Chem-trails are here!!!

Originally posted by tetsuo
From now on, I'll call contrails/chemtrails from here on out "smoke/vapor trails left by aircraft which some people tend to refer to as contrails/chemtrails but who knows what they actually are".

edit on 15-10-2010 by tetsuo because: corrected sentence fragment

Would you like to take a guess at what I do for a living?

We have been forecasting the likelihood of contrail formation and persistence for almost 80 years now, so why all of a sudden are people, who know nothing about meteorology, claiming that they think they know how the upper troposphere works, when its clear that they dont?

And OP, judging by the location of the jetstream, I wouldnt be worried about anything "falling" on top of you. Those 80 knots winds are going to send anything over the central USA well out into the Atlantic ocean

reply to post by tetsuo

What they actually are are trails of condensation caused by jet fuel combusting in a jet engine into a saturated, very cold, low pressure environment. They have been tested, the chemical equations have been figured and that is all they every have been found to be.

Some try symantics saying "everything is a chemical", which is true. But the "chemtrail" conspiracy states that these trails are somehow different than the tested and proven definition above. In order to call them "chemtrail" show the "chem-" part. That's all that debunkers want to see. Show the results of a good chemical analysis, sampled from the trail itself. Or show something that the well-documented phenomena cannot possibly be the cause of. CT theorists have yet to do either one.
The oldest published study I've found on the web was done in the 1920's. That's almost 90 years of research you can go through. The studies multi-disciplined, multi-national, and done by many different entities. The only bias is that they are documenting real science, not supposition.
Google a scholarly study of contrails yourself. Look through it. As with all peer-reviewed works, it covers the hypothesis, the break down of the information needed to prove or disprove that hypothesis, the sampling and testing procedures, the use of controls, the investigation into other possible causes/effects/products that could effect the project, and step-by-step procedure.
All of these steps are NEEDED for a good study of any subject scientific in nature before any scientist will even consider arriving at a conclusion. The contrail/'chemtrail" debate is, after all, a matter of many different sciences: chemistry, meteorology, climatology, physics, fluid-dynamics, aeronautics, aviation science and engineering, even geology. Can anyone negate all this science? "Chemtrailers" try every day.
"Chemtrails" would be the most visual, high-maintenance, high expense scattershot way of dispensing anything anywhere at anytime. It would also require thousands of people, thousands of planes, millions of gallons of fuel, tons of chemicals being made and shipped, hundreds of airports.........logistics alone should be a clue it cannot be anything more than a hoax, perpetrated by people who don't know science, to gullible people who want videos, pictures, and intrigue instead of learning something.

This are Contrails from 1940:


And This from 2003:


What is different?

Next time I will take pictures (like someone has suggested). You'll see the "X's" are on purpose ,not just a cross in paths of two jets.

I cann't believe they put this in "Skunk Works"....I know what I saw and thats good enough for me..

OK I was firmly heading headlong into the CHEMtrail camp despite
Oz and other's very rational arguments when I looked up this summer
to see a lightly gridded and beautiful blue sky, not a cloud in sight,
AND a full rainbow appearing amongst the CHEM....my bad, CONTRAILS!!!

reply to post by OzWeatherman


So how long should a contrail last?
One posted said over 3 hours. That doesn't seem right for a contrail.

reply to post by scitpeks

So how long should a contrail last? One posted said over 3 hours. That doesn't seem right for a contrail.

That's a good question. And I have another. Given this explanation of what these mysterious lines in the sky are according to what a member posted earlier on this thread:

What they actually are are trails of condensation caused by jet fuel combusting in a jet engine into a saturated, very cold, low pressure environment. They have been tested, the chemical equations have been figured and that is all they every have been found to be.

I'm very interested to know how they expect such an explanation to be believed in a circumstance where the area in question is in the midst of a warm summer climate and the environment is NOT cold?

I'm also curious about the other explanation they like to throw out about "cloud seeding." Many of the situations like this I've witnessed in my own city happen when there are no clouds and the sky is clear.

Get ready for some lengthy physics lesson that no doubt will sound very convincing because of the scientific lingo, but will ultimately fail to explain away these mysteries.

reply to post by NightGypsy

I'm very interested to know how they expect such an explanation to be believed in a circumstance where the area in question is in the midst of a warm summer climate and the environment is NOT cold?

I know enough to know that the temp on the ground is not the same as at 30000 feet.
It's cold up there.

reply to post by zbeliever

Next time I will take pictures (like someone has suggested). You'll see the "X's" are on purpose ,not just a cross in paths of two jets.

You know what, zbeliever, there's no need to do that. Everyone on this forum knows perfectly well that this situation you describe is real and it's happening all over the place. Many members have posted their pictures under the threat that their credibility is at stake if they don't. It's not a question of whether or not you're telling the truth about seeing "X" patterns made by planes. The question is what the hell they're spraying. There are a number of members who use these tactics to try to quell the chemtrail inquiries. I'm looking into some stuff right now on this topic and I'll send you a U2U when I get it together.

reply to post by NightGypsy


Yes, I asked how long a contrail should last for a reason.
Its fine to say all these multiple trails are normal flight traffic, but just how many commercial flights pass over any given town say in one hour?
Thats more time than I would expect a normal contrail to last.

reply to post by scitpeks

Its fine to say all these multiple trails are normal flight traffic, but just how many commercial flights pass over any given town say in one hour? Thats more time than I would expect a normal contrail to last.

True, but I'm curious why you're using commercial airlines in this example? I don't know about you, but the planes that are making these line patterns in my city that linger for hours aren't commercial airlines.

reply to post by NightGypsy

True, but I'm curious why you're using commercial airlines in this example? I don't know about you, but the planes that are making these line patterns in my city that linger for hours aren't commercial airlines.

Because thats what the debunkers are basing their theories on, commercial flight paths.

reply to post by cushycrux


What is your post comparing the lines from the those two planes supposed to prove? That they both emit white lines?

Wow.

What does a commercial airliner have to do with this chemtrail discussion? Has anyone claimed commercial airliners are spraying chemtrails? Also, I think you will find a general consensus around here that the white trails left by commercial airliners dissipate quickly...they don't linger in the atmosphere for hours.

According to the tag on your first photo the plane depicted is a bomber. If that's the case, again, I have yet to hear a claim from anyone on these forums who says bombers are responsible for chemtrails, nor do I think the trails they leave linger for hours.

So....?

reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread618761/pg2#pid9757

Because thats what the debunkers are basing their theories on, commercial flight paths.

Oh, okay, thanks for clarifying.