It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Hammaraxx
Know what a holding pattern is?
The main things that make me suspicious: stop start trails, the forming of grids, the fluorescent colour of them if the (sun is in the right spot - you know what I mean), they don't fade like they 'should' but turn into overcast clouds where there was previously none, they bugger up a beautiful blue sky (I can't remember the last time I saw a real blue sky free of clouds), AND there is a history of using planes to spray stuff for all sorts of reasons, not all bad.
Since the engines are on constantly, it seems a bit odd when you see contrails with gaps in them, or even contrails that stop and start. If the engine is pumping out a constant amount of water, then why is the trail not constant? This puzzle is sometimes seized on by people who think that persistent contrails are actually “chemtrails”, or some kind of deliberate spraying operation. But it’s actually very simply. The amount of water in the exhaust is pretty constant, but the amount of moisture in the air is not. The humidity varies with altitude, and a layer of low humidity can be sandwiched between two layers of high humidity. As a plane climbs or descends through this layer, then the trail will only form in the areas of high humidity, and so look like it was “switched off” in the area of low humidity. You can get the same effect with temperature. A warm layer of air can actually lay on top of a colder layer in what is called an “inversion” (you’ll hear this on the weather sometimes, referred to as an “inversion layer”). When a plane flies through this inversion layer, the trail can be “broken”.
......perhaps they were distracted by that horrible soundtrack?
They appear to be far less than 1000 feet apart at times.
They don't seem very good at sticking to a pattern do they,,,,,
You don't deny that aircraft has been used for spraying many things in the past do you?
MoD test of aerial spraying over Norwich
US planes sprayed Wiltshire with Sarin
Inquiry into spray cancer claims
How can we be sure it's no longer going on?
Many reasons.....not the least of which is the sheer implausibility of the concept AS SUGGESTED by the many, many so-called "chemtrail" claimants.
THEY are confusing normal airliner contrails....period.
This has turned into an Internet version of the old "Urban Legend" idea. Similar, too, to the children's game of "secret". IN case you're not familiar: Where a "secret" is whispered around a table....and, after several tellings, the last person is asked to say what he/she was told....usually, the result does not resemble the initial information...as it passed from person to person.......
Originally posted by Human_Alien
And my biggest problem is, why are they on these threads anyway. I just don't understand it.
If they know the 'truth' (that they're just contrails) then I don't understand what's it to them what I think?
But the fact that they hang out on these chemtrail threads, ready to ambush any chemtrail talk, really sets the suspicion bar pretty high.
There is no room to deny this phenomenon (whether it's chemical or some innocent new-fangled kerosene fuel that's now being used. Not to mention, the planes making U-turns .....).
But to sit on the side lines and make us look like we're nothing but crazy confused conspiracy theorists again.......gives reason to pause and wonder what their REAL objects are!
If it's to educate us and prove that we're all just mistaking then...they are the wrong people to do the job. Whose going think a bunch of anonymous posters are qualified?
Like you suggested, it would need to come from professionals in a reenactment scenario.....with scientists, a camera crew, an AP reporter and perhaps a statement from the POTUS in an attempt to solidify some of his country which seems to be growing more divided with each passing day.
Why should anyone bother to engage in an expensive "reenactment scenario" to debunk claims you can't even provide evidence for?