Just throwing a decent article out there

I try to keep my sanity and blood pressure in check by not visiting ATS much anymore, but I thought I would just throw this piece of common sense into the whirlpool of conspiracy mayhem and nonsense (for the most part -- some conspiracies have merit).

It may get me 404'd immediately because i will say upfront that I will probably not check in on ATS for a couple weeks, so no real back and forth with this OP.

Just a taste..

Even Indy cars with their speeds exceeding 200 mph produce contrails, another thing which shatters the silly idea that they were first visible in the 1990s in the sky.
Once you delve into chemtrail fantasists’ bizarre websites, you get a wide spectrum of different kinds of misconceptions, misinterpretations, and outright falsehoods. The oddest is that people seem to think that contrails are some sort of new phenomenon, when as I just pointed out, we’ve been seeing them in the sky since planes have been flying at high altitudes. People apparently don’t remember seeing contrails when they were young, but that just testifies to the fallibility of human memory, because the photographic record of ordinary contrails goes back to before the 1930s. People don’t remember seeing contrails coming from their jetliner when they fly, but then they can’t look behind the plane in any commercial flight, so they can’t see the contrails—but they are there just the same.

Enjoy and discuss among yourselves.
www.skeptic.com...

a reply to: Chamberf=6

This reminds me of an article I saw few weeks back talking about Morgellons and dried blood they have been spraying. Im glad to see intrest somewhere other than the Ebola Hoax

morgellonsexposed.com...&Morgellons.htm

www.chemtrailcentral.com...

I think I first learned about contrails from reading my father's, 'History of the Second World War' 50 years ago.

Pictures of bomber fleets frequently exhibited contrails.

High altitude aircraft produce them in certain conditions.

They are a result of atmospheric moisture.

The only "chemical" component to them is the engine exhaust.

Once upon a time gasoline had lead (pb) added to reduce engine friction.

When we learned what lead could do to the developing human brain it was eliminated from our gasoline.

Chemtrail tankers pumping out noxious clouds of substances may be a fallacy, but adding something as simple as lead to aviation fuel could have a massive negative effect on all living things while doing no harm to engines, perhaps even reducing internal wear.

There are chemicals, other than lead, that would just as easily pass through an internal combustion engine and that could have the ability to alter atmospheric properties, whether to reflect radiant energy or to bring about human sterility.

The actual amount required need not be much.

A substance that simply caused normal, old fashioned contrails to sustain a little longer could have a significant cumulative effect on climate.

I love the chem-trail theories. I mean you have to admit sometimes they just disperse and sometimes they just cover the skies.

I can understand the plume coming out of a jet engine at the point it for lack of a better term, becomes visible from the ground may be roughly the diameter of the engines exhaust. What is that? 3 or 4 feet in diameter? That is a lot of area in a 3 or 4 foot diameter circle. A=Pi x R squared.

If the wind conditions are right all that exhaust could flatten out and what looks like a 3 foot wide, 1 dimensional swath from the ground but in reality is 3 foot diameter, 2 dimensional could turn all the area of that circle into a thin flat layer of exhaust.

But sometimes it seems the con/chem trails are hard to justify.

Add in the Haarp thing. Heating the Ionosphere. I would liken chemtrails to sighting a scope.

Chemtrail Nebraska, fire up HAARP and see where the energy goes.... ooops too close to home, chemtrail anytown USA and repeat.

sighting in that scope.

a reply to: tinner07

Add in the Haarp thing. Heating the Ionosphere. I would liken chemtrails to sighting a scope.

Well one of those is closed and the other one doesn't exist.

originally posted by: tinner07
I love the chem-trail theories. I mean you have to admit sometimes they just disperse and sometimes they just cover the skies.

I can understand the plume coming out of a jet engine at the point it for lack of a better term, becomes visible from the ground may be roughly the diameter of the engines exhaust. What is that? 3 or 4 feet in diameter? That is a lot of area in a 3 or 4 foot diameter circle. A=Pi x R squared.

If the wind conditions are right all that exhaust could flatten out and what looks like a 3 foot wide, 1 dimensional swath from the ground but in reality is 3 foot diameter, 2 dimensional could turn all the area of that circle into a thin flat layer of exhaust.

But sometimes it seems the con/chem trails are hard to justify.

when contrails expand into a sheet of cirrus cloud it is NOT just the exhaust plume that is doing it.

It is the exhaust plume that is creating nucleation sites so that the ice in the supersaturated atmosphere can condense out - that ice from the atmosphere is as much as 10,000 times as much moisture as was in the exhaust plume - this paper comes to that conclusion on page 1390 (the paper isn't that long - it's taken from a journal! ) in het right hand column of that page, just above the 4 listed points.