Chemtrails: the basic premise

I've been looking into Chemtrails a bit recently, and have come to understand that the basic premise of the idea of Chemtrails is that normal contrails only last a few seconds and then dissipate, while 'Chemtrails' last longer, sometimes for hours.

This seems to be the basic premise of Chemtrails. If it turns out that normal contrails can last for hours without the need for some added chemicals, then i think this basic premise would fall apart, and there's be no way to distinguish a 'Chemtrail' from a contrail.

So what i'd like to know is this

1: Why people think that contrails wouldn't be able to last longer (sometimes for hours).

2: What distinguishes a contrail from a cirrus cloud?

Well that's it for now.. If you're a believer in Chemtrails, i'd like to see you answer these questions

Originally posted by payt69
I've been looking into Chemtrails a bit recently, and have come to understand that the basic premise of the idea of Chemtrails is that normal contrails only last a few seconds and then dissipate, while 'Chemtrails' last longer, sometimes for hours.

This seems to be the basic premise of Chemtrails. If it turns out that normal contrails can last for hours without the need for some added chemicals, then i think this basic premise would fall apart, and there's be no way to distinguish a 'Chemtrail' from a contrail.

So what i'd like to know is this

1: Why people think that contrails wouldn't be able to last longer (sometimes for hours).

2: What distinguishes a contrail from a cirrus cloud?



Well that's it for now.. If you're a believer in Chemtrails, i'd like to see you answer these questions

edit on 15-4-2013 by payt69 because: (no reason given)

Persistence of a plume is not the basic premise of chemtrails, it's just some people see a lingering plume, and presume it to be a chemtrail. Any ordinary plume can linger all day.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by payt69
I've been looking into Chemtrails a bit recently, and have come to understand that the basic premise of the idea of Chemtrails is that normal contrails only last a few seconds and then dissipate, while 'Chemtrails' last longer, sometimes for hours.

This seems to be the basic premise of Chemtrails. If it turns out that normal contrails can last for hours without the need for some added chemicals, then i think this basic premise would fall apart, and there's be no way to distinguish a 'Chemtrail' from a contrail.

So what i'd like to know is this

1: Why people think that contrails wouldn't be able to last longer (sometimes for hours).

2: What distinguishes a contrail from a cirrus cloud?



Well that's it for now.. If you're a believer in Chemtrails, i'd like to see you answer these questions

edit on 15-4-2013 by payt69 because: (no reason given)

Persistence of a plume is not the basic premise of chemtrails, it's just some people see a lingering plume, and presume it to be a chemtrail. Any ordinary plume can linger all day.

edit on 15-4-2013 by smurfy because: Text.

Well i'm basically paraphrasing Michael Murphy and William Thomas (and probably a few more 'chemtrail researchers'), who state that 'normal' contrails shouldn't last more than say 30 seconds. They then go on to claim that trails that last longer have to have something added to them to make them behave in that way.

So to me that seems to be the basic premise.

reply to post by payt69


Contrails can persist and become cirrus clouds under the right conditions. When the humidity and temperature are right, a contrail stays around and becomes cloud cover, without any additives.

We're seeing this more now, because the new high bypass turbofans run cooler than even the previous generation did, which leads to more persistent contrails.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by payt69

 

Contrails can persist and become cirrus clouds under the right conditions. When the humidity and temperature are right, a contrail stays around and becomes cloud cover, without any additives.

We're seeing this more now, because the new high bypass turbofans run cooler than even the previous generation did, which leads to more persistent contrails.

Right.. you and i know that.. but i was kindof hoping to hear from a chemtrail-believer why we're wrong about that and to see their reasoning supported with science.

They seem to believe that contrails can't last for longer than about 30 seconds, under no cirsumstances, and that chemicals need to be added to make it happen. So i'm waiting for the science on that

I've got a feeling the answer won't be coming anytime soon though

reply to post by payt69


Well, Mr Murphy is incorrect. I live right under an international flight path, that is aircraft exiting the UK and heading straight for the US 3000 miles away. Their plumes can fade within minutes, (20/20 seconds et al, is an overstatement) or persist all day, and I have seen this occur on many occasions and, at any time of the year. That is important because albedo in winter is not a worry here since there is little or no feckin' sun at these latitudes, and no need to do any spraying. It rains a lot too, even more albedo.
I have reason to believe that spraying to improve Earth's albedo is a distinct possibilty, and more so military spraying for their own purposes in selected areas, pretty much where they can get away with it. All the different patents are there for the use of, and it would be ridiculous to say that these patents have not been run experimentally, and I don't mean computer simulations alone. That is the real premise.
Then there is the problem of jet engines themselves, people really need to know what goes into making a jet a safe and reliable means of propulsion, and there is a lot of nasty stuff there, just to begin with.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by payt69

 

Well, Mr Murphy is incorrect. I live right under an international flight path, that is aircraft exiting the UK and heading straight for the US 3000 miles away. Their plumes can fade within minutes, (20/20 seconds et al, is an overstatement) or persist all day, and I have seen this occur on many occasions and, at any time of the year. That is important because albedo in winter is not a worry here since there is little or no feckin' sun at these latitudes, and no need to do any spraying. It rains a lot too, even more albedo.
I have reason to believe that spraying to improve Earth's albedo is a distinct possibilty, and more so military spraying for their own purposes in selected areas, pretty much where they can get away with it. All the different patents are there for the use of, and it would be ridiculous to say that these patents have not been run experimentally, and I don't mean computer simulations alone. That is the real premise.

So what you're saying is they MAY have reasons to do it, and there are patents of equipment to do it with? Do you have any evidence that it's actually happening? You can't spray anything with a patent.. so any evidence of actual equipment?

Then there is the problem of jet engines themselves, people really need to know what goes into making a jet a safe and reliable means of propulsion, and there is a lot of nasty stuff there, just to begin with.

edit on 15-4-2013 by smurfy because: Text.

Not sure what you're hinting at here.. sure there goes a lot of research into making jets safe, but how does that relate to 'chemtrails'?

Originally posted by payt69
Not sure what you're hinting at here.. sure there goes a lot of research into making jets safe, but how does that relate to 'chemtrails'?

Engine exhaust isn't the cleanest thing in the world. It's not as dirty as some other exhausts from closer to the ground, but it's not totally clean either.

reply to post by payt69


I have been waiting for a long time....about 3 years or so.

It's really not something that is discussed by the believers. They believe, and that is enough. Physics be damned.

They also do not supply names of real scientists who believe in "chemtrails", chemical analysis from a 'trail itself, why it is being done, what is being used, who is doing it...nor do they even try and explain anything a debunker brings to the table.

At this point in discussions, you are exposed as being a shill, disinformationalist (my personal favorite, because the person who called me this misspelled it ), brainless, heartless, sheeple, troll, and all kinds of other bad names. It's really rather funny.

reply to post by payt69

Well i'm basically paraphrasing Michael Murphy and William Thomas (and probably a few more 'chemtrail researchers'), who state that 'normal' contrails shouldn't last more than say 30 seconds. They then go on to claim that trails that last longer have to have something added to them to make them behave in that way.

Well showing you this.....

Persistent contrails can last for hours to days, and spread over thousands of square kilometers, becoming indistinguishable from naturally occurring cirrus clouds.

science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

Pretty much debunks the likes of Michael Murphy and Will Thomas, and whoever else your paraphrasing.

And please go to the link I posted and you can learn more about those white lines that aren't chemtrails, but they are contrails..

Originally posted by payt69
I've been looking into Chemtrails a bit recently, and have come to understand that the basic premise of the idea of Chemtrails is that normal contrails only last a few seconds and then dissipate, while 'Chemtrails' last longer, sometimes for hours.

This seems to be the basic premise of Chemtrails. If it turns out that normal contrails can last for hours without the need for some added chemicals, then i think this basic premise would fall apart, and there's be no way to distinguish a 'Chemtrail' from a contrail.

So what i'd like to know is this

1: Why people think that contrails wouldn't be able to last longer (sometimes for hours).

2: What distinguishes a contrail from a cirrus cloud?

Well that's it for now.. If you're a believer in Chemtrails, i'd like to see you answer these questions

edit on 15-4-2013 by payt69 because: (no reason given)

It would be nice to get an answer instead of getting accused of being a government agent. I've lost count of the places I've been blocked from for asking.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by payt69

 

I have been waiting for a long time....about 3 years or so.

It's really not something that is discussed by the believers. They believe, and that is enough. Physics be damned.

They also do not supply names of real scientists who believe in "chemtrails", chemical analysis from a 'trail itself, why it is being done, what is being used, who is doing it...nor do they even try and explain anything a debunker brings to the table.

At this point in discussions, you are exposed as being a shill, disinformationalist (my personal favorite, because the person who called me this misspelled it ), brainless, heartless, sheeple, troll, and all kinds of other bad names. It's really rather funny.

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, outlined the idea of shooting either sulphur dioxide particles, aluminium oxide dust or specially designed aerosols into the stratosphere - the upper level of the atmosphere between ten and 30 miles above the Earth's surface.
It is hoped that this would cool the planet by artificially reflecting sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed.
Naval guns, rockets, high-flying aircraft and even hot air balloons have been put forward as possible ways of firing the agent into the air.
That's not all he said, was it ?

Mr Holdren admitted the scheme could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions.
But he said he had raised the idea with the Obama administration and added: 'We might get desperate enough to want to use it.'

Mr Holdren insisted that dramatic action is needed to halt climate change which he compared to being 'in a car with bad brakes driving towards a cliff in a fog'.

There has been widespread resistance in the scientific community* to attempts to deliberately modify the environment on such a large scale.
Opponents fear** that tampering with the atmosphere's delicate balance could have consequences that would be even worse than global warming.

* That would be scientists.
** That would be scientists.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by payt69

 

I have been waiting for a long time....about 3 years or so.

It's really not something that is discussed by the believers. They believe, and that is enough. Physics be damned.

They also do not supply names of real scientists who believe in "chemtrails", chemical analysis from a 'trail itself, why it is being done, what is being used, who is doing it...nor do they even try and explain anything a debunker brings to the table.

At this point in discussions, you are exposed as being a shill, disinformationalist (my personal favorite, because the person who called me this misspelled it ), brainless, heartless, sheeple, troll, and all kinds of other bad names. It's really rather funny.

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, outlined the idea of shooting either sulphur dioxide particles, aluminium oxide dust or specially designed aerosols into the stratosphere - the upper level of the atmosphere between ten and 30 miles above the Earth's surface.
It is hoped that this would cool the planet by artificially reflecting sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed.
Naval guns, rockets, high-flying aircraft and even hot air balloons have been put forward as possible ways of firing the agent into the air.
That's not all he said, was it ?

So someone outlined an idea.. but did it actually happen? If so, where's the evidence?

All these ideas have nothing to do with what are commonly referred to as 'chemtrails' anyway.

Remember, the point of this thread is to explain why there shouldn't be persistent contrails, which is the main premise on which the whole house of cards of the 'chemtrail' belief is based. If you agree that there are persistent contrails, and that they aren't indicative of chemicals being sprayed, then we're done

reply to post by payt69


Not really, In edit, I already stated that the premise/ your premise is wrong. BTW what you say here, "All these ideas have nothing to do with what are commonly referred to as 'chemtrails' anyway." is not really correct is it? high flying aircraft falls straight into the category/s since some of those ideas include using the jet engines.

reply to post by smurfy


Sorry, but your explanation falls short of something...proof of implementation.

And a logical timeline, considering persistent contrails have been seen since the end of WW1.

And the logistics of such a program......who has the planes, supplies, people...???

Just because someone said something sometime does not mean it is being used now. Take a breath already. You shouldn't fear words. Or even ideas. You should fear deeds.

Show what is called "chemtrails" by believers, the very things that believers think they can identify by eyesight alone, actually is a nefarious plan to spoil your life.

reply to post by smurfy


What geo-engineering research have you done?
I've read several reports and no where is the spraying of large white clouds behind airplanes mentioned.
I'd really like to see your source for that.
Please and Thank you.

reply to post by stars15k


This is a question I have posed several times too. Still no reply, it appears to a real toughie for those who insist chemtrails are linked with GE. No GE reports they ever link actually say it, it's just an assumption that, IF it is correct, APPEARS to support the existence of chemtrails IF they exist. You don't get connections that are much more tenuous than that.

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by smurfy

 

Sorry, but your explanation falls short of something...proof of implementation.

And a logical timeline, considering persistent contrails have been seen since the end of WW1.

And the logistics of such a program......who has the planes, supplies, people...???

Just because someone said something sometime does not mean it is being used now. Take a breath already. You shouldn't fear words. Or even ideas. You should fear deeds.

Show what is called "chemtrails" by believers, the very things that believers think they can identify by eyesight alone, actually is a nefarious plan to spoil your life.

Like the Op, you're out of the window, I've already said that 'looking' at a jet trail does not premise anything, and as I already said a jet trail is also, and already is akin in it's own right to what the likes of John Holdren have already proposed, get it?

reply to post by smurfy


No, I don't get it.
Assumptions, suspicion, and supposition are not the way I deal with things.
If I don't know about something, I research and learn.
I don't connect dots unless the line is able to be drawn.
It is the failure of conspiracy theory...you have to entertain a certain suspension of belief to believe them.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by smurfy

 

Sorry, but your explanation falls short of something...proof of implementation.

And a logical timeline, considering persistent contrails have been seen since the end of WW1.

And the logistics of such a program......who has the planes, supplies, people...???

Just because someone said something sometime does not mean it is being used now. Take a breath already. You shouldn't fear words. Or even ideas. You should fear deeds.

Show what is called "chemtrails" by believers, the very things that believers think they can identify by eyesight alone, actually is a nefarious plan to spoil your life.

Like the Op, you're out of the window, I've already said that 'looking' at a jet trail does not premise anything, and as I already said a jet trail is also, and already is akin in it's own right to what the likes of John Holdren have already proposed, get it?

This sounds a lot like moving the goalposts. I'm fine with you having your own definition of what a 'chemtrail' is or is not, but this thread is about whether a contrail as created by an airliner is capable of persisting without additional chemicals. The reason why is ask that question is because most chemmies believe that persisting contrails are actually chemtrails, and that there is no such thing as a persisting contrail. That's the idea promoted by Murphy et all.

So to those people the basic premise IS that normal contrails don't persist. Hence they make thousands of pictures of these 'chemtrails' whenever they occur, and claim that seeing them is indicative of a nefarious program. I hope you're with me so far?

Now if you disagree with that premise, then i don't think this thread is for you. Of course you're free to create your own thread and lay out your ideas of what chemtrails are according to you, but in this one we're looking for answers to the questions I posed in the OP.

Once again:

1- Why do you think contrails can't persist?

2- In what way is a contrail different from a cirrus cloud?