Chemtrailers, please help me understand

reply to post by sine.nomine


please understand that I agree that there has been spraying of some sorts in the past. What I don't believe is that every line in the sky is a "chemtrail". When people claim that "they" are spraying heavily today, it makes me cringe. The reason lines persist on that day have to do with science, not spraying. I would like to see real concrete evidence of these things. I have been wrong before. I just don't think I am wrong about this. At least not until someone can prove that all the science is incorrect. Some guy here claimed that he knows exactly when the program started. then ran away to hide when asked for proof of that "fact". I am here to learn no matter what the outcome is. And I will not ridicule someone just for the sake of being mean. When people start calling me an idiot, I tend to bite back.

Hello,

I have been researching and writing about Chemtrails for years. I personally witnessed a Chemtrail sky performance in the skies over the USA about 8-10 years ago. It was my awakening. I have a education background in aviation, weather, and air traffic control. This knowledge and background were necessary to deduce with logic that something was happening.

Originally posted by network dude
question 1. Are all lines in the sky Chemtrails? If not, please explain how to tell the difference.

No. The thing about Chemtrails is that they can look very similar to aircraft contrails. What is more noticeable is the aircraft's behavior. Having some background in aviation can greatly aid in this determination. If you see an aircraft, or series of aircraft that "mow-the-lawn" in the sky to create an ever spreading pattern which would be the most efficient and logical way to mask the sky. This behavior is Chemtrail aircraft behavior. I have seen it. Only a handful of times in remote areas of the USA. If it looks like random could stripes its most likely normal air traffic. If its around a major metro area/airport, its not Chemtrails... 99% of what people see are normal aircraft clouds.

question 2. Do you believe that it's something in the jet fuel? If so, all of it, or just some of it.

I doubt it is in Jet fuel. It would be much simpler to have a spray tank and nozzle device... but EVEN SIMPLER STILL, and this is what I think is being done... Is that aircraft fill up 2 of 4 of their fuel tanks with the "substance" and simply "dump" that fuel. Most airliners have the ability to "dump fuel from a tank in flight in case of emergency or on the ground for maintenance. I suspect a government fleet of KC-130 or similar military tanker aircraft have been retro fitted to fulfill this program.

question 3. How do you account for the days where there is no cloud cover or lines in the sky, yet airplanes fly?

Again I do not think the goal of the program is to cloud our skies totally. This would be discovered. I suspect that the Chemtrail flights are much LESS common then people are hyping it up to be. Airliners from commercial airlines are not involved. This is a straw man argument commonly used to derail a Chemtrail theory.

question 4. If you believe someone is spraying you, who is this someone?

I believe that it is connected with high levels of the world governments as well as Private business with government contracts. DARPA, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are all most likely 'in-the-know'.

Same secret clubs that develop all the cutting edge military technologies.

I hope you are finding the answers you were searching for. I have debated this issue ad-nauseum with the anti-Chemtrail fanatics on ATS for years. I have yet to see anything which disproves the possibility for a Chemtrailesqe conpiracy.

You will find a wealth of information about my Chemtrail research in these top threads...

Chemtrails: US Patent #5003186: Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming

Chemtrails Are "Small Reflecting Particles" In The Upper Atmosphere

also

Cryptogon: CFR - Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”

reply to post by AllSeeingI

thanks for your reply. yours makes the most sense out of the ones I have seen. As I said, there are planes specifically designed to spray. The only ones I have ever seen were low altitude. Vietnam, agent orange sprayed on jungle canopy to ex foliate. The recent application of corexit in the Gulf oil spill. And the fact that at some point, I am sure an experiment or two has been done to attempt some sort of goal. But I don't buy into all day every day spraying as the people here keep claiming. And as far as the air force jets spraying, well, I have a hard time with that. unless there is a select few that are treated as top secret craft. On most occasions, a transient aircraft would land at some base, and the flight crew would go get their crew rest. A ground crew (which is what I was for 6 years) would come out and service the plane. We would have to be very familiar with the aircraft we serviced and I assure you, a belly full of chemical tanks and spray nossels would be noticed by all. Plus at some point a drunken windbag would be talking about it. I tend to believe that yea, it's happened, but no, it's not happening. I just can't see the secret group in congress having a midnight meeting and deciding to spray a big city in Texas every day for a month, knowing full well, some of them have family and friends there. Plus, I thought GWB lived in Crawford. Wouldn't he have been in on it? Anyway, thanks for your informed input.

reply to post by network dude


A small fleet of dedicated aircraft could be coordinated. And also often times in these operations.... information is compartmentalized. The pilots are just flying the plane, whilst the scientists are in the back conducting experiments. Everyone is on a need to know.

As for the point about spraying everyone.... therefore it is also infecting 'them' (the powers that be) and their families. A valid point. But this does not discount the possibility that what is being sprayed is either a lesser evil. In that it is hoped that this substance will somehow save more lives in the long-term then it harms.

Or that it is done in such a scheduled and controlled manner that those in-the-know are able to coordinate and avoid the worst of it.

Clearly what is being sprayed is not intentionally an attempt to KILL everyone. That is ludicrous. The substance is most likely used for another purpose. If an aluminum particulate is being layered in the air ... then the chemtrails and the health effects would be long term exposure to those type of materials. Inhaled, on the skin, eyes, etc.

reply to post by AllSeeingI


If aluminum is bad to ingest, then the libations I enjoy are gonna kill me. They come in an aluminum can cleverly marked "Bud Light". I think between that and the soda drinkers out there, aluminum is the least of our worries. I wonder why nobody had tried to gather up enough money to take a plane up and do air samples of these things to put an end or a beginning to this debate. Seems logical.

reply to post by AllSeeingI


ASI, I'm afraid after reading that post and some of the responses, I feel I must set some things straight, for the benefit of the readers who may not realize the many errors in your assertions.

Firstly,

I have been researching and writing about Chemtrails for years. [skip] I have a education background in aviation, weather, and air traffic control. This knowledge and background were necessary to deduce with logic that something was happening.

Well....what can I say? I find much of what you write about aviation and air traffic control to be incorrect. About the weather? So far, can't point to anything...except inasmuch as since you "believe" in "chemtrails", there may exist gaps in your understanding of meteorology, and other sciences.

I write the above based on MY actual experience, not just "education", and background in aviation, which includes the ATC and aviation weather aspects. (My first flying lesson was 38 years ago...eventually led to my final 23+ years at a major airline, before leaving that).


In response to a question by the OP:

No. The thing about Chemtrails is that they can look very similar to aircraft contrails.

You base this "theory" on what, exactly? Sorry, but it's a mere opinion, unsupported by facts. Airplane contrails appear as they do for one very good reason --- because they are composed of tiny ice crystals. In that sense, they are virtually indistinguishable from normally-occurring cirrus clouds. So, what "other" substance or material would have the same "appearance" and look?

Well, white smoke that is from a petroleum-based oil mixture that is used for air show performances, and "skywriting"....THAT is pretty close initially....only, it just "looks" like contrails for a short while....dissipating very quickly, and exhibiting different characteristics from the ice crystal quasi-cirrus nature of contrails:

To enhance the effect of aerobatic maneuvers smoke is sometimes generated; the smoke allows viewers to see the path travelled by the aircraft. Due to safety concerns, the smoke is not a result of combustion but is produced by the vaporization of fog oil into a fine aerosol, achieved either by injecting the oil into the hot engine exhaust or by the use of a dedicated device that can be fitted in any position on the aircraft.

"The smoke is generated by pumping smoke oil directly into the exhaust pipes just below the cylinder heads. The heat will vaporize, but not burn, the oil, creating thick white smoke. During an airshow routine, the smoke system will use around 5 gallons of smoke oil."

en.wikipedia.org...

For jets, like the USAF Thunderbirds, then they have devices...the F-16s have them disguised as the wingtip missiles, for instance. Device location varies, I am not familiar with every installation on every jet that performs at airshows. Just what can be researched online...

However, this is not to infer that such equipment is installed on airliners....I, and any of my colleagues in the industry, would have seen such evidence, long ago. AND, there simply is no spare volume, no capacity, to contain large quantities of anything "extra", not and maintain weight and balance, and performance parameters.

Now, I challenge you on this:

If you see an aircraft, or series of aircraft that "mow-the-lawn" in the sky....

No such thing occurs...with the possible exception of:

Airliners, or other jets in holding patterns. "Racetrack" shaped ovals.

Military airplanes such as AWACS, for instance, on patrol. (But, this si going to be in areas of combat operations, or combat training exercises).

Military tankers, "lingering" in the Operations Areas, where they rendezvous with the airplanes that need to re-fuel.
There may be more examples...but, in all cases, any contrails that form are, well....contrails!

I have seen it. Only a handful of times in remote areas of the USA.

Well, that makes sense, since in the USA the MOAs (Military Operations Areas) are in "remote" areas, usually. Check some Aeronautical Charts, they are well marked (outlined in magenta color).


Now, THIS is agree with, except to modify it to read "100%":

... 99% of what people see are normal aircraft clouds.

If, by "aircraft clouds" you mean "contrails"? Sounds right.


ON the OP's question about the fuel, you are again correct:

I doubt it is in Jet fuel.

However,

... Is that aircraft fill up 2 of 4 of their fuel tanks with the "substance" and simply "dump" that fuel.

...demonstrates that you really don't have that great an understanding and knowledge of airplanes...large airplanes, anyways. Further, evidence you have incorrect facts:

Most airliners have the ability to "dump fuel from a tank in flight in case of emergency or on the ground for maintenance.

NO, not "most". And, side note --- I thought you were adamant about the so-called "chemtrails" NOT being produced by airliners?? It is contradictory.

In any case, no not "most" airliners. Generally, only those considered "jumbos" or "widebodies". The Boeing 757, for instance...even though fairly 'large', has no provision to jettison fuel. It's family member, the B-767 does, in most cases (not all operators purchased that option, but most did). But, don't just take my word for it (although I do know quite a lot, as a rule...from experience):

Since most twinjet airliners can meet these requirements, most aircraft of this type such as the Boeing 737 (all models), the DC-9/MD80 and Boeing 717, the A320 family and various regional jet ("RJ") aircraft do not have fuel dump systems installed. In the event of an emergency requiring a return to the departure airport, the aircraft circles nearby in order to consume fuel to get down to within the maximum structural landing weight limit, or if the situation demands it, simply lands overweight without delay. Modern aircraft are designed with possible overweight landings in mind, but this is not done except in cases of emergency, and various maintenance inspections are required afterwards.

Many movies and TV news stories mistakenly assume that all aircraft can dump fuel, when in fact most cannot. In certain atmospheric conditions where the moisture content of the air is high, 737s (and other aircraft) flying at low altitudes sometimes leave a moisture trail that can come off the top of the wing, wingtips, or trailing edge flaps. Moisture trails coming off the trailing edge flaps can appear especially odd, since the moisture is being "spun" by aerodynamic forces. It is possible that some people observe these moisture trails and wrongly think fuel is being dumped.

Longer-range twin jets such as the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A300, A310, and A330 may or may not have fuel dump systems, depending upon how the aircraft was ordered, since on some aircraft they are a customer option. Three- and four-engine jets like the Lockheed L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 / MD-11, Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 usually have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR 25.119 near maximum structural takeoff weight, so most of those have jettison systems. A Boeing 757 has no fuel dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight.

en.wikipedia.org...


OK, summary: Your mention that commercial airliners do NOT produce "chemtrails" is correct. There are no facilities, equipment, nothing of the sort installed in any manner whatsoever, this is fact. It is also a fact that what people see and "claim as chemtrails" are, actually, normal everyday contrails.


Let's now examine the possible "military" connections:

I suspect a government fleet of KC-130 or similar military tanker aircraft have been retro fitted to fulfill this program.

Quite the assertion....absent any factual basis.
The "KC-130" is a four-engine turboprop, and is a derivation of the basic C-130 "Hercules", a mostly cargo and troop transport airplane.
Here: en.wikipedia.org...

You can read up on it there. Of particular note, the "Specs":

Performance

Maximum speed: 362 knots (417 mph, 671 km/h)

Cruise speed: 348 kn (400 mph, 643 km/h)

Range: 2,835 nmi (3,262 mi, 5,250 km)

Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,615 m) with 42,000 pounds (19,090 kilograms) payload

So, you see? Really, the KC-130 (nor its cousin) is/are good candidates for what people claim to "see", since its service ceiling is only 28,000 feet. That means, on most flights, it is lower. "Ceiling" implies the maximum, and generally results iin suffering performance.

I didn't take time to link, either, the roster numbers --- those are available for search online. Also, the deployment areas for the airplanes. In fact, this is true of ALL military jets and other types of aircraft. What;s more, numbers alone don't tell the whole story...at any given moment, a great number are being "cycled through" for maintence, upgrades, all sorts of things...also, you must have the manpower, the staffing of pilots and support crews, and they aren't robots, have to sleep and stuff. PLUS, you have to show where all the c]ground support facilities, the infrastructure, the suppliers to where the airplens take off and land, etc, etc....it's HUGE, and not something that can be done easily, as imagined by the "chemtrail" believers.....

Finally, the OP asked about the days when it's "severe clear" all day long?

I suspect that the Chemtrail flights are much LESS common then people are hyping it up to be.

Well...agree again, since there ARE, I repeat, no "chemtrails".

Airliners from commercial airlines are not involved.

Yes, very good.

This is a straw man argument commonly used to derail a Chemtrail theory.

?? You are confusing me....what is the "strawman" exactly ??
Really, to be honest, "chemtrail theory" derails itself, upon close and cogent examination.

More supposition on your part....

I have yet to see anything which disproves the possibility for a Chemtrailesqe conpiracy.

Turning that around, the right way....you have not yet seen anything that PROVES a "chemtrailesque conspiracy".

Oh, and the links to your threads? By all means, they have been thoroughly examined, and taken apart...in-thread, haven't they?

reply to post by Stewie



Now to this...

Will you EVER bring something relevant? Is this what we can expect from the "debunkers" here?

Whoever said I was a debunker here? I might look into that, thanks.

How about some evidence to shut up the debunkers for good. If I had some evidence that could shut up debunkers I would be throwing that up so fast it would scare you. I guess your just waiting for the right time aren't you? That is of course if you even had some in the first place. That is just what I would do.

reply to post by AllSeeingI

The thing about Chemtrails is that they can look very similar to aircraft contrails. What is more noticeable is the aircraft's behavior. Having some background in aviation can greatly aid in this determination. If you see an aircraft, or series of aircraft that "mow-the-lawn" in the sky to create an ever spreading pattern which would be the most efficient and logical way to mask the sky. This behavior is Chemtrail aircraft behavior. I have seen it.

Are they similar to these...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc45b3aa2577.jpg[/atsimg]

and this one...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b27bfcbb4056.jpg[/atsimg]

and a couple of more....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99d788411a0b.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b8dd908a097e.jpg[/atsimg]

Just wanted to share some pics of contrails that look like what a chemtrail is supposed to look like.

Here is a link that you should see.

flickrhivemind.net...

Just thought I would show you some contrails that could be mistaken for a chemtrail.

reply to post by weedwhacker


My threads have yet to be picked apart by your long-winded responses meant to seem like you know what you are talking about when really you are just distracting from valid points which I make.


I did make one key mistake which you pointed out I admit. I mentioned that I suspected KC-130 as the primary delivery vehcial as part of the chemtrail fleet. What I meant to say was the KC-135.... which is the military tanker aircraft. You will see in my other threads that it was the KC-135 which I suspect and not the KC-130 prop aircraft... My error thank you.

Other than that I fail to see how you did anything but copy and past wiki and try to seem like you know what you are talking about.

You made a number of false assumptions. You simply stated that aircraft "never mow the law in the sky" , yet i have seen it done, and it was not a holding pattern. I know what a holding pattern is and have flown in them many times.

Also you insinuate that I dont know what a aviation sectional map of an MOA is. The times when I have seen the suspicious activity were not anywhere near an MOA, nor were they anywhere near a area where a holding pattern would be located.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You also muddled my argument saying that I do not believe airlines are involved yet went on to say airliners.

To be clear..... I do not believe commercial airlines are involved. I do believe AIRLINER type aircraft such as a DC-10, KC-135, 777, other large aircraft may be the types involved, which I would refer to as airliners does not mean they are involved with the airlines.

Just wanted to clear that up.

reply to post by AllSeeingI

in all your research of pattens and all, have you come across any proof of WHAT these things consist of? That is another bone of contention with chemmies. They claim that "the bad man" is spraying them with bad, life threatening, chemicals. It's making them sick, yet nobody seems to actually prove that. I just wonder if "they" are spraying people, what are they spraying?

reply to post by network dude


In the patents and suggestions by council on foreign relations, the leading... "public" cause for chemtrails are injecting fine reflective particulates such as the welsbach series of metals... into an atmosphere layer which is relatively stable of vertical motion. This atmosphere layer, called the Tropopause is the best place to spray/inject/dump very fine particles into the atmosphere for the purpose of increasing the reflectivity of earth and therefore having cooling result if implemented correctly. Also this layer ranges from around 35,000-50,000 feet well withing the aircraft cruise range of most larger aircraft and military tankers such as the KC-135.

This process would occur during hot summer months, during the day in which no clouds are already present. It is these condition that chemtrail activity is most prevalent. When the global engineers need a cloudy sky instead of a clear one, to try and stave off global warming maybe just a few years longer. By adjusting the temps by 0.5 degrees or 1 degree in a region can have quite an effect.

This is just one of the theories. So that material would be a fine aluminum or other light metal particulate. Breathing this is would be hazardous to your health.

Other chemtrail theories are that the metal cloud layer is some how tied to HAARP and allows for better transmission and/or control of HAARP technologies.

reply to post by AllSeeingI


when did HAARP come into play? I had a poster earlier claim that the Chem Trail program started in 1997. If that is the reason, then it shouldn't have started until HAARP came about. I do worry about any group mucking with mother nature. I'd say a good portion of us don't even think man has any affect on causing GW, so any attempt to reverse it would be a mistake. Things like this pop into my head when I hear these theories. It would be like everyone freaking out over what kind of food the Pleadians like when we aren't even sure aliens exist.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by AllSeeingI

 

when did HAARP come into play?

I think HAARP was busy downing blackbirds in Arkansas.... or cooking up the next big (hollow) Earthquake or... I dunno making it rain somewhere it didn't use to rain as heavy.

reply to post by AllSeeingI


OK....now you're switching to the KC-135, from the KC-130? Why? Because the KC-135 IS a jet (based on the original Boeing 707)? Still....these assumptions RE: military tanker airplanes being re-purposed to this alleged "spraying" is just pure speculation, and absent any basis in proof, evidence or fact. Oh, and don't forget the KC-10s too....the DC-10 derivative.

However, you will find it is easy enough to research, online, all the airplane deployment activities, squadron and wing by squadron and wing. Also, recall there is still a very limited resource in terms of manpower...especially pilots, not to mention all of the other personnel required in order to "pull off" such a scheme, whilst, remember ....still conducting their normal schedules of air-to-air refueling operations for support of military operations, and their continued training requirements....practice and re-certification.

I am certain all the foregoing is partly why that one USAF crew-member put that video on YouTube last year....as a joke....to make fun of this entire idea. Too bad the sarcasm, and joke, wasn't caught by the "true believers", who jumped on it and sent it viral almost immediately.....

Anyway, as you correctly point out here, airplanes such as the military tankers, in addition to airliners, operate in the troposphere...also, though, in the lower parts of the stratosphere. The boundary between those two distinct atmospheric levels is called the "tropopause"...it is defined, loosely and simply, as the point where the normal adiabatic lapse rate "pauses" in its decline with increasing altitude. BTW, the vast majority of weather occurs in the tropopause...very little in the stratosphere. Any significant storm clouds that get that high, like cumulonimbus, do so as they "punch through" the tropopause (which usually acts a a sort of natural boundary layer) when they are growing particularly aggressively. The "towering cumulonimbus" cloud, in combination with many cousins on storm front line, for instance, is quite formidable....and this is often where hail, and even tornadoes, spawn. Also, you may have heard or seen the "anvil"? This is the top of a C-nimbus, as it projects upwards and is distorted by the higher winds, such as the jet stream, that can occur in the stratosphere.

What that all means, is...the troposphere is a turbulent, and chaotic region of the atmosphere, mostly...so, this:

This atmosphere layer, called the Tropopause is the best place to spray/inject/dump very fine particles into the atmosphere for the purpose of increasing the reflectivity of earth and therefore having cooling result if implemented correctly. Also this layer ranges from around 35,000-50,000 feet well withing the aircraft cruise range of most larger aircraft and military tankers such as the KC-135.

Well....actually, "50,000" feet is well above the abilities of most airliners...the Concorde SST would cruise there, up to about 55,000...but only because it is better at Mach 2, at those altitudes aerodynamically. Pressurization concerns are the limiting factor, mostly...keeping the interior pressure equal to around 8,000 to 8,500 feet, to preclude the need for supplemental oxygen. The SST could go that high, and keep the interior at about 9,000 or so...by pressurizing to higher PSI than most airliners. This is why the windows were so small, and the cabin diameter, too.

Anyway, the info I quoted above, is somewhat in disagreement with what member JacKatMtn posted in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a link to a PowerPoint slideshow that looks to the stratosphere, and higher, as a potential prospect for some future geo-engineering potential. As noted, though, in the PPT slide...on the last one, this is STILL a topic of debate and discussion and review...the science is unclear on the concepts, as are any possible adverse consequences. I see these ideas being floated out of a concern for what might become necessary, at some point in decades to come, IF the global climate situation turns out to take a dire turn for the worst.

SO far, "armageddon" isn't occurring, in the climate....local irregularities, yes...but those happen throughout history. The time for action is NOT now, and any claims to the contrary about there being ongoing efforts are pure fantasy. It will be a BIG deal, If and when it ever happens, with International cooperation, and very public notice.......

reply to post by miniatus


Look closely there are four planes, not three. But I figured it must be some kind of military exercise.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Im not"switching" to the KC-135, it was what I meant all along but simply I miss-spoke/miss-typed as KC-130 earlier in this thread. I have mentioned the KC-135 as my primary suspect vehicle for these programs in more than a few posts and threads in the past.

Actually the Service ceiling for a KC-135 IS 50,000 feet and its modern cousin the KC-10 is at 42,000 ft. Now I understand these are the max altitudes but my point is it is possible for these aircraft types to be used for such a program.

Regarding the tropopause and the thunderstorm anvils. As I understand the top of the anvil marks the tropopause. It is at this point where the clouds are literally kept from rising by the an unseen ceiling which is the tropopause except in extreme updraft situations where an overshooting top cloud bursts above the anvil in cases of extreme storms.

reply to post by network dude


It is one of the theories that have been connected to chemtrails. As well as weather modification, bio-weapon testing etc. The purpose of the chemtrailer is to discover which is the real reason behind the confirmed suspicious aircraft activity. The unexplained flights are fact. Their purpose is in question.