It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What I think Of Chemtrails

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Tyrion79

As I was writing that I wondered if we were talking at cross purposes. In the first part quoted (telling the difference) I was referring to a covering of cloud, not individual trails. In the second part you can tell a plane triggered the process if you see the contrails and then the spreading (which I recognise is what you meant)

Which brings on to....


That's right, however if the planes weren't there (in the right cloud forming conditions), there would be clear skies.


For a short while longer perhaps, but I disagree in principle. Surely if the conditions for cloud formation are present, they are as likely to form as not to all by themselves, at the very least?

edit on 23-10-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   
what makes you believe the skies would have stayed clear and clouds would not have formed anyway?



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
So am I now just complaining about the presence of airplanes in the sky? (was just pondering that myself...)
Maybe, to a certain degree. But I still think, the way I see contrails form and spread nowadays in comparison to say 20-30 yrs ago, is very different and I'm not the only one who thinks so, after consulting lots of people about it.


The sky you see is the same sky other see. Yes, there are more trails. A lot more. To the point where before, there were only a few and now, you may get the entire sky filled. But.....that has been explained to you. The engines changed along with a massive uptick in air travel, putting more planes in the air.

So based on the information provided, what you see is exactly what anyone who was paying attention would expect to see.

I do understand what makes it possible for someone to fall into the chemtrail trap, but what keeps them there is obstanence (which is taught by the chemtrail camp themselves). This information is out there and fully explains the phenomenon, but another trick taught by chemtrailers is to ignore any "official" looking sources.

Seeing that, perhaps you can understand the challenge we have when trying to present this information to a poster who comes asking legitimate questions, but has been tainted by receiving information from the wrong source. You are a rarity in this field, as you seem to understand the facts, and aren't actively ignoring them. Thanks for being open minded with this conversation.



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos
In theory they could form, but even if the conditions are met, it doesn't always mean they will form, unless triggered by aircraft in this case, which would always cause them to form.
On some days, such as my earlier example, I haven't seen any other clouds form other than the cirrus cover by airplanes.
Unless naturally formed cirrus were created there as well in between, which I obviously then could not have distinquished.
On rare occasions, I've seen the skies clear up at the end of the day, without other clouds visible.
Besides, if natural clouds are always formed when conditions are met, then wouldn't we always see natural clouds appearring near contrails (because said conditions are met)?
But, yeah, surely it wouldn't be impossible for other clouds to form.
I don't know if I still make sense here, lol, tell me if I don't



posted on Oct, 24 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
Thank you for your kind response and yes, I always try to be openminded.
I can be a bit stubborn at times, however I'm never too proud to admit I'm wrong, whenever it appears to be.
I'm glad you confirm, that I'm not the only who perceive the skies, as how I describe them, even if they're all just contrails.
It still bothers me though, for reasons I've already stated.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: waynos
In theory they could form, but even if the conditions are met, it doesn't always mean they will form, unless triggered by aircraft in this case, which would always cause them to form.


Yes, I think here, when you say it doesn't always mean they will form, and I say it's not possible to say they wouldn't form, we are saying basically the same thing, but from opposing sides (the glass half empty/half full paradox, lol). At the core of both our points, conditions for cloud formation are accepted by us both, but we are heading for a will they-won't they argument that neither of us can 'Win'.



On some days, such as my earlier example, I haven't seen any other clouds form other than the cirrus cover by airplanes.


Me too. There are days when RHI levels allow trails to persist, but not enough to spread into cloud. No argument there, but I'm not getting how it might be said that a blanket coverage of contrail induced cirrus would have remained a clear blue sky if it wasn't for that pesky aeroplane? By what means is this determinable? For me, the most that can be said is that the plane caused it to cloud over earlier (minutes possibly, hours probably). Please understand, I'm not saying that this would definitely happen every single time. It's just when someone says "my clear blue sky clouded over today because of planes" (for example) then it's just not possible to say that for certain. If aircraft were the cause, contrails would always persist and cloud over, and we know that doesn't happen. If one looks at a pattern over a year, then yes, I won't argue that on balance a few days weren't cloudier due to aviation, you just can't tell how many, or which ones. A proper scientific study into that would be fascinating, and I'm pretty sure I've seen that at least one has been done. I'll have to try and find it.



Besides, if natural clouds are always formed when conditions are met, then wouldn't we always see natural clouds appearring near contrails (because said conditions are met)?


Because atmospheric conditions are infinitely variable, do we know that they aren't always formed when the right conditions are met? Like I mentioned above, you can get contrails persisting in blue skies without spreading and without other clouds, that would not be the right conditions for cloud formation, but merely RHI levels high enough to prevent sublimation, no? This is purely opinion by the way, I speak with no authority at all in this area, so could easily be missing something. I'm enjoying the discourse though




edit on 25-10-2015 by waynos because: Fix tag



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: waynos
In theory they could form, but even if the conditions are met, it doesn't always mean they will form, unless triggered by aircraft in this case, which would always cause them to form.
On some days, such as my earlier example, I haven't seen any other clouds form other than the cirrus cover by airplanes.
Unless naturally formed cirrus were created there as well in between, which I obviously then could not have distinquished.
On rare occasions, I've seen the skies clear up at the end of the day, without other clouds visible.
Besides, if natural clouds are always formed when conditions are met, then wouldn't we always see natural clouds appearring near contrails (because said conditions are met)?
But, yeah, surely it wouldn't be impossible for other clouds to form.
I don't know if I still make sense here, lol, tell me if I don't




Your example ignores the water vapor caused by the aircraft. Jet fuel is a mixture of long chain hydrocarbons with each molecule having about 16 carbons and 26 hydrogens. That means a 747 carries about 16 tons (32000 pounds) of hydrogen which can combine with 128 tons of oxygen in the atmosphere to make 144 tons of water vapor. That is 36,000 gallons of water in the form of water vapor which can make a lot of contrails. Actually, if the con in contrail stands for condensation, it is a mischaracterization. The water vapor created by the air fuel mixture undegoes a phase transition directly from gas to solid (ice). This is deposition and not condensation. So, maybe "deptrails"?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: F4guy
Interesting, so if I understand it correctly, airplanes can adjust cloud-forming conditions, by adding water vapor into the air.
Wouldn't added water in sub-zero temperatures always create ice crystals in that way?
If so, how come there's a difference in contrail forming, between different aircraft?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
Interesting, so if I understand it correctly, airplanes can adjust cloud-forming conditions, by adding water vapor into the air.

I'm not sure if 'adjusting' is the right word, but in a sense yes.


Wouldn't added water in sub-zero temperatures always create ice crystals in that way?

No because it is still a matter of threshold, this chart explains it a bit:
Contrail Identification Chart and Formation Guide


If so, how come there's a difference in contrail forming, between different aircraft?

Different planes, engines, heights etc etc etc. Have you ever wondered why there was "blue sky" surrounding a cloud?
weknowyourdreams.com...



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MissVocalcord
Thank you for clearing this up.
This is very helpful indeed.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: F4guy
Interesting, so if I understand it correctly, airplanes can adjust cloud-forming conditions, by adding water vapor into the air.
Wouldn't added water in sub-zero temperatures always create ice crystals in that way?
If so, how come there's a difference in contrail forming, between different aircraft?



I think you misunderstand. The aircraft doesn't "adjust" anything. The water vapor is just the result of an oxidation- reduction chemical reaction. Some aircraft burn more fuel/hour than others. For example, a Learjet 25 might burn 1000 pounds/hour in cruise while a 747-400 would burn almost 22,000 pounds per hour. So, that's 20 times as much water vapor per mile since cruise speeds are about the same. And the engines on a 727 are so close together, it looks like 1 trail, while on a 747 they are far enough away to create four distinct trails. And then you have the turbo-jet versus turbo-fan differences and the differrent bypass ratios.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Some say that those chemtrails are used for military purposes and for clearing the sky for better radar range or functioning.
In reality they contain nanoparticles that enter your brain and are used to send signals to your brain from GSM mobile phones network antennas



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Flanker86

Actually, they are tiny worms that enter your brain and take over your thought process. They make you post silly things and have wild speculative thoughts that most would laugh at. they are crafty little bastards.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flanker86
Some say that those chemtrails are used for military purposes and for clearing the sky for better radar range or functioning.
In reality they contain nanoparticles that enter your brain and are used to send signals to your brain from GSM mobile phones network antennas


Ok let's see what we've got here.. Chemtrails, military purposes, nanoparticles and GSM antennas...

Yup...You forgot HAARP. It's got to be involved somehow. HAARP is (or was) also a super sekrit super weapon that can do everything from causing earthquakes to baking pancakes, so umm.. gotta have it in there



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79
I first started noticing there were strange contrails in the sky around the year 2000.
Being brought up in the 80's, I can't recollect ANY childhood memories, of the skies being painted as it is today.
Mind you, I live in an industrious and densely populated area near Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
Sure, I would see airplanes, high up in the sky, sometimes leaving a short white trail, which would dissipate after a few minutes.


Hi there Tyrion. I guess I'm a bit late to this thread. I've read the whole thing, and realize that as it progressed you seem to have had some new insights. But just for the sake of answering your core points, I'd like to respond to your OP anyway.

I also live in the Netherlands. I was born in 1969 and have been living in Delft for most of my life. My dad was a bit of a propellerhead, so he alsways took me to the airport which happens to be EHRD, or Rotterdam Airport (excuse me, Rotterdam The Hague airport these days).

So I grew up having airplanes of all kinds pointed out to me by my dad, and he'd tell me what kind of plane they were. Watching planes was second nature to me. Whenever I heard an airplane, I'd look up in the sky trying to find out what kind it was. In fact I was usually able to tell from the sound alone what was flying overhead.

I also loved to look up in the sky and watch commercial airliners at cruise altitude creating their contrails. I distinctly remember how they'd sometimes dissipate, and how at other times they'd persist. This was in the early 70s, mind you.

Of course air traffic back then wasn't as populated as it is these days. Nowadays some 100.000 flights go all over the globe every single day, and since they don't all fly in the same direction, it's very likely that on a day with the right conditions, a pattern of contrails will emerge.


In those days, it was even special, if a helicopter flew nearby, nowadays they circle the neighbourhood many times a day (apart from the trauma heli's, used in severe accidents).
I know this is a controversial subject around the internet, especially in other media, but I do know this:
Even with increased air traffic it makes absolutely no sense, when on a clear summer day with blue skies, you could play checkers in the sky with all the "contrails" sprayed there.


Many people who believe in chemtrails make this statement. But I have to wonder: given the amount of traffic in the skies nowadays, what else do you expect? How can patterns NOT emerge? I really wonder why people are surprised to find out that there really are a lot of jets flying around at cruise altitudes, and that it's inevitable that they have to fly along certain routes that do intersect, thus creating a grid pattern.

Here's a picture indicating just how dense the grid of all the air routes over Europe really is:






Most of the work I do is outside based, so I usually have a clear view all day of what's happening up there.
On a good day, with clear skies and no upcoming weatherfronts, I personally observe how lines are being sprayed, one after another, until can you clearly discern aforementioned checkerboard.
These lines not only fail to dissipate after a while, they spread out into a fine mist, which fills the entire sky. Only a few hours later, you can't see a clear patch of sky anymore and can even feel less heat on your skin from the sun, which I think is the overall purpose of doing this in the first place.
(If it is, why not come clean and explain this to the general public, on motives of preventing global warming for example)


Well the fact that contrails are in fact clouds explains all of that. They are essentially cirrus clouds (cirrus aviaticus, to be precise). They can and do behave exactly like any other cirrus cloud. They can persist or dissipate, all depending on the local conditions.


You can tell me all about condensation occurring with hot jet engines in cold air at high altitudes...
I was NOT born out of an egg, as we say here in Holland, cause I'm aware of basic physics and warmer airpockets and such, however scientific twist you give this, the skypainting I see today, is NOT normal, not in the past and not in the future.
I've even spotted planes, one laying "thick contrails", the other higher up in the sky, leaving nothing on the same flight path. (Yes, you can see different , albeit not exact, altitudes)


Well I hgope by the time you read this, you've adjusted this point of view. In fact, meteorology explains contrails perfectly well. Not only that, it can predict when they will occur and where, inasmuch as it can predict general circumstances at cruise altitudes. That is always the hallmark of a valid scientific theory.

Now contrast this with chemtrail 'theory': there is no theory to speak of. Ask 2 different proponents of chemtrail theory what is going on, and likely you get 2 wildly differing answers. The reason for that is that chemtrailism allows for everyone to fill in the perceived blanks for themselves. The basic point of departure is those lines in the sky, and as far as explaining them anything goes, as long as it doesn't include the word 'contrail'.


What I can't do, is give an explanation of what exact purpose is intended by spraying the skies, I'll leave that open to speculation, but I do know what I see and seeing is believing.


They serve the exact same purpose waves created by ships do. Or the exhaust gases from a car.. or from a moped. That is to say: they are an unfortunate byproduct of moving passengers and cargo from A to B.


So to all the "educated" folks out their, who will probably jump out to call me crazy or a conspiracy theorist (here we go again, another one....), waving their scientific logic, and providing socalled evidence, that it is normal we now live in checkerboard skies, I will say this:
It's all a matter of simple observation.
If I point out grass in a field and say it's green, you may yell all day long, that it's blue, however I still know it's green and don't care to remind you of it.
I'll now end this, what has turned out to be more of a rant.


Well I think we can all agree that grass is indeed what we call 'green', as much as we agree that indeed there are sometimes patterns in the sky (but wasn't it magnificiently blue just yesterday, feb the 17th?). The difference seems to be that at the moment you wrote this you favoured the chemtrail explanation over the scientific explanation, for reasons unknown. That doesn't negate the fact that those lines inthe sky are there, it just explains it in a different way.

So I gues it's up to you to find out which explanation holds more water (pun intended). Good luck!
edit on 2201618 by payt69 because: can't type




top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join