Chemtrails: Debunking the Peristent Contrail myth

Noctilucent Clouds

Ash from the volcano caused such splendid sunsets that evening sky watching became a popular worldwide pastime. One sky watcher in particular, a Briton named T. W. Backhouse, noticed something odd. He stayed outside after the sun had set and, on some nights, saw wispy filaments glowing electric blue against the black sky. Noctilucent clouds. Scientists of the day figured the clouds were some curious manifestation of volcanic ash.

Eventually the ash settled and the vivid sunsets of Krakatoa faded. Yet the noctilucent clouds remained. "It's puzzling," says Thomas. "Noctilucent clouds have not only persisted, but also spread." A century ago the clouds were confined to latitudes above 50o; you had to go to places like Scandinavia, Russia and Britain to see them. In recent years they have been sighted as far south as Utah and Colorado.

science.nasa.gov...

These noctilucent clouds are in the mesosphere, which is literally on the edge of space. Could these be a result of chemtrails?

Here is an alert that was issued in 1999 about jet fuel. It was found in a DOI aircraft. I wonder how many times 'contaminated' fuel is loaded and the 'color' is ignored?

amd.nbc.gov...

There are photos of aircraft on the weatherwars web site in the Pilots view that shows a lot of 'smoke' coming out of the engines of jet aircraft, I would doubt that this was an indication of a malfunctioning jet engine.

including the web site here

www.weatherwars.info...

reply to post by oldone

Discussion: A recent fuel sample taken from a DOI aircraft revealed jet fuel
contaminated with an unknown substance, possibly dyed diesel fuel or hydraulic fluid.
The color of the contaminated fuel was described as a lightly tinted red or pink. Jet fuels
meeting industry standards are characterized as either clear or straw yellow colored.
Changes in color from clear or straw yellow are often an indicator of fuel contamination.

This does not mean much, it was an isolated incident of a government jet having gotten fuel contaminated by what sounds to be skydrol hydraulic fluid, or lower quality diesel gas. As I said it does not prove much in the way to chemtrails, as its not something that happens on a regular basis. It is possible to cross mix diesel gases, and sometimes when you are using a hydrant system that does happen. They charge the hydrant line for one type of gas, then switch to another type. When this occurs there is going to be some of the old gas still in the lines. As diesel is pretty much all the same with different additives it really does not hurt anything. If you look at the red-dyed diesel gas in the document I attached above the biggest difference is that it contains more sulfur, like 2000 parts per million more.

We used to run our diesel ground equipment on JP-4 just like the aircraft, and we would fuel it right off the same hydrant system that we used for the aircraft. The only difference was we had to have a truck with a ground servicing attachment on one hose to fit it into the gas tank of a truck instead of an aircraft wing.

As to the pictures you mention, attach them so we can look at them, don’t expect us to go digging through that site to try and guess which ones you mean.

I can see this as with all subjects there are many differences in opinions.

I must admit I agree 100% with what the chemtrails are and what they are doing.

I am also sure the skeptics agree 100% they are right too.

Seems this is a no winner.

To members here that observe, research and have awakened, I say BRAVO to you.

Originally posted by Seeker67

These noctilucent clouds are in the mesosphere, which is literally on the edge of space. Could these be a result of chemtrails?

The old "implication by question" trick - usually this is used when the poster has no clue.

Could they be the result of the flatus of Harvey the Rabbit?

Could they be due to the consumption of Hebrew National hot dogs?

Could they be a result of discarding old VHS tapes?

Seriously - if you don't have a clue of how one thing might relate to another, but want to speculate, don't. At least don't do this - go invest some time finding out how you want to relate them, if they can be related at all.

reply to post by defcon5


tried to copy and past the photos, but the web site must have some sort of 'do not copy' feature, I could not copy any of the photos.
It doesn't matter which one you look at all exhibit the same tendencies.

If there is a way to copy the photos I wold like to know how it was done.

reply to post by oldone


Don’t copy them just post us links to them.
One way to do it is to right click on them, choose properties, then copy a url to that picture over here. Don’t link the photos though, that would be a no-no on this site.
Example:


Hit my quote button on top and you can look at the source on how to do that.

reply to post by defcon5


Thanks that is a great hint
here is the link to the photo I was referring to:



As you can see if the engines were working correctly you should not see the 'smoke'. something else is being introduced to the fuel or somehow into the engines.

[edit on 23-10-2007 by oldone]

[edit on 23-10-2007 by oldone]

Originally posted by Realtruth
Colored Diesel fuel is really no big deal agricultural diesel is pink or red in color and I know that Jet A is basically diesel so maybe they are using agricultural fuel because it cost much less. Just a thought.

You can Google agricultural diesel color and see what pops up. I think if someone or group was going to put something into the air it would be separate from the fuel source because of the burn temp.

Actually, Jet A is basically kerosene not diesel.

Commercial jet fuel, known as Jet-A, is pure kerosene and has a flashpoint of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius). It is a high-quality fuel, however, and if it fails the purity and other quality tests for use on jet aircraft, it is sold to other ground-based users with less demanding requirements, like railroad engines. Commercial jet fuel as well as military jet fuel often includes anti-freeze to prevent ice buildup inside the fuel tanks

www.centennialofflight.gov...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually, Jet A is basically kerosene not diesel.

You can run Jet-A in a diesel engine though with no issues, which is how we fueled our diesel ramp equipment.

Originally posted by oldone
here is the link to the photo I was referring to:

That appears to be a heavy, but normal contrail to me. When engines smoke its much darker colored then that, smoke would make a dark gray to black cloud. I would imagine that this aircraft is passing through an area with a high relative humidity.

Glad to be of help with the linking advice though.

Originally posted by oldone
As you can see if the engines were working correctly you should not see the 'smoke'. something else is being introduced to the fuel or somehow into the engines.

Its not smoke its shadow.

Look at the picture.

Which direction is the light coming from?

I'm sorry but - really - did you not notice that?

reply to post by observe50


You definently have a point there, there will never be a conclusion to this one

I for one have never been a believer in "chemtrails", there is just too much scientific evidence suggesting that there are only contrails. Also just found out that my organisation (Australian Bureau of Meterology) has a few internal papers concerning the forecasting of contrails for commercial aviation purposes. Unfortunantly I probably cant put up a link to it for security issues (now i'am waiting for the disinfo agent comments )

Well done to you Essan

Some great information there. Sort of interesting to see that the strongest chemtrail believers, due to some of their replies , dont appear to have read the links you put up

But yeah, great post mate!

[edit on 24/10/2007 by OzWeatherman]

What kind of monsters flag this thread and star this man?? The government is up to all kinds of stuff and your supporting pushing away from the movement??

Watch this:
Video

Are planes much different??

[edit on 24-10-2007 by blowfishdl]

Originally posted by blowfishdl
What kind of monsters flag this thread and star this man?? The government is up to all kinds of stuff and your supporting pushing away from the movement??

Watch this:
Video

Are planes much different??

[edit on 24-10-2007 by blowfishdl]

So, now you are calling us a bunch of monsters? LOL Nice.

That video doesnt debunk the stuff that Essan is saying. Its a totally different topic. I suggest maybe starting your own topic on that?


He gets flags and stars because he is one of the very few that is providing legitimate and scientific evidence that all these trails we are seeing are not CHEMtrails. He asked for people to provide legimate proof that he is wrong. Nobody has done that yet.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by blowfishdl
What kind of monsters flag this thread and star this man??

What makes us monsters? The fact that we don't agree with you?

I've been trying to think simpler ways of describing things. Here - let me try.

The atmosphere is like an onion. The whole thing does not move as one. Instead it is made up of layers. What happens at ground level is not what is happening at 5,000ft. What happens at heights above that varies drastically and the changes continue all the way up and the thicknesses of the layers vary. The temperature of those layers also varies, depending on their positions above the ground or water, the prevalings winds, warm and cold air currents and a whole host of other factors, including man made ones.

The sky is big. 30,000ft is 5.68 miles up. People see two planes in the sky and they think that they are flying at the same altitude. The winspan of a Boeing 767 is 156ft. The wingspan of a Boeing 747 is 211ft. The two planes could literally be a mile apart in altitude flying in a designated airlane, one through an air layer that reaches saturation point as it passes through it, and the other either above or below that layer. However from the ground the two planes will look like they are at the same height, but they are not. One will form a contrail, one won't.

Think about this example for a minute. People are actually trying to argue about something that is 5.68 miles away, maybe more. Your eyes can't perceive the depth as you have no frame of reference to work with. And yet people claim that the planes are flying "side by side". Quite simply they cannot and do not know thats the case. They have no idea of the air temperatures at the altitude the planes are flying at. They have no idea about the saturation point of the air at those altitudes that may cause contrails to form, and yet they claim that because one plane produces a trail, while the other doesn't, that one must be "spraying".

They point at lines in the sky without discussing airlanes, racetrack holding patterns and stack zones. They don't understand that airports have holding areas for inbound planes. They are ignorant of ATC hand off procedures, diversionary flight routes because of weather patterns, and variable approaches to airports.

They don't even seem to understand that spraying something that high isn't controllable. It wouldn't fall straight down, it would be dispersed, the winds might change direction, there may be a thermal updraft that takes their theoretical spray into the upper atmosphere. Whatever might be sprayed could come down hundreds of miles away from the aircraft. They ignore the basic tenant of things such as crop spraying, they even ignore the science behind WMD dispersals of chemical and biological agents, because if they did they would realise that such things need to be done from low level in ambient temperatures where local windspeeds and directions can be measured and accounted for and coverage can be assured.

In other words, such claims are crap. They are made by people who see lines in the sky and bask in ignorance because they really cannot be bothered to find out more.

Chemtrails are NO HOAX. I have seen them with my own eyes. White Non-Commercial Aircraft leaving giant spreads of cloud behind them from multiple points along the aircraft. This same aircraft repeated its process across the sky as if it were "mowing the lawn" until the clouds it was spewing spread to cover the sky in a haze.

These are not normal contrails!
Because I saw various other commercial aircraft leaving normal contrails at different altitudes at the same time but their contrails were small and disappeared within minutes.

So I can say without a doubt in my mind that chemtrails can NOT be written off as a HOAX so easily. I find it interesting in the rise of a coalition of people here on ATS so desperate to prove that there is NOTHING strange going on in the skies.

I do not know what is being done, but I know its worth investigating and it is NOT a hoax!

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Originally posted by Seeker67

These noctilucent clouds are in the mesosphere, which is literally on the edge of space. Could these be a result of chemtrails?

The old "implication by question" trick - usually this is used when the poster has no clue.

Could they be the result of the flatus of Harvey the Rabbit?

Could they be due to the consumption of Hebrew National hot dogs?

Could they be a result of discarding old VHS tapes?

Seriously - if you don't have a clue of how one thing might relate to another, but want to speculate, don't. At least don't do this - go invest some time finding out how you want to relate them, if they can be related at all.

What are you talking about? Speculation is what this website is all about. Also, I wasn't implicating anything. I was trying to get some feedback on it. I thought it might be possible that, if there is spraying going on, some of the sprayed material might be able to help seed the noctilucent clouds, whether it be particles or some kind of liquid vapor. I will concede that I probably should have posted this theory before, but I'm still learning here. After all, these are my first posts on ATS.
[edit on 25-10-2007 by Seeker67]

[edit on 25-10-2007 by Seeker67]

reply to post by AllSeeingI


Of course its not a hoax, i see them to, but they arent chemtrails. People are just misguided.........or paranoid

Originally posted by Essan
So you find a couple of webpages which give a simple overview of contrails and fail to mention that they can last for hours -

One explicitly states the following:

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...

In SOME cases ( and that is almost always said to be very rare) they can last for 'many minute's this is clearly not a simplification but a statement that anything that last more than a minute is in fact just quite rare......

and as a result you think you can dismiss all the hundreds of other references to the contrary;

Which hundreds? How many white crows does it take to disprove that all crows are not black?

that it means decades of research is wrong; that all meteorologists are wrong?

Stop being so disingenuous.

Decades of research is NOT wrong but the conclusions have in the last decade or so been changed to reflect the new 'standard' as is pointed out by the following.

The proposed revisions address two categories of particulate matter: fine particles (PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10-2.5), which are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter but larger than PM2.5. EPA has had national air quality standards for fine particles since 1997 and for coarse particles 10 micrometers and smaller (PM10) since 1987

EPA last revised the particulate matter standards in 1997. Under terms of a consent decree, EPA agreed to propose whether to revise the particulate matter standards by December 20, 2005; and committed to finalizing any revisions to the standards by September 27, 2006.

Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality

It will be noted that in October of 1997 a change in the reporting system of visibility data was reduced from a former maximum of 40 miles to a limit of 10 miles. It is a reasonable question to ask as to why that change was made, and whether or not it was made in anticipation of certain events to follow that involve large scale aircraft aerosol operations over large scale geographic regions.

It is observed that there are highly significant degradations in the visibility data immediately following this change in the reporting method. Immediately after this change, the dramatic increase in visibility reports of less than 10 miles is quite apparent.

The graphs shown are taken from climatic archive data available for Santa Fe, NM from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. Three different time periods are shown to aid in demonstrating the magnitude of change which has occurred in visibility. The first graph shows all data available inclusive from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. The second graph shows the transition zone during which the visibility standards were altered. This graph showns a period from Jan 1996 to Dec 1998; the change in reporting standard was made in Oct 1997. The third graph shows recent data, where visibility below 10 miles is now a regular occurrence. This graph shows the period from Jan 1999 to Mar 2001.

www.carnicom.com...

So isn't it clear that standards are being changed to reflect what is currently going on in our skies? Why does the final alteration in visibility standards correspond so precisely with the first widespread observation of the chem trail phenomenon? How many coincidences must i believe in to dismiss chem trails as fantastical?

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

As long as their from official organizations that's fine and i will do my best to address them to the best of my knowledge.

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

No doubts about that as evident by the introduction of the "Space preservation act of 2001" which makes some of the following claims.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) chemtrails;
(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html

A previous poster mentioned that this bill was 'speculative' but since it's third incarnation it's now being co-sponsored by another 40 odd senators i don't think that can be called accurate any longer.

As to just how well understood Contrails are:

The environmental conditions that favor contrail formation and persistence are not well understood primarily due to the limited number of empirical studies. This study presents an empirical model to predict widespread occurrences of contrails (outbreaks), which was developed from a combination of rawinsonde temperature and GOES water vapor information. Environments containing persisting contrails were first identified on Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellite imagery for the United States for January and April 1987 and then analyzed in more detail using Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite digital data. Adjacent clear and cloudy environments not containing contrails were identified to compare with the conditions favorable for contrail persistence. For this purpose, a predictive logistic model was developed through multiple regression analysis.The model performance was evaluated through goodness-of-fit methods and found to be statistically significant across a range of atmospheric conditions. To further evaluate the model and to demonstrate its application on a real-time basis, predictions of the probability of persisting contrails were made for a case day. Comparisons of the predictions to satellite observations of the existing conditions (using AVHRR data) demonstrate good model performance and suggest the utility of this approach for predicting persisting contrail occurrence.

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997JApMe..36.1211T

B. Contrails and Cirrus

State of the Science

Contrails form if ambient air along the flight track is colder and moister than a threshold based on known thermodynamic parameters. Contrails initially contain more but smaller ice crystals than most cirrus clouds. Early contrail evolution depends, in not well understood ways, on aircraft and engine emission parameters. At times contrails organize themselves in long-lived, regional-scale clusters in ice supersaturated air masses. The radiative effect of contrails is different during the day than at night. Aircraft-induced contrail-cirrus add significantly to the natural high cloud cover and have the potential, albeit with large uncertainties, for a relatively large positive radiative forcing (direct effect). Line-shaped contrails are only a portion of the total climate impact of aviation on the cloudiness.

Recent correlation analyses between real-time regional-scale air traffic movements and the occurrence of contrail structures detectable with satellites, suggest the global coverage of persistent, spreading contrails (contrail-cirrus) and inferred radiative forcing might be underestimated by an order of magnitude or more, but large uncertainties remain.

climate.dot.gov...

One factor still not completely understood is contrail formation. A condensation trail, or contrail, forms in the wake of an airplane as a result of water vapor and aerosol emissions perturbing the local atmosphere when it is at conditions very close to forming a natural cloud. Although it is apparent that aircraft-emitted particles provide sites for water vapor condensation, and that these particles may well participate in initial condensation processes, field measurements demonstrate that contrail ice particles growing on entrained ambient particles begin to dominate in the contrail relatively soon.

www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=14&ArchiveIssueID=5

Contrails are linear cloud features comprised primarily of ice crystals that are produced from the emission of water vapor and particulates from jet aircraft exhaust into ambient air. Contrails form as a result of the relatively warm aircraft exhausts mixing with the cold ambient air of the middle and upper troposphere. Since most aircraft cruise at altitudes of between 10 and 13 km (typically the 300–100-mb layer), the temperature at contrail level is typically -40°C or colder (Beckwith 1972; Gayet et al. 1996). As a result, most water droplets are thought to freeze spontaneously after contrail formation (Pilie and Jiusto 1958; Boin and Levkov 1994). Once a contrail is produced it typically will last only a short time if the ambient humidity is low, and may never be evident from ground level. Only during a unique range of favorable conditions will contrails persist and spread, both horizontally and vertically, producing a cloudlike sky.

Although temperature and moisture are clearly important controls in contrail persistence and growth, the specific ranges of necessary conditions are not well understood.

ams.allenpress.com...(1997)036%3C1211%3AAEMTPW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

And why isn't this phenomenon well understood?

Continued

[edit on 25-10-2007 by StellarX]