Chemtrails?

[Keef]

I don't recall insulting anybody. My first post in this thread was a link to my explanation in a different thread on the same topic. In this thread I further explained some of the various atmospheric phenomena that cause airplanes to create different types of clouds during different phases of flight.

 

[Djhashbrown]

1 thing I must ask. What is the supposed purpose of these "chemicals"?

Seriously, I've heard lots of theories and its hard to say what's true and what's not. I did find this interesting though-

 

[Scaff]

Seriously, I've heard lots of theories and its hard to say what's true and what's not. I did find this interesting though-

And 30 seconds of google shows that the Patent is for "A method and apparatus for aerial fire suppression utilizing a potable fire retardant chemical dispensing system, readily adaptable, without extensive aircraft modification, to various makes of aircraft, for dispensing current types of forest and range fire fighting chemicals."

It was also filed by Evergreen International Aviation, Inc, a private company who specialize in aerial firefighting (and who once transported the Shah of Iran for the CIA back in 1980 (but are not the CIA).

Seriously if the CIA were to develop a chemical delivery system to kill us all why the hell would they bother to patent it?

 

[Imari]

Seriously if the CIA were to develop a chemical delivery system to kill us all why the hell would they bother to patent it?

I love how people think that the government is somehow cunning enough to keep solid evidence of chemtrails out of the hands of the public for decades, and yet dumb enough to publish said evidence where it's publically available.

 

[Dotini]

Seriously if the CIA were to develop a chemical delivery system to kill us all why the hell would they bother to patent it?

Who said the CIA was developing a system "to kill us all"? The OP?

The only rational basis for "chemtrails" is cloud cover. The FACT that "chemtrails" don't exist should be considered sufficient evidence if not complete proof that there is no need for more cloud cover and no need to be concerned about "global warming."

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Who said the CIA was developing a system "to kill us all"? The OP?

The only rational basis for "chemtrails" is cloud cover. The FACT that "chemtrails" don't exist should be considered sufficient evidence if not complete proof that there is no need for more cloud cover and no need to be concerned about "global warming."

So are you coming from the angle of how chemtrails usually have an effect on the ionosphere thus being used as a weather manipulation device rather than rat poison to "kill us all" or "control our minds" as others claim?

 

[Dotini]

So are you coming from the angle of how chemtrails usually have an effect on the ionosphere thus being used as a weather manipulation device rather than rat poison to "kill us all" or "control our minds" as others claim?

Yes, except that "chemtrails" have no "usual" effect, since they don't exist so have no effect at all. IF they existed (which they don't) their putative effect would not be on the ionosphere, but lower in the atmosphere where clouds form. Any talk of "chemtrails" as mind control or death agents should be considered childish gibberish, or trolling.

Note: noctilucent clouds are a recent phenomenon very high in the atmosphere, said to be formed from "meteor dust".

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes, except that "chemtrails" have no "usual" effect, since they don't exist so have no effect at all. IF they existed (which they don't) their putative effect would not be on the ionosphere, but lower in the atmosphere where clouds form. Any talk of "chemtrails" as mind control or death agents should be considered childish gibberish, or trolling.

Note: noctilucent clouds are a recent phenomenon very high in the atmosphere, said to be formed from "meteor dust".

Maybe you don't have an idea of what I'm talking about here, first let's clear the rhetoric issue. I'm not saying that the effect of the trail is usual, that wouldn't be correct and thus you've misconstrued my wording, what I'm saying is that people who usually saturate themselves in this topic come to that conclusion. Also there is some empirical evidence if it can be called that, which claims that in certain cases there is a process in which the ionosphere is in fact manipulated through chemtrail dumping.

Thus there is more then one possibility with the situation and weather condition also unfold that high up and not just the lower atmosphere. Which seems to be what you are partially disputing.

 

[Scaff]

Who said the CIA was developing a system "to kill us all"? The OP?

The only rational basis for "chemtrails" is cloud cover. The FACT that "chemtrails" don't exist should be considered sufficient evidence if not complete proof that there is no need for more cloud cover and no need to be concerned about "global warming."

The slightly tongue in cheek nature of that part of my post would seem to have been lost.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Seriously if the CIA were to develop a chemical delivery system to kill us all why the hell would they bother to patent it?

Cause man, they want to troll us. Or rather it is a patent they kept for themselves and out of respect put it there

 

[Dotini]

Remember that everything is, in some sense, a lie. Some lies are more necessary, useful or beautiful than others.

 

[Exorcet]

Not only that, but when shadowing my father (Who works with an airline that uses B737's) I viewed blueprints for the work done on the planes as well as a completely stripped plane under service. (Minus fuel tanks, wings, and skin) There's no "hidden" tanks which is, like you said, absurd.

I used to believe in Chemtrails. Not like the mystery chemical to indoctrinate the people, but as a fuel additive that would cause condensation in areas with high sunlight. That's less absurd, but still absurd.

A bit of an irony here is that the USAF was looking into additives to prevent contrail formation in the B-2 program because contrails would be a threat to its stealthiness. It was dropped in favor of a contrail warning system I think.

Similar technology is used in missiles to reduce smoke trails.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Remember that everything is, in some sense, a lie. Some lies are more necessary, useful or beautiful than others.

The problem is that there are no real scientific pier review articles even from PhDs that are on the fringe side, nor empirical data of accuracy. Also the vast idea that people are getting a UN Banned action confused with contrails, cloud seeding =/= contrails laced with chemicals.

 

[Akira AC]

Jesus Aerodynamic Christ, I can't believe people honestly believe that crap.

For starters people should just look at what a wing-tip vortex actually is, then with a bit of luck they might even get to know that temperature differences exists within different pressures, then they might actually discover that air contains a level of humidity and that such differences in pressure result in water condensation.

Also, planes have actual fuel-dumping systems, as such what they would do is either dump it or make a dump and burn procedure, this in order to reduce landing weight because the structural integrity of a plane should consider an initial take off weight and a final landing weight. If the plane exceeded it's maximum landing weight what it does is dump fuel to reduce it's landing weight.

If CIA or whatever would want to release mk-ultra or whatever into the atmosphere they would likely use these these systems, rather than a hidden tank on the wingtip of the plane, and even so such system should be used to deploy huge amounts of LSD into the population along with music from Jefferson Airplane and Pink Floyd, US Army toyed with the idea back at the day and I honestly think is much better than old fancy napalm.

 

[Enemem]

OK I will prove you wrong by replying to this specific part.

People comment in the vain hope that by providing detailed explanations (from people who have a solid background in these areas) that you might actually take some of it on-board rather than dismissing it almost out of hand and simply repeating nonsense.

Quite frankly that you have "Belief is the death of intelligence....." in your signature is rather ironic given that you are quite happy to 'believe' unsupported nonsense and ignore actual valid evidence.

I choose to answer this post because it sums up other posts by similar individuals. First of all, you seem to think that I believe that chem-trails exist. Where is your evidence for this? Secondly, just because an answer that you provide doesn't fit in with current thoughts, doesn't mean that it's dismissed out of hand. Someone referred to my economics background before, they obviously forgot to mention that I actually understood why minimum wage doesn't work economically. If it was a science then I'd understand it better.

At no point have I asserted that chemtrails are real. I have merely asked questions. Not my fault you prejudge people because the questions they ask are different to those you would ask.

Everything I've said in this thread is below. Show me where I've said they were real. You guys love to invent stuff, like questions you can answer.

Well ? Is it?
Not my fault the other thread was locked.
@prettymucheverybody - Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you are. Looks weird to me.
And @BobK. if you don't like chem-trail threads, then what the hell are you doing in here?
First of all, don't assume that conspiracy theorists are as nutty as you. Secondly, I see no reason why chemical additives to normal aeroplane fuel, wouldn't be easy to be done secretly. Thirdly, could the purpose be for weather modification aka Haarp rather than destroying plants, or creating rain.
Inventing stuff that no-one's said is nutty. Also called straw-man argument. Holds no water.
Err. Put extra fuel in. So it doesn't run out. Not rocket science.
Now you all make valid points. However amongst the posts above, there are some which ask more questions than provide answers.

@The Stig Farmer -- I didn't say that.
@haitch40 -- Don't know. And you'll be telling me lead, isn't an additive.
@Azuremen -- Touchy one aren't you! My profuse apologies for spelling your name wrong. Having chastised me, then you go and tell everyone, that I'm an idiot at grammar. You do lose a bit of respect, when you miss commas out. And nice contribution, by the way.
@Keef -- I understand that it may be technical calculating the amount of fuel for a trip, but your answer doesn't exactly say that it's impossible. If it's possible, then it's possible.
@Liquid -- Best post in thread. Now explain to me why it should be locked?
@homeforsummer -- hey I do this for fun. I'm not going to worry about it. But thanks for your concern.
@Venom800tt -- Good point, I don't know. If chem-trails exist, then there could only be two methods of dispersal, via the fuel from separate tanks.
@BobK -- must be nice to know everything. Can you tell me what the last thing that you didn't know was, and when you knew it?
@Famine -- Only impossible, from your perspective if it's a fuel additive. If it's dispersed separately then could it be possible?

You lot are probably the most hostile,bad humoured people, I've ever come across. And yeah, maybe I should get out more. I ask a question, pose some of my own answers to questions that have subsequently been asked, and you go insult me. Good job. If you don't want to talk about chem-trails and there existence or not, then why comment? (I fully expect this question to be ignored, but hey prove me wrong).

Do you want this thread closed so that nobody else can participate in a week/month/year or so?

You mention a whole host of other items that are worthy of discussion so why aren't you discussing them. I appreciate all the proper answers that were given. The majority of you however, I do not.

Nobody learns anything by talking about - oohh he says the CIA are killing people, it's the aliens. People responsible for such posts are a disgrace.

If someone came here to see what has been said about the topic what would they see? Someone being hassled for asking questions, by all the same people who hassled the guy in the original chem-trail threads. Is that weirder than chem-trails would be?

we're at liberty to respond to anything we choose.

The issue arises when several people give educated responses as to why something is bunkum, and it's ignored and countered with various strains of conspiracy tosh.

There are some things that simply aren't real, regardless of how many loony-penned websites you read.

And I'm at liberty to ask questions.

 

[homeforsummer]

And I'm at liberty to ask questions.

I never said you weren't.

But there's a point where constant questions akin to "but what about this?... but what about this?... but what about this?..." whenever anyone replies with a reasoned argument gets a bit tedious.

When people present evidence of why something isn't a chemtrail and you try to find loopholes and ways around it - no matter how far-fetched - that doesn't strike me as the actions of someone who doesn't believe in chemtrails. You've gone to great lengths to try and justify why it's possible that planes would carry weird chemicals, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary, and dismissed that evidence each time. Again, not the actions of someone who doesn't believe in chemtrails.

You're not really asking questions - you're throwing daft ideas into the ring, questioning why everyone else doesn't believe in them and then acting indignant when people get tired of explaining the same thing over and over. Had you been genuinely interested in a discussion about chemtrails, you'd not have started the thread by posting a bogus video (which has now disappeared... CONSPIRACY!) along with a completely open-ended "why?" question. And you'd probably have listened by now instead of clinging to the conspiracy.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Seriously, I've heard lots of theories and its hard to say what's true and what's not. I did find this interesting though-
View attachment 149988

Am I the only one that see's 741314382, NOT 7413145?

 

[Enemem]

For those who say a lot of "chemicals" would be needed

Schaefer was able to cause snow to fall near Mount Greylock in western Massachusetts, after he dumped six pounds of into the target cloud from a plane after a 60-mile easterly chase from the Schenectady County Airport.

6lbs !!

I never said you weren't.

But there's a point where constant questions akin to "but what about this?... but what about this?... but what about this?..." whenever anyone replies with a reasoned argument gets a bit tedious.

It's only an answer if it covers all bases required by the questioner. Surely, it's not the answerer's call, but the questioner.

When people present evidence of why something isn't a chemtrail and you try to find loopholes and ways around it - no matter how far-fetched - that doesn't strike me as the actions of someone who doesn't believe in chemtrails. You've gone to great lengths to try and justify why it's possible that planes would carry weird chemicals, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary, and dismissed that evidence each time. Again, not the actions of someone who doesn't believe in chemtrails.

And that's what a scientist would do, cover all questions.

You're not really asking questions - you're throwing daft ideas into the ring, questioning why everyone else doesn't believe in them and then acting indignant when people get tired of explaining the same thing over and over. Had you been genuinely interested in a discussion about chemtrails, you'd not have started the thread by posting a bogus video (which has now disappeared... CONSPIRACY!) along with a completely open-ended "why?" question. And you'd probably have listened by now instead of clinging to the conspiracy.

Yeah, it's my fault it disappeared from original webpage, you may think it's a conspiracy, but I don't. And I didn't ask why, I asked if it was a chem-trail. Information given by some of the more informed of you, has ascertained that it pretty much looks like water vapour coming of the wing-things(technical term).

Let me ask a question. Let's assume that chemtrails are bunkum, not too much of a stretch for most of you. If someone developed a technology that enabled governments to spray chemicals(without trails of any sort) from planes, how would you ever find out?

 

[Azuremen]

Let me ask a question. Let's assume that chemtrails are bunkum, not too much of a stretch for most of you. If someone developed a technology that enabled governments to spray chemicals(without trails of any sort) from planes, how would you ever find out?

I dunno, people like this guy?

The aviation industry is far larger than the NSA and far less intense in their security and contracts, you really think someone wouldn't be a whistler blower?

 

[terminator363]

Pilot "Forgets to turn off Chemtrails"

 

[Lizard]

I still don't know the purpose of these chemicals. No matter how much evidence there is (which from where I am sitting is almost nothing) if there is no reason then I refuse to believe it. Would they really do things like cut fuel efficiency because they felt like it? No.

 

[Exorcet]

Pilot "Forgets to turn off Chemtrails"

I like how they post a picture refuting a video above the article.

And that's what a scientist would do, cover all questions.

Only relevant questions. If you were taking the role of a scientist, you would have a reason for suspecting the condensation in the video was something else and propose an explanation. Evidence would help too.

You only originally posted "Is it?". Then you said it looked "weird". You never really made an argument. Famine's original "No" answered your question in as succinct a manner as you asked it.

Even if the point was just for your own learning, what should have been posted was what made you suspicious. That way it could be debunked or verified and we'd go from there.

Let me ask a question. Let's assume that chemtrails are bunkum, not too much of a stretch for most of you. If someone developed a technology that enabled governments to spray chemicals(without trails of any sort) from planes, how would you ever find out?

From evidence of this happening.

 

[Scaff]

I choose to answer this post because it sums up other posts by similar individuals. First of all, you seem to think that I believe that chem-trails exist. Where is your evidence for this? Secondly, just because an answer that you provide doesn't fit in with current thoughts, doesn't mean that it's dismissed out of hand. Someone referred to my economics background before, they obviously forgot to mention that I actually understood why minimum wage doesn't work economically. If it was a science then I'd understand it better.

At no point have I asserted that chemtrails are real. I have merely asked questions. Not my fault you prejudge people because the questions they ask are different to those you would ask.

While you have not specifically mentioned in this thread that you believe Chem-trails exist you have dismissed and/or ignored evidence that clearly shows they don't exist and that no conspiracy exists around them, while at the same time presenting supposed evidence in support in a positive light.

Basically your stance and bias present you as a supporter of Chem-trails.

 

[TenEightyOne]

People also forget that aerial dispersion is a really really rubbish way to dose subjects effectively.

The UK government already dose us much more effectively with folic acid in our bread and fluoride in (some of) our water, they wouldn't bother chemtrailing, they'd just feck with the legal means that they've already established for mass-medication.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's only an answer if it covers all bases required by the questioner. Surely, it's not the answerer's call, but the questioner.

Only you're not asking particularly serious questions.

What you're doing is asking leading questions in the hope you'll strike gold that we're all somehow wrong about chemtrails.

And that's what a scientist would do, cover all questions.

Don't try and dress what you're doing up as science. If it was science you'd have been able to find all these answers for yourself, and would have started the thread with an explanation of both sides of the chemtrails argument, perhaps furnishing it with your own views - and the debate would have gone from there.

Instead, you post random bits of conspiracy dross every time people post evidence for why chemtrails aren't a thing, without bothering to counter or refute those points. You're either incredibly poor at creating balanced, educated debates, or you've got an agenda to peddle. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Yeah, it's my fault it disappeared from original webpage, you may think it's a conspiracy, but I don't.

That bit was called "sarcasm". I was half expecting you to use the fact the video had been pulled as evidence it was something people didn't want the world to see.

And I didn't ask why, I asked if it was a chem-trail. Information given by some of the more informed of you, has ascertained that it pretty much looks like water vapour coming of the wing-things(technical term).

And yet you've not gone "oh right, my mistake", you've continued to put forward various bits of supposed evidence for chemtrails existing. And continue to do so every time someone says "no, that's not chemtrails either". I'm sure you'll do the same again when someone refutes the Wikipedia quote about cloud seeding.

Let me ask a question. Let's assume that chemtrails are bunkum, not too much of a stretch for most of you. If someone developed a technology that enabled governments to spray chemicals(without trails of any sort) from planes, how would you ever find out?

Because literally tens of thousands of people work in the airline industry and at least a handful of them would be very aware that something wasn't routine.

There are also tens of thousands of independent scientists around the world taking atmospheric readings, who'd be able to spot unusual signatures, including those not visible to the naked eye.

 

[Keef]

Am I the only one that see's 741314382, NOT 7413145?

It reads "B2".

It's only an answer if it covers all bases required by the questioner. Surely, it's not the answerer's call, but the questioner.

Could you please state your criteria again so that we're all on the same page?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Enemem Uh as I've already stated cloud seeding =/= chem trails or prove their existence also why would it need to when cloud seeding is well documented as a way or providing weather change for the benefit of a country's people, or for the destruction of an opposing force. Kind of hard to hide what is already known and then mask it as something else.

They're contrails and until proven otherwise, I'm sure you can find a scientific article on the matter, dont be shy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...I see no reason why chemical additives to normal aeroplane fuel, wouldn't be easy to be done secretly.

Not sure what your weather map was for, unless it was to prove weather existed. I was okay with weather already existing, if I'm honest.

Do you know what happens to aircraft fuel in the aircraft? Even if you decided it was safe to burn the fuel at any altitude you still run it through a complex process on its way to being exploded in a jet engine.

You may well see no reason why the addition couldn't be made so thank goodness it's not up to you to decide.

The video in the OP; just pressure vortices. The smokers' corner that I occasionally occupy is directly below the final approach to a very major airport, during early mornings it can be quite beautiful watching the larger planes sinking out of the mist dragging surprisingly dense ribbons of "wake" behind them. There's also a great sound along the "tunnel" they carve.

If that's chemtrailing then I'd be completely burtation.


@Keef, all we seem to have now is an OP with no video and the question "Well, is it?".

It's like one of those excruciating "coming soon" ad campaigns for a film you'll never watch.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I have been sprayed by a low flying military jet.

In 1986, while participating in war games (as a soldier in the army), 45 days in the desert. I was siting in an air-conditioned electronics shop in the back of an 18-wheeler. We were participating in an annual event at 29 Palms California.

I was doing the Army Times crosword puzzle over the radio with others who were lucky enough to have AC out in the desert, when all of the sudden there was a HUGE boom, the trailer rocked, and I could hear a jet flying away.

I got up and ran out the back of the trailer. The smell was so strong, I could taste the jet fuel in the air.

The plane was, by this time, hundreds of yards away and pulling up at a very steep angle.

The camouflaged flat paint on the trailers in our small group was speckled with jet fuel.

I’m not sure if the F-16’s engines are that inefficient, or if the pilot intentionally did something to spray us.

I learned over the radio a few minutes later that we had been killed. But in true Army style, we still had to come to work every day.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The smell of a plane going to afterburner (I love that in the morning) is very fuel-strong but dissipates very quickly, you get a sense of that at airshows when the wind's drifting towards the crowd from the runway. Sounds like the guy was just having a good time with someone else's fuel