Beware of the Chemtrail minefield

reply to post by Kester


There is an argument that says that on the days where the conditions allow the trails to linger and spread as you have described, natural cirrus cloud would behave like that anyway and so it makes little difference.

There is also an argument that says that while the vast majority of these visible trails are made of water, the level of harmful chemicals they contain would actually increase if the jets flew lower so no visible trail was left.

Have you any thoughts on this?

Edit to add, I better clarify that I generally, if not completely, concur with your point about increased pollution from increased volumes of ever more powerful engines, but I see that as a separate argument from chemtrails.

reply to post by waynos


The pics you posted are like so many I have seen all over the U.S. Some dissipate quickly, some linger for many hours. With that said however how can anyone be sure that long distance commercial flights are not being contracted to carry a payload of dipersants? There was some number crunching within the Teller proposal in 1996 that addressed the cost of using commercial flights. I'm not sure where or how it was decided that using commercial airliners for military goals was impossible.

reply to post by Witness2008


There was a long discussion on that very matter on here back, I think, in October (at least, I think that was the most recent) a link to it and the points that I agree with would be useful here but could you bear with me for 16 or so hours as its nearly midnight and I'm up for work at 7am

reply to post by waynos

I shall patiently wait. Most days I stay off of these threads, headaches and all. I'm not surprised I missed that one.

reply to post by Witness2008

The pics you posted are like so many I have seen all over the U.S.

I bet you haven't seen them in this way...

reply to post by starchild10


please explain how multiple flighs / day [ that must obey regulations on horizontal and vertical separation ] can navigate between airpots and hubs without leaving intersecting trails ?

Originally posted by Kester
I can only speak for myself. I live under a heavily used flightpath. It's a disgusting trail of smog. ...

Well, a contrail does have some nasty pollutants in it, but it is mostly water ice. When you see a contrail, most of what you are seeing is ice, just like in a cirrus cloud.

Sure -- commercial airliners pollute the air with a little soot and greenhouse gasses -- and even pollute the air with water vapor. However, all the cars on the road create more pollution than all of the jets in the sky. You may not want to breathe in the exhaust from a jet, but volume for volume, jet exhaust is cleaner than car exhaust, due to the high-efficiency of a jet engine.

Flag for sure.

My name is liejunkie01 and I am a chemtrail denier

I sworn to give up the debate a long time ago, but it is like crack, I can't stay away for long

I have taken the time to do my own research on this matter.....

All I can say is it is easy to spot the members that have not done their research.......

I enjoy reading the posts from members that have done their research and I urge those members to keep up the good work........

LJ01 salutes those members

reply to post by Witness2008


not to poop on your party but I believe flightaware utilises known flightpath and time data to give approximate readings on location. not transponder readings, for the most consistently good results I have found Flightradar24 to be the most accurate. its not perfect (there are black spots where nobody owns a receiver) but it has very accurate data when it shows it.

my enquiry to any doubters would be this.... I live in New Zealand, a small isolated island where there are no "just passing" flights (flights that dont land or take off somewhere in NZ) there are few domestic flights (by comparison to other countries, there being fewer locations to fly to and fewer people to deliver to said locations) and we have no airforce/ military to speak of (I believe we have 2 military jets, and those are just 757s used for transport/logistics) so how is it that we have widespread reports (with photos) of unmarked white planes leaving dense trails in grid or lane patterns that are not on any flight paths (either commercial or military) and do not show up on any flight tracking software that I have been able to get hold of. the trails I have witnessed are the width of the city and then abruptly stop when they reach the ocean, I have satellite imagery showing mass spraying occurring over (or in such a place that the wind would carry them over in due course) the population centers of NZ (not over the countryside as its too thinly populated)

reply to post by TreehouseIndustries


All those trails but one look like they're heading towards Wellington, the one looks like it's heading towards Christchurch.

Also, New Zealand has more flights than you think...

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Kester

 

There is an argument that says that on the days where the conditions allow the trails to linger and spread as you have described, natural cirrus cloud would behave like that anyway and so it makes little difference.

There is also an argument that says that while the vast majority of these visible trails are made of water, the level of harmful chemicals they contain would actually increase if the jets flew lower so no visible trail was left.

Have you any thoughts on this?

Edit to add, I better clarify that I generally, if not completely, concur with your point about increased pollution from increased volumes of ever more powerful engines, but I see that as a separate argument from chemtrails.

edit on 13-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

The difference I perceived during the time that jets were absent was very noticeable.

If they flew lower the noise pollution would be much worse. More or less constant jet engine noise has a very bad effect on mental health which was not much known about until the differences were noted during the glorious jet free days of the Icelandic volcano. Cutting out all the frivolous unnecessary flights and using Burnelli style aircraft, (if these are viable), will dramatically reduce pollution. And oil profits.

I guess I should really stay out of threads like this because I'm not interested in entering the chemtrail argument. I only want to discuss the observed effects jet aircraft have on the health of the environment beneath them.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Kester
I can only speak for myself. I live under a heavily used flightpath. It's a disgusting trail of smog. ...

Well, a contrail does have some nasty pollutants in it, but it is mostly water ice. When you see a contrail, most of what you are seeing is ice, just like in a cirrus cloud.

Sure -- commercial airliners pollute the air with a little soot and greenhouse gasses -- and even pollute the air with water vapor. However, all the cars on the road create more pollution than all of the jets in the sky. You may not want to breathe in the exhaust from a jet, but volume for volume, jet exhaust is cleaner than car exhaust, due to the high-efficiency of a jet engine.

edit on 1/13/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Contrails often spread out to form a haze which reduces light available on the ground. The noise of jet aircraft has a little understood but relevant negative effect on the mental health of those miles away from the source. The quality of life in this country was vastly improved while the jets were absent.

In the U.K. the excellent railway system we used to have was drastically pruned and allowed to decay in favour of a car and truck orientated society. Likewise the canal system. Bicycle manufacturers were bought up and put on one site. The design of bicycles was then slowly altered to make them less comfortable. Cycling was rebranded as a sport or pastime instead of a dependable means of transport. All this has led to an absurd dependancy on the car.

Most journeys by air are unnecessary. There's no reason to replace these air journeys with car journeys. Most short journeys are impractical by air. The advertising campaigns that glorified frequent and long distance travel using transport fuelled by oil have benefitted the suppliers of that oil while simultaneously fracturing society scattering families and communities around the globe. I don't prefer car exhaust and I find road noise as obnoxious as aircraft noise.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


There are a couple of pilots that should be in trouble over that little maneuver. How much water vapor was there? Are those trails located at the same altitude? There could have been a pocket of dry air ya know. I have actually witnessed chemtrails being laid in circles. Lost pilot perhaps?

If money can be made....rest assured they're buying and using. Not sure why people deny this 'chemtrail' phenomenom? I'm still not sure how these trails linger on, throughout the day; growing in size; moving towards the ocean, completely changing blue skies to grey; if they're ONLY "contrails"?

Aren't contrails the same thing as the exhaust fumes, from a car, on a cold winter night?

reply to post by Witness2008


Thank you.

Having searched the forum since I got home i have failed to come up with the exact thread I was thinking about. This may be because the thread wasn't started on that subject and was a reply to something else. Nevertheless, here is another thread, a much older one, that covers the same ground and it is written by a member i have grown to respect greatly over many subjects over the last 7 or so years on here. The views here largely reflect my own.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I do find the actual thread I was looking for I will link it as well.

The proof for me that commercial airlines do not engage in chemtrailing is basically that all the speculative explanations as to how it might be achieved are not credible as they ignore reality as well as possibility and seem based entirely on creating a model of operation within the airline industry that simply does not exist (eg compartmentalisation, secret squads of technicians, impossible logistics etc)

At the most basic end of the debate, everything i've seen claimed that 'cannot be a contrail because that's not how contrails behave' has been utterly wrong (persisting, spreading, grid patterns etc) and so everything that is claimed to be a chemtrail could actually very easily be a contrail and indeed, is more likely to be so.

In the absence of anything that can definitively be shown to be a chemtrail, despite, let us not forget, at least 15 years of open air activity depending on whose version of the theory you read, the otherwise entirely correct assertion that the technology exists and it is possible to do, isnt enough to say that it IS being done.

It is entirely technically possible for the RAF to make it rain vanilla ice cream on my house, but they aren't. Unfortunately.

When I couple this together with the knowledge that chemtrails were first brought to public notice by people with wares to sell, which is suspicious enough, then to me, there is sufficient proof that the chemtrail conspiracy is nonsense.

You see..........

Originally posted by nuttin4U
If money can be made....rest assured they're buying and using. Not sure why people deny this 'chemtrail' phenomenom? I'm still not sure how these trails linger on, throughout the day; growing in size; moving towards the ocean, completely changing blue skies to grey; if they're ONLY "contrails"?

Aren't contrails the same thing as the exhaust fumes, from a car, on a cold winter night?

Not knowing seems a central requirement to believing, as actually knowing and understanding the science of it kills it stone dead.

However it is plainly obvious that people will always believe, for whatever reason, so I reckon in future I will adopt the position of merely trying to correct a wrong assumption if I can, by offering information as trying to change someones mind and worldview is clearly a waste of time and more than a bit arrogant.

Its just that it actually does bother me when I see someone is fretting about a worry that is based on a mistaken idea. That mistaken idea is not that chemtrails can be done, they clearly can. Its when they are getting angry and scared about chemtrails simply because they are certain that contrails cannot persist, for example, or because they've seen a faked or misrepresented photo as proof of the operation being real, or lots of trails in the sky without knowing how many aircraft there actually are up there.

I also have a problem with the idea that people or organisations that were responsible for things like JFK, Watergate, 9/11, The WMD lie, almost bankrupting the entire western world etc magically manage the chemtrail operation, while including separate commercial private companies with civilian employees, to perfection and with total secrecy for 15 years and counting. Not. A. Chance

So if they have the ability to stop the white lines in the sky that are blocking sunlight, how come they don't.
Can you prove there is no plan or profit by denying humans sunlight.
Here is a company that can stop contrails.

www.ophir.com...

Sensitivity to aerosol backscatter coefficients better than 1x10-5/ m sr
Aerosol/soot density mapping from 0 to 300 meters
10 meter range resolution
Aerosol/soot profile computed once every second
Real-time indication of contrail/soot presence

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Because they cant? Your link shows the system used to alert B-2 crews to the presence of contrails, they then take measures, ie reducing altitude, to stop them. There is no 'technology' that stops contrails.

Can you prove there is no plan or profit by denying humans sunlight.

Wouldn't the point be to prove that there is, if you are making that claim?

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

Because they cant? Your link shows the system used to alert B-2 crews to the presence of contrails, they then take measures, ie reducing altitude, to stop them. There is no 'technology' that stops contrails.

Can you prove there is no plan or profit by denying humans sunlight.

Wouldn't the point be to prove that there is, if you are making that claim?

edit on 14-1-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

Your friends told me it is for profit, it would cost the airlines more money to lower the altitude of flights to stop visual contrails, that the public is complaining about.
So I agree that the industry would rather profit, then be bothered with human health or complaints.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Your question read, to me, as if you were saying chemtrails were being created for profit, sorry about that.

Yes, it would cost more money to fly lower, more fuel would be burned and this would put more pollutants into the sky. Apart from drowning, what is the public health concern with water?

Given that the visible trail is water ice, are you saying you want higher pollution, just so long as you cant see it?

Sunlight even if partially blocked by man made clouds, affects all life on planet.
I hope you are not going to want me to look up the benefits of sunlight on life, and problems created with less exposure.