Chemtrails- What are they?

In the ATS exclusive clip, Jesse is asking the ATS audience for thoughts and information about Chemtrails. Are they harmful? Is there a cover-up?



Let him know your thoughts by leaving him a comment in the forum.

originally posted by: OFFTHEGRID
In the ATS exclusive clip, Jesse is asking the ATS audience for thoughts and information about Chemtrails. Are they harmful? Is there a cover-up?



Let him know your thoughts by leaving him a comment in the forum.

Chemical Contrails are harmful as a starter, they would contain much of what was proposed in GE patents to combat AGW, GW etc anyway.
Maybe when those patents were proposed, there was not just enough known about what a contrail can accomplish.

Well, As a believer, My opinion is that they are real, and spraying something thats effecting everybody. So we just have to find out what everyone has in common (allergies, diabetes, heart problems ect.) just to name a few things. but since there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that supports any believers claims, then we are automatically shot down with the whole "contrails" rambling. This subject has been beaten to death, much like other conspiracies, but Chemtrails spark a crazy reaction in people wether you believe or you don't.

So with that being said, one day we will have that "proof" we need, but until then its useless to talk about jesse. As you will come to found out, A LOT of people think its hogwash. But i should remind everyone that the whole NSA spying was considered hogwash once as well...

just my couple cents on this issue.

Now all you debunkers can take over the thread....



EDIT

and let me add, as I go through the topics and forums there has been a lot of chemtrail posts today, mostly by debunkers of course. pretty weird its a hot topic all of a sudden.

Oh I don't know if it's been seen outside prototypes and testing, assuming it's gotten that far. Given secrecy for the sake of it sometimes, perhaps it's also well advanced for all we know.

I do believe UN working groups and others have clearly talked about using what amount to chemtrails as a future method to curb climate change. So, if it hasn't come, it may well be coming sooner than later.

Whether it's ultimately good or bad to do, I think the debate taking place in apparent restrictions of secrecy is about the worst idea. Meddling with atmospheric balances or natural cycles seems entirely too global in impact for any one group to assume the risks in our name or on our behalf.

Until someone charters a plane to sample contrails and comes back with conclusive evidence they are more than just contrails then I have to say they are just contrails.

There has been ample time and opportunity to do just that, but the ones pushing the hardest to convince people they are more than contrails never do yet many of them make small fortunes off of pushing the myth.

Kind of like snake oil salesman of old IMO.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Do you really want people to question your credibility?

ETA: I should probably expand on the statement above. It's pretty clear to me that there is no massive conspiracy to spray chemtrails through our skies. It's possible, someone has engineered something into fuel stores and this is what people are seeing. It's just as likely that atmospheric conditions are such that contrails in certain locations 'hang' for a protracted period.

I've been around for over half a century. I remember seeing the same thing and making a mental note of it when I was just a child. I thought contrails were kind of magical and that people were painting the sky. Is somebody really willing to stake their CT cred and say this started not less than 50 years ago?

I don't hold any hope that Jesse or anyone will get the truth out there. However the mere fact that there are people such as snarl that will come out and ask a question such as they did, adds confirmation to what I have witnessed happening in the sky, the past few weeks. No one calls out people who claim there's a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow in the same way they do someone who speaks about chemtrails. One has to wonder why and what it is they fear we'll find out.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Until someone charters a plane to sample contrails and comes back with conclusive evidence they are more than just contrails then I have to say they are just contrails.

Its been done.
Persistent contrails are formed more frequently now because of the increase in engine bypass ratios as the airlines mothballed the old 727's and started flying more fuel efficient aircraft in the mid 90's.

Engine Bypass Ratio

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Do you really want people to question your credibility?

ETA: I should probably expand on the statement above. It's pretty clear to me that there is no massive conspiracy to spray chemtrails through our skies. It's possible, someone has engineered something into fuel stores and this is what people are seeing. It's just as likely that atmospheric conditions are such that contrails in certain locations 'hang' for a protracted period.

I've been around for over half a century. I remember seeing the same thing and making a mental note of it when I was just a child. I thought contrails were kind of magical and that people were painting the sky. Is somebody really willing to stake their CT cred and say this started not less than 50 years ago?

Great response to such a stupid topic. No offence OP but theres no such thing as the chemtrail conspiracy

Wouldn't it be easier for government or whoever to poison the water or something?

Also, wouldn't these "chemicals" dissipate in the atmosphere being sprayed at such a height?

Please...Jesse has the money to perform the necessary INDEPENDENT research that would PROVE the issue once and for all...so, instead of asking for the opinions of "expert earth-bound eyeballers," please just rent the jet and take a sample of one of these supposed "chemtrails," and post the results...

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Oh I don't know if it's been seen outside prototypes and testing, assuming it's gotten that far. Given secrecy for the sake of it sometimes, perhaps it's also well advanced for all we know.

Is it supposed to be secret though? The thing is, many scientists discussed this at the time of Kyoto, included in that was discussion on when to take this from the lab into the field. The upshot of that was supposed indecision, because many or most thought that the only way to research geoengineering, was to actually do it.

Since recently, Dane Wiginton claimed that the new high bypass engines cannot produce lasting contrails, any trail seen in the sky "must" be a chemtrail, so you just have to test any one of those to determine if chemtrails exist.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

He seems to be one of the most quoted lately when the chemtrail believers are active.

If you take the time to understand basic meteorology, and comprehend how a jet engine works, you find it really hard to not see contrails and understand exactly what they are. But as with Bigfoot, Nessie, it's a fun conspiracy with no proof.



Edit to add:
What a show it would be to have Dane Wiginton, Cliff Carnicom on the show, have them explain all about the evils of chemtrails, then offer to take them up in a plane to get direct samples. I bet they would squirm and cough, trying to find a way to backtrack as to why that would be a bad idea. (it would shut them down instantly if found to be just a contrail) And with the recent claim about the engines, they are already backed into the corner.

OMG PROOF!

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

n the ATS exclusive clip, Jesse is asking the ATS audience for thoughts and information about Chemtrails. Are they harmful? Is there a cover-up?

So you are not going to ask are they real?

Or what the definition according to the believers is?

Initially when watching What in the world I had concerns but I also had some basic knowledge of the atmosphere so I questioned and saw much of the reasons given were to catch an ignorant crowd or create a delusional one.

Why are they so more concerning than ground based pollution for those that say they are poisoning us?

Yes there is cover up and yes they are harmful,

Haven't you read right here how many have chemtrail flu.

Yes they are very harmful

a reply to: smurfy

Agreed, and it's the same thing the working groups of the IPCC have been discussing and theorizing in public reports as well. 'Doing', seems to be the point they've reached, if not quite some time ago really for going forward at all. Talking and modeling sounds about played out.

It is interesting to watch the numbers of scientists and other specialists debate the specifics of dispersal of a few different agents by high altitude aircraft (what would look identical to chemtrails if one were to see a plane doing what they discuss and model) vs. the very determined push back for literally having public discussion of the concept without many layers and levels of proof bordering on standards of a courtroom.

Very interesting indeed..and it raises more suspicion in my mind, as more and more push back comes to something so openly considered by the world's leaders in climate work as well as advising the individuals that go to form and execute political policy around the world.

The funny thing is..if not for that vigorous push back? I'm not entirely sure the topic would have engaged me at all. At least never in the way it's come to. I wonder how many others that is true for?

Wouldn't it be easier for government or whoever to poison the water or something?

..stuff like fluoride has been added to water for decades
water is a building block.
what's so hard to believe that this may have taken on a more active role? (increased dispersal)

i think some of the isotopes for holograms to function are barium & strontium,
these also are being released into the atmosphere..

..maybe it's all just one big "coincidence"

originally posted by: UNIT76


i think some of the isotopes for holograms to function are barium & strontium,
these also are being released into the atmosphere..

They are? How and when? How did you get this information?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: smurfy

Agreed, and it's the same thing the working groups of the IPCC have been discussing and theorizing in public reports as well. 'Doing', seems to be the point they've reached, if not quite some time ago really for going forward at all. Talking and modeling sounds about played out.


The funny thing is..if not for that vigorous push back? I'm not entirely sure the topic would have engaged me at all. At least never in the way it's come to. I wonder how many others that is true for?

Well, both yes and no for me. Some time ago, the statement/s were being made in the 'height' of the AGW non-debate, that such aerosol systems would be used failing any alternatives when time was of the essence, which was already upon us then..at least that was the thinking, no ifs or but's then, and even though they could be harmful.
In the meantime I was digging into what was known about aircraft exhausts, and discovered that they were just as chemically active to a 'lesser degree' than what was being proposed, because of what was in fuel additives, anti-statics, scavenging of engine metals, novel chemistry created inside the engines and at the exhausts, never mind the plumes themselves being a problem. Not only that, there were some processes going on they didn't completely understand. Then, as you say, there was the big push back.

a reply to: network dude

there's a video showing some research by japanese scientists,
try a search for "touchable holograms"
barium & strontium were cited

"fukushima" (?)

I have often wondered about this particular issue..

Over the years I have had several people say its the military.. but in the last 17 years of working flight line maintenance on large multi jet engine aircraft I have yet to see any of the sprayers, or storage tanks for said sprayers.

As far as the contrails now when there are newer higher efficient motors that should not be leaving a contrail.. some airlines cannot afford all new airplanes so they keep using what they have been using.

You might say they can retro-fit the planes with newer engines.. you would be right unless they have cracks on the main support struts at which point you cannot retrofit a plane because it may not be able to handle the stress load put out by the newer engines. (I have seen an Xray of a B-52 wing... looks like a picture of the interstate system in LA.)

I also have several good friends that work in ACFT depot for the military and they see the entire plane stripped apart and they have never seen a sprayer.. or the space that would be required for a storage tank for the chemicals. (I have also walked through the work areas on any number of occasions and never seen anything myself)

I am not saying it has never happened, but I haven't seen any proof of large scale spraying that some people claim.

feel free to point me in a direction, doesn't bother me to read up on things.