Evidence In Support of the Contrail explanation

To be fair, there is a mass of evidence - and has been for 100 years - in support of the contrail explanation.

What has always been lacking in any evidence at all that the explanation is wrong and that what some call chemtrails cannot be contrails....

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: waynos

Doncaster? Wow, that must have been exceptionally cold then.

You had to be there. Lol.

I would have loved to. I love very cold weather. My dream is to experience -40 or -50 in Yellowknife or somewhere. Maybe cuz I grew up in Saudi Arabia and didn't see snow till I was in my late teens that I am obsessed with the arctic and Antarctic and super low temps.


Sadly in Central london...never gets that cold.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: waynos

Doncaster? Wow, that must have been exceptionally cold then.

You had to be there. Lol.

I would have loved to. I love very cold weather. My dream is to experience -40 or -50 in Yellowknife or somewhere. Maybe cuz I grew up in Saudi Arabia and didn't see snow till I was in my late teens that I am obsessed with the arctic and Antarctic and super low temps.


Sadly in Central london...never gets that cold.

Move to Cleveland. It's Arctic cold about 8 months out of the year. (it's why I live in NC)

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: waynos

We're not claiming every contrail is a chemtrail.

Just some.

The impossibly thick dense ones that spread out into a persistent miles-wide haze.

Since this thread is about evidence an all, do you have any valid reason why a chemtrail is different than a contrail?

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: waynos

We're not claiming every contrail is a chemtrail.

Just some.

The impossibly thick dense ones that spread out into a persistent miles-wide haze.

So exactly how 'thick' can a contrail be? It'd be interesting if you could back that up with some numbers and/or solid science. How much water can a cubic meter of air hold at certain altitudes, pressures, temperatures etc? What if the air is near the saturation point, and the exhaust of a jet bumps the humidity up to over saturation point, then what happens? What happens when you compress air, heat it and then decompress it in relation to contrail formation in an environment that's near saturation for ice?

See these are all factors that play a part in contrail formation. And I can already tell you that you're not going to answer my questions. That's because you're clueless to the physics involved. It's a prerequisite to being a chemtrail believer to be ignorant of anything to do with science, and that fact is being proven over and over again in this- and other places on the net.

So if you wonder why nobody takes chemtrail believers seriously.. well there's your answer. You're welcome

But feel free to prove me wrong.. It'd be a welcome breath of fresh air in this forum.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
a reply to: waynos

Doncaster? Wow, that must have been exceptionally cold then.

You had to be there. Lol.

I would have loved to. I love very cold weather. My dream is to experience -40 or -50 in Yellowknife or somewhere. Maybe cuz I grew up in Saudi Arabia and didn't see snow till I was in my late teens that I am obsessed with the arctic and Antarctic and super low temps.


Sadly in Central london...never gets that cold.

Move to Cleveland. It's Arctic cold about 8 months out of the year. (it's why I live in NC)

Cleveland? Really? Never heard of it being THAT cold there.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

I may be over exaggerating just a bit, but if you like cold crappy weather, it's a wonderful place to be.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: waynos

But i think regular contrails are still considered as geoengineering or climate engineering, as they block light and such.

there are a few studies going on to determine the amount of heating/cooling contrails have on the climate, but they are still just a by-product of flight, as they have been for almost 100 years now.

Here is a link to some of them:

a reply to: 3danimator2014

There is a chemical that is made up of heavy metals that have been loaded onto aircraft for the purpose of spraying. I have watched them do it on the tarmac into retrofitted tanks along the wing just above the engine cowling. Crop dusting isn't so far fetched....why would chem-trails be again?

I mean we know they can load a plane with a chemical that can be dispersed while in flight, the do it all the time. SO whose to say that mixed into them contrails is a chemical that holds moisture in midair creating what amounts to as clouds over time as the moisture stays trapped in the atmosphere for that very purpose?

Honestly you guys are both right, they are contrails and chem-trails....the actual chem-trail that exits the aircraft upon release is transparent. Te resulting 40 mile long cirrus cloud left behind is the result of the chemical reacting to the contrail which occurs naturally.

Just a thought

a reply to: Azryael

If you've seen them, you should be able to get pictures of them, or at least draw a diagram of how it's laid out. Tanks along the wing are going to make that a very difficult plane to fly because of the drag it's going to create.

a reply to: Azryael

what airport was this? We need to get some pictures, this is the smoking gun that nobody has been able to produce in over 20 years. Unless................

originally posted by: Azryael
a reply to: 3danimator2014

There is a chemical that is made up of heavy metals that have been loaded onto aircraft for the purpose of spraying. I have watched them do it on the tarmac into retrofitted tanks along the wing just above the engine cowling. Crop dusting isn't so far fetched....why would chem-trails be again?

What kind of plane was that? What airport? When?

As to your question why chemtrails are unlikely: well planes can and do spray stuff every now and then. There are firefighting planes dropping fire detergent over fires, crop dusting planes, and sometimes jets in emergency situations need to jettison fuel when they are too heavy to land. Those are just a few examples.

The problem with the chemtrail thing is that people point up to white ines in the sky that are usually created by commercial airliners, and then they claim that those lines are chemtrails. The thing is: they are a well known phenomenon that has been expkained for over 70 years. But as long as you're unfamiliar with why and how they exist, you may fall prey to the chemtrail nonsense.

I mean we know they can load a plane with a chemical that can be dispersed while in flight, the do it all the time. SO whose to say that mixed into them contrails is a chemical that holds moisture in midair creating what amounts to as clouds over time as the moisture stays trapped in the atmosphere for that very purpose?

Honestly you guys are both right, they are contrails and chem-trails....the actual chem-trail that exits the aircraft upon release is transparent. Te resulting 40 mile long cirrus cloud left behind is the result of the chemical reacting to the contrail which occurs naturally.

Just a thought

The problem with the chemtrail theory is that it implicates ALL airlines over the entire world. Ground personnel would have to know about it, the people who load the chemicals, the people who nstall the spray installations, people who do the regular checkups of the aircraft.. the list goes on and on.

Yet there's not a peep..nothing from nobody. Nor is there evidence of anything actually being sprayed other than what's to be expected from normal jet traffic.

We' ve seen people come in here and try to move the goalpost by claiming that contrails are actually chemtrails. But that's not the original claim of what a chemtrail was supposed to be. There's already an adequate term for what we're seeing in the skies, and they're called contrails (condensation trails). IF the original chemtrail claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then there's no reason to now start calling ordinary contrails chemtrails.

But despite this we see a lot of people having difficulties letting their pet peeve go, and they seem to try and keep the dream alive no matter what.

For f*cks sake. It's as if I am not talkng English. So here it is again, as plain as I can make it.

No airplane could carry even remotely what is needed to create big fluffy contrails hundreds of miles long.

Why are you talking about crop dusting? Scale it up...try and see how far you will get.

It's like talking to children...

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: waynos

But i think regular contrails are still considered as geoengineering or climate engineering, as they block light and such.

So driving automobiles is geoengineering?

a reply to: Azryael

There is a chemical that is made up of heavy metals that have been loaded onto aircraft for the purpose of spraying. I have watched them do it on the tarmac into retrofitted tanks along the wing just above the engine cowling. Crop dusting isn't so far fetched....why would chem-trails be again?

Well because as with crop dusting we actually have evidence it does exist.

Now with chemtrail we can't say that, because there has been no evidence ever made that comes close to showing they exist.

Also how does one know chemtrails exist without actually testing one in the air, because as of this post nobody has ever tried to...kind of makes you wonder why it hasn't happened since this hoax was started in the 90's.

I mean we know they can load a plane with a chemical that can be dispersed while in flight, the do it all the time.

Yes and what size planes are we talking about?

year internet usage picked up - 1996
first reported chemtrail - 1996
where? - internet
any supporting evidence - nil

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Um yes, I am a child...in a overtly man cave knuckle drag sad they canceled walker texas ranger kind of way.

The tanks I'm talking about were primarily on military aircraft, did not effect the aerodynamics of the aircraft or lift, and this was 15 years ago...so sorry didn't think to snap a photo.

And I didn't say that the white fluffy clouds were the chem trails, I said they were a product of the spray. What people are seeing is a chemical reaction in the atmosphere to the man made byproduct that leaves the aircraft.

Planes that spray clouds is just silly. If anything I can create a cloud just off of jalapeno cheese dip and a quart of bourbon. That one you wont see.....but you'll know its there for sure!

Cheers Lads
Try not to let the vein pop out of your forehead.....

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
year internet usage picked up - 1996
first reported chemtrail - 1996
where? - internet
any supporting evidence - nil

I can think of quite a few things in this world that exist with little to no evidence in the realm of public knowledge. Just because you don't see a 3 pecker'd goat, doesn't mean they don't exist near Chernobyl.

a reply to: Azryael

ANYTHING mounted outside the aircraft affects the flight characteristics. That includes the paint. There is no way to mount tanks like you're describing that would not affect the aerodynamics of the aircraft. If you're talking about the engine pylons, then you'd have to move a lot of equipment around that is in the pylon, which would affect the engines themselves.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Didn't notice anything mounted on the wind chief. It was going into the actual aircraft in what looked like some sort of extended compartment on the wing.

What do I know? I was a logistics engineer not a jet mac. Airplanes and design parameters are not my expertise. Yet I do know the difference between pumping jet fuel and "other" and this was not jet fuel.

It's like asking someone who only makes fries how to flip the burgers.