In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 9. Not a "Delusion"

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: waynos

Neither is it unreasonable to wonder if they might not be totally harmless and may have some, as yet undetermined impact (which is what I think you meant to say), but such wondering is a world away from the nonsense that is "Chemtrailzzz!!!!"

I just know what I can see. As for chemtrailzzz, maybe they are related maybe not? What is important to acquire to answer the question is to understand what impact(s) these plane made clouds have, it would force a research on their composition and their role when they stay suspended in the sky.

What makes you think that their impact and composition hasn't been studied?

a reply to: mrthumpy

Has it?

Let's find out. My bet is all is a ok. We have nothing to fear. It is there, but it doesn't matter.

a reply to: bitsforbytes


Was that really necessary? Is every one who believes in chemtrails related to each other?

You now seem to be arguing a point no-one is making. Why do chemtrail believers so frequently take explanations why chemtrail theory is impractical and unrealistic and why those grids and stop start trails happen with contrails anyway, as if they are statements that the Governments of the world are wonderful and air traffic has no environmental impact whatsoever? What an absolutely bizarre response.

a reply to: waynos

Are chemtrails real? Maybe. Logically, with the premise of trusting the establishment, it is very unlikely.

I just pointed out that contrails leave a trace and that trace lingers and probably has an impact ion the environment because of the frequency of flights. Also, flight frequencies are increasing since and planes are not really getting bigger, so more people travel in the same sized vehicles which requires more planes and more contrails. That is all.

The last post had cynical sarcasm that is what confused you I believe. This is the downfall of conversation over the internet, intonation cannot be perceived. I was implying that the studies will always suggest that these contrails no matter how frequent will never be damaging to anything.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: mrthumpy


Let's find out.

Have you tried?

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: waynos

Are chemtrails real? Maybe. Logically, with the premise of trusting the establishment, it is very unlikely.

It's go nothing to do with "the establishment" - it is high school physics.

So what you should have said was "...logically, given high school physics, they are actually impossible."

See how logic actually works?

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: waynos

Are chemtrails real? Maybe. Logically, with the premise of trusting the establishment, it is very unlikely.

Whose premise is that? The premise my logical viewpoint is based on is chemistry, physics, meteorology and 40+ years familiarity with aircraft and aviation. It's not my fault if other people choose to believe internet bollocks over actual knowledge.

Again, nobody is saying contrails can't possibly have an impact. That could be quite a logical and informative discussion. We are simply saying that chemtrails are a stupid theory and the only people who believe in them are people who don't understand WHY they are a stupid theory. Witness the poster who believes they have seen a chemtrail because they saw a contrail stop and start up again, mentioned in this very thread. Such people don't want truth, I think they enjoy the thrill of it all.

A reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

High school physics to demonstrate that something isnt contained in the contrails...hmmmm??
Sorry i will stick with my statement thanks for trying though.

a reply to: waynos

I agree.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

High school physics (well, really just basic maths) is enough to prove that contrails simply cannot be anything other than water ice. Even if something was being sprayed inside them, it would be diluted to minuscule levels.

A big persistent contrail weighs 30 tons or more per linear mile (as measured by Knollenberg in 1972, and that was only from a small Saberliner business jet, not a big Boeing it Airbus.

A contrail at 35000ft stretching from horizon to horizon is more than 300 miles long (and that's just the visible length).

So that's 9,000 tons of contrail.

A Boeing 747-400 has a maximum payload of about 113 tonnes. Even assuming that all of that weight was taken up with chemtrail material, it could only account for a little over 1% of the mass of that contrail. And planes generally fly much further than those 300 visible miles.

a reply to: Rob48

Last time I made this point, it was dismissed as merely my opinion. Lol.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Rob48

Last time I made this point, it was dismissed as merely my opinion. Lol.

And I've made that point many times and it's been ignored....just as Robs will be.

Why is it that when a definitive answer is given to a chemtrail believer, they run away, or ignore the fact that they even asked the question? It's the most dishonest thing I have ever seen. Almost as bad as making 9 threads to chastise those who disagree with others.

a reply to: richcranium

Why is it that when a definitive answer is given to a chemtrail believer, they run away, or ignore the fact that they even asked the question?

Sometime's it's easier to believe a lie, than it is to accept the truth.

So what is the actual plan behind the spraying and why don't they just get er done?

Seems incompetent, if it's a long term operation atleast be smart enough to do it at night, right? Thats what I would do.

a reply to: Rob48

That is a lot of artificially created icy water, don't you think?

So in 1972 with the planes they had, 30 tons per mile from a jet huh? Today I would say it is more around 60 tons/mile for commercial flights, bah! let's make it 50 tons for the sake of conversation.

So on average, their are 50,000 flights per day in the world averaging 1360 miles. That makes for a day world wide:
50 tons/miles * 1360 miles/flight * 50,000 flights = 3,400,000,000 tons of artificially created icy water on AVERAGE, this could be more since new commercial planes make more condensed air on the output and my value is just an estimation. Plus, there can be as much as 80,000 flights/day also (look it up, the figures I got are from 2014 and growing).

So that makes 3,400,000,000 tons of icy water, which makes:

907,185 grams/ton * 3,400,000,000 tons = 3084429000000000 grams

Contrails when dispersed look like stratus clouds to me which is 0.3 grams / cubic meter.

Here we go:
3084429000000000 grams / (0.3 grams/cubic meter) = 10281430000000000 cubic meters

That can cover, if dispersed in the sky 1 meter thick, that would cover about 20% of earths surface maybe more given my underestimates. How much heat can this 1 meter thick icy water cloud absorb from the sun rays or what other effects it might have at night or on the weather patterns, heat absorption down on the ground for plants or seas and oceans?

Still think contrails are just icy water of pureness? Not chemtrails I know, but still cause for concern as I have demonstrated.

Bottom line for me is that planes are not supposed to be making these lines in the skies with or without destructive agents in them. I suspect that 20% is a lot and that number seems to be growing.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Except it isn't artificially created icy water.......the water is mostly already there....the planes just give it a reason to condense out of the atmosphere.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Thus, with plane = ice formation

no plane = no ice formation

Planes are artificially creating icy water. Notice the contrails that weren't there before the planes flew in that area.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

They are creating clouds, or ice....but they are not creating water...well not as much as is already in the atmosphere at least.

Do you realise that there are millions of tons of invisible water vapour in the atmosphere?

What the planes are doing is they are providing nucleation in areas where the atmosphere is already supersaturated with water - allowing that water to change phase from gas to solid - ie allowing it to become ice.

It is true that without the planes there would not be the ice - but the WATER in the ice is (mostly) already in the atmosphere - not created by the planes.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Gaul is correct, water is not being artificially created so your point is moot. You also seem to be assuming, for no reason other than dramatic impact, that the water vapour wouldn't have condensed into sheets of cirrus anyway at some point. If you can't even understand that persistant contrails can only occur where the air is already supersaturated with water naturally, then you don't even have an argument.