Chemtrails on private jets?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

People are seeing more contrails than they did in the past, so obviously it's something nefarious. And when people that know what they're talking about tell them what's going on, they get waved away, because they want to believe in something nefarious.

There are more contrails than ever before, because, even with COVID, travel numbers are up significantly from what they were before. And airlines are buying new planes, with new engines, meaning more contrails. US domestic travel numbers are back to 2019 levels, putting between 1.7 and 2.1 million people through a checkpoint daily. In 2000, there were 1.67B passengers carried worldwide. That peaked in 2019, with 4.56B people carried. That dropped significantly in 2020, but it was still 1.81B people. To compare that, in 1982, when the 767 entered service, there were 654 million people carried worldwide.

The end result, when you combine all of those factors (new engines, the climate changing somewhat, passenger numbers being in the billions), you get more contrails than before.

How tidy. Why disrespect someone else's research tho? the more research on the matter, the merrier

a reply to: Zaphod58
I will present more evidence shortly

a reply to: futurehobo
While I think most of it is contrails due to cold air, there was one very clear example of what I'd call chemtrails here over vancouver island summer of 2008, or around then. For months, every morning was bright blue and planes would then grid up the sky, crossing the major flight path too. I've lived near a military base much of my childhood and under a major flightpath for decades seeing was what would be persistent contrails but they never made the sky greyed out like that summer, where the air was heavy and burnt your eyes by early evening. It had a regularity that I would've bet money on. Many people started to notice and it became more intermittent. Later years it wasn't as regular but was always followed by rain. Just before the pandemic we had a couple summers with none of them and of course, the pandemic saw little airflight so I wouldn't count those. I work in a nursery and see the sky all day, all summer.

We know they did cloud seeding in the past and I think that may be what is going on but on a more experimental basis. At least here because we have incredible drought in summers but also are in forest fire territory so I think there would be a financial basis for such experimentation. All just theories but based on what I've seen.

a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

The reason they're adding Graphene to everything is they want this Graphene inside your body.

Well would it not be best to introduce it directly to our water supplies at the treatment plants as opposed to adding it to the jet fuel and burning it at 35,000ft?

a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

And if you did anything beyond believe in chemtrails, you'd understand that contrails are perfectly capable of lingering for hours, and even becoming a cloud deck. In fact, you can tell weather by how contrails act. People that believe in chemtrails often claim that contrails have to dissipate within a few seconds, but that isn't true at all. Contrails left in WWII lingered so long that aircraft returning from Germany had to change their route back to England, because of poor visibility from their outbound contrails. Unless contrail behavior changed radically because of jet engines, there's no reason they don't still linger and spread now. It just depends on the conditions at altitude. I've watched a plane going over leave a contrail that dissipated quickly, followed by one at a slightly different altitude leaving one that lingered for an hour or more.

a reply to: kittywrangler

That goes both ways. I've done years of research into contrails, and have more knowledge of aviation than anyone short of someone that's had a lifetime career in the industry. Yet every time I try to explain what's being seen, I get waved away or attacked for daring to go against what the internet says.

a reply to: igloo

It was followed by rain because contrails tend to persist and spread ahead of a frontal system, which frequently brings in rain. The system pushes moisture ahead of it, which leads to conditions where contrails are going to linger and spread.

originally posted by: ChristianSupremacist

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

Yes, because we have people that know what they're talking about that don't agree with you, it must be COINTELPRO.

Every thread on this board gets jumped on by "fact checkers". That's a huge red flag in my book.

i'm with you. i don't care what anyone else talks themselves into believing. make a false premise based off assumption and misled expectations, then argue the hell out of it...whatever fits their fancy

a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

Oh, right. God forbid people go against group think and dare to have done their own research and have differing opinions. Sorry you aren't getting the echo chamber you want.

a reply to: kittywrangler

Yeah, this site should be an echo chamber, and anyone that doesn't agree should be shouted down and run off. God forbid people have different opinions or do their own research, or have their own knowledge base.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

That goes both ways. I've done years of research into contrails, and have more knowledge of aviation than anyone short of someone that's had a lifetime career in the industry. Yet every time I try to explain what's being seen, I get waved away or attacked for daring to go against what the internet says.

I hold a CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) license and a Meteorological Observers certificate. I know some things about cloud forming. I need to get a few hour of sleep before my next tour. I'll be back soon.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

I've watched a plane going over leave a contrail that dissipated quickly, followed by one at a slightly different altitude leaving one that lingered for an hour or more.

me too. this is an issue for me. why were there no sky grids in the 80's? every plane i saw had a dissipating contrail then. like an airborne tad pole.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

Yeah, this site should be an echo chamber, and anyone that doesn't agree should be shouted down and run off. God forbid people have different opinions or do their own research, or have their own knowledge base.

You just accused someone of what you're doing yourself. And you're not the only only one. Every thread on this board gets jumped on by "fact checkers" and posters pushing the official narratives and state propaganda.

originally posted by: ChristianSupremacist

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

Yeah, this site should be an echo chamber, and anyone that doesn't agree should be shouted down and run off. God forbid people have different opinions or do their own research, or have their own knowledge base.

You just accused someone of what you're doing yourself. And you're not the only only one. Every thread on this board gets jumped on by "fact checkers" and posters pushing the official narratives and state propaganda.

Sorry, but you're paranoid and not making any sense.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

Oh, right. God forbid people go against group think and dare to have done their own research and have differing opinions. Sorry you aren't getting the echo chamber you want.

that's the thing. there aren't enough around to groupthink chemtrails. one MUST do their own research, and get past all the skytroll misdirection

a reply to: kittywrangler

Yes, there really are. Chemtrails are everywhere. I even see them pop up in photography groups that have nothing to do with aviation.

Wow, skytrolls? Seriously?

originally posted by: kittywrangler

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChristianSupremacist

me too. this is an issue for me. why were there no sky grids in the 80's? every plane i saw had a dissipating contrail then. like an airborne tad pole.

look at the sky in pre-90's film if you weren't looking up at that time. aircraft was not leaving clouds behind

originally posted by: ChristianSupremacist

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: ChristianSupremacist

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

Yeah, this site should be an echo chamber, and anyone that doesn't agree should be shouted down and run off. God forbid people have different opinions or do their own research, or have their own knowledge base.

You just accused someone of what you're doing yourself. And you're not the only only one. Every thread on this board gets jumped on by "fact checkers" and posters pushing the official narratives and state propaganda.

Sorry, but you're paranoid and not making any sense.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not after me (and you).

You're arguing with a Forum Subject Matter Expert.

a reply to: kittywrangler

I explained it to you. In the 80s they were using low and medium bypass turbofans. So the amount of contrails and persistent contrails were lower. As engines got more efficient, contrails became more common, and more persistent trails started showing up.