Woke up this morning to clear blue/sunny skies only to see a massive chemtrail being sprayed

a reply to: dfnj2015

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Right about the time that Chemtrails really got big, engines on aircraft changed. They're a lot more efficient, but leave contrails where older engines didn't.



On the left is an Airbus with high bypass turbofans. On the right is a 707 with older engines.

As for additives, they have to be extremely careful changing the fuel. Adding any kind of aluminum to it is going to cause more engine changes as it damages the engine. We're actually seeing the exact opposite however. In 2012 or 2014 a CFM56 engine was removed from the wing of a 737 after something like 50,000 hours of operation without having to be sent to the shop. Engines are lasting longer than ever.

a reply to: dfnj2015

No, because we DIDN'T see them before the 90s. And don't put words in my mouth. You do realize that technology and times change, right? Air travel is at an all time high, and engines are more efficient than ever before.

But that can't be it, right? It has to be them spraying.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I thought there could be some exhaust gases left in the contrail and that it´s about the gases, not the swirl. Thank you for clarifying that

a reply to: Zaphod58

whatever it is i don't like what it does to the sky

What gets me on conspiracy stuff is the debunking websites. Why would anyone spend so much time debunking something. Check out this site and the people's comments:

www.metabunk.org...

It magically comes up first in google when searching on "chemtrails caused by fuel additives". And every comment is in favor of debunking. I tend to be skeptical but I can see why someone would think this site was done by "agents of disinformation". There's not a single person saying there might be some truth to this. And then there's comments like this, "There CANNOT be "additives" in jet fuel". It's just blanket covering skepticism designed to end every possible question before its even asked.

One thing is to claim something and then have someone discredit it with facts. But it's something else completely to categorically debunk something out of hand. You can't prove a negative. No matter how much you are atheist you can't prove God does not exist. The same is true with chemtrails. It certainly could be true. There is a lot of evidence supporting the claim. Some it may be not the best evidence. But I find it hard to dismiss all of it. And also, based on my life experiences of not seeing these gridlines when I was growing up makes me think there's something to it.

When was the last time you heard a debunker give you a plausible explanation as to why chemtrails did not exist before the year 2000. Did the physics of contrails suddenly change giving rise to grid-lines. I'm just sick of the skeptics and debunkers cherry picking.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The additives in the shell link are just for engine performance. When I talk about additives I mean substances that would be able to be added to jet fuel that would be in enough of a quantity after combustion to have physical effects on the people its being sprayed over. There really aren't any.

I'm not doubting cloud seeding has been done before. What I thought the OP was talking about is some kind of biologically active substance that's being sprayed to change behavior, etc. Which would be destroyed by combustion.

What affect would aluminum have being sprayed over people?

Another thing is, that it just doesn't make sense to try to poison the public through spraying things from airplanes. Wind, weather, all kinds of variables would effect the dispersion of it and make it hard to know if you affected anyone.

It would be much easier to just add whatever it is to the water supply. It would take less people being in on the conspiracy, and there wouldn't be visible evidence hanging in the sky for everyone to see.

So, to me, if the population is being slipped some chemicals they don't know about, it's going to be in our tap water, or in popular foodstuffs.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Try reading the top of the page. There's your explanation. The physics of contrails didn't change one bit. The technology changed radically.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dfnj2015

Try reading the top of the page. There's your explanation. The physics of contrails didn't change one bit. The technology changed radically.

That's a good point. It would be difficult one to challenge because you would have to take into account all the different jet engines by population and type.

a reply to: underwerks

It always makes me shake my head when people totally ignore other sources for things found and point at aircraft as the cause. Aluminum and barium, which are usually the two most common substances claimed to be sprayed are common in ground sources and industrial processes. I've driven past powerplants and factories leaving exhaust clouds you could see for 60+ miles. There's no way in hell those are 100% clean.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: underwerks

It always makes me shake my head when people totally ignore other sources for things found and point at aircraft as the cause. Aluminum and barium, which are usually the two most common substances claimed to be sprayed are common in ground sources and industrial processes. I've driven past powerplants and factories leaving exhaust clouds you could see for 60+ miles. There's no way in hell those are 100% clean.

So factory exhaust proves chemtrails are contrails. Sigh....

I did like your point about new engines being more efficient as to the cause of the chemtrails. I will have to research that one.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

A lot of people don't, but the only options are j to get the military to release their contrail suppression, which has about as much chance as the sun rising in the west, or giving up air travel until they can solve it.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Again, don't put words in my mouth. If you want to prove chemtrails, you have to rule out other potential sources of what is being claimed to be sprayed. You can't just say you're seeing more of something in a soil sample, and go straight to planes flying overhead as the cause.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RoScoLaz5

A lot of people don't, but the only options are j to get the military to release their contrail suppression, which has about as much chance as the sun rising in the west, or giving up air travel until they can solve it.

Most people who believe in chemtrails do not claim they are all from military jets. I think most people believe commercial jets are responsible. I think fuel additives are the cause. Either the additives are their because airlines want to save money. Or the additives are there to prevent global warming causing a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Regardless, the additives cause lots of pollution. So there are many agents who would be interested in making sure nothing gets done to address chemtrails because it will cause someone to lose lots of money.

In terms of your jet engine efficiency argument, here's a pretty good analysis of the existing jet engine population by type:

c.ymcdn.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015

No silly.
There are no such thing as chem trails.
No one is spraying chemicals on us.

Limited cloud seeding if it even occurs anymore does not count as a chemtrail nor does crop dusting or counties spraying for mosquitoes.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: underwerks

It always makes me shake my head when people totally ignore other sources for things found and point at aircraft as the cause. Aluminum and barium, which are usually the two most common substances claimed to be sprayed are common in ground sources and industrial processes. I've driven past powerplants and factories leaving exhaust clouds you could see for 60+ miles. There's no way in hell those are 100% clean.

I don't get the whole aluminum thing so many people that believe in chemtrails always talk about. There's more aluminum in deodorant these days than what could be absorbed through some type of atmospheric spraying of it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

well that's interesting. it can be suppressed eh? maybe one day that tech will be made available to the airline companies, but as you say that's probably unlikely, to say the least.

a reply to: dfnj2015

No, but the military has ways to reduce contrail formation. But they're not going to release it to the public any time soon.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Yeah. It's one of those "shoot yourself before you read this" things no one likes to talk about.

a reply to: underwerks

Exactly. And mine tailings and other ground based sources. Those need to be eliminated before jumping to they're spraying us.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dfnj2015

No, but the military has ways to reduce contrail formation. But they're not going to release it to the public any time soon.

Military has a tendency to fly different altitudes then commercial craft. commercial craft fly altitudes for engine efficiency problem is thats also the altitudes most likely to cause contrails. This paper for exmple shows we could reduce contrails with a 2 percent increase in fuel.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

And here is military tests trying to reduce contrails