Woke up this morning to clear blue/sunny skies only to see a massive chemtrail being sprayed

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: underwerks

Exactly. And mine tailings and other ground based sources. Those need to be eliminated before jumping to they're spraying us.

There's no connection. You are just making crazy non-sequitur stuff. Yes ground base sources of pollution are a problem. But I see no reason why you have to address ground base sources of pollution before discussing chemtrails. I thought logic was your specialty.

And there may be other motives besides "spraying us" as stated in the thread.

from this article

garfors.com...

i get a total of 36,500,000 flights per year. no wonder our skies look the way they do.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yes ground base sources of pollution are a problem. But I see no reason why you have to address ground base sources of pollution before discussing chemtrails.

Well when chemtrailers claim there is more aluminum and barium in the soil and say its from planes spraying the chemtrails, one must bring forth logic and reason and ask could this increase come from a source closer to home, say ground based pollution?

a reply to: dragonridr

It depends on the aircraft and the mission. A tanker or C3 aircraft in an orbit will fly at lower altitude to stay out of the way. A tanker or bomber flying from point A to point B will fly at commercial aircraft altitudes to be more efficient.

a reply to: dfnj2015

So if you lived near a coal powerplant, and took background radiation levels, and saw they were elevated, you'd immediately blame the nuclear powerplant 80 miles away?

If you want to claim something is the source of increased levels of something, in this case aluminum, you have to eliminate every other potential source before you can prove that it's caused by aircraft. If you want to just yell about how they're spraying something then have fun with that. If you want to PROVE they are, you have to eliminate other potential sources.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: dfnj2015

Yes ground base sources of pollution are a problem. But I see no reason why you have to address ground base sources of pollution before discussing chemtrails.

Well when chemtrailers claim there is more aluminum and barium in the soil and say its from planes spraying the chemtrails, one must bring forth logic and reason and ask could this increase come from a source closer to home, say ground based pollution?

So are saying grid-lines in the sky do not exist.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

And that's just scheduled commercial flights. If you add all aviation categories together, the US alone comes out somewhere near 85,000 flights a day.

a reply to: dfnj2015

God you like to put words in people's mouth don't you?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dfnj2015

So if you lived near a coal powerplant, and took background radiation levels, and saw they were elevated, you'd immediately blame the nuclear powerplant 80 miles away?

If you want to claim something is the source of increased levels of something, in this case aluminum, you have to eliminate every other potential source before you can prove that it's caused by aircraft. If you want to just yell about how they're spraying something then have fun with that. If you want to PROVE they are, you have to eliminate other potential sources.

Can you stop hijacking the thread and just talk about chemtrails. We are not talking about pollution from coal plants. The OP was talking about lines in the sky. If modern jet engines cause grid-lines in the sky then lets talk about this pollution and only this pollution.

originally posted by: freedom7
So I wake up this morning. Beautiful day here in Ontario, Canada ( a rarity with all the rainy/cloudy days here lately).

Clear blue skies, sun shining.. I look overhead and I kid you not there is a plane ( clearly not a commercial airliner either) literally just covering the sky in a long chemtrail. Now for those of us who know this is not a conspiracy we can see the obvious, feel the effects of the obvious, watch people act out of sorts etc...

My question is for those who genuinely do not believe in chemtrails. I don't say this to antagonize you. I legitimately am curious when you see sights like I just saw this morning.
A. You see the plane is clearly not a commercial airliner.
B. You are watching a long streak of chemtrails being visibly sprayed in front of your eyes with an otherewise clear blue sky to make the contrast that much more evident.
How can you explain this away?

What is the alternative explanation for why this is happening?

The one point those who don't believe in chemtrails do seem to have is that they argue the conspiracy would have to be so enormous and the very people in on it would suffer symptoms too since they are polluting their own skies..

Other then that though, the physical evidence is very overwhelming. I'm just curious to hear explanations..

Cheers ATS

Great questions! Keep asking them.

The flat earthers will continue to think the earth is flat. The grid-line pollution in the sky is real. I see it everyday.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Can you try to understand what is being said instead of jumping up conclusions and putting words in people's mouth?

You keep claiming that its possible they're spraying something. If you want to prove that you have to prove that it's coming from there. My comments ARE related to chemtrails. You can't talk about chemtrails without proving they exist first.

a reply to: Zaphod58

wow that's a lot of traffic.

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

Only a fraction of those leave contrails, but yeah it is. It's crazy how common air travel at all levels has become.

This is from the FAA radar tracking a few years ago.

A. You see the plane is clearly not a commercial airliner.
B. You are watching a long streak of chemtrails being visibly sprayed in front of your eyes with an otherewise clear blue sky to make the contrast that much more evident.
How can you explain this away?

What kind of airplane was it? If it's smaller than a commercial airliner, wouldn't it have limited ability to hold chemicals?

Have you ever piloted an aircraft in the 30'k to 45'k altitudes?
Cuz I have. Contrails are finicky buggers. Sometimes they appear and sometimes they don't . I have seen them form in very narrow bands of altitude on a clear, blue sky day. Like, a 500' band of air in an otherwise clear sky. I'm sure some really smart person can tell me exactly why, but I saw it with my own eyes, about 1 mile away from it, around 35,000 feet. I saw my own aircraft make persistent contrails that lasted about 30 minutes. One of the coolest was when I was flying a post maintenance check flight and had to make a supersonic run to check engine performance. I was heading west, approaching the Virginia coastline and had to turn around at Mach 1+. Well, the aircraft doesn't turn on a dime at that speed and altitude. I believe the turn radius was around 2.5 nautical miles, so it takes a good 5 miles to turn around. I was conning the entire time.
A few minutes later, we were done and we zorched back to the base, which is about 1 mile from the coast. Upon exiting the aircraft, I saw my own giant arcing U-turn in the sky, floating against a blue sky background.

So here's what I know: because I've done it and seen it.
Aircraft that aren't spraying chemicals or additives can make long lasting contrails. Even against a blue sky backdrop.

That's how I explain that away.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dfnj2015

Can you try to understand what is being said instead of jumping up conclusions and putting words in people's mouth?

You keep claiming that its possible they're spraying something. If you want to prove that you have to prove that it's coming from there. My comments ARE related to chemtrails. You can't talk about chemtrails without proving they exist first.

I see it with my eyes everyday. What do I have to prove?

The lines are in the sky. You claim the lines are just water vapor. Many people claim they are not. How do you know they are just water vapor? What proof do you have?

a reply to: dfnj2015

What proof do you have they aren't? There are many scientific studies showing how contrails form, soundings from different areas that show conditions are right for contrails to form, and all kinds of other data to show they're contrails.

Besides somehow knowing they're not, or patents or misunderstood studies, what scientific data do you have to show they aren't?

a reply to: freedom7

I have a few questions of my own...

1. Could you identify the make and model? Many private owners do charter flights, there is a person who owns a MIG nearby that does tourist flights for thrill seekers.

2. Do you know the current weather conditions? You mentioned rainy/cloudy weather and that's perfect conditions for CONTRAILS to form due to the moisture in the air, is there a low pressure system in the area?

3. How high would you say the plane was flying? In certain conditions CONTRAILS can disperse and look like low level cirrus clouds.

Given the information you provided, I will say you saw a contrail. I might sound like a broken record but chemtrails would be ineffective at higher altitudes, it would be like spraying deodorant in a shopping mall and expecting everyone to smell nice.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dfnj2015

What proof do you have they aren't? There are many scientific studies showing how contrails form, soundings from different areas that show conditions are right for contrails to form, and all kinds of other data to show they're contrails.

Besides somehow knowing they're not, or patents or misunderstood studies, what scientific data do you have to show they aren't?

Regardless of what they are made of or for what purpose, seeing endless white lines in the sky is pollution.

You claim modern jet engines are so efficient is the reason why we did not see these lines in the 70s and 80s. I find that hard to believe that the physics of water has changed in that time. Jet engine design only changes marginally. You can see that data in the link to the PDF I posted. You make a very good claim. I cannot disprove it. But I think maybe you need to spend a little more time proving your assertion in the same way you are asking me to prove mine.

I don't have to prove the white lines are in the sky. They are everywhere.

However, here's my speculation which I admit I cannot prove. We had a 10 year drought in the NYC area before the chemtrails. We were always on water rationing because the reservoirs were so low. Then chemtrails show up and temperatures drop. There was one January when it was 72 degrees the entire month. Someone made the comment about how great it was to have global warming. I guarantee you if we had 100 degree weather in January in the NYC area people would panic and stop using fossil fuels. There would be a public outcry. If people panic legislation would have followed. Big Oil has a huge interest in making sure global warming does not become a public policy issue.

You can't deny this science is being done: This is from the 2010 American Association of Advancement of Science Symposium "Can Geoengineering Save Us from Global Warming."

www.youtube.com...

I do not trust corporations. I do not trust Big Oil not to put additives in jet fuel to prevent global warming. Maybe trimethylaluminium is BS. But maybe it's NOT.

______beforeitsnews/chemtrails/2011/08/chemtrails-produced-by-aviation-fuel-laced-with-trimethylaluminum-934747.html

I think the difference between you and me is you are convinced chemtrails are contrails. And nothing will convince you otherwise. Hey look, I get it, the earth is flat for you. And then again, the skeptic in me says the whole chemtrail thing is BS. But then there's a part of me that goes people are generally pretty evil and would do anything and everything to preserve their trillion dollar industry.

a reply to: dfnj2015

And that's where you're wrong. If someone had more evidence than "I just know" I'd be willing to believe. But not one person has ever come forward with anything even resembling scientific proof that chemtrails are real. Beforeitsnews isn't going to convince me. I spent almost 30 years working on aircraft and their systems. It's going to take a lot more than a website where anyone can post anything to convince me.

No one has even managed to show the long term effect of contrails on the earth. Even the data on short term effects is still being debated.

Marginal improvements? A high bypass turbofan in use today bypasses as much as 90% of the air that goes into the intake. That means as little as 10% actually goes through the core of the engine and is used by it. That 90% is compressed and expelled out the back of the fan. It's compressed moist air that mixes with the moist air around the engine and leaves a contrail. Look at slide 9 in the pdf you linked. Right in the middle of the 1990s, look at the jump in the bypass ratio. That's right about when chemtrails really became popular. But I guess that's coincidence.

The JT3D used on the Boeing 707, and still in use today by the military as the TF33 had a pressure ratio of 12.5:1 and a bypass ratio of 1.42:1. The GE90 used on the Boeing 777 has a pressure ratio of 40 or 42:1 depending on version, and a bypass ratio of 8.4-9:1 again depending on version. That's more than a marginal improvement.

elib.dlr.de...

journals.ametsoc.org...

The measurements include contrail observations for identified aircraft flying at ambient temperature and humidity conditions measured with high precision in-situ instruments, measurements of the temperature and humidity increases in an aircraft exhaust plume, and an observation of contrail formation behind two different four-engine jet aircraft with different engines flying wing by wing. The observations show that an altitude range exists in which the aircraft with high efficiency causes contrails while the other aircraft with lower efficiency causes none. Aircraft with more efficient propulsion cause contrails more frequently. The climatic impact depends on the relative importance of increased contrail frequency and reduced carbon dioxide emissions for increased efficiency, and on other parameters, and has not yet been quantified.

www.sciencedirect.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yes its true that spraying iodine into the atmosphere can increase precipitation, but its best done from a lower altitude, not at the height chemtrailers are claiming, would crop dusting be effective if the pilots flew at thirty thousand feet? that's why they spray under a hundred yards over Terra firma.

As for the rain you got, consider el nino. It is associated with drought but it can also generate rain and even hurricanes depending on where you live. The Atacama desert in south America is drought stricken because of el nino but because of the corealis effect other parts of the world would... This would be a helluva lot easier to explain with a powerpoint presentation