“Chemtrail” Aircraft Photos

Several planes look a little odd, or have attachments that look odd, and so some people feel they must be part of a decades long conspiracy to spray stuff into the atmosphere to alter the weather or reduce the population. That’s obviously nonsense, but what are these strange planes?

[Update: there are many other photos like the “barrel” interior below, I’ve collected a lot of them on Metabunk]

Here’s one making the rounds, scary looking barrels, and a sign on the wall that possibly says “Hazmat inside”

chemtrail-inners3.jpg

What is it? It’s a Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner, specifically it’s WD001, a plane that was used for flight testing. The original photo can be found here – note the “Hazmat” text was added later. The barrels contain water, which is pumped around to shift the center of gravity to test various flight characteristics.

Here’s a description of a similar setup from the 2002 book, “Inside Boeing, Building the 777”, page 76., describing tests done in 1994.

From Boeing’s blog:

Remember, we test at the extremes of the weight/CG envelope. This requires us to control the CG during ground and flight conditions. We can move weight, in the form of water, forward or aft with the use of the water ballast system. This system is comprised of 48 barrels, each capable of carrying 460 pounds, connected by tubing to a pump. A computerized system tracks fuel placement, fuel burn, people placement, ballast, flap setting, landing gear position and water barrel quantity. The information is processed to display the airplane’s current CG. We move water or specify fuel tank usage to configure the CG within the specified test requirements.

Why are there overhead luggage compartments? It’s a test plane, and for FAA certification they have to demonstrate that everything works. That includes stuff like the emergency oxygen system, and more minor things like the luggage compartments. It’s a requirement that they don’t pop open in flight – so that needs to be tested. They are also handy for stowing the engineers’ stuff.

Here’s some pictures from Boeing:

wd001_group_interior_sm.jpgwdoo1_interior_sm.jpg

And a lot more photos can be found on Boeing’s site.

——————————————————————————————–

This one gets a lot of use in the “chemtrail” forums:

chemtrailplaneonground1forum.jpg

Particularly because of the unusual collections of pipes sticking out in various places. There’s those two at the front, and then there is a group over the wing. Here’s some close ups

chemtrailplaneonground2forum.jpg:

chemtrailplaneonground3forum.jpg

Very sinister looking tubes, but why are half of them facing the wrong way?

The plane is not for spraying the atmosphere, it’s for sampling the atmosphere. It’s a research aircraft, registration N701BN, operated by th e department of energy’s national labs. It’s pretty much one of a kind, so it’s hardly likely to be responsible for all the persistent contrails we see every day. The research is mostly on pollutants in the atmosphere, particularly from coal and oil burning power plants. But they also investigate the properties of clouds, which includes contrails.

————————————————————

Here’s another photo you see in “chemtrail” videos, with the implied suggestion that it’s some kind of evil spraying device:

nkc-135-attachment.jpg

Actually it IS a spraying device, but quite innocuous. It’s on an NKC-135A (55-3128) with the refueling boom modified to spray water. This used by the air force to test icing of planes in flight.

Here’s the original photo:

See also: https://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/news/march04/raptor.html

nkc-135-spays-water-test-icing-raptorbig.jpg

Here’s some more details:

nkc-135-icing-attachmentpv1983_2688.pdf

—————————————————————————————————

This plane is quite interesting:

e6-below-from-tacamoorg.jpg

It’s an E-6B “Tacamo”. This photo shows it dumping fuel (photo from tacamo.org). The E-6B is used by the United States Strategic Command as an airborne communication center. You can see the navy logo on the right wing. The E-6B is a modified version of the Boeing 707-320, and the fuel vents have been moved from the wing tips to between the fuselage and the engines in order to separate it from the communication equipment in the wing tips. This is what the wing-tip ESM/SATCOM pod looks like:

navy-e6-070403-03cr-6.jpg

It looks like this odd assemblage is also creating some wingtip vortex contrails as well. The plane is pretty much all white, which is something you hear mentioned from time to time in “chemtrail” conspiracy theories.

Here’s another photo of the same plane, taken from a “chemtrail” YouTube video:

e6b-tail-youtube.jpg

It shows the opening and drogue  for the ELF trailing wire antenna. This is a very long wire antenna that is extended behind the plane for several hundred feet and used for communications with submarines. The “drogue” is just a cone-shaped weight. Here’s a close-up

http://www.flickr.com/photos/coldwararchaeology/5180470207/in/photostream

————————————————————————————–

This plane also looks at first glance like it might be dumping fuel (click image for full sized photo):

But the trails are actually coming from six smoke generators. It was part of a NASA test to study wake vortices, you can read about it here:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/B-747/HTML/ECN-4242.html

Six smoke generators were installed under the wings of the 747 to provide a visual image of the trailing vortices. The object of the experiments was to test different configurations and mechanical devices on the747 that could be used to break up or lessen the strength of the vortices. The results of the tests could lead to shorter spacing between landings and takeoffs, which, in turn, could alleviate air-traffic congestion.

Here’s another image of the same plane:

—————————————————————————————————-

This plane also occasionally get brought up in chemtrail conspiracy groups:

This is obviously not a contrail, it’s far too low and the trail is dropping too rapidly.

It’s a Boeing 747-100 “Supertanker”, modified by Evergreen Aviation, the only one of its kind. Specifically designed for fire fighthing. That’s it dumping water.   Here’s some more recent photos.

Here’s a video of it in action, titled “B747 chemtrails”. It’s interesting reading the comments, as the first comment correctly identifies what it is, and then everyone else just ignores that and starts speculating.

———————————————————————

This one looks like a plane spraying stuff. But again it’s rather close to the ground. It’s actually taking off with the assistance of rockets. It’s not spraying, that’s just rocket exhaust.

762px-boeing_b-47b_rocket-assistedw.jpg

This particular plane is a Boeing B-47B, rocket assisted take off, April 15, 1954. An no, that’s not a contrail in the sky behind it – it’s rip in the photo. Click on it for a large version from Wikipedia.

————————————————————————

This one is used for cloud seeding. It does not actually spray anything but uses silver iodine flares that are either ejected, or burn in place.

sandylandwater-slide7.jpg

It’s operated by the Sandy land Underground Water Conservation district of Plains, Texas, as part of their SOAR program. They have some more photos of similar equipment on their site. They are all small aircraft not capable of getting to the above 30,000 feet where contrails normally form.

—————————————————————————

This next photo is also of silver iodine flares, fixed underneath at large plane.

weathermod-eject_rack1.jpg

These also show up in “chemtrail” literature. They are sold by Weather Modification Inc, they make a range of weather modification equipment. About this one they say:

WMI racks for ejectable flares are mounted on the belly of the aircraft fuselage. Each rack holds 102 cartridges. When fired, the pyrotechnic is ignited and ejected from the aircraft. In this configuration, the WMI Lear 35A is equipped with four 102-count racks for ejectable glaciogenic pyrotechnics, a total of 408 flares.

Here’s another, this time from North American Weather Consultants, Inc.

seedinggen_nawc.jpg

About which they say:

This aircraft-mounted cloud seeding generator is fixed in place, and can burn a silver iodide solution during flight.

————————————————————————–

This one is the “Mk.32 drogue-type underwing pod on the Armée de l’Air Boeing C-135FR Stratotanker” (“93-CC”- s/n 63-8472 of GRV 93). It’s an in-flight refueling system on a French Boeing C-135FR Stratotanker, photographed in Canada, Feb 2005.


See: http://www.baha.be/Webpages/Navigator/News/tanker_flight_240205.htm

The following is supposed to be a plane that has “chemtrail aerosol nozzles” over three of the engines.

In reality, this plane N707MQ is a Boeing 707-320B. The engines are Pratt & Whitney JT3D-3:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Omega-Tanker/Boeing-707-321B/1622886/M/

It should be perfectly obvious that the “nozzles” are facing the wrong way to be spraying anything. They are actually turbocompressors, which are driven by engine bleed air, and are used to pressurize the interior of the plane. There are only three, as that’s all you need. Here’s a discussion:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/8225/

 

 

1,442 comments on ““Chemtrail” Aircraft Photos”

  1. Can anyone tell me if the Marcus K Dalton that seems to be central to all this is the same Marcus K Dalton convicted of securities fraud? Prior articles list him as the managing editor of the las vegas tribune but his name is not listed as current in that position.

  2. Big Jets have been flying our skies before I was born 1955 and my fascination
    with all kind of aircraft has been a passion for me all my life. I cannot resist
    watching any plane that flies over head. I always had a special fascination
    with the way that a contrail would always evaporate into nothing as big jets
    would pass over head. But I have noticed a big change now (since 1980) with
    the vapor trail only gits bigger and bigger until it turns into a cloud and then turns
    into a whitish haze covering the whole sky. When I notice heavy chem trail spraying
    I get a bad eye irritation and bad sinus congestion until I have a huge headache.
    I would really like to know the truth about chem trails, and I’m not buying this
    “Global Warming” bull because I know that the United Nations only wish to impose
    a carbon tax on all of us.

  3. The propeller driven airplane in one of the photos with all the instruments on
    the side of the plane is actually a flying laboratory for testing air quality and does
    not spray any kind of chemical in our atmosphere.

  4. Please stop making excuses, you are not fooling any of us.
    you must have been born after 1980 and don’t remember
    clear blue skies all year long.

  5. Charlie, other people HAD noticed the trails back then. There were just far less off them. Various factors make persistent contrails more common now: the number of flights, the type of engine, and the altitude flown at. These have obviously all changed since the sixties.

    Where did you grow up? Location makes a big difference as well.

    I you were to estimate, how many contrails would you say you saw between 1960 and 1980?

    Now, what about this quote from a 1970 paper?

    The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

    These scientists from 1970 think it’s a “familiar sight”, so what’s going on? Are they lying? Or did you simply not notice, or remember, any persistent contrails before 1980.

    Consider also that many people did not notice them until 1990, or 1999 (the Art Bell show that started the whole thing). If you noticed them 20 years before other people, then maybe another set of people might have noticed them 20 years before you? Perhaps that means they are not actually that unusual. Just not particularly noticeable.

  6. I’m really surprised by all of this. With all of the great education in your country, how can something like this get a foot hold?

  7. I see one problem here… the weather altering and cloud seeding devices constitute what some would call chemtrails anyway. I either read here or on the NASA page that AgI cloud seeding is incredibly ineffective and unpredictable. So unless they produce no effect in the sky, you’ve slightly substantiated a small portion of the chemtrails theory.

    But I have a few questions as well. It’s rude to quote something and not give the source, which 1970 paper is that from in response 105 and who wrote it? What were their affiliations (research labs, climate centers, universities, etc?) Actually, fuel dumping is also noted in some geoengineering texts. Specifically, it was proposed to tune engines to run 1% rich. That is, to make most jets and airliners add a small amount of completely unburnt fuel to act as particulates and reflect sunlight. (see my post in the Barium thread for the source link) Also, you say half of the devices on the research aircraft, registration N701BN are facing the wrong way for a spraying program? I see one facing the wrong way, the singular hose in place of the front-most widow. The device behind it has a large portion of the bare tubing, the tubing running into the horn looking things, and 4 out of 5 of the cone shaped pieces also face the rear of the plane. The large device on the front also faces the rear of the plane. If I recall physics properly, a low pressure vortex would be forming immediately behind the proposed collection device on the front making collection more difficult? The devices on the side appear, to me, to have tubing which enters the front and a support bar just behind that at the thinnest part of whatever they are. Could you explain how they are facing a direction inconsistent with the release of particles and consistent with the collection of particles? Or do the serve a different purpose?

    The rocket assist is interesting though, too bad they dump the rockets…

  8. Can you point to a photo of cloud seeding that produces anything that people would call a “chemtrail”? Clouds seeding is done INSIDE CLOUDS. It’s not unusual, or secret. Now if you want to call that “chemtrails”, then feel free – but that simple clouds the issue – people are claiming that there are “unusual trails” in the sky that they call chemtrails. Clouds seeding does not produce trails – but now you want to call cloud seeding “chemtrails” just so you can say “chemtrails exist”. That’s just redefining things to avoid the question: what unusual trails?

    Here’s the paper:

    http://contrailscience.com/files/1970-AMS-i1520-0469-27-6-937.pdf

    Sure, you can imagine N701BN spray stuff, at a stretch, but it’s hardly very efficient, it’s only one plane, and it’s very small. So it’s hardly likely to be the culprit. Besides, there’s a vast amount of evidence that it’s used for atmospheric sampling, and none that it’s used for spraying.

  9. So glad I found this site. So much to talk about and so many things citizens want to know. Whatever we are all seeing, I guess first, most all would agree whatever it is being deposited into the atmosphere and skies above us, it is a HUGE pollution problem that can often turn a beautiful clear blue cloudless sky observed in the morning, into a white haze that covers the sky horizon to horizon within a matter of hours.

    So let me start by simply giving an account of what I and so many others where I live see on average a couple of times per week here.

    I live in Mid-Missouri not too far outside of a small city of less than 100,000 with little manufacturing and only a handful of planes leaving our small airport on any given day. Many days there is simply the usual east-west Kansas City to St. Louis (or vice-versa) commercial air traffic flying over leaving only the usual quickly disapating contrails that ony last for a few seconds or a minute or so (depending on weather) or often no contrails at all from the air traffic.

    But, once or twice on average a week, all of a sudden dozens and dozens of planes come out like hornets swarming, flying in loops, right at each other as if they are going to hit each other making perfect x’s and looping back the way they came like they are drunk or lost. These planes no longer leave the quickly disapating contrails but look like a car with bad rings blowing out brilliant white billowing smokey looking trails and the sky becomes one huge mess filling up horizon to horizon with this rapidly spreading stuff. All the while the “regular” east/west traffic flys through often leaving NO trails or only quickly dispating ones at the same time, often even flying through the same mess left by the ‘acrobats’ but still leaving no trails.

    When one sees these planes one can get a pretty good idea the altitude makes little difference, sometimes the ‘acrobatic’ planes are even easier to see and appear much closer and sometimes very very low.I have heard some try to say that amateurs simply can’t judge the altitude comparisons of planes, but that I believe is incorrect, after observing for several years I and many others can honestly say altitude cannot account for the differences we are all seeing. I know some might try to plausibly deny this assessment, but after years of obseravtions I stand by this assertion as do many many others used to sky watching. Something HAS to be different in either the fuel or something else the ‘acrobatic’ planes are putting out. And their flight patterns are so laughable again it looks like they are either drunk or lost.

    Imagine driving down the highway for years where cars only leave small vapors from their exhausts and normally travel in their correct lanes. And then imagine coming upon a stretch of highway where all of a sudden every car but perhaps one or two is spewing out huge billowing white oil like exhaust and driving on the shoulders and off the road and turning around driving back into coming traffic and driving in circles. That is the night and day difference type thing we are often experiencing here in the skies over Mid-Missouri. SOME type of operation is absolutely OBVIOUS though what it’s intent is can ony be guessed at.

    One other thing about this massive ‘pollution’ coming from these operations is that the exhaust looks brilliant white when viewed in the light of day, but once the sun hits the horizon at sundown this stuff looks brilliant red, and then when the sun goes almost away at dusk one can see this stuff looks like very dirty soot hanging in the skies and even starting to drip like precipitation down toward the ground, really really nasty looking.

    I suspect this is some kind of ‘cloud seeding’ with perhaps an element of cloud creation as part of the protocol. I think it is obvious if we have cloud seeding programs (as cloud seeding program budgets have been reported for many states) I would suspect on days without clouds that clouds could and would first be created in order to seed into.

    I’ll stop with this to get some feedback.

    T.A.

  10. T.A. Perhaps you could provide some video of what you are seeing, so we could discuss it.

    The contrails changing color as the sun goes down is a result of the sun going down. They appear red when the sun is low on the horizon due to the scattering effects of the atmosphere. They appear gray after it has set because the sun is no longer shining on them.

    In this respect, as in most others, contrails are exactly the same as clouds.

  11. Left Tn, reside in rural area in Ky. now. 3 days of spraying this week, none all summer–respect for crops, this is an ag state–cloud seeding??? In October??DUH!
    On the third morning, I saw something I’d not seen ever in Tn. spraying.
    Within 30 minutes, the mist, vapor, chemtrails, had swelled, turned grayish, and covered the entire sky with a thick, ugly blanket. No longer pretty, wispy, cotton candy clouds, oh no.
    Returning from a dr. appt, 35 miles south, I noticed lots of holes where the spray was not uniform and the sky and sun were visible–telling me the shield was there between me and the upper atmosphere.
    I read somewhere this is a repair for a hole that had occurred over time (due to certain conditions)in the shield over our atmosphere. It lasted 36 hours before the sky cleared and became clear blue–YOU STOLE OUR SUN!!!

  12. Chemtrails are used in part for the following—
    electronic, psychotronic, information weaponry
    plasma, electromagnetic, sonic and ultrasonic weapons
    strategic, theater, tactical or extraterrestrial weapons
    chemical biological, environmental climate or tectonic weapons

    1) second day of spraying with chemtrails, a jet flew right in the line of the orchestrated event and left contrails contrasting the chemtrails–quite convincing that these weren’t contrail planes.
    2) how many plants are you paying to post here?? no matter, all countries counted, we have millions against your 5 ‘debunkers’.
    3) as Wildwelder az said, give us a break. I’m not 19–I’m 58, and you can’t tell me I don’t know the difference and being at a pool most days for 15 years, I have also seen the difference in spray compositions over the years.
    4) I just read a German scientist account of weather manipulation –add that to our military reports–bingo–barium for creating a shield to try to undo atmospheric damage by industrial nations for 50 years.
    5) Liar–people do not travel city to city by rural routes–we don’t even have one or two planes or helicopters here weekly–and those infrequent occurrences are on route to Ft.?????-liar (I will not give you my location)
    6) Kucinich, we trust, a paid ‘debunker’ like you, we don’t.
    7) Your test results are compromised to say the least–I doubt if these children haven’t figured that out by now.
    8) Your witnesses??see number 7. If you can pay pilots to poison their own children, who is beyond being bribed??
    9) If there were no contaminants in our air, why create this post?? “me thinks the lady protests too much”
    10) Conditions for these ice crystals forming are not right for these low-flying planes to make contrails; therefore, they are chemtrails containing hazardous chemicals.
    THIS DEBUNKING OF YOUR LIES IS FOR THE VISITORS HERE WHO NEED THE TRUTH–DO NOT RESPOND WASTING TIME WITH YOUR LIES

    “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” ~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed , second it is violently opposed, and third it is accepted as self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

    Aristotle said, “Tolerance and apathy are the first signs of a dying society.”

  13. But, once or twice on average a week, all of a sudden dozens and dozens of planes come out like hornets swarming, flying in loops, right at each other as if they are going to hit each other making perfect x’s and looping back the way they came like they are drunk or lost. These planes no longer leave the quickly disapating contrails but look like a car with bad rings blowing out brilliant white billowing smokey looking trails and the sky becomes one huge mess filling up horizon to horizon with this rapidly spreading stuff. All the while the “regular” east/west traffic flys through often leaving NO trails or only quickly dispating ones at the same time, often even flying through the same mess left by the ‘acrobats’ but still leaving no trails.

    Thanks, This American, you’ve just described an identical account of the poisoning here.

  14. almost away at dusk one can see this stuff looks like very dirty soot hanging in the skies………………….
    and it’s sinister looking, not a pretty color when the sun shines through. I agree.

    Yes, This American.
    My account–in Tennessee, I also attributed the black soot on my feet(barefoot girl, here, always)to the industrial area where we lived.
    In rural Kentucky, not a day of soot until last Friday, first day of spraying and when I came in from getting my tomatoes, first time all summer, guess what was on my feet???
    Couldn’t be industries–I am in Kentucky country, rural!!!!!!!!

    Black, oily soot from the grass just as in Tn, but never here until first spray??
    Coincidence???Hell no. Poison was on my feet and it had to have come from those chemicals from those planes.

  15. If they are contrails, then why didn’t I see this in the 20th century? I have been a sky watcher my whole life and these just started up in my area around 2001. You honestly think that condensation trails are just being noticed now by people? Who the hell is paying you?

  16. Nobody is paying me. I wish someone would.

    I think there asre simply more contrails now, and not everyone noticed them in the past. Seeing as the vast majority of people have not noticed anything odd NOW, why is it odd to consider that you might not have noticed them yourself until recently? Especially as air traffic drastically increased over the last 20 years.

  17. “So unless they produce no effect in the sky, you’ve slightly substantiated a small portion of the chemtrails theory.” -Me

    “Clouds seeding does not produce trails – but now you want to call cloud seeding “chemtrails” just so you can say “chemtrails exist”.” -Uni

    I wasn’t entirely sure how AgI seeding worked, thanks for clearing that up.

  18. This American – Do you have pictures? I’ve noticed the same thing, minus anything noticeable ever hitting the ground. I get a lot of low flying white twin engine jets that leave no trail and occasionally run silent… comparatively, they’re larger than the moon from nose to tail. I also have a small reserve force about 10-15 miles away and there’s a large air force wing at Pittsburgh Intl Airport, 45mins to an hour away depending on traffic (rush hour more like 2 hours.) I’m still up in the air, there is a lot of faked or manipulated evidence floating around which doesn’t help in any way. I over-analyze everything, so while I haven’t really seen any hard evidence, I have seen enough circumstantial evidence that saying they never spray anything doesn’t work with me. It’s the extent of the program(s), the content of the trails, and their purpose that I question. And since I’m in the thread with the pictures, the tanker doing the ice testing could spay any liquid as easily as it does water. Not saying it does, just that it could if they wanted it to…

    Question everything, and question what you believe harder… directed at both the contrail people and the chemtrail people, and people in general.

  19. Remember that traffic to local airports is very unlikely to leave contrails, as it will generally be too low. Contrails form for traffic that comes from, and is going to, airports that are hundred or thousands of miles away. San Diego to Paris – that kind of thing.

  20. Heh, if I can get a clear pic do you think you could identify a jet from a mostly bottom view? I know the low flying ones aren’t spraying anything or forming contrails… I used some site that combines google earth, virtual earth, USGS surveys, and a few other satellite image sources to look at Pittsburgh’s airport and all of the air force planes (that are visible) are quad engine and dark grey. They look like tankers or transports, dual jet engines mounted on the wings and appear to be basically all white. I’ve never noticed them on a clear, sunny day… only on days with many trails or cloudy days in which there could be trails above. But then, like I said, they tend to run silent and if I don’t see trails I’m not looking up nearly as much.

  21. I could certainly give it a go. Your planes sound like KC-135 or similar. But could be any of a number of aircraft. See here for the various transport planes used:

    http://www.1000pictures.com/aircraft/transport/

    Military planes are grey or white for camouflage reasons.

    Actually, looking at Google’s images of PA airport, the big military planes are not jets, they are prop planes.

    Grey, four engine, USAF on the wing, looks like a C-130 Hercules to me. See here:

    http://www.pittsburgh.afrc.af.mil/photos/index.asp?page=3

  22. Uncinus please explain to me which year was “Supersaturated persistent contrail” discoverd? And why do i hear high frequency tones every time i see a chemplane, aurora borealis??

  23. What a load of crap!,this is prob a CIA operated site,don’t believe this garbage.Chemtrails are real i watch them every other day.I have footage of planes almost side by side,one dumping the other not.This site is complete disinfo.and you should be ashamed of yourself.But i suppose I’m just a conspiracy nut ugh,i spose you think Lee Harvy Oswald killed JFK,and the gulf of tonkin really did happen,give me a break.I advise everyone(except you indoctrinated slaves)get away from this site quik smart!

  24. this is prob a CIA operated site

    It’s interesting that nearly every person who has come to this site as a chemtrail-believer also accuses Uncinus of being some sort of disinformation agent.

    Says something about their mindset, perhaps?

    (Apologies for off-topic ruminations…)

  25. Liko, instead of just randomly accusing people, you could behave like an adult and try to disprove the statements made on this site.
    How do you know the aircraft were flying next to each other? In RVSM airspace like in the USA the minimum separation for 2 aircraft heading the same way is 2000 feet. No man can guess the altitude of aircraft. Most pilots don’t even try.

    This is how it looks from the cockpit:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXfbRkPkNQ

  26. so tell me something then, why do planes fly in grid shapes and next to each other, also upto 5 planes fly at the same altitude next to each other spraying chemicals in the sky, and why do you lie, its your health at risk to my brother

  27. nevermind, the trails from planes form grid shapes where the paths of planes cross. Have a look at the paths of planes here, and you’ll see it would be hard NOT to get grid shapes when contrails are forming:

    http://contrailscience.com/britain-from-above-air-traffic/

    Planes do not fly “next to each other”. When it looks like they do, one will be 2000 feet above the other, which is perfectly safe and legal. (and it’s actually 1000 feet under RVSM rules)

    I’ve never seen five planes flying like that (except for aerobatic shows and skytyping planes). Perhaps you could show a photo of this?

  28. oh you havent havent you, well let me suggest that you come to where i live and then u can see it for yourself, and i might let you look through my teloscope and see for yourself, u can then see that the contrails….hhhhmmm come from the sides of the planes not from the back at wing distance at the rear of the plane, i mean come on get real, this kind of shit just doesnt wash, and you know it doesnt wash because you have been rumble on a world wide scale…. and its spiralling out of controll… face the facts you have been rumbled my freind, and more and more poeple are starting to notice, and if it is a question of people getting the wrong end of the stick why does the mainstream media not set the record straight.??? hmmmmm no matter what you show us to try ridicule the idea, it wont work

  29. CELESTRONJ CPC 1100 XLT PROFETIONAL COMP[UTERISED 11″ TELESCOPE w/ XLT STARBRIGHT COATING 11075….. YOU SHOULD GET ONE THERE VERY GOOD, ESPECIALLY AT SPOTTING EVIL THINGS IN THE SKY. NOW THAT I HAVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES, MAYBE YOU SHOULD SEE WITH YOURS,

  30. no matter what you show us to try ridicule the idea, it wont work

    You might want to think about that. What if I were to show you evidence that chemtrails were contrails?

  31. The only way you can really show anyone that chemtrails are contrails is to collect the residue from contrails/chemtrails and show that there is NOTHING in the residue that shouldn’t be there.

    You can spout all you like about persistent contrails in the past etc and that you have the science to back it up but the truth is YOU HAVE NOTHING MORE THAN ANY OF US, because the only way to put this to bed once and for all is to do what I suggest above.

    What is there to lose if this is done? IF you are right all along then we are all winners. Perhaps time and effort would be better spent by us all in working out how to do this relatively cheap and simple experiment. But wait a minute, if this experiment was carried out surely the PTB would just ensure the planes involved weren’t spraying that day.

    Oh well…looks like we’ll have to find another way to find out!

  32. Cueball, I think that “chemtrails” are actually just persistent contrails because they look and act exactly the same.

    Whay do you think they are something different? Where do you get your information on how contrails should behave?

  33. I guessed that you think chemtrails are persistent contrails, I think it was the website that gave it away ;o)

    I don’t wish to reveal my sources regarding how contrails should behave but I will say that I would not believe all of the sources you are using. It is very easy to manipulate data to fit a model when you are very far ahead of the rest of the field (if you get my meaning).

    So back to my real point – the only way to settle this would be to recover the condensation etc. in a contrail/chemtrail and test it for its property. Agree?

  34. No, I disagree. If I tested a contrail (that you said was a chemtrail), and found it just to be ice crystals, then you’d say I had tested the wrong kind of trail.

    A much simpler way of settling it would be to explain how contrails are supposed to behave, and then show some trails that don’t behave like that. Very simple, you can do it from the ground.

    Of course to do that, you’d have to explain WHY you think contrails should behave a certain way, and then we are getting into science.

    So, Cueball, how should contrails behave? And why?

  35. Errr no, just test the huge sky filling persistent contrails/chemtrails and not those that just disappear immediately behind the planes (or as most people would call them “normal contrails”).

    It’s irrelevant how I think contrails should behave, there are MILLIONS of people that don’t think long persistent contrails (chemtrails) of this magnitude are NORMAL.

    Not all of the people think that these “chemtrails” are trying to kill people but they do KNOW that they are not normal (in there opinion).

    As for it being simpler to test from the ground; this makes it sound like you do not accept my theory or are frightened of the results??

  36. It’s irrelevant how I think contrails should behave, there are MILLIONS of people that don’t think long persistent contrails (chemtrails) of this magnitude are NORMAL.
    Not all of the people think that these “chemtrails” are trying to kill people but they do KNOW that they are not normal (in there opinion).

    And how do they know this?

    Have you read any of the science about contrail persistence?

    http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/

    How about this quote from a 1981 book on clouds:

    Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus

    Or any of the hundreds of books and papers on clouds and contrails.

  37. CueBall-

    Persistent contrails that spread out in a thin haze of cirrus have been studied for over 50 years by atmospheric scientists from around the World. They think persistent contrails of this magnitude are “normal”- normal results from regular air traffic.

    Since the FACT that persistent contrails have been known, observed and studied and even peer reviewed for so long, the burden is on those who think they are NOT benign intent contrails to show how and why they think that. Just saying it is doesn’t make it so.

    Learn to read scientific research on the behavior of contrails- become knowledgeable about the conditions and variables involved in their persistence. Then you can “know” what is normal and what is not.

    There have been and continue to be a lot of sampling of contrails by atmospheric scientists…”in situ” sampling directly from the plume of the trail…

    see here for a few examples:

    “About one half of the study contrails were generated by the sampling aircraft, a Cessna Citation, primarily at times of 3-15 min after generation”

    from here: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1834780

    or this:

    “The impact of sulfur oxides on particle formation and contrails is investigated in the exhaust plumes of a twin-engine jet aircraft. Different fuels were used with sulfur mass fractions of 170 and 5500 ppm in the fuel, one lower than average, the other above the specification limit of standard Jet-A1 fuel. During various phases of the same flight, the two engines burnt either high- or low-sulfur fuel or different fuels in the two engines. Besides visual, photographic, and video observations from close distance, in situ measurements were made within the plumes at plume ages of 20 to 30 s, at altitudes between 9 and 9.5 km, and temperatures between -49 and -55°C, when the visible contrail was about 2 km long. The data include particle number densities for particles larger than 7 nm, 18 nm, 120 nm, and 1 μm in diameter, together with wind, temperature and humidity measurements. The observations show visible and measurable differences between contrails caused by the different sulfur levels. At ambient temperatures 5 K below the threshold temperature for contrail onset, the plume became visible about 10 m after the engine exit for high sulfur content, but 15 m after the engine exit for low sulfur content. The higher sulfur emission caused a larger optical thickness of the contrail shortly after onset, with slightly brown-colored contrail when the Sun was behind the observer, and more contrast when viewed against the Sun. The high-sulfur contrail grew more quickly but also evaporated earlier than the low-sulfur contrail. At plume ages of about 20 s, each engine plume was diluted to an effective diameter of 20 m. The plumes contained many subvisible particles. Peak number densities were 30,000 cm-3 for particles of diameter above 7 nm and 15,000 cm-3 above 18 nm. The latter is a little larger than the estimated number of soot particles emitted. The high-sulfur plume shows more particles than the low-sulfur plume. The differences are about 25% for particles above 7 nm and about 50% above 18 nm. The results indicate that part of the fuel sulfur is converted to sulfuric acid which nucleates with water vapor heterogeneously on soot or nucleates acid droplets homogeneously which then coagulate partly with soot. During descent through the level of contrail onset, the high-sulfur contrail remained visible at slightly lower altitude (25 to 50 m) or higher temperature (0.2 to 0.4 K). At least for average to high sulfur contents, aircraft generate an invisible aerosol trail which enhances the background level of condensation nuclei, in particular in regions with dense air traffic at northern latitudes and near the tropopause.”

    from here: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3039674

    or this one which specifically links particular persistent contrails to commercial air traffic:

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15775262

    “Widespread persistent contrails over the western Great Lakes during 9 October 2000 were examined using commercial flight data, coincident meteorological data, and satellite remote sensing data from several platforms. The data were analyzed to determine the atmospheric conditions under which the contrails formed and to measure several physical properties of the contrails, including areal coverage, spreading rates, fall speeds, and optical properties. Most of the contrails were located between 10.6 and 11.8 km in atmospheric conditions consistent with a modified form of the Appleman contrail formation theory. However, the Rapid Update Cycle-2 analyses have a dry bias in the upper-tropospheric relative humidity with respect to ice (RHI), as indicated by persistent contrail generation during the outbreak where RHI ≥ 85%. The model analyses show that synoptic-scale vertical velocities affect the formation of persistent contrails. Areal coverage by linear contrails peaked at 30 000 km2, but the maximum contrail-generated cirrus coverage was over twice as large. Contrail spreading rates averaged around 2.7 km h-1, and the contrails were visible in the 4-km Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) imagery approximately 1 h after formation. Contrail fall speed estimates were between 0.00 and 0.045 m s-1 based on observed contrail advection rates. Optical depth measurements ranged from 0.1 to 0.6, with consistent differences between remote sensing methods. Contrail formation density was roughly correlated with air traffic density after the effects of competing cloud coverage, humidity, and vertical velocity were considered. Improved tropospheric humidity measurements are needed for realistic simulations of contrail and cirrus development.”

    http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15775262

    or this:

    “We have reanalyzed some of the best in-situ contrail data collected to date to explore how well
    Eq. (3) predicts observations of the IWC within contrails. Some of the most reliable observations
    come from the 12 May 1996 SUCCESS case study when the DC-8 generated a contrail while flying
    in a racetrack pattern in highly ice supersaturated, cloud-free air (Heymsfield et al., 1998). Some 20
    and 40 minutes after the initial contrail pass the DC-8 returned through the contrail, sampling it in a
    racetrack pattern. These penetrations occurred long after the times required for the wake vortices to
    develop oscillations that mixed the contrail plume with the environmental air, i.e. these samples can
    be considered as taken from the later stage of contrail evolution. The DC-8 then sampled the
    contrail particles as they grew in the ice supersaturated air (as ascertained from a TDL hygrometer)
    for almost two hours following contrail formation. The accuracy of the TDL hygrometer was
    established to be +/-5% based on contrail crossings and wave cloud penetrations at temperatures
    between -40 and -65C.”

    from this paper: http://tinyurl.com/42wjzu

    “Persistent contrails are a common feature of the upper troposphere. We describe two methods for intercomparing and evaluating RHi measurements in a persistent contrail with calculated or expected values. The methods were applied to measurements made in the upper troposphere on board an NASA WB-57F aircraft while sampling its own contrail. Included in the analysis are measurements of water vapor pressure, temperature, ice particle number and size, and nitric oxide (NO). The systematic use of these contrail-sampling methods in future studies will improve our understanding of contrail microphysics and the performance of fast-response water and temperature measurements.”

    taken from here: http://tinyurl.com/3u92fe

    What do you make of this quote:

    “Bryson and Wendland (1975) estimated that contrails may have increased the cirrus cloud cover over North America by 5%–10% since the early 1960s; their calculations assumed that 50% of all flights produce contrails that persist for at least 2 hours”

    from here: http://tinyurl.com/66qouz

    Or this one which follows specific contrails for over 2 hours:

    http://tinyurl.com/3fx7sk

    This one isn’t sampling contrails but it is measuring aerosols in aircraft exhaust:

    http://tinyurl.com/4kapyd

  38. Your answer to this question, on a different subject matter, will shed light on just who you are and your qualifications as a scientist or truth seeker.

    Was the WTC on 9/11 destroyed by demolitions?

    Please answer this so I may know what/who I am dealing with here.

  39. OK SR1419 – thanks for the links. So we can establish from that info that the crap that comes out of planes affects the air and this has been monitored and sampled. Whoop di doo. I would be interested to see a break down of exactly which chemicals are present in the actual vapour trails being produced (which is all I am asking to be done).

    The links also say that persistent contrails (lasting 2 hours plus) make up 50% of all contrails in the US since the 60’s. Bullcrap!! If so, it has taken 36 years for people to suddenly start noticing this en-mass. Yeah right. There must have been a hell of a lot of fluoride in the water during the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s!! And as for this being due to lower air traffic and the lack of Internet (which I guess you will use as an excuse) then I do not agree. Air traffic may have increased but internal flights and international flights in the US have still been extremely high during all these decades. As for the Internet, well maybe communication was not as quick before this, but it still occurred and even the slowest pigeon could deliver a message in 36 years.

    All your data confirms is that a system of altering the weather via persistent contrails/chemtrails has been known about by the PTB since the 60’s (maybe before), therefore why can’t you or your buddies accept that maybe, just maybe they are using this knowledge to control the weather. It isn’t exactly a great leap of the imagination to accept it. In fact, the evidence you provide confirms it.

    I don’t think the PTB are poisoning us with vicious chemicals (although a sample of persistent contrails/chemtrails could prove me wrong) but I do think that fine tuning the fuel additives of the aviation fuel to make it consistently produce persistent contrails (that allow weather modding) is not really too difficult.

    But no, you are both probably right, it has always been like this and everything is just normal. We are all just paranoid freaks looking for that extra something in our lives to keep us occupied. Perhaps I should start a website of my own debunking other conspiracy theories, sounds like fun…

  40. Ken, the WTC was destroyed by the planes flying into the towers, and the resultant fire.

    I’m sure you think there was a vast conspiracy. But all the 9/11 conspiracy theories regarding controlled demolition are complete nonsense. They have been full debunked elsewhere. I’m not going to discuss 9/11 further, except as it directly relates to contrails. There are lots of other places on the internet for you to discuss that subject. Stick to contrails if you want to comment here.

  41. Cueball, you know that persistent contrails contribute to global warming, right? So why would the “PTB” want to make more of them?

    I understand you point about how it seems to you that people started noticing them around the time that the internet took off. But do you have any other actual evidence that is NOT generated from the internet? Like, books or science papers that describe the sky before it changed?

  42. Uncinus – You have revealed yourself for all to see now with the 9/11 comment in your quote:

    I’m sure you think there was a vast conspiracy. But all the 9/11 conspiracy theories regarding controlled demolition are complete nonsense. They have been full debunked elsewhere. I’m not going to discuss 9/11 further, except as it directly relates to contrails. There are lots of other places on the internet for you to discuss that subject. Stick to contrails if you want to comment here.

    Not only does this make it sound like your sole intention is to debunk, it also shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge and a total blind ingorance. All I can say to you is read 9/11 Contradictions by David Ray Griffin and you will see that the only conspiracy theory is the one provided by George W Bush et al as the “Official Account”.

    Goodbye all and do not waste anymore time trying to argue with this “man” – it is pointless…

    (BTW if you don’t publish this it is fine with me, it will just prove my point even further)

  43. It seems like you are simply trying to change the subject here. If you want to talk about 9/11, then there are many places where you can. I just want to keep the discussion here about contrails – unless there is some specific link.

  44. Cueball-

    hate to see you go in away in a huff- Try not to get defensive just because some people are not convinced that “chemtrails” are real….

    I am just providing data that you asked for and information that helps illuminate the topic.

    You said:

    “I would be interested to see a break down of exactly which chemicals are present in the actual vapour trails being produced (which is all I am asking to be done).”

    This information is out there- read all the papers I linked…and there are many more written by many scientists over the last 50 years…the info is there, you just have to want to find it.

    This is a good start:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Fsr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm

    You said:

    “All your data confirms is that a system of altering the weather via persistent contrails/chemtrails has been known about by the PTB since the 60’s (maybe before)why can’t you or your buddies accept that maybe, just maybe they are using this knowledge to control the weather.”

    I cannot accept that “maybe” they are using this to control the weather because I see no evidence of it. How exactly is the weather being “controlled”?? The effects of contrail-cirrus clouds are still being studied…they may contribute to warming…they may contribute to global dimming…the jury is still out….There certainly is no evidence of extreme changes in weather patterns that would suggest “control” much less control via contrails…and the changes purported to be from man-made climate change are all from much more easily identifiable culprits such as GHGs…

    Persistent contrails have indeed been known about for a longtime (70yrs) but there effects on the atmosphere are still unknown and still being studied and thus not a candidate for the PTB to use to their own nefarious purposes…

    The fact is there ARE a lot more planes in the sky now than 20 years ago…and the internet does foster a herd mentality- instantly…people take a picture of a persistent contrail- post it on the internet minutes later and call it a “chemtrail” and have thousands of uninformed people nodding their head in agreement seconds later…That is the reality. No consequence for error on the internet. No legitimate vetting of information. No peer review. The vast majority of “chemtrail” believers are completely ignorant of the reality of persistent contrails and instead are under the assumption that any trail that persists more than a minute or 2 is a “chemtrail” . And they get confirmation from their herd…so it must be true.

    Educate yourself on what a contrail is and its known behaviors. The information is there you just have to want to know.

  45. Ken, I have deleted your follow-up post about 9/11, as it is off-topic. If you want to discuss the physics of how the WTC collapsed, then there are many excellent sites on the internet that are specifically for doing that. This site is about contrails and chemtrails.

  46. I’ve been lurking on this site for quite a while and have found the information to be informative and compelling, however I am disappointed that that you would have such a simple view of what occurred on 911. There are many of us in the world that believe that “chem trails” and what happened to the WTC may just be related. Neither issue can be compartmentalized. Ken, I would have liked to see your question answered, or at least not deleted. Anyone watching a demolition side by side with the WTC falling can clearly see that there were explosions going off all over and that was not from the planes. Additionally, if jet fuel were to burn so hot that it could melt steel, wouldn’t it be safe to assume that no planes would be able to fly because the fuel would be so hot that it would melt the fuel tank and the fuel would fall out of the planes? “Food” for thought….. how might a stove work if the fire gets so hot that it would melt steel. People’s ovens would be melting and exploding all over the world. Just my 2 cents.

  47. I’m sorry guys, but I’m not going to allow any more 9/11 talk unless you explain how it pertains to contrails. Irrelevant posts will be deleted. I’ll leave Ryder’s post, above, as an example of the type of post that will get deleted.

    The is a specific link between 9/11 and contrails, in the that cessation of commercial air traffic provided a unique opportunity to view contrails in isolation, and to get some data on a few days of weather with very few contrails.

  48. To UNCINUS:

    Please do tell us, what contrail information was gathered on 9/11? (as you say, civilian planes were grounded that day.)

    You say it was a unique opportunity to view contrails on 9/11. Well then, where and what information/data was gathered on that day please?

    Signed,
    A Former US Marine

    PS. Thank you “Ryder” for calling a spade a spade.

  49. “Where are these barium results? All the tests I’ve seen show normal levels of barium.”

    This is the real problem in your argument! What is “normal” and how is it that Barium is acceptable in our air/atmosphere just because it is not a chemtrail?

    Why aren’t you using your know how and research to raise awareness to this massive polution problem obviously creating major enviromental concerns (Blocking out the suns rays is a major concern and I don’t care how you justify it).

    This the problem I have with the work done on this site. You are concentrated on debunking what may or may not be a Chemtrail issue while failing to recognize that just because they are not Chemtrails or not sprayed on purpose they are “normal” or “harmless”.

    I challenge you to point out how this increase in contrail activity is not something to be concerned about. While the Chemtrail issue may be nothing more than conspiracy it at least brings light to a troubling situation. Your work does nothing but detract from the issue and create further ignorance by the population in general.

    Use your know how to justify cleaning up this mess and getting the word out to the people that are no doubt being effected by it in one way or another.

    I respect the work done here but I do not respect the blind eye that is turned to an issue that is by no means normal or acceptable no matter how it is justified by science or opinion. When a wave of planes flys overhead and turns a blue sky into a grey haze spotted with nicotine colored splotches at low altitudes it is concerning! In a day and age where the trendy thing is to go green and work to clean up this planet I find it astonishing that this subject gets no play at all and is just accepted as an everyday occurance! It should be investigated immedietly regardless of how or why! The fact that media and the Government (both of which can not be trusted) do not cover/debate this in any significant way leads to further speculation.

  50. David, Barium is a chemical, it occurs naturally in the ground, and that’s how it gets into the air. It’s also used in industry, and excess amounts of it count as pollution. However, nobody has shown any evidence of it being sprayed into the air deliberately in the form of contrails.

    Contrail are of great concern to scientists, and have been for decades. That’s why I link to the IPCC paper:

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/038.htm

    I’m fully aware of the concerns of contrails contributing to global warming. I’ve discussed this several times.

  51. Uncinus are you a Disinformation Troll? Now you bring the hoax of Human Global Warming into the chemtrail discussion? Global Cooling has been happening for 2 years since the Sun Spots declined the last 2 years. Do you even know that other planets in our Solar System were also warming from increased sun spot activity until the sun spots stopped recently??

    100% of the heat in our solar system comes from our SUN. PERIOD. All energy, even gravitational energy, comes from our SUN.

    Global warming is a natural occurance and warmth brings life not death. Plants and animals thrive in high CO2 and warmer weather, while dying in cold weather.

    If your research on Chemtrails is anything like your research on the Global Warming Hoax or the fact that 9/11 was indeed an inside job (while you still provide disinfo on 9/11 subject matter), then your research DOES NOT pass any credible review.

    Watch out fellow Americans, this is a DISINFO site; a professional troll out to misinform you.

  52. All energy, even gravitational energy, comes from our SUN.

    Errr, really? How about the tides? Or the reason we don’t float off into space? That’s the Sun’s gravitational energy?

  53. Joe B.:

    100% of the heat in our solar system comes from our SUN. PERIOD. All energy, even gravitational energy, comes from our SUN.

    I wasn’t going to respond to this, but gravity is a FIELD. The separation of one body possessing mass and another body possessing mass, each exerting their own gravitational field, determines the force between them, and thus their potential energy of separation. If you fall from a great height you will hurt yourself.
    Apart from that the Earth is in effect a nuclear reactor, breaking down the fissile materials within to liberate heat and outgassing radon and noble gases.
    And falling upon the Earth from all directions are the cosmic blasts from dying stars, merging black holes, and other more distant and less understood phenomena.

    Global warming is a natural occurance and warmth brings life not death. Plants and animals thrive in high CO2 and warmer weather, while dying in cold weather.

    The best temperature for ANY photosynthesis is 23 degrees C. How much plant life is in the Sahara?

    Watch out fellow Americans

    Presumably the rest of us don’t need your warning. Good luck in your last refuge.

  54. Without the Sun’s gravitational pull, EARTH and all planets would not have even formed as planets because it takes the Sun’s gravitational/energy pull to keep planets together. Planets are formed from the SUNS gravitational pull; planets would not even be “round” or even formed at all if the SUN was not here. PERIOD.

    The Earth’s Tides are caused by OUR MOON, another object that was put together by the power of our Suns gravitatonal pull and kept in place/orbit by the gravitational pull of the Sun.

    Without our Sun (hence our Suns heat & energy) there is no light, no life, no water, no Earth/Planets and thus no Solar System. Everything in our Solar System receives its energy from our Sun. There would not even be planets except for the energy (gravitational Pull) of our Sun that holds them together.

    Sun = God of All Life in our Solar System

    Without our Sun there is NO “Solar System” or “planets” for us to live in/on.

  55. You seem to be getting lost in semantics here. What does the formation of the solar system have to do with contrails?

    Please try to stay on topic, or I’m going to have to start deleting comments.

  56. The Earth’s Tides are caused by OUR MOON, another object that was put together by the power of our Suns gravitatonal pull and kept in place/orbit by the gravitational pull of the Sun.

    The moon stays in orbit around Earth because of the Sun’s gravitational pull? Not the Earth’s? You live and learn.

  57. Sorry James, Joe B. appears to be right.

    Without the Sun, the Earth would never have formed; thus, the moon is irrelevant without the sun.

  58. Joe’s original point was simply that he thinks that global warming is caused by fluctuations in solar radiation, and that “chemtrails” are some attempt to manipulate this effect. The misunderstanding regarding gravity was related to him emphasizing the important role of the sun in the creation of the orbits in the solar system. The moon got where it is because of the sun. But it currently goes around the earth because of the earth. Besides, tides are nothing to do with solar radiation.

    This serves to confuse the central point here, that there is no evidence that “chemtrails” are anything other than normal persistent contrails.

  59. Here are some examples of your ignorant comments that I will refute:

    Cloud seeding is used to make rain (or snow). It is done at a lower altitude than where contrails form. LINE 26

    It also mention clusters which would not happen if it were coming from contrails, as they cover huge area, not small clusters. LINE 60

    Planes do not fly “next to each other”. When it looks like they do, one will be 2000 feet above the other, which is perfectly safe and legal. (and it’s actually 1000 feet under RVSM rules)
    LINE 129

    Cueball, you know that persistent contrails contribute to global warming, right? So why would the “PTB” want to make more of them? LINE 143

    nobody has shown any evidence of it being sprayed into the air deliberately in the form of contrails. LINE 153 (In referral to Barium)

    LINE 26 – Uncinus, you have said that different sprays happen below normal contrail levels, so they can’t be chemtrails. HELLO! Chemtrails happen below normal contrail levels, and therefore cannot be a contrail.

    LINE 60 – I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but it’s giving reasons why chemtrails exist.

    LINE 129 – When you say that when planes are 2000 feet apart, they can look like they’re side-by-side. Then you state that they’re not allowed to be so close… so they’re not 2000 feet apart and it can be seen that they’re far apart.

    LINE 143 – You state that chemtrails contribute to global warming; however it is exactly the opposite. They COOL DOWN the planet therefore slowing/reversing global warming. I’m not stating this is the reason they put chemtrails in our atmosphere, I’m just saying it’s a side affect.

    LINE 153 – You said no one has done tests to show Barium in chemtrails; however I’ve been on quite a few sites that mention Barium or other heavy metals. Here is one such site:
    http://www.rense.com/general82/chemit.htm

    Hopefully, Uncinus, you will pull your head out from the hole you have so ungraciously shoved it in.

  60. Kyle, thanks for the questions, I’ll address them individually:

    LINE 26 – Uncinus, you have said that different sprays happen below normal contrail levels, so they can’t be chemtrails. HELLO! Chemtrails happen below normal contrail levels, and therefore cannot be a contrail.

    I was saying that clouds seeding happens at a lower level than where contrails usually form. Are you claiming that ALL “chemtrails” form at altitudes lower than where contrails form?

    LINE 60 – I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but it’s giving reasons why chemtrails exist.

    The point is that if you spray something from a great altitude then it will spread out evenly, and not in clusters. Clusters indicates something is ground based – such as living near a natural source of barium.

    LINE 129 – When you say that when planes are 2000 feet apart, they can look like they’re side-by-side. Then you state that they’re not allowed to be so close… so they’re not 2000 feet apart and it can be seen that they’re far apart.

    The 2000 feet is vertical. Planes are allowed to fly with 2000 feet of vertical separation. If they are closer than that vertically, then they need five miles of horizontal separation.

    LINE 143 – You state that chemtrails contribute to global warming; however it is exactly the opposite. They COOL DOWN the planet therefore slowing/reversing global warming. I’m not stating this is the reason they put chemtrails in our atmosphere, I’m just saying it’s a side affect.

    No, contrails are thought to have a net warming effect, see:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-contrails_2.html

    LINE 153 – You said no one has done tests to show Barium in chemtrails; however I’ve been on quite a few sites that mention Barium or other heavy metals. Here is one such site:
    http://www.rense.com/general82/chemit.htm

    I actually said “All the tests I’ve seen show normal levels of barium.” The test you link shows normal level of barium for dust, they simply got their math wrong. There’s a full explanation here:
    http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-non-science/

  61. If chemtrails are actually persistant contrails or whatever, then why do they spread out all across the sky. If these milky overcasts are from normal contrails, then why isn’t there some scientific group trying to find out how to stop the contrails from spreading out over the sky?
    Also, on another blog, you said that contrails are contributing to global warming. But if chemtrails are contrails… and they’re covering the sky (which is where the sun is if you were confused about that too)… then how come it’s getting hotter instead of colder, because the rays of the sun can’t get all the way down to the ground.
    Also, the aircraft that are creating chemtrails are all white. How come there aren’t “persistant contrails” coming from normal planes? Almost all of the time, the planes spreading the chemtrails aren’t following the normal flight patterns, and almost always are breaking flight rules and regulations. How can you explain that, besides the obvious.

    I just considered something. You’re not so great with the obvious, Uncinus, so the obvious is that they are military aircraft leaving chemtrails.

  62. If chemtrails are actually persistant contrails or whatever, then why do they spread out all across the sky. If these milky overcasts are from normal contrails, then why isn’t there some scientific group trying to find out how to stop the contrails from spreading out over the sky?

    They spread out because they are clouds, and so they spread for the same reasons clouds spread – they are blown apart by wind sheer. See:

    http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/80850.pdf
    “vertical wind shear is the primary mechanism responsible for the contrail spreading

    There are no groups trying to stop it, because it is not considered enough of a problem. But many people feel it might be contributing to climate change, so there is a lot of research into how it might be minimized. See:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=contrail+mitigation

    You ask:

    how come it’s getting hotter instead of colder, because the rays of the sun can’t get all the way down to the ground.

    That’s explained here:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-contrails.html

    Aircraft are believed to be responsible for 2 to 3 percent of human CO2 emissions. Like other high, thin clouds, contrails reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet.

    However, they also trap energy in Earth’s atmosphere and boost the warming effect, the study says.

    (See National Geographic magazine’s “Global Warning: Signs From Earth.”)

    Stuber and other scientists believe that the effect of the contrails is significant.

    “On average the greenhouse warming effect dominates [the effects of contrails],” said Stuber, a meteorologist at England’s University of Reading.

    Could you provide some evidence of your claims about the unconventional nature of “chemtrail” aircraft. They seem the normal mixture of jets based on the various photos and videos on the internet.

  63. Aircraft are believed to be responsible for 2 to 3 percent of human CO2 emissions. Like other high, thin clouds, contrails reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet.

    That’s during the day. They reflecting sunlight back into space, as well as bouncing radiant heat from the ground back to the ground.

    However, they also trap energy in Earth’s atmosphere and boost the warming effect, the study says.

    That’s during the night. There’s no sunlight, but they’re STILL bouncing radiant heat from the ground back to the ground.

    “On average the greenhouse warming effect dominates [the effects of contrails],” said Stuber, a meteorologist at England’s University of Reading.

    That you can see just by adding up what is happening.

    Stuber and other scientists believe that the effect of the contrails is significant.

    Obviously not, if “aircraft are believed to be responsible for 2 to 3 percent of human CO2 emissions”.

    What of the 97 to 98 percent NON-aircraft emissions?

  64. chemtrails are not contrails; they linger in the sky and are dumped during weather modification efforts

    silver iodide is the nucleus that is in fact a chemical; when dumped this leaves a chemical trail; not like the normally accepted “contrail” that has engine exhaust and condensation as the nucleus. silver iodide is a flat hexagonal shaped crystal that enables it to attract more ice since ice itself is hexagonal in shape. this is why chemtrails stay in the sky longer than contrails.

    also contrails do not break up mid trail or leave a dotted trail.

    contrails are mostly ice and do not disrupt normal clouds as silver iodide and ammonium iodide are still visible even as it attempts to, but does not, merge with normal clouds; unlike contrails.

    this is a wonderful effort to maintain misinformation; as well as validation for items that conspiracy sites confuse as part of weather mod. there are far too many photos and videos showing unusual flight patterns and trails for this subject to be a theory.

    do not take the uneducated assumptions from sites like, godlikeproductions, abovetopsecret, and prisonplanet only to then associate them generally in efforts to group them into observations of weathermod only to say that chemtrails do not exist. the reason people are reaching out of thin air for explanations is because the majority of people today dont even know about weather modification; they believe it to be science fiction still or even an act that only “god” can perform.

    nwiwmc.org – NAU type entity that umbrellas weather mod efforts in Mexico, All provinces of Canada, and the UNITED STATES.

  65. Illuminator,
    You say chemtrails are not contrails but after careful examination it becomes evident that old contrails lingered in the sky also.
    This website has more than enough evidence showing that contrails linger and have for decades. I’m not about to stop looking up
    but I would warn against concluding that you are able to discern a chemtrail v. contrail by eyesight alone. I have been scouring old movies and persisting contrails can be seen in old westerns and many other movies going back to the 70’s and before.

    To Kyle. I see USAF planes flying the same paths above me on contrail free days as well as days that they leave spreading trails.
    I don’t see evidence of additional USAF traffic on days that contrails form and persist. In my area, their flight activity doesn’t seem
    to vary in a way that points to intentional sky painting. That said, Wright-Anderson AFB in Ohio has been very interested in weather modification dating back to the 40’s. Their interest appears to extend further than traditional cloud seeding

    Regards,
    Bryan

  66. It’s useless to argue about chemtrails. If they spray us they won’t tell us and they’ll make everything in their power to make this quite. The more interesting thing is that in fact they have lied to us on so many occasions that it’s perfectly normal for us not to believe them. Yet most of the people just don’t know and if they know, they just don’t care. “What can we do?” asked a person here, “We are just normal ppl, we can’t fight the government” and thats where you get to the point that the government wanted all along. Slaves that know they are powerless to stop the ruling elite, slaves that are controlled by a corporate society and have been RFID tagged. 90% of the american ppl don’t know how their financial system works. Who prints the money? “The government” say most of the interviewed. But it’s not the government. It’s really sad to see how people are so busy working that they don’t have the desire to research vital things like who controls the monetary supply and why did “we” invade Iraq. You see I’m not an american I live in EU and let me tell you – people around here know more about the USA in terms of government regulations and control then the americans. It’s really sad to see how your own government has dumbed you down to this… Puppets controlled by the TV and the global media. A country ruled by money, that pretends to be the moral authority of the world. Pathetic. I am glad that the americans won WW2 but that doesn’t give you the authority to police the globe. All the pretty words your leaders spew out are just that – words. Your actions speak for themselves. So now that your government brought the war on the civilian american population, who can you blame but yourselves?

  67. Marty, the discussion here is really about if there is any good evidence that “chemtrails” are any different from contrails. If they are, then the state of the government or the people is irrelevant, as sensible people should be able to tell the difference. Can you tell the difference between “chemtrails” and contrails? Care to enter that discussion?

  68. Uncinus,
    At last, we agree on something. SENSIBLE people CAN tell the difference! That is why this website that you use as your tool of deception is disgusting and immoral.
    As Jus Marty said: “It’s really sad to see how your own government has dumbed you down to this… Puppets controlled by the TV and the global media.”
    So true. That is the catylist of your tool of deception. Your job is so easy. The majority of society has already been dumbed down and programmed by the media. Oblivious to what is going on right in front of their own eyes because they are either too busy or focused on an ipod or talking on a cell phone etc… All you have to do is feed them images backed by various government agencies such as NASA or NOAA and lead them to believe that it is proof that everything you say about contrails or chemtrails must be true. In reality, you have provided nothing that proves that the countless reports coming from concerned citizens around the globe are not what they claim them to be. All you do is tell people that they are mistaken, they aren’t really seeing what they think they are seeing and they dont really remember things as clear as they think they do. If that doesn’t work, then you and your cohorts such as (“I cant believe what I am reading”) Jazzroc and SR1419 gang up and ridicule the person and try to portray them as either a conspiracy theorist or some kind of nut job. Then you offer your version of what they must have seen even though you were not there with the person or people that actually wittnessed the event. Then to insult ones intelligence even further, you insist that all of the trails that have been documented in photos and on video that persist and continue to grow and grow and spread out, forming a thick blanket that spreads across the entire sky, under any weather condition, at any location etc… etc… etc…, are nothing more than normal condensation from a jet engine.
    Whether chemtrails exist or not, do you not see how utterly obsurd your position is on this matter uncinus? You can feed the people with all of your pictures and so called proof of persistent contrails and tell them that it is backed by scientific data and that it has always been this way because you have old photographs to prove it etc… etc… etc…, but in the end, all one has to do is apply simple logic and common sense to tell them that a water vapor trail will dissipate under most conditions and not continue to grow, especially on a hot dry day with practically no humidity in the air. You really are relying on the dumbing down factor to accomplish your mission aren’t you.
    By the way, where is your proof that any of these photos that you like to refer to are even real? If they are real, then prove that the trails that are depicted in them are actually contrails and not something else. While you are at it, prove that any of the trails documented in the countless photos and videos from around the world and being reported as chemtrails are not chemtrails as claimed to be.

    Then when you are done doing that, perhaps you can explain the following documents:

    “Geoengineering, A Manhattan Project” authored by Jay Michaelson about 10 years ago. It explains in detail about a proposal to “engineer” the global climate in order to counter the “global warming” crisis. (another myth with a hidden agenda) It describes how to accomplish it by utilizing civilian and military aircraft to disperse aluminum and other particles into the atmosphere and even discusses the damage to the environment and the health effects that will result from it as an acceptable circumstance.

    or
    “The Planet Needs a Sunscreen,” Wall Street Journal, October 17, 1997. By Edward Teller (director emeritus, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

    or
    “Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases” A 994 page study presented in 1992. It can be found here: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/index.html
    In conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet’s albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere. The full involvement of foremost government agencies, research firms, universities and private corporations are detailed in this global ‘geoengineering’ study.

    or
    The Science of “Air Pharmacology” By James E. Phelps, Copyright 2005
    Much of Jim Phelps work was at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee (ORNL) which is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). He developed the concept of air pharmacology while working at ORNL. The entire art of pharmacology is about how to add one more toxic effect to mitigate another from industry or environment. The chemtrail technique is basically air pharmacology.

    Of course, uncinus and his cohorts will attempt to discredit anything that I submit for posting on this site, as that is the purpose of this site (to debunk the existence of chemtrails). However, since this site is moderated by uncinus which means that he screens everything first and then posts it after he approves it. Of course, this also gives his crew research time to formulate a response that will always counter anything that is ‘non-contrail’. Bottom line is, you will only see what uncinus wants you to see on this website. I have submitted comments for posting that were not posted for whatever reason. Think for yourself and trust your own judgement and keep looking up.

  69. You can feed the people with all of your pictures and so called proof of persistent contrails and tell them that it is backed by scientific data and that it has always been this way because you have old photographs to prove it etc… etc… etc…, but in the end, all one has to do is apply simple logic and common sense to tell them that a water vapor trail will dissipate under most conditions and not continue to grow, especially on a hot dry day with practically no humidity in the air. You really are relying on the dumbing down factor to accomplish your mission aren’t you.

    No, actually, I’m relying on science.

    Perhaps you could explain your “simple logic and common sense”, and tell me what numbers it arrives at for the humidity and temperature that would be required for contrails to persist and spread out?

    Are those numbers different from the numbers that basic science arrives at? Or do you think that all the science books are somehow in on the conspiracy.

  70. Unicinus says:
    “Are those numbers different from the numbers that basic science arrives at? Or do you think that all the science books are somehow in on the conspiracy.”

    Conspiracy? Label it how ever you want to. I prefer to stick with reality however. Why does simple logic and common sense have to have numbers attached to it? You see, that’s the beauty of it. Common sense is just that. It does not require a scientific formulation because it is that simple. If it is 110 degrees outside and dry to the bone with no rain in the forecast and not a cloud in the sky, a jet is not going to produce a contrail so thick that it continues to grow and grow without dissipating, forming a thick blanket of whatever it is and eventually falling to the ground instead of evaporating like any other condensation would on a hot day. If I had a device that would produce a cloud of fog from condensated water that allowed me to stand there and spray it out of a nozzle all day long, there would be no sign of the condensation immediately after I shut it off, especially on a hot dry summer day. Why do you need anything other than common sense to see the logic in that? All you are doing by saying things like that is attempting to distort reality and discredit the truth by implying that it cant be true because it was not derived at through some sort of scientific model. If there is any conspiracy going on it is right here with you trying to manipulate the minds of innocent people into believing your ‘contrail theory’ in an attempt to prevent the masses from finding out that we are being sprayed like insects. The reason that you are getting away with it is because the truth is so horrifying that the majority of the people refuse to believe it could actually be happening and that their own government would sell them out like this. Then there is part of the population that is just simply oblivious to any of it and dont have a clue. Unfortunately, those of us that still have any common sense and are still able to think independently without being manipulated are just a minority of the population, which allows you to ridicule and place labels on such as ‘conspiracy theorist’. I am aware that most people would rather stick with the status quo than have a label placed on them and become an outcast even if it means going against their own beliefs. All I can is educate as many people as I can while I can. It is amazing how many people realize it once they actually open their eyes and take the time to actually observe it. They are so busy looking down that they didn’t have a clue. Once they actually stop and look up they are shocked that it has actually been going on right in plain sight yet hiding from them at the same time. It is a real eye opener and a slap in the face at the same time. But it must be done. You have your mission and I have mine. I would much rather have mine any day. I can only imagine having to answer to whoever it is that you have to answer to uncinus, jazzroc, sr1419 and the others of your kind. What is the price to sell your soul for anyway?

  71. Common sense is just that. It does not require a scientific formulation because it is that simple. If it is 110 degrees outside and dry to the bone with no rain in the forecast and not a cloud in the sky, a jet is not going to produce a contrail so thick that it continues to grow and grow without dissipating, forming a thick blanket of whatever it is and eventually falling to the ground instead of evaporating like any other condensation would on a hot day.

    You think they went to the moon using just common sense? Science is useful sometimes.

    For instance, common sense might tell you that it’s the same temperature at 40,000 feet as it is on the ground. But then, surely even common sense would point out that it gets colder the higher you go. Science gives you a useful rule of thumb, the “lapse rate”, which is the rate at which it gets colder. This actually varies with humidity, which also varies depending on what weather systems are moving in. But a useful rule of thumb is temperature drops 3.5F for every 1000 feet, which is 35F every 10,000 feet.

    It’s a lot more complicate than that as well, so let’s just stick with common sense. It’s a lot colder where the planes fly. Cold enough to freeze the moisture in the exhaust.

  72. Well then uncinus, what you are actually trying to say is that under any weather condition, every jet contrail that is made is going to remain persistent and grow in size until the sky is totally blanketed every time no matter what the weather conditions are like on the ground?
    If that is not the point that you are trying to make, then perhaps you would like to explain the conditions that a dissipating contrail would be likely to form under. You know, the kind of contrail that me and everyone else that I have talked to, are used to seeing prior to about 10 years ago before this even became an issue. The kind that still exist right along side of the ever expanding freaks that now pollute our skies regularly and sink to the ground without dissipating at all. You may be able to convince alot of easily manipulated people that those ever expanding freaks that you call contrails are “normal”, but there are plenty of people that just know better based on their own life’s experiences, and yes, common sense. There are days when weather conditions are such, that a contrail should normally dissipate like they always have without question. Contrary to what you want everyone to believe, one does not need to seek a scientific explanation to know when something out of the ordinary is taking place. Once again, you throw in your spiel about how science says it could be the right conditions at 40,000 feet and then dodge the subject by throwing out numbers and data and then try to convince people not to trust their own judgement or use any common sense or reasoning that does not involve a scientific formula. Sure, science is useful sometimes uncinus, and sometimes it is also used when it need not be used. Sometimes it is used manipulate and to distract from the basic issues. When used in that way, the intentions are never good.

  73. Well then uncinus, what you are actually trying to say is that under any weather condition, every jet contrail that is made is going to remain persistent and grow in size until the sky is totally blanketed every time no matter what the weather conditions are like on the ground?

    No, I’m saying that for contrails to persist and spread there needs to be particular atmospheric conditions where the plane is flying. The conditions are obviously going to be VERY different from the conditions on the ground.

    It’s not just me saying this. It’s every single book or article on atmospheric physics, clouds, meteorology, the weather, etc. Are you saying that every books on clouds written in the last hundred years is wrong, and that you are right?

  74. unicinus says:
    “No, I’m saying that for contrails to persist and spread there needs to be particular atmospheric conditions where the plane is flying. The conditions are obviously going to be VERY different from the conditions on the ground.”

    Once again you have sidestepped the issue and failed to answer the question. First of all, I have always said that for contrails to persist and spread there needs to be particular atmospheric conditions. That is actually the point I have been trying to make. I am very aware of the fact that the conditions are different on the ground then they are at 40,000 feet. So why are you even bringing this up? Because you cant answer the real question? Also, as usual, you feel that it is necessary to add to it by telling me that it is in all of the books on clouds etc… when this is something that I am aware of and absolutely agree with. I have never implied that I disagree with that. So, to avoid the real issue, you throw in your little stab at my credibility and start rambling on about something completely irrellevent. It is the last line that shows your true colors however, when you insinuate that I think I am right and all of the books are wrong. Why would you even say that except to attack my credibility? If you are not involved in this sickening act against humanity then what motivates you to attack my character anyway. Why are you so consumed with making sure that nobody believes the personal experiences of people from all around the world who are reporting about it? This website alone is an indication of your obsession with it. You are so determined to make sure that no one believes any of these peoples reorts of their personal experiences just because because you assume that they are mistaken when you have no way of actually knowing that for sure. That just creates more reason for people to be concerned.
    Try to stick to the subject next time and just answer the question without sidestepping it and taking a stab at my character or credibility. Or is that too much to ask?

  75. rudedog, I’m not trying to take a stab at your character or your credibility, and I’m sorry if I gave you that impression.

    I also apologize to not answering your question, I thought I had done so. You’ve written a lot above, and I’m not sure what question you are now referring to. If you would like a answer, then could your state your question again in one or two sentences? Thanks.

  76. I am very impressed with this site and the patience dealing with comments. Being a complete airplane nut I was mostly impressed with the aircraft modifications explained here. People coming in to this argument need to realize that the distance to 30,000′ is very far, 5,280′ is a mile, so its a ways up, in that distance there are many variations in air currents, weather patterns, temperatures, etc. that can disrupt or change the appearance of contrails, any literal spraying of chemicals (and i’m not going to deny that it is done, but it isn’t a secret) must be done at very low altitudes. I witnessed aerial drops in the fires this year in california and they are quite a spectacle, very low flying, large planes flying in, over, through very rough terrain. If “spraying” was being done as tests on the public, it would have to be done through low flying tankers, as high altitude drops would be almost no effect, or very delayed. This theory is the only one that has absolutely no basis on fact that I have seen, a little research on the effects of air currents and a little knowledge of aircraft is all thats needed to completely laugh at these claims. From just sifting through the comments it looks like this thread is a fantastic source of information about all of these claims.

  77. Rudedog, I quote you…

    The kind that still exist right along side of the ever expanding freaks that now pollute our skies regularly and sink to the ground without dissipating at all

    Now I would love to see the video, or time lapse of a so called chemtrail sinking to the ground.

    Contrails can exit close to the ground, but only in conditions where the air close to the ground is as the air is many 10 of thousands of feet high. This can happen near the north or south poles.

    However they never “sink to the ground”. Never ever…

    I applaud you for using common sense, as it shows individuality, thinking is how the human race advanced. However, you have to listen to others, and science as well. Science gives you the ability to enter this forum and comment, not common sense.

    Contrails have been 100% proved to be ice crystals forming around the aerosols ejected by an engine operating, generally at high altitude, in favorable conditions. I guess in one way of thinking, you could then say it is then a chemtrail as it has these aerosols, which are essentially chemicals.

    The whole argument here though is really, are the contrails just a result of aircraft exhaust and have no use, or are they “sprayed” and have a sinister use. That is the conspiracy.

    The answer is NO, they have no sinister use, they are not making you sick. They can make a nice clear sky look murky, which is a shame, and as pointed out, they have a net “global warming” effect. (but very minor – common sense told me that one)

    I am really a lot more worried, and so should everyone else be, by the exhaust fumes vehicles and factories pump out right into the air we actually breath. Now that CAN make you sick.

  78. Investigation into trails tells us that they expand over time.

    But someone else seeing this expanding might apply the logic that if something gets bigger it means it’s getting closer.

    That is why I believe that some people think that the trails sink.

  79. Good point. The human brain did not evolve to judge the height or distance of clouds. So if a cloud spreads out towards the horizon, then some people might well think it was sinking towards the ground.

    A few photos should be able to settle this.

  80. MyMatesBrainwashed:

    Investigation into trails tells us that they expand over time

    They certainly do! In fact, by so much as to be scarcely credible!

    If you check out the conclusions drawn in the report “Contrails to Cirrus” in the “LINKS” list on the left of the page, you will notice it says (I have converted the scientific maths terms back to layman’s):

    The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 16 kilograms per meter, some three to four orders of magnitude greater than the water vapor released by typical jet aircraft

    And if you’re not sure what “three to four orders of magnitude”, it means by a factor between ONE thousand and TEN thousand times.

    This means that it is possible for a 5,000 kilometre Boeing 747 flight through a saturated stratosphere to put EIGHTY THOUSAND TONS of ice into the sky!

    I still can’t believe this… …but skies that turn white seem almost inevitable…

  81. There are aircraft that do conduct some type of spraying. I have personally observed multiple aircraft spraying emiting these trails and other aircraft higher than these with the standard contrail behind them not emitting. After the spraying would occur these trails would desperse and clouds would begin to form. The air quality was also noticibly poorer as well after the spraying. These aircraft do exist and are spraying something, tomorrow rain is forecast for my area I will observe the orgin of the rain (checking to see if clouds move in from the ocean as they normally do generally coming up the coast from Mexico or west from the Pacific instead of “forming” over land) as well as attempting to observe any spraying.

  82. How do you know they are “spraying” and not just leaving a persistent contrail?

    The differences in trails you witnessed could be from planes flying through different pockets of air…or different planes with different types of engines. Engine types play a role in contrail formation for a number of reasons.

    To say a plane is definitely “spraying” something with the only evidence being a persistent trail viewed from at least 6 miles away is not a logical nor likely scenario.

    You are doing yourself a great disservice to automatically assume they are “spraying” something simply because you see a trail persist and spread in cirrus clouds.

    research contrail cirrus.

  83. haha, this website is funny.

    I hope you people trust your own eyes and don’t listen to these shills spin their bull at you. CHEMTRAILS are OBVIOUS to anyone who hasn’t been brainwashed yet…and THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. Give all the “scientific” hoopla that you want…WE AREN’T BUYING IT!…hahah, but this site is HILLARIOUS

  84. Come on my “head in the sand” crew, it is all mapped out for the millitary right here in this report that was done in 1996!

    Quote from the Report: “The number of specific (weather) intervention methodologies is limited only by the imagination, But with few exceptions they involve infusing either energy or chemicals into the meteorological process in the right way, at the right place and time.” (Page 21)

    http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

    We are currently the millitaries test tubes for this experiment…so that they can “Control the weather by 2025” (that is the title of the report)

  85. What does the Military say about that?

    http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf

    A hoax that has been around since 1996 accuses the Air Force of being involved in spraying the
    US population with mysterious substances and show various Air Force aircraft “releasing
    sprays” or generating unusual contrail patterns. Several authors cite an Air University research
    paper titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”
    (http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/research/ay1996/acsc/96-025ag.htm) that suggests the Air
    Force is conducting weather modification experiments. The purpose of that paper was part of a
    thesis to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather modification system to achieve
    military objectives and it does not reflect current military policy, practice, or capability.

    The Air Force’s policy is to observe and forecast the weather. The Air Force is focused on
    observing and forecasting the weather so the information can be used to support military
    operations. The Air Force is not conducting any weather modification experiments or programs
    and has no plans to do so in the future.
    The “Chemtrail” hoax has been investigated and refuted by many established and accredited
    universities, scientific organizations, and major media publications.

  86. We are currently the millitaries test tubes for this experiment…so that they can “Control the weather by 2025″ (that is the title of the report)

    And presumably this is a worldwide conspiracy? (As we have our own local branch of chemtrail believers down here in New Zealand.)

    Who would be doing this spraying in New Zealand? Our airforce is nothing but a handful of (old) transport planes.

    Our government doesn’t even let US navy ships into our harbours. Why would they play along with this particular ‘experiment’?

    Give all the “scientific” hoopla that you want…

    Ahh, yes, that pesky old science, with its stupid ‘facts’ and ‘proof’. Who needs it when things are ‘obvious’. I mean, the Earth spins around the Sun?! Pull the other one…

  87. I love it- “we aren’t buying” science…

    but we will buy shrill fear-mongering based on lies and devoid of evidence.

    Good luck with that.

  88. I dont know whats going on…all I know is that here in New Mexico I can see streaks forming over albuquerque and to the north over Sante Fe. I live in the desert and can see very far in every direction…the contrails seem to cluster around the populated areas and leave the deserts untouched…Im lucky to live in a desert I guess.

    I have seen planes fly over my house leaving a normal contrail and in the distance suddenly start leaving a constant streak over albuquerque that will last for an entire day! this happens over and over again all day somtimes lasting for weeks on end.

    SOMETHING IS HAPPENING AND ITS NOT CONTRAILS.

  89. Hi, I find your arguments rational if a little one sided – i have no proof either way but you seem unable to even imagine that the chemtrails could be real?
    In any event i would really love you to explain this video footage to me as i am at a loss to explain it in any rational way other than there is something to the chemtrail theory: please see
    http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=chemtrail+plane&www_google_domain=www.google.co.uk&hl=en&emb=0&aq=0&oq=chemtrail+#q=chembows&hl=en&emb=1
    Then please explain to me
    1) how that plane turned off its “con”trail ? (surely this is not usual if this is a normal aircraft emission – the plane is still flying not falling out of the sky so its engines must still be on)
    2) what is the couloured haze and small rainbow like things seen in this video (they are real phenomenon i have myself noticed these things – they are not natural rainbows)

  90. I can certainly imagine it – it’s not hard to imagine a secret spraying program. The point is that there is no evidence that this is actually happening. All the supposed “chemtrails” look EXACTLY like contrails.

    1) it is flying in and out of regions of air that don’t support contrail formation due to lack of moisture. See also:
    http://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/

    2) It’s a 22 degree solar halo with a sun dog (also called a parhelia). These have been observed for thousands of years. They are the result of ice crystals in the air. Contrails are made of ice crystals, so can contribute to this phenomena. See nice photos and explanation here:
    http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/parhelia.htm

  91. 1) it is flying in and out of regions of air that don’t support contrail formation due to lack of moisture. See also:
    This cannot be true as there is a trail it is flying along quite close to it that is perfectly well formed – look again! Its in parallel flight next to a trail (of whatever kind) and its trail suddenly stops even though the trail next to it is perfectly visible – proof that the air could support contrail formation – plus i dont see how the air could have such a deliniation of air typesin such a neat way?
    also i found a document from the us military wrote recently that admits they ARE spraying barium so there IS something to some of the chemtrail theory !
    Please see :
    http://www.luxefaire.com/devilvision/appxhtml/BappendixparticulatesB.html
    Its quite a long doc sorry (i didnt write it !)
    I also have the data for barium and aluminium deposition in the UK and it is alarmingly high

    http://www.uk-pollutantdeposition.ceh.ac.uk/sites/uk-pollutantdeposition.ceh.ac.uk/files/UK_HeavyMetals_Final_report_2006_final_version.pdf i would save you the hassle of reading all 120 pages – take a look at the table on page 20.
    So there is proof they are spraying barium compounds to act as a kind of aerial antenna. What do you say to that? Whether or not they mean us harm is up for discussion but they are aware of the potential health effects (see later down the page in the first link).
    Best Wishes, Im not trying to proove you wrong, merely put out information. I wish you well 🙂

  92. Further:
    Applicant(s):
    The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, Washington,
    Issued/Filed Dates: Aug. 12, 1975 / July 22, 1974Application Number: US1974000490610
    IPC Class: B64D 1/16;
    Class: Current: 244/136; 040/213; 116/214; 241/005;
    Original: 244/136; 040/213; 116/114.F; 241/005;
    Field of Search: 244/136 040/213 241/5,29 222/3;4 239/171 116/28 R,114
    R,114 F,114 N,124 R,124 B,124 C
    Legal Status: Gazette date Code Description (remarks) List all possible codes for US
    Aug. 12, 1975 A Patent

    July 22, 1974 AE Application data

    Abstract

    Light scattering pigment powder particles, surface treated to minimize inparticle cohesive forces, are dispensed from a jet mill deagglomerator as separate single particles to produce a powder contrail having maximum visibility or radiation scattering ability for a given weight material.Attorney, Agent, or Firm: Sciascia; Richard S.; St. Amand; Joseph M.; Primary/Assistant Examiners: Blix; Trygve M.; Kelmachter; Barry L.

    U.S. References: Show the 1 patent that references this one
    Patent Issued Inventor(s)
    Title
    US1619183* 3 /1927 Bradner et al.
    US2045865* 6 /1936 Morey
    US2591988* 4 /1952 Willcox
    US3531310 9 /1970 Goodspeed et al. PRODUCTION OF IMPROVED METAL
    OXIDE PIGMENT
    USR0015771* 2 /1924 Savage
    * some details unavailable

    CLAIMS:
    1. Contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having
    maximum radiation

    BACKGROUND

    The present invention relates to method and apparatus for contrail generation and the like. An earlier known method in use for contrail generation involves oil smoke trails produced by injecting liquid oil directly into the hot jet exhaust of an aircraft target vehicle. The oil vaporizes and recondenses being the aircraft producing a brilliant white trail. Oil smoke trail production requires a minimum of equipment; and, the material is low in cost and readily available. However, oil smoke requires a heat source to vaporize the liquid oil and not all aircraft target vehicles, notably towed targets, have such a heat source. Also, at altitudes above about 25,000 feet oil smoke visibility degrades rapidly.

    SUMMARY

    The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a “contrail” with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term “contrail” was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more. The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose. The powder contail generator is normally carried on an aircraft in a pod containing a ram air tube and powder feed hopper. Powder particles, surface treated to minimize interparticle cohesive forces are fed from the hopper to a deagglomerator and then to the ram air tube for dispensing as separate single particles to produce a contrail having maximum visibility for a given weight material. Other object, advantages and novel features of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description of the invention when considered in conjunction with the accompanying drawing……
    CONTRAIL POWDER FORMULATION
    Ingredient % by Weight
    _______________________
    TiO2 (e.g., DuPont R-931)
    85
    median particle size 0.3µ
    Colloidal Silica (e.g., Cabot S-101 Silanox)
    10
    primary particle size 0.007µ
    Silica gel (e.g., Syloid 65)
    5
    average particle size 4.5µ
    SECTIONS, HIGH ALTITUDE, NUCLEAR CLOUDS, COMMUNICATION AND RADIO SYSTEMS,
    RADIO SIGNALS, BARIUM, BOTTOM, RADIO RECEPTION.
    Identifiers: Avefria operations, Barium clouds, Cloud bases, Base
    reflection, PE62704H, WU09
    Abstract: In conjunction with the DNA barium releases, Avefria I and II,(*note past tense not future) an
    experiment was (past tense again)undertaken to determine if radio communication was possible
    off the base of a striated plasma created by these barium releases. A
    transmitting station was set up to broadcast a steady signal at two HF
    frequencies toward the base of the barium striations (contrails containing the chemical compound barium = chemtrail)and two receiving
    stations listened for signal returns on the two frequencies. (The chosen
    geometry prevented reflections off the sides of the barium cloud from
    affecting the experiment). One station heard (they have results they did this)substantial returns while the
    other heard nothing. Data from the first station provide an estimate of the
    reflection cross sections for the base of the striated barium cloud. The
    negative result from the second station arises partly from limited
    sensitivity of equipment but the upper limit on cross section was less than
    that seen from the first station. This suggests a directional character for
    the signal reflected from the base of the cloud.
    Limitation Code: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
    Source Code: 406548

  93. Hi phasma,

    Basically a contrail stops when the added water from the exhaust is no longer able to saturate the air.

    Starting and stopping contrails can be compared with patches of cloudson a sunny day, they are a nice indication of the variety of the athmosphere.

  94. phasma, could you perhaps show how any of that relates to what people describe as “chemtrails”? Could YOU show a photo of this spraying going on?

    Looking at page 20 of your link, Table 7 shows a range of barium in the air from 0.59 to 4.34 ng/m3 (nanograms per cubic meter). Can you explain exactly what this indicates?

Comments are closed.

Copyright Contrail Science 2017
Tech Nerd theme designed by FixedWidget