot. If you were dumping chemicals into the atmosphere, and you didn't want anyone to know about it, the same could be done, so maybe a chemtrail proponent could explain why it isn't? )

[edit on 22/1007/07 by neformore]

[edit on 22/1007/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by Essan
There are numerous threads about chemtrails on ATS - and none of them ever seem to go anywhere - just the same out arguments repeated ad nauseum.

And that is the case for the vast majority of threads where the consensus is questioned and the 'debunkers' are left alone for just a little while!

Perhaps it's time we tried a different approach?

It's surprising that you wish to 'settle' the issue when your still ignoring ( maybe they are somehow invisible to you? ) entire posts made by myself and others?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The above post by myself certainly contains contestable claims so why don't you do what you do and 'educate' me accordingly? A lay person such as myself MUST be making copious amounts of errors yet conversations with the consensus people tend to descend into my posts getting completely ignored and them carrying on as if i don't even exist!

There is a well known and well documented explanation for the phenomena which some people claim to be chemtrails: they are persistent contrails formed by well understood atmospheric processes by perfectly normal aircraft.

A few no less official quotes from that earlier link of mine:

One unique type of cloud is manmade. Contrails occur when exhaust from jet engines condenses. A narrow line of moisture makes up the contrail. Winds eventually dissipate it; in some instances conditions permit the contrail to survive for many minutes (their straight lines do distort). Contrails are believed to affect weather by raising both short and long-term temperatures (one estimate is for about a third of a degree per decade). Here is a MODIS image taken over the southeast U.S. on January 29, 2004 showing a large number of contrails (at times more than 2000 planes are over the North American continent at any one time):

rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The condensation trails (contrails) that form in the wake of high-flying jets are another interesting example. These cylindrical clouds have variable lifetimes and water concentrations depending on environmental conditions. In some cases the contrails can persist for many minutes. But they do slowly diffuse, much like the smoke plume emitted by an acrobatic aircraft

www.sciam.com...

Isn't it a grand understatement to measure these supposed day long contrails ( as they admit they can span a day or more given 'proper' conditions) in minutes? Isn't 720 or more minutes rather more than the common use of the word 'many'? Have they simply forgotten to change some of the literature or are the thousands of Americans ( and one letter to a representative normally constitutes the 'opinion' of 250 or so people) and Europeans that have written to their representatives just too young to remember these long lasting contrails?

So, perhaps, in order to prove chemtrails exist, we can debunk this theory? That would then finally pave the way for us to debate what else they might be. Let's see if we can prove that the 'chemtrail/persistent contrail' phenomena is new and cannot be explained by normal atmospheric processes etc

According to the sources i have posted in the past we can't even properly predict contrail formation so lets not pretend the atmospheric processes is well understood in relation to all weather and like phenomenon.

So come on you you chemtrailers - here's your chance to prove us meteorologists and aviation experts wrong.

I think i would run head first into a wall that try 'prove' you wrong as i have not met many, and certainly not frequently, experts that admits mistakes of any scale. This seems to he a global phenomenon as well:

Overall, technical reviewers are hard-pressed to detect every anomaly. On average, researchers submit about 12,000 papers annually just to the weekly peer-reviewed journal Science. Last year, four papers in Science were retracted. A dozen others were corrected.

No one actually knows how many incorrect research reports remain unchallenged.

Earlier this year, informatics expert Murat Cokol and his colleagues at Columbia University sorted through 9.4 million research papers at the U.S. National Library of Medicine published from 1950 through 2004 in 4,000 journals. By raw count, just 596 had been formally retracted, Dr. Cokol reported.

"The correction isn't the ultimate truth either," Prof. Kevles said.

online.wsj.com...

The reason why a given person can refer to himself as a 'expert' is because his never wrong and thus never has his credibility questioned by anything by scientific 'cooks' ( which is what you are called no matter how many degrees and former standing when you question the consensus publicly) and lay people who make the grand and STUPID mistake of allowing their credibility to be questioned by actually admitting to their mistakes. What i should i fact start doing is to just never admit to making mistakes thus becoming a bonified 'expert'.

That's why i am unlikely to ever be called a 'expert' at anything.

Lets' start by looking at a few well known papers and reports. Let's see if we can debunk any or all of them

And as you may have been able to observe from the earlier report the peer review process is either perfect ( which has grand implications considering the ' junk' that so called 'pseudoscientist' have published) or does not mean much at all given the low number of retractions/corrections.

Can we prove that these studies are wrong?

I think i will for now ignore your sources as dilligently as you did mine but more generally i don't see why it's expected that 'chemtrailers' should deny normal contrails entirely to 'support' their contention that day long contrails are by no means natural. I have supplied plenty of source material that indicates just how unlikely very long lasting contrails ( more than a few minutes) should be and how these long lasting contrails do not seem to be forming in atmospheric conditions that are by any means uncommon.

If so we can say that the normal explanation for 'chemtrails' is flawed and that the various conspiracy theories might be worth reassessing

But your a expert so don't be a tease, while running away at the first signs of interest, and pretend that your open minded enough to risk your credibility and standing by seriously looking at this issue! I can't imagine why i , in a similarly invested situation, risk my career and standing by even pretending that i am impartial so maybe i should give you more credit.

Over to you!

No, you!

Thanks for addressing my post and at least clearing up the issue of why at least some agencies , or people in them, still seem to think that contrails should only last 'many minutes'.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

A few no less official quotes from that earlier link of mine:

One unique type of cloud is manmade. Contrails occur when exhaust from jet engines condenses. A narrow line of moisture makes up the contrail. Winds eventually dissipate it; in some instances conditions permit the contrail to survive for many minutes (their straight lines do distort). Contrails are believed to affect weather by raising both short and long-term temperatures (one estimate is for about a third of a degree per decade). Here is a MODIS image taken over the southeast U.S. on January 29, 2004 showing a large number of contrails (at times more than 2000 planes are over the North American continent at any one time):

rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The condensation trails (contrails) that form in the wake of high-flying jets are another interesting example. These cylindrical clouds have variable lifetimes and water concentrations depending on environmental conditions. In some cases the contrails can persist for many minutes. But they do slowly diffuse, much like the smoke plume emitted by an acrobatic aircraft

www.sciam.com...

Isn't it a grand understatement to measure these supposed day long contrails ( as they admit they can span a day or more given 'proper' conditions) in minutes? Isn't 720 or more minutes rather more than the common use of the word 'many'? Have they simply forgotten to change some of the literature or are the thousands of Americans ( and one letter to a representative normally constitutes the 'opinion' of 250 or so people) and Europeans that have written to their representatives just too young to remember these long lasting contrails?

So you find a couple of webpages which give a simple overview of contrails and fail to mention that they can last for hours - and as a result you think you can dismiss all the hundreds of other references to the contrary; that it means decades of research is wrong; that all meteorologists are wrong?

Stop being so disingenuous.

Anyway, I found a webpage that says chemtrails are bunk. By your example, they must be bunk

According to the sources i have posted in the past we can't even properly predict contrail formation so lets not pretend the atmospheric processes is well understood in relation to all weather and like phenomenon.

We can predict them pretty well and are continuing research - mainly for military purposes.

Not being able to predict the occurrence of persistent contrails does not mean they don't occur

I think i would run head first into a wall that try 'prove' you wrong as i have not met many, and certainly not frequently, experts that admits mistakes of any scale.

So you're saying that believing for the past few decades that contrails can spread out into cirrus sheets is a 'mistake'. And that for decades the myth has been perpetuated because no-one wants to admit that somoone in 1930 got it wrong. Accounts of persistent contrails in the past are all hoaxes I suppose?

No one actually knows how many incorrect research reports remain unchallenged.

The conclusion of a paper might be wrong. But why would hundreds of scientists write papers describing and studying a non existent phenomena? Surely they couldn't all have been on '___'?

Accept it: persistent contrails are real and have been studied for decades. Thus the idea that only started appearing in the 1990 is the real myth.

The reason why a given person can refer to himself as a 'expert' is because his never wrong and thus never has his credibility questioned by anything by scientific 'cooks'

An expert is someone who is acknowledged as such by his peers.

What's the point of this straw man argument anyway? To suggest that we shouldn't listen to, or believe anything experts tell us? That the world is flat after all?

And as you may have been able to observe from the earlier report the peer review process is either perfect ( which has grand implications considering the ' junk' that so called 'pseudoscientist' have published) or does not mean much at all given the low number of retractions/corrections.

So, because the peer review process is falwed, which should consider any research paper mentioning persistent contrails as dubious - after all, the peer review process may have missed the fact that the authors were studying an fictional non existent phenomena. Is that right?

I think i will for now ignore your sources as dilligently as you did mine but more generally i don't see why it's expected that 'chemtrailers' should deny normal contrails entirely to 'support' their contention that day long contrails are by no means natural. I have supplied plenty of source material that indicates just how unlikely very long lasting contrails ( more than a few minutes) should be and how these long lasting contrails do not seem to be forming in atmospheric conditions that are by any means uncommon.

And I've presented papers showing that such persistent contrails are a well discussed and observed phenomena.

I guess you're going to trust and believe your interpretation of your sources, as I will mine.

But your a expert so don't be a tease

Oi! I'm an amateur

Thanks for addressing my post and at least clearing up the issue of why at least some agencies , or people in them, still seem to think that contrails should only last 'many minutes'.

Stellar

Perhaps because those agencies, or people in them, are not so well versed in meteorology as meteorologists are - and thus made generalisations without being aware that they were slightly misleading. Or, in the specific cases you gave, because there was no need within the context of the subject of those webpages to explain persistent contrails. I think they could have been worded better. But I doubt whoever wrote them ever thought they'd be used in support of chemtrails!


Now, let's cut to the chase Stellar:

Do you accept that persistent contrails, occasionally spreading out into sheets of cirrus cloud - as chemtrails are described as doing - have been observed, studied and photographed for several decades? And if not, what might convince you to change your mind?

[edit on 22-10-2007 by Essan]

OK Essan, I'll take a stab. I'm just an electrician, so bear with me.

There is a chart called the Appleman Chart, that was published in 1953, and is a very similar model to what the military uses to forecast contrails. By the way, the WWII picture of the contrails, was an example of what the military worked to get away from, and succeeded.


Source

According to this chart, that only happens at at least 30,000 ft.

And according the the chart above, temp has to be at least -40C
Factor in the pressure, and it just doesn't add up. An AC flying lower than 30,000 ft, would very rarely make any contrail, let alone persistant. It would have to be 100% supersaturated air, which would almost surely contain natural clouds.

Also, I found that when it is 58F at sea level, it could be cold enough at 30,000 ft to form contrails.

So explain to me, low contrails, in the middle of summer, on clear days.



[edit on 22-10-2007 by stompk]

When it comes to contrails verses chemtrails I again will use the words I was given by the Grey I go to and can only say, do they have this race pegged.

His words were:

You try to hard through Science to prove things, use logic and common sense.... the answers are the simplest.... the ones you always overlook.

For myself I'll look up and OBSERVE everyday, I'll OBSERVE the air traffic. I'll OBSERVE planes flying to close together next to or not far behind and to the side of another. I'll OBSERVE the grid work or X's and different patterns that occur and see how the setting Sun in the evening has trails in there unique spray lines. I will OBSERVE a beautiful blue sky go to fake blue/white then white in a matter of several hours if not sooner.

I am in PA. and we have had less spraying in the last days but today they are at it and I suspect that by tomorrow we will have rain.

People like myself can tell ask you to look and OBSERVE and to do RESEARCH but it usually comes back to the two words that ATS is known for:

"""""""DENY IGNORANCE"""""""

Sorry, I know everyone has there own belief's.... life has always been this way and it has only been getting more pronounced.

As with ufo's and aliens so is chemtrails and whatever is to be, will be.
Peoples from all over this planet are trying to make you aware and that's all they can do.





[edit on 22-10-2007 by observe50]

Temperature at altitude obviously varies.

What the Appleman chart tells us is that at 18000ft (500hPa) the temperature needs to be at least as low as -39c for any contrail to form. It's usually warmer than that in mid latitudes so we rarely see contrails form at that altitude, except in polar regions (in theory a contrail can form at sea level).

At a typical aircraft cruising altitude of, say 35,000ft (250hPa), a contrail will normally form if the temperature is below about -40c. A persistent contrail may form if there is at least 60% RH and the temp is below about -48c

Originally posted by stompk

So explain to me, low contrails, in the middle of summer, on clear days.

Just because it is summer, and warm at the surface, does not mean there may not be a pool of cooler air overhead. We'd need specific details to show this, of course. But by and large contrails are more likely to form at dawn/dusk and in the cooler months.

Incidentally, just been looking at a few soundings and it's surprising how often there is only a narrow altitude range at which persistent contrails are likely - so that whilst some aircraft produce them, those just a few thousand feet above and below do not.

If you want to obtain local data to use in conjunction with an Appleman Chart and contrail/chemtrail observations try here: weather.uwyo.edu...

Just this morning, I was walking my dog and these 2 planes kept flying back and forth, sometimes dangerously close, and painted the ENTIRE SKY WITHIN MY VISION with stripes. I know it wasn't natural, because there would be breaks in the trails. For example, there would be a few tiny isolated con/chemtrail way off in the distance from the same plane where it looked like the sprayer was turned on for a few seconds. By the way, this is in westchester new york, an hour north of nyc

[edit on 22-10-2007 by rline928]

[edit on 22-10-2007 by rline928]

reply to post by rline928


Would that be anywhere near Westchester County Airport?

Westchester Country Airport

Lol, no, I'm nowhere near an airport. I'm in an isolated area in the woods. Not many planes fly by.

I am near an airport but I don't think thats cause to dismiss chemtrails? Afterall these planes have to land and takeoff from SOMEWHERE do they not? Couldn't a government official just say "we are using your airport" and nobody would question it?

"Chemtrails" are mentioned in House Bill HR 2977,[6] the Space Preservation Act of 2001, introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, where it appears as one of a list of "exotic weapons system[s]" to be banned under the bill.
Space Preservation Act -
en.wikipedia.org...

..AND the German Military has admitted to using Chemtrails for weather mod:
video.google.com...
..So why wouldn't we? Aern't we suppossed to be all high and mighty on the tech train?

Conclusively it's not right to defenseivly scream hoax at chemtrails just because they are so well covered up. None of us own jet's so we don't know sh*, and believe me the government knows that and will use it to it's advantage.

I knew that space bill would come up sooner or later, and the other stuff, and yes, I'm aware of it.

The Space Bill was, to my mind, speculative. It refers to things that are theoretically possible. It doesn't mean they are in place.

As for the other stuff, the governments of the world aren't angels, thats for sure. I'm not suprised that stuff has been tested - hell troops were stationed next to nuke blasts to see the effects of radioactive fall out.

However, the "chemtrail" theories suggest a global phenomenon of spraying from considerable height by aircraft. To be frank, the time, complexity or organisation and sheer volume of material that is necessary to undertake such an operation rule it out - it would be faster and cheaper to affect the population by using the potable water supplies, because you can't guarantee coverage from the air - a change in weather systems or patterns would screw up an entire operation.

As for the airports thing - its a logical question. Airports = planes = stacking procedures and racetrack patterns increasing the likelihood of contrails.

Even without an airport present, its possible that there is a commercial or military designated airlane in the area.

Quite simply, I don't know the ins and outs (and aboves!) of Westchester County but isn't looking up and assuming that you are being poisoned without even trying to find out about it the height of ignorance?

Originally posted by Daedalus


yes, but according to chevron, aviation fuels are intentionally dyed, in order to prevent accidental misfueling of a plane with the wrong grade.

would that not account for the red fuel you mentioned?

Aviation gasoline for light aircraft piston engines is dyed for easy Identification, correct. Other fuels were once dyed to indicate lead content. Some are dyed for tax puposes also.

Totally different for different type engines, aviation turbine fuel, a.k.a. jet fuel, has no lead content and is not dyed. Water-white to a light straw (the natural hue) is the only coloration permitted in aviation turbine fuel. Jet fuel is basically very clean and dry kerosene.

defcon5, you certainly know your avfuels. I have a sample of JP8 right here in the lab, but I want to see that colored jet fuel that is supposedly related to chemtrails. I doubt it exists, but I will test it if I can obtain any.












[edit on 10/22/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by neformore

However, the "chemtrail" theories suggest a global phenomenon of spraying from considerable height by aircraft. To be frank, the time, complexity or organisation and sheer volume of material that is necessary to undertake such an operation rule it out - it would be faster and cheaper to affect the population by using the potable water supplies, because you can't guarantee coverage from the air - a change in weather systems or patterns would screw up an entire operation.

As for the airports thing - its a logical question. Airports = planes = stacking procedures and racetrack patterns increasing the likelihood of contrails.

Quite simply, I don't know the ins and outs (and aboves!) of Westchester County but isn't looking up and assuming that you are being poisoned without even trying to find out about it the height of ignorance?

The volume of material that need be obtained isn't a problem. The amount of money put into our defense programs is so large our puny minds of dollars and 100s cannot imagine it's value. I don't think material would be a problem.

As per what it's use is for, I am not going to argue with you Madaam because you know as little as me we are just humans under govt. rule.

I do not live in westchester county, I live in NY and I see them once in a while. It's not every day, but in the spring/summer time ALOT. I watched them blanket the sky when I first started observing them. I was horrified. So it's not just westchester county. I know the difference between that and a real jet too because I have seen them flying directly next to each other with one spraying and one not. I have also seen on SEVERAL occasions the trail be turned on and turned back off leaving only one line that begins and ends within sight as the jet flys away with no trace. Explain that gorgeous.

^ Yeah, the small "lines" I saw, where it looked like it was turned on for just a few seconds. It was truly bizarre today. I'm definitely going to have to take pics. The entire sky was so striped that it looked like the US flag. It literally turned the whole sky white. It's the weirdest thing I've ever seen.