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.

 

Testing the chemtrail theory - how to prove they are or are not contrails

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:00 AM
link   
So IDK why this has taken so long to be either completely debunked or tested in a public study but I would think that this could be tested by doing the following. In an area where there are frequent "chemtrails" hire a private charter jet to fly at the same altitude and vector as the "persistent contrails" and see if the charter plane leaves the same trails as the other planes that left persistent trails. I can't think of any reason that there would be different results from one jet to the next unless there was something either in the fuel of the persistent trails or if the plane was actually spraying something. Both planes should leave the same type of trail as all jets use basically the same formulation of fuel (some have very slight variations but nothing that would leave a persistent trail when another doesn't).

I would think that a short round trip flight wouldn't be too expensive and could be funded by a news/media company or even a private group taking donations to fund the flight.
edit on 5 16 2018 by DigginFoTroof because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

You would need to use the same aircraft, with the same engines and ideally the same fuel as the one leaving the trails.

But there’s another way but as far as I’m aware, no one has bothered yet.

Check these threads out

Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

And

$50,000 to Make a Movie

Kudos for thinking laterally though..



edit on 16/5/18 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

You would need to use the same aircraft, with the same engines and ideally the same fuel as the one leaving the trails.

But there’s another way but as far as I’m aware, no one has bothered yet.

Check these threads out

Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

And

$50,000 to Make a Movie


Thanks , I was actually looking for the second one a few days back
Someone needs to keep "diggin"



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

It's easy: they're contrails, there are no chemtrails.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:19 AM
link   
easy, the air and water quality reports tell it all

quite officially


slam friggin dunk say no more mates

edit on 16-5-2018 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

Do they though?

How much do ground based sources contribute to those reports?

The answer is A lot.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
easy, the air and water quality reports tell it all

quite officially


slam friggin dunk say no more mates


when you are flying all over the world in your wonder woman jet, look down at all those smoke stacks pumping our stuff. Then think, .....is it possible any of that could find it's way back down?



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
So IDK why this has taken so long to be either completely debunked or tested in a public study but I would think that this could be tested by doing the following. In an area where there are frequent "chemtrails" hire a private charter jet to fly at the same altitude and vector as the "persistent contrails" and see if the charter plane leaves the same trails as the other planes that left persistent trails. I can't think of any reason that there would be different results from one jet to the next unless there was something either in the fuel of the persistent trails or if the plane was actually spraying something. Both planes should leave the same type of trail as all jets use basically the same formulation of fuel (some have very slight variations but nothing that would leave a persistent trail when another doesn't).

I would think that a short round trip flight wouldn't be too expensive and could be funded by a news/media company or even a private group taking donations to fund the flight.


Direct sampling of a trail would be an excellent idea. Twenty years and that still hasn't been done but people will confidently tell you what the trails contain.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

helps to be lifelong flyboy......

us air force....stuff like that.....msds's on jp-3, jp-4 then......yup stuff like that

idk



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:50 AM
link   
for some reason we are not allowed to see the msds's these days



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY

MSDS’s of what specifically?



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Fuel composition probably, maybe.

Added msds on jet fuel is posted all over with a google search.


edit on 5 by Mandroid7 because: Addd 2



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

There's a few types though, not sure what jp3 is?


edit on 16/5/18 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Mandroid7

There's a few types though, not sure what jp3 is?


JP3 is a modification of JP1. JP1 was the military designation of the first jet fuel and was a pure kerosene fuel. It had some problems, including a low freezing point (-60F). It was replaced by newer "wide-cut" kerosene-naptha and kerosene-gasoline fuels. With JP3, by widening the range of distillation temperatures, yield from crude was improved, and freezing problems were alleviated . The military doesn't use JP3 any longer, having moved to 4, 5, and 7 thru 10.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

We had stopped using 4 in favor of 8 before 2006. That was my last ramp trip and we'd had 8 for at least 5-6 years IIRC.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Here's the comp on jp8 from the sheet...

Naphthalene
Ethylbenzene
1 ,2,4-trimethylbenzene



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

Thanks for that.


So in short, it’s irrelevant to the discussion.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

This was my thought as well. I don't imagine it would be too difficult to get a direct sample of what's viewed as a chemtrail as well as a contrail.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
Thanks for that.


So in short, it’s irrelevant to the discussion.


Unless you want to play the argument from authority game.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: F4guy

Thanks for that.


So in short, it’s irrelevant to the discussion.


The usual cryptic yet meaningless post from GBP




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join