Aerial spraying video - or, why white lines in the sky are not chemtrails.

Here is a video which really does show aerial spraying in action.



These aircraft are involved in, or demonstrating the technique of, firefighting. Despite the obvious objections I can see galloping towards me with undue haste, this video is relevant as a reference point in the debate on chemtrails for one or two reasons.

The most apparent is that, in order to aim at something specific, a fixed point, on the ground, this activity is carried out at very low level. You'd think, wouldn't you, that if one activity would require you to spray from high altitude, it would be when flying over a huge fire, however as skeptics constantly have to tell people who are being "targeted" with poisons/Morgellons disease (sic) etc it is simply not possible to spray from anything but very low level and have the material come down in any sort of quantity that is useful or in a specific place where you want it. Try it yourself. Open an upstairs window and put a large jug of water next to it. Then get someone (or you) light a small fire on the ground, contained in a bucket for safety. Try to put out the fire by pouring the water from out the window, Air resistance will scatter that water all over, and you're only about 40ft up and not moving. Then apply logic.

Ergo - those white lines sitting high in the sky are not aimed at you. If you think they are you have paranoia issues that a medical professional may be able to help with.

The second point relates to how people think chemtrails at altitude are deliberately sprayed with material carried by the plane. When you see the release from these firefighters, it is comparable with the volume of a contrail, but notice how quickly it's over. The full capacity of the aircraft is exhausted in a few seconds and the empty plane flies away. This is something else we've been trying to tell you for years. The sheer amount of "contrail" that an aircraft leaves behind it, cannot possibly be carried by any current or past aircraft. The explanation that so many glibly dismiss, that the engines create 1.25t of water for every 1t of fuel burned and this combines with the water in the air already, the water released by depressurisation of the bypass air behind the engine and aerosols in the atmosphere and from the exhaust to create a huge visible plume of water ice crystals, is not only the correct one, but it's also the only one that makes logical sense. All other attempts rely on magical properties and unknown science, that we all know is just bull# created to smear over the obvious flaws.

That's all I wanted to say for now, but think on, if you are considering writing a reply about geoengineering, then there's no need, it just means you haven't understood the post at all. (Aerial geoengineering SRM techniques would not be visible from the ground anyway).

a reply to: waynos

Ergo - those white lines sitting high in the sky are not aimed at you.

Yah, strictly speaking environmental pollution isn't intentional.

Its 'by product', fallout, and it does come back down. Usually with rain.

a reply to: intrptr

You are correct. But that is not the subject of this topic. I'm of the opinion that the pollutants from jet exhaust, when they do eventually come down, are a minuscule proportion and far far less harmful that the ground level pollution emitted by transport and industry every minute of every day, so that trying to do something about air travel to reduce pollution nowadays after all the measures already put in place in past decades, is like trying to put a sticking plaster on an amputated leg, but this is not the place for that. There is an environmental board for those discussions, which are extremely valid. My post is aimed squarely at those people who believe chemtrails are intentionally sprayed for a set purpose and are visible as white lines in the sky.

I'm not a chemtrailer. I'm not a chemist, or engineer either. From my perspective, categorically denying chemtrails is just as ignorant as seeing them in every white line across the sky. I think there may be possible applications for high altitude chemtrailing the average person researching this topic isn't aware of. At the same time, if we want to believe in chemtrails, we'll find a reason to. Or not to, whichever the case may be for the individual. Personally, I'll keep an open mind on this topic. I do think there's more to learn about this than we know at present.

Just my 2 cents, but this would have been a good OP if you had left out the condescending attitude in a few places. imho.

a reply to: waynos

This is a pathetic thread. The OP may has well have used a crop duster as their example. Very poorly presented OP.

originally posted by: Klassified
I'm not a chemtrailer. I'm not a chemist, or engineer either. From my perspective, categorically denying chemtrails is just as ignorant as seeing them in every white line across the sky. I think there may be possible applications for high altitude chemtrailing the average person researching this topic isn't aware of. At the same time, if we want to believe in chemtrails, we'll find a reason to. Or not to, whichever the case may be for the individual. Personally, I'll keep an open mind on this topic. I do think there's more to learn about this than we know at present.

Just my 2 cents, but this would have been a good OP if you had left out the condescending attitude in a few places. imho.

It's entirely possible. The planes exist already. But as you know the frustration comes in at pointing to this:


And claiming it's categorically chemtrails. The sad thing is, the OP will be chastised for being absolute, but the many, many, many others who do the same thing on the other side are encouraged by most, not chastised. #frustration.

a reply to: network dude
Agreed. There seems to be little balance to this debate. But then, this is ATS.

Here you go a perfect example of why those white lines in the sky aren't chemtrails, as we see a plane spraying over the Gulf where you can plainly see that if you spray something from plane that isn't a contrail( which aren't sprayed ) it won't just hang around.

a reply to: Bilk22

This is a pathetic thread. The OP may has well have used a crop duster as their example. Very poorly presented OP.

Why because you have nothing to refute what he is saying?

The OP was presented pretty straight forward ant to the point...so was it poorly presented?

a reply to: waynos
You have just attacked the religion that is Chemtrail with reason tch tch. You forget that some people believe in this stuff irrespective of any evidence. You will get pelters (so I suggest you duck now) and I will get called a shill or troll or government agent or some other narrow minded response.

originally posted by: waynos
If you think they are you have paranoia issues that a medical professional may be able to help with.

When you make pretentious, presumptuous statements like this, it calls into question your social skills. A medical professional may be able to help you with that.

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: waynos
If you think they are you have paranoia issues that a medical professional may be able to help with.

When you make pretentious, presumptuous statements like this, it calls into question your social skills. A medical professional may be able to help you with that.

Just as long as we continue to degrade the messenger, we will have no fears of dealing with the message.


Any input on the idea behind the OP?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: waynos
If you think they are you have paranoia issues that a medical professional may be able to help with.

When you make pretentious, presumptuous statements like this, it calls into question your social skills. A medical professional may be able to help you with that.

Just as long as we continue to degrade the messenger, we will have no fears of dealing with the message.


Any input on the idea behind the OP?

The degradation?

None, whatsoever.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Bilk22

This is a pathetic thread. The OP may has well have used a crop duster as their example. Very poorly presented OP.

Why because you have nothing to refute what he is saying?

The OP was presented pretty straight forward ant to the point...so was it poorly presented?

Means and methods. Do you know what that terminology means? The OP used a fire retardant dump and you used the spraying of oil dispersion chemicals to make a false argument.

The DWH plane didn't spray fire retardant on the oil spill just as the plane addressing the fire didn't dump oil dispersion chemicals over the fire. Chemtrails are designed to be sprayed at altitude and obviously have a different structural as well as chemical composition to meet the intended purpose, just as aerial smoke screens are different from fire retardant and oil dispersion chemicals.

Nice fallacious argument you and the OP attempted though.

a reply to: Bilk22

Can you explain the design of "chemtrails" which allows them to persist, expand, and thicken?
Seriously, how does that work?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22

Can you explain the design of "chemtrails" which allows them to persist, expand, and thicken?
Seriously, how does that work?

If I were a chemist I could probably do that for you. I also can't explain how the oil dispersion chemical works, if that's also important to you.

a reply to: Bilk22

If I were a chemist I could probably do that for you. I also can't explain how the oil dispersion chemical works, if that's also important to you.

So, you have no idea how it happens. And you have no idea how a contrail can behave exactly as a "chemtrail" supposedly does.
You can't explain much then. Got it.

OP: Have you dedicated your life to prove that "chemtrails" are actually "lingering persistent contrails" or is that what you do for a living?

Let it go, man. LET IT GO! You and the other 4 or 5 members that do the same thing. How many topics, of the same drivel, do you need to make, to continue proving yourselves WRONG????

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bilk22

If I were a chemist I could probably do that for you. I also can't explain how the oil dispersion chemical works, if that's also important to you.

So, you have no idea how it happens. And you have no idea how a contrail can behave exactly as a "chemtrail" supposedly does.
You can't explain much then. Got it.

I can explain it, in detail, but you still WOULDN'T GET IT!

a reply to: JuJuBee

I can explain it, in detail, but you still WOULDN'T GET IT!

Try me.