Chemtrail Challenge

First of all I'd like to state that I personally don't care much for the terms 'believers' or 'debunkers'. For me they describe two opposing, entrenched views. I do however have acquaintances who fit both these descriptions. I am neither.

My housemate, who is a firm proponent of the chemtrail theories, all of them, from geo-engineering to the spraying of vaccines(!).
We decided to spend an afternoon out back of our house and watch jets go over. We live in a rural area, under a very busy air corridor. It was a relatively clear day, mostly blue sky with scattered cloud and some overcast. We observed jets through binoculars and a telescope at various altitudes for 4/5 hours, most were at high altitude, a few at lower altitudes. We didn't keep count but almost all the high altitude aircraft left contrails, a small number didn't and I suspect these were at relatively lower altitudes. Of the contrails we observed, about 75% remained in the sky longer than 20 mins, of that 75% about half of them lingered most of the afternoon, either slowly spreading and gradually dissipating to overcast, or staying as straight cohesive lines and drifting with the wind.
All the aircraft we observed were, or seemed to be, commercial jets of the 2 or 4 engine type, we spotted no military type aircraft. All the contrails we observed were in line with the engines, all of them beginning well aft of the aircraft, there were no trails that seemed to be streaming directly 'out' of the actual engines. There were no observable auxiliary trails. My housemate contends that all persistent contrails are 'chemtrails', including the trails that stayed in straight lines and didn't dissipate.

My observations that afternoon lead me to surmise, that if the chemtrail phenomenon is real then either:
A: Something is being mixed with AC fuel.
B: There are spraying nozzles near the exhaust outlets of the engines.

Conclusion A is the most common claim I've heard. I have researched a little about jet engine filters and they don't allow much in the way of impurities in the fuel, so if something is being mixed into the fuel it has to be in very small amounts.

Conclusion B means that the aircraft is carrying, in separate tanks, whatever is being sprayed. This means that the spraying is either pilot activated or done automatically eg when the aircraft reaches a certain altitude.

Of course people may bring up the points that not all the aircraft we observed were civilian. However, it can be reasonably argued that they couldn't have all been military or covert flights either. The fact remains that most if not all the high altitude aircraft we observed did leave trails, and that if spraying is being conducted it must also involve commercial aircraft, and that conclusions A and B must be considered.

Conclusion A is a problem. If something is being mixed with AC fuel it must in very small amounts. Jet engines have fuel filters that are 2 microns. The fuel is also filtered whilst being pumped into the tanks of the aircraft. If there are additives how can they have any impact in such tiny volumes? The distances involved means that a very small amount of material is being spread over a huge area, how can this work? It is possible to calculate the fuel capacity of say a 747 relative to the amount of impurities the filters will let through to the engines, I haven't myself, but I wouldn't expect the figures to be by any means large, if somebody wants to try it please do.

Conclusion B makes more sense to me. There are problems though. Weight for instance, carrying extra tanks will mean less passengers/cargo for instance. If the spraying is done automatically the pilots would at least be aware of the existence of auxiliary tanks, even if they don't know what is in them. And if the spraying is pilot activated then when is one the thousands that must be involved going to come forward? Also the filling of the tanks, this is where we should see some hard evidence, we should be able to witness this ourselves at the airport or at least have some testimony from ground crew or people working on the flightline.

Personally I'm not convinced that the chemtrail phenomenon is, at least to the extent that some people say, a real one. But I'm not here to 'debunk' either. I remain open to the argument, and I invite anyone to share their thoughts about my observations and conclusions. Thanks for reading.

From what I know and understand of contrails, your results should be fairly typical, with the higher altitude jets causing contrails much more frequently than their lower altitude counterparts. I also believe that contrails linger in the higher atmosphere for a longer period of time, but that is just my intuition, drawing from what little I know, so I won't swear to the accuracy of that statement.

On a different note, I think that your experiment was a great idea, and I think I will give it a try. I do not live under an extra-busy traffic corridor, but with two major airports within 1-2 hours driving distance, as well as a few smaller jet accommodated airports, I think I would have a relatively high success rate for at least viewing contrails and observing their behavior. Great thread.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Very good.

Conclusion "A", you are correct. Nothing foreign of any sufficient amount can be introduced into the fuel. Not only for the reasons you described, but also because it would alter the density....and fuel quantity measuring onboard jets is done with sensors calibrated to *read* the density, and thus determine the amount in the tanks.

Also.....one has to understand the combustion process, and the heat involved. In the range of 3,000°.


Conclusion "B", also well thought through. The fact that there is a complete lack of any such apparatus, and also ground support equipment that would be needed in order to *load* this imaginary 'stuff".



For both examples....option "A" could be easily resolved, as has been mentioned countless times on ATS, by obtaining samples of the Jet-A1 from any airport you wish. (Would be easier at an FBO facility that services private jets. Will be the same fuel, from the same supplier. Especially if you choose an airport that has commercial activity, as well as the private side).

Option "B" would be satisfied by observing, and photographing.

To give you some ideas of how you might confirm or deny in reverse order:

For theory B it's not only pilots, but all the mechanics who work on the a/c, and some who would specifically work on the nozzles, tanks, pumps & piping, etc. that would be required. Also the people who manufacture, distribute and load whatever it is on board the a/c.

There should be some visible evidence - ranging from pictures of the nozzles to anomolous trucks or pipes from existing water or waste or fuel or food trucks to service the tanks on board.

Unless the weight is miniscule, the weight would have to be accounted for in the a/c load sheets somehow (these define the performance parameters for the a/c when it will rotate, what speed it will ift off, what thrust to use, ensure the centre of gravity is within allowable limits, etc) - and if there are some a/c fitted with the equipment and otehrs not then they will ahve different performances based upon different "empty" weights.

and there will be manuals - maintenance manuals for the system, parts manuals, handlign manuals for hte material(s) - a Material Safety Data Sheet.

So there's a LOT of potential evidence should theory B be true - it seems quite unlikely - I have been an aircraft mechanic since 1976 and have never seen anything that fits the bill.

theory A should be easy to check - go buy some fuel from your local jet fuel supplier & get it checked for content.

Good observations, and conclusions.

One thing I find adds great perspective to contrail observations is looking at the Aqua and Terra satellite photos for that day. They are two, typically taken round noon. They show how the contrails fit in with the weather at the time.

If you can say your approximate location, and the date the observations were made, I can get the pics for you. Of you can do it yourself here:

rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Here's one I prepared earlier where you can match ground observations to satellite images.

contrailscience.com...

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Conclusion C: They are just contrails, some persistent, some not.

reply to post by seabhac-rua

I think that all of the chemtrail flights are most likely "military" flights...that is, not normal commercial air traffic. Since most military endeavors are commercial endeavors, whatever company/companies are involved are probably getting paid handsomely, with taxpayer monies.
Frankly, the common person has no idea where their money is being spent...ask the typical American how much money and arms are given to Israel annually. They will just give you a dumb stare. Trillions of dollars cannot be adequately accounted for. That is primarily the reason I believe it is government/military related.
That, and the fact that our (American/Canadian/Australian/European) governments are totally criminal.
Anyway, I believe they are not normal air traffic because of the intensity and patterns involved when spraying is happening. The atmosphere is polluted with this crap.
Great thread.

Originally posted by Stewie
I think that all of the chemtrail flights are most likely "military" flights...that is, not normal commercial air traffic.

That should be trivial to verify. So why has nobody done so?

The OP said

All the aircraft we observed were, or seemed to be, commercial jets of the 2 or 4 engine type, we spotted no military type aircraft.

So why would you think they are military? Did you look?

reply to post by Uncinus

Do you read?
Read my post again, slowly until you understand.
Truly, do YOU represent the skeptics?

reply to post by Stewie


So.....in the usual narrow-minded American myopic view, run to "military" as the excuse?

Then, all of the people here on ATS from all over the world, who also claim "chem"-trails are over their heads? Do you really believe the US military is allowed to fly over foreign countries, and do this? Guess you might not understand the real world?

Not thinking logically, here.

What's more, the OP was very clear. Using binocs and a telescope.....saw exactly what the "chems" claim can't happen.....contrails from observed, identified passenger jets with contrails emanating from directly aft and at a distance from the engines. Contrails that persisted, and spread.

???????

Option "B" is in effect, as well, in regards to this "hypothesis". The U.S. military simply doesn't have the manpower to do what you imagine, and the deployments and operations of same are quite public knowledge, except for the instances of missions that may involve the support of ongoing activities overseas related to the Middle East situation. These will not be *advertised*, but certainly will be intent on something else, far more important than this myth of "spraying".....

Originally posted by Stewie
Read my post again, slowly until you understand.

Are you saying they are military flights disguised as commercial flights? Because otherwise what you said should be very easy to verify. Just take photos of the planes that leave persistent contrails.

Why has nobody done that?

It also doesn't make sense to me in regards to the manpower that would be required to spray chemtrails everywhere in every major city every day all over the world. Why has nobody ever come forward with a guilty conscience to leak this information to the people?

Or has there been?

When I think about this long and hard it just seems illogical to me. Contrails they are, until better evidence is presented to make me believe otherwise. Cool post OP.

reply to post by seeker11

I cannot recall reading that anyone believed that spraying was done everyday in every city, have you?
There is a balanced way you can look at this issue, but you DO have to spend a little time away from here...

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Something occurred to me, since we have the inevitable types who just can't wrap their heads around the science of perfectly normal contrails (as evidenced, already).

If you and housemate choose to repeat this little experiment again....do you have a portable computer, like a laptop, to use to track on a site like flightaware.com...

This way, combined with observing with your own eyes (aided by magnification), you can correlate from the tracker website.

One thing, using FlightAware for free (whether registered, or not) I have noticed a slight delay, in real time versus what they display online. Only about 5 - 8 minutes behind....I presume it's because the site is compiling data from many sources, and processing it, before it gets put on-screen.

Check it out, it has many cool features, and they can help you orient your location....helps if you have a pretty fast Internet connection, though....

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by seeker11

 

I cannot recall reading that anyone believed that spraying was done everyday in every city, have you?
There is a balanced way you can look at this issue, but you DO have to spend a little time away from here...

You see, they aren't spraying anything in any city. Why haven't there been any persistent contrails here in Florida for a while? Is it because they are turning off the sprayers above my skies thereby preventing 'chemtrails' or is it because the conditions aren't right for contrail formation? Surely some airplanes coming from Miami Intl airport would be spraying, it's a major airport with lots of air traffic. Surely they would want to spray immediately after takeoff, to bleed off the weight of the 'chemfluid' in the 'chemtanks' to maximize fuel efficiency. So why haven't I seen any 'chemtrails' here?

Come on man, use some critical thinking.

reply to post by adeclerk


Come to think of it, here in LA (on days when the marine layer hadn't rolled in) been a while since there were any contrails, too.

Ah....summer is approaching.........(Northern hemisphere, of course). Wait for a rash of contrails being called"chem"-trails from people in the Southern hemisphere again, real soon......

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by seeker11

 

I cannot recall reading that anyone believed that spraying was done everyday in every city, have you?
There is a balanced way you can look at this issue, but you DO have to spend a little time away from here...

BUT I have spent PLENTY of time away from 'here'.

I have spent many many hours outside looking up at the skies. They look like contrails to me! I live in the city now as opposed to the country and the contrails are just more plentiful because the planes are more plentiful. They behave the exact same way they always have...well that's what I see from my own two eyes...it might be different for you. I accept that.

ETA If TPTB wanted to poison us why not just slip stuff into the water *other than fluroide* wouldn't that be a much more cost effective way of geo engineering or however it's called?

reply to post by Stewie


So it is just done over the people who know that "chemtrails" persist and contrails cannot? Or just over the people who video they sky over their head daily?
There is a problem with your reasoning because the varied beliefs about what constitutes a "chemtrail" or not. People who video them are sure that is what they are when they see them. For many different reasons. If there are "chemtrails", how do you suggest people make the differentiation? Because as it goes right now, anything in the sky behind and/or produced by a plane is considered a "chemtrail' by someone.

having a great interest in the sky the change is really noticeable i recently came across some information that i would like to share with you as option 2 coincides with the first part.

Having read your email, I must say that you are full of questions. These questions I would dismiss immediately as being the frustrated attempts of fringe groups to bring a halt to the project, however these reports of biological material being part of the spray should be addressed. Therefore I will give as much attention to all of your questions as possible.


1. What purpose do polymer threads imbedded with biological material serve in this scenario?

Polymers are part of the mixture and they do form in threads and in `tufts'. The idea is simple and comes to us from the spider. As you may know spider webbing is very light, some newborn spiders spin a `parachute' to catch the prevailing breeze to travel far from their place of birth. Spiders have been able to attain high altitudes and travel great distances for long periods of time. Most of the elements used in the spray are heavier than air, even in their powdered form they are heavier and will sink quickly. Mixing them with the polymers suspends the particles in the atmosphere high above the surface for longer periods of time, therefore in theory we do not need to spray as often or as much material. Since the suspended particles eventually do settle into the lowest part of the atmosphere and are inhaled by all life forms on the surface there is an attempt to counter the growth of mold by adding to the mixture mold growth suppressants - some of which may be of biological material.

Mold comes in spores that travel on the winds; the polymers can attract mold spores through static charges created by the friction of the polymer threads and the atmosphere. Add a bit of warmth and moisture and mold begins to grow. The polymer is stored in a liquid form as two separate chemicals. When sprayed they combine behind the plane `spinning' long polymer chains (threads). Much tinkering has been done which the chemical matrix in past years. Many polymers (plastics) are non-biodegradable thus add to the problem of pollution. Various formula have been used, some which even use biological agents. It would be great if we could reproduce the same web material that spiders make, it is extremely strong, extremely lightweight and breaks down relatively fast in the ecology.