If You Think These Are Just “Contrails” Think Again – Here’s What They Really Are

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And I am not sure why all the focus on chemtrails in the first place (given that there are so many methods out there), that is why I asked the question to NetworkDude, who by the way has a lovely avatar.

Contrails are a type of cirrus cloud and can frequently cause the formation of other cirrus clouds. Some uninformed people have formed for themselves, or had foisted upon them, the idea that the creation of clouds in this way is what is meant by the term "cloud seeding". This leads them to conclude, without any basis whatsoever, that contrails are chemtrails because they see aircraft contrails as a deliberate act intended to create clouds, which is patently nonsense. This is why there is an apparent fixation with trying to educate people about the nature of contrails and what causes them to behave the way thry do.

It's nothing to do with the denial of weather modification, neither is it anything to do with trying to hide, or deflect attention away from, Geoengineering projects. It's actually the polar opposite of that as it is an attempt to get people to understand what they are observing so they might be better prepared to recognise something suspicious, or at least stop being scared of clouds or commercial air traffic.

A post that attempts to draw attention and promote awareness about something that most interested parties can immediately recognise as nothing unusual at all, serves only to make the poster look a fool. None of us wants that.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Dabrazzo

Yeah man seems pretty wacky, even a decent balloon with a fairly rudimentary sampler/capture device would suffice, not going to cost much. Odd.

Not if you want to fool people into sending you money by telling them something exists without actually having proof.

I find it remarkably telling that those who most actively promote chemtrails also actively promote the idea that it is too difficult, or even impossible, to get a sample. Even though this is directly contradicted by their own pet theory that chemtrails linger for hours and hours spreading out over the sky, which would make it incredibly easy! Best make sure no-ones checking too closely, eh?

More telling still are those who choose to believe this parp. Perhaps, like governments, people get the paranoia they deserve?

Hi everyone,

I am currently in Italy and the trails in the sky here are a daily routine, a lot more than what I see when I am in L.A.
I am still learning about the chemistry of the trails, however my question is: do the chemtrail have anything to do with the HAARP technology? In other words, if HAARP is so advanced as it seems to be, what is the purpose of spraying with planes? My first thought would be that the trails function as amplifiers for the radio waves emitted from the HAARP on the ground, or that the particles sprayed in the atmosphere would shield and refract the radio beams cast from HAARP Antennas and bounce back (i.e. spread over) the lower strata of the atmosphere.

I am not sure all of this makes sense to any of you, as I said I am still reading about the whole concept.
Thank you for your opinions.

a reply to: LaCommissioneTXP

HAARP has shut down, so it seems unlikely that mythical chemtrails have any relationship to no-longer-existent HAARP.

a reply to: LaCommissioneTXP

Here is a good place to start looking.
www.wrh.noaa.gov...

It explains contrails. I know they aren't as amazingly exciting as chemtrails, but they sure do look an awful lot like them.

Perhaps.........those lines in the sky are just contrails.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Hi Aloysius,

Who said that HAARP has shut down? The "Government"?
It's when a project is allegedly "dismissed" that we should dig deeper....
Thanks for your reply

a reply to: network dude

Network Dude,

Thanks for the tip, I'll go check it out. Whatever the trails are...they are awful, ugly and I'm surprised they still haven't figured out how to not emit that smoke out of the planes, provided they want to get rid of that whitish smoke...

a reply to: LaCommissioneTXP

Who said that HAARP has shut down?

Well if it isn't they need to fire the grounds maintenance crew...



But we also have this...

www.alaskapublic.org...

a reply to: LaCommissioneTXP

.they are awful, ugly and I'm surprised they still haven't figured out how to not emit that smoke out of the planes,

Yes they are, but that is something that happens when the world wants to travel.

The only way to stop them would be to stop flying planes, and I doubt that will ever happen.

a reply to: LaCommissioneTXP

Since the days of the legendary smoke belching airliners of the 1970s such as Convair Coronados are now a distant memory,and the current generation of airliners with high bypass ratio turbofans are some of if not the cleanest burning engines on the planet,we really have nothing to worry about what's happening 7 or 8 miles above our heads.

You should be more worried about that pollution making machine parked on your driveway,that there are now a billion of rapidly clogging up our planet.

The whitish smoke is ice crystals that form after water molecules get compressed inside the aircraft's engine and reform into actual drops of water once they hit the VERY cold air outside the engine.Wanna stop contrails completely,then invent an engine that doesn't need to mix the fuel with air and you'll be the king of the chemtrail world because they will have 'won' the battle against 'them'.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Tsurfer,

Ah ok, if one picture and an article is sufficient for you to close the case, I have nothing to argue.
To me, following the immortal "things are never what they seem", it is just another way to put our mind to rest (ie: buried).
Upgrading technology couldn't also mean that, once a different way to operate, old facilities don't need maintenance anymore?
You just don't shut down a multi-billions, long term project and move forward, unless you have achieved what the project was intended for. Even in this case HAARP can't be considered off. It may have simply evolved into something more advanced.

a reply to: Imagewerx

Hi Imagewerx,

Hold on a sec, are you telling me that ALL planes emit white smoke?
The author of this article is of different opinion:

[excerpt]
"Now there are two main reasons why some planes leave trails and some nearby planes do not. The less common reason, is that different planes have different engines. Some engines will leave a contrail in air where another engine will not. Here, for example are an Airbus A340 (maiden flight: 1991) on the left, leaving contrails, and a Boeing 707 (maiden flight: 1957) not leaving contrails. Both are flying at 33,000 feet (part of a German test to study contrail formation), but the newer engines of the A340 produce more water vapor at a different temperature, and so make contrails"

Link>: contrailscience.com...

So it is not just the altitude, but also the engine?
Different engines to me means different technology. So it is possible not to leave trails, either chem- or con-.
Thank you for your reply

a reply to: LaCommissioneTXP

Here is a thread on HAARP shutting down.

And since you already looked at contrailscience, you can find answers to all your questions on that site. It's very well researched.

a reply to: LaCommissioneTXP

It is not the altitude or the engine, it is the the temperature, humidity and pressure that causes it. Different engines will create different effects in slightly different conditions because high bypass, or big fan, engines are more likely to produce contrails in marginal conditions than small fan or turbojet engines, purely because their exhaust is cooler and with a higher water content. This is what the quote you posted is talking about.

Look at the end of the thread www.abovetopsecret.com... where I posted three photos showing how, in the right conditions, aircraft create vapourous effects even at low or ground level. The reasons these trails disappear quickly is because they do not freeze. You call the smoke, but it's not smoke, its water droplets (in my pics) or ice ( at high altitude where it freezes).

a reply to: LaCommissioneTXP

Ah ok, if one picture and an article is sufficient for you to close the case, I have nothing to argue.

It just isn't that article, but feel free to provide anything that shows it is still open.

Upgrading technology couldn't also mean that, once a different way to operate, old facilities don't need maintenance anymore?

Problem is how can they upgrade something they can't afford to run in the first place?

As that is the biggest reason they shut down as they cannot afford to upgrade the generators that run the facility...

The proximate cause of HAARP’s early May shutdown was less fiscal than environmental, Keeney said. As he explained it, the diesel generators on site no longer pass Clean Air Act muster. Repairing them to meet EPA standards will run $800,000. Beyond that, he said, it costs $300,000 a month just to keep the facility open and $500,000 to run it at full capacity for 10 days.

www.arrl.org...

It's all about the money, and unfortunately that is something they don't have.

originally posted by: LaCommissioneTXP
a reply to: network dude

Network Dude,

Thanks for the tip, I'll go check it out. Whatever the trails are...they are awful, ugly and I'm surprised they still haven't figured out how to not emit that smoke out of the planes, provided they want to get rid of that whitish smoke...

Contrails are not smoke. They are basically artificially-made clouds, made up of mostly the same thing that high-altitude clouds are made of -- ice crystals. Sure, there are other pollutants in jet exhaust, but it is the water ice that freezes into ice crystals that we can see as visible contrails. Much of the other exhaust gases (such as carbon dioxide) remain invisible, as do the the small amount of tiny pollutant particulates.

Moisture at the back of the engine condenses and freezes due to the warm wet conditions coming out of the back of the engine, and the fact that a nucleation site for that moisture is being introduced into the air.. A small portion of that moisture is the by product of burning hydrocarbon fuel (the hydrogen in the fuel burns/oxidizes, which causes it to bond with oxygen, creating H2O), but most of the moisture was already present as water vapor in the air to begin with -- i.e., either water vapor that was in the air behind the engine, or water vapor that was in the air that was sucked into the engine intake at the front.

The types of jet engines used today (and starting in the late 1990s) are known as "high-bypass" engines. That means that most of the air sucked into the front of the engine (up to 85% of that air) bypasses the combustion chamber, and is instead compresses and helps turn turbines. So much of the vapor that was already present in the air before the plane passed through it would then be available at the back of the plane to condense out of the air to form water droplets. Actually, the vapor never really forms "water droplets", but instead goes directly to the ice crystal stage, due to the extremely cold temperatures at high altitude (up to -60 degrees F). This going directly from water vapor state to a frozen state is called "deposition".

One other thing...if contrails were the smoke made by jet engine exhaust, then would we see this smoke coming from planes all of the time, at all altitudes? Instead, we see contrails only when the conditions are right for contrails -- which is very very cold air, and air that has a high relative humidity.

Going back to your comment of yours "I'm surprised they still haven't figured out how to not emit that smoke out of the planes", the newer types of engines that I mentioned (the high-bypass engines) can actually create more contrails, due to their exhaust being warmer and wetter than engines in the past. The increased ability for contrail production was not an aim of the high-bypass engines (greater fuel efficiency was), but an increase in the ability to produce contrails was an unfortunate by-product.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

A slight Freudian slip in your reply methinks. The exhaust of HBPR engines is cooler and wetter than older engines. Warm and wet is another subject entirely that even plane spotters like me know about

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

A slight Freudian slip in your reply methinks. The exhaust of HBPR engines is cooler and wetter than older engines. Warm and wet is another subject entirely that even plane spotters like me know about

Yes, thanks!

My mind was elsewhere -- as it often is

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

My mind was elsewhere -- as it often is

Damn chemtrails...

originally posted by: LaCommissioneTXP
a reply to: Imagewerx

Hi Imagewerx,

Hold on a sec, are you telling me that ALL planes emit white smoke?
The author of this article is of different opinion:

[excerpt]
"Now there are two main reasons why some planes leave trails and some nearby planes do not. The less common reason, is that different planes have different engines. Some engines will leave a contrail in air where another engine will not. Here, for example are an Airbus A340 (maiden flight: 1991) on the left, leaving contrails, and a Boeing 707 (maiden flight: 1957) not leaving contrails. Both are flying at 33,000 feet (part of a German test to study contrail formation), but the newer engines of the A340 produce more water vapor at a different temperature, and so make contrails"

Link>: contrailscience.com...

So it is not just the altitude, but also the engine?
Different engines to me means different technology. So it is possible not to leave trails, either chem- or con-.
Thank you for your reply

The first generation airbuses (A300) had engines that were only about 40 (ish) % bigger than those on the Boeing 707s.But there was a lot more technology that got put into them than just the amount of air they could guzzle up and push out from the other end.Fuel efficiency,noise levels,lower levels of unburnt gases and other pollutants were all reduced.But the size and thickness of the contrails increased because they were using more air that contained more water vapour than before,but again also dependent on different conditions on any particular day.Any sort of infernal combustion engine that needs air to aid the combustion process(i.e. all of them) can cause water vapour to turn to tiny ice crystals if the local conditions (even at ground level) are cold and moist enough.On a very few occasions I've seen aircraft taking off from London Gatwick (at about 200 feet AMSL) leaving contrails as soon as they leave the ground,but this has only been on VERY cold days (well below 0 degrees) and later in the day when there was thick fog in the morning.