Home » contrails » Why do some planes leave long trails, but others don’t?

Why do some planes leave long trails, but others don’t?

Some planes in the sky leave trails that persist and spread, and other planes, in the same sky, leave short-lived trails, or no trails at all.

These trails are actually called contrails, short for “condensation trails”.  They are not smoke from the engines, they are formed when the water in jet engine exhaust (and there’s quite a lot of it, like car exhaust on a cold day) mixes with wet cold air and condenses and freezes into ice crystals.  Contrails are actually a type of cirrus cloud.  When the air is wet and cold enough the trails can stay around for a long time, and sometimes spread out.

This difference between trails that fade away, and trails that spread, is often used as evidence of the “chemtrail” theory, which states that the longer lasting trails (or some of them) are being deliberately manipulated for some reason.  So you see helpful images like this.

But this is wrong. Contrails can fade away, and contrails can persist and spread. It depends on the air they are formed in.

Now there are two main reasons why some planes leave trails and some nearby planes do not.  The less common reason is that different planes have different engines.  Some engines will leave a contrail in the air where another engine will not.  Here, for example, are an Airbus A340 (maiden flight: 1991) on the left, leaving contrails, and a Boeing 707 (maiden flight: 1957) not leaving contrails. Both are flying at 33,000 feet (part of a German test to study contrail formation), but the exhaust of the newer engines of the A340 is at a lower temperature, and so makes contrails in a wider range of conditions*.

You can also get a similar effect with engines at different power settings, especially if it affects the exhaust temperature. This can occasionally be seen with high altitude refueling, when the plane being refueled cuts the throttle to near idle in order to separate from the tanker.

Contrails in a refueling situation turn on/off

But here’s the main reason why you see trails on some planes but not on others, and I’ll emphasize it, because although it’s simple, it’s also easy to miss.

The planes are at different altitudes.

Yes, it’s really that simple.  The reason that one plane makes contrails or makes contrails that persist, and the other plane does not, is that they are in different regions of the air.   For simplicity, let’s refer to these regions of air as wet air and dry air, although the differences are a bit more complex.

When the plane is in wet air, it makes a contrail.  In dry air, it does not.

Surely, you might object, they would have to be miles apart?  Well, no, and that brings me to another point I fear I must emphasize:

Wet and dry air can exist within a few feet of each other.

Consider, for example, clouds:

Inside the cloud it’s wet.  Outside it’s dry.  What’s the difference between inside and outside?  It’s a few feet.

Look at the bottom of those clouds, see them extend off into the distance.  They form a layer at a specific altitude. Above that altitude there are clouds.  Below it there are no clouds.  The difference between clouds and no clouds is just a few feet.

Now those are low altitude cumulus clouds.  Let’s look at high altitude clouds.

Again they are in a flat layer.  The difference between being in the layer and not in the layer is just a few feet.

This layering of the air into wet and dry layers is not limited to clouds.  Seemingly clear air also contains exactly the same kind of variation in layers.  This was very neatly illustrated by the recent launch of the Solar Dynamics Observatory.  As it ascended it did not leave a contrail, until it hit a layer of wet air, when it left a contrail that lasted quite a while, and then it went into dry air again, and no more contrail

So, if a plane were flying in that middle region then it would probably leave a persisting contrail.  If it were above or below it then it would not.

But, you may cry, the planes are at the same altitude.   Now you might even disagree with a “few feet”, and say the planes were too close for them to be in different layers.  I’d respond with:

You can’t tell how high a plane is

And you certainly can’t tell if one plane is at the same altitude as another.   These planes fly at 30,000 to 40,000 feet.   Let’s see what the visual difference is at around that altitude:

I took one image of a jet nominally at 35,000 feet. Then scaled it for 34,000 (102.9%) and 32,000 feet (109.4%). I think you’ll agree they all look pretty much the same. Especially as this is more zoomed in than you’d see with the naked eye, which would be more like:



If the planes are flying lower, then it’s still similar. If the top plane was flying at 20,000 feet, then the bottom would be at 18,285 feet, still nearly 2,000 feet apart, and looking pretty much the same to the naked eye.

And that is with the same model of plane, directly overhead, and right next to each other. A situation that almost never occurs. If the planes are different, or separated, or at an angle to you, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to tell the relative altitudes when they are high in the sky.  Just look at this:

Or from the ground, with the planes at 30,000 feet.


They look about the same height, right?  In fact, if they were not overlapping, you’d think the JAL plane was lower, as it seems bigger, hence closer.  But actually, the JAL plane (a B777) is at least 1000 feet above the DHL plane (an A300).

And look at some planes on the ground, where we know they are all the same distance from the camera. The differences in size are very significant:

So, a simple question gets a simple answer:

The planes leave different trails because the planes are at different altitudes.

See Also:
https://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/ – Why contrails are often broken and start and stop abruptly.

Debunked: High Bypass Turbofans do not make Contrails [actually they make more] – A more detailed look at why modern engines make contrails in a wider range of conditions.

*(Edited 3/15/2015): when I wrote this article in 2010 I’d said that the newer more efficient engines produced “more water”, and while it’s true that the cleaner the combustion the more water is produced, the difference is negligible for the two engine types discussed. The key difference is the exhaust gas temperature, as explained in the more recent  Metabunk article

376 thoughts on “Why do some planes leave long trails, but others don’t?

  1. There are an infinite number of things that we don’t have evidence that they don’t exist.

    If you want someone to offer some evidence against some random theory of yours, then don’t you think that you first have to offer your own evidence for that theory?

    What is your evidence?

    And actually, pretty conclusive evidence against your theory has already been presented – cities with more cloud cover don’t report more illnesses.

  2. Kate says:

    I was not asking anyone to provide any evidence for my theories. I AM ASKING SOMEONE TO BACK UP THEIR STATEMENT WITH EVIDENCE. This site is about “science” after all, is it not?!?!? This is clearly a waste of everyone’s time. I will not be back. I will allow you all the satisfaction of having the last word.

  3. No, you were asking for people to provide evidence AGAINST your theories. But for them to do that, you first have to provide evidence FOR them.

    And they DID provide evidence against them. You are the one who has presented no evidence at all.

  4. This is an old argument (originally regarding the burden of proof for religious or supernatural claims, but applies equally well here), you’d do well to familiarize yourself with it – assuming your aim is to raise awareness of potential environmental problems. See:



    Basically, if you want people to take your theory seriously, then it’s up to you to provide some evidence first.

  5. MikeC says:

    Kate there is plenty of information out there about the health effects of pollution in general. There is also some about the different effects that aircraft pollution might have due to it being put into the atmosphere a few miles up.

    If you are really interested in the topic then why haven’t you read them?

    AFAIK/IIRC they amount to this:
    1/ health effects of pollution from aircraft is no different to health effects of pollution from other sources, except that there aren’t many people at the altitudes where most a/c pollution exists.
    2/ warming effects of greenhouse gasses from a/c may be 4-6 times as much as the same amount of g/h gas from ground level sources…..but there’s still not actually much of it – if air traffic continues to increase, then by 2050 (IIRC) it might amount to 5% of the total effect, taking into account it’s multiplier.

  6. TheFactsMatter says:

    “But do you have evidence that it DOESN’T??? Do you see what I mean.”

    No, I don’t see what you mean. Do you have evidence that sea water doesn’t harm our skin? Do you have evidence that apples aren’t a plant that was developed by Martians? How far do you want to take this absurd position?! The burden of proof is on the chemtrail hoax spreader to show me that the trails are harmful. I’m waiting…and waiting…and I continue to wait. Will evidence be coming soon?!

    “THere is no point using the science one way, if you aren’t also going to use the science from the other angle too…”

    This site is dedicated to explaining the science of the trails in the sky. The information is here for you to read. Now, if you have found ANY error in the information in this site , please provide evidence of the error. Thanks!

    “Apparently it is okay for you to question any comments I make, and say that my word is not enough for you to believe it – you need proof!!, but I am not allowed to do the same? Talk about shoe on the other foot.”

    The problem with your position is that there IS evidence for our position here (all the articles which are based on THE scientific knowledge on the subject) while you have provided nothing more than belief.
    Again, if there is ANY error on this site, please expose it. I have yet to see you provide ANY evidence to support your claims. Will it be coming anytime soon?

    “Why do you accuse me of being a “chemtrail hoax supporter”? I have not mentioned the word chemtrail. But you have – several times”

    Then why are you going on about “possibilities”?! Are you now trying to back track your position?! Of COURSE you believe in “chemtrails” or you wouldn’t be arguing/whining about the opposition you are receiving here! If you DON’T believe in this hoax, then why are you wasting our time? That’s what this site is about! The ridiculous “chemtrail” hoax is what we are discussing here! Get it? You are OBVIOUSLY opposing the position of this site. Why?

    “I was trying to point out that the statement about man-made clouds causing no harm should be backed up with evidence, or it should be clearly stated that it was the writers opinion, but it seems no-one is willing to do this, instead you are all busy defending yourselves and pointing the finger at all the other factors, so I think this conversation has become pointless, ”

    There is NO EVIDENCE that man made clouds are blocking out too much sun. YOU came here with a claim about Vitamin D deficiencies and it was obvious from your post that you were suggesting that the Vitamin D deficiency is caused by the trails. All I did was ask for evidence to support your claim. And I don’t have to “defend” myself and I’m certainly NOT doing so. I’m defending the good name of aviation against those who don’t understand what they are seeing in the sky. And I agree…this conversation IS pointless! As are all conversations about fact with conspiracy theorists. But, to me it’s VERY entertaining. I just can’t wait for the next baseless claim to come around.

    “I will not be back. I will allow you all the satisfaction of having the last word.”

    I’m not surprised that you’re leaving. You are obviously frustrated and you don’t have the knowledge you need to continue this discussion.

    This isn’t about “the last word” It’s about the TRUTH! Too many folks are being duped into believing in “chemtrails” so that certain individuals can sell their ridiculous books and DVD’s. Too many suckers are falling for the snake-oil salesman’s pitch.

  7. TheFactsMatter says:

    Like it’s up to us to “prove” that the trails are what science has shown them to be for the last one hundred years…And the chemmies don’t have to provide ANY evidence that these trails are part of some government plot to “geoengineer” the planet, kill us all, dumb us down, or block some of the sun’s radiation. Hilarious!

    How DARE we question these conspiracy theorists! LOL!

  8. dz says:

    Let’s say hypothetically that there is a million times the natural rate of barium/aluminum in the soils. And let’s say that a large number of people actually have had more respiratory problems in recent years. Or maybe people actually do get that metal taste in their mouth. And so on. Even if all the effect claims are true, what is the connection to persistent contrails? Maybe there is one, but I have yet to see it.

    By the way, I grew up near a naval air station in the 1960’s. I recall many persistent contrails back then, though I don’t know what percentage were made by military aircraft vs. commercial. And nowadays, there are a lot more commercial aircraft flying.

  9. TheFactsMatter says:

    “Even if all the effect claims are true, what is the connection to persistent contrails? Maybe there is one, but I have yet to see it.”

    Which is why, I believe, this website exists. There is a phenomenon in the sky that, for whatever reason, a fair number of people had failed to notice before and all we are asking is for evidence that the persistent contrails aren’t what science has claimed them to be. I’m open to the idea…I just haven’t been exposed to any compelling evidence that they are anything but persistent contrails. Why should I be criticized for that position?

    I could act just like these folks and make a claim that the trails are made of marshmallow fluff..let’s see them try to prove me wrong!

  10. Related idea (replace religion with pseudoscience).

  11. Alexey says:

    Interestingly, chemical sprays and fuel additives were indeed proposed and possibly even tried to deal with contrail formation, yet with a completely opposite goal – contrail suppression and avoidance. There are many patents and peer-reviewed papers on the subject by military and civil engineers and scientists.

    The following citation is from a magazine piece (http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/Flight_Lines.html):

    “The finger-pointing problem has yet to be solved. In the early 1990s, after the U.S. military developed the B-2 stealth bomber, it again became interested in contrails. Steve Weaver, a senior meteorologist at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, points out: “They spent all this money to develop a billion-dollar bomber that’s invisible to radar, but you can see its contrail with your naked eye.” The original B-2 design included a tank outboard of the main landing gear that would store a chemical to mix with the exhaust and suppress contrail formation. The Internet is a rich source of speculation as to what went wrong with that plan, but in the end, Ophir, an optical sensor manufacturer in Littleton, Colorado, saved the day. Its Pilot Alert System uses lidar (light detection and ranging) to differentiate contrails from clouds and tell the pilot to change his altitude when his aircraft is “conning.””

  12. Mr. Suntour says:

    A very interesting and informative article Alexey! Thanks for posting it.

  13. Terry Norton says:

    Ok, I’ve looked at the photos and searched other sites for an explaination of what I saw this morning in the sky. It is a beautiful clear blue sky here today and I was noticing the beautiful contrails that were slightly above the horizon because of all the early morning flights. I am married to a pilot so I know what a contrail looks like and why it’s there . . . so while looking in the sky, and driving and talking on my cell with my brother, I litterally had to pull over and stop on the side of the road and focus on what I was seeing.

    At approx 8:15 I saw a silver craft of some sort that was about the size of a small private jet and at about the altitude that a jet would fly (but it was producing no contrail !!!) It was just hovering and not moving, so I thought it was coming forward towards me, but then I got a better look and it was shaped more like a long weather ballon in a horizontal position. So I’m thinking well that’s what it is maybe cause it has no trail. But then it moved in a sideways motion and sgurited out what looked like 3 short burst of mist that formed 3 (Chemtrails?) in a straight line – like a dash, dash, dash. The trials didn’t last long and were gone in about 30 seconds. Then the really strange thing happened – the craft just disappeared (or so it looked like it had) and then it re appeared in another part of the sky and did the smal process again a second time – the dash, dash, dash. Then it disappeared again and I waited about 5 minutes and it didn’t reappear again. I am a little confused as to what that was – you don’t crop dust at that altitude and I would just like some feedback from someone as to what that was? Or if anyone has seen something similar.

  14. Terry, I’m afraid I’ve no idea what that might be. Possibly it was a jet very far away leaving a broken contrail through patchy air, but it’s hard to tell without video or photos.

  15. irwin9 says:

    Uncinus – am i right in saying that weather manipulation , geo engineering cloud seeding etc etc etc has been talked about for years and been proposed by a number of people in positions of power ? if so then the finger pointing and chemtrail labeling has some justification no ?

  16. Cloud seeding has been done extensively over the last 50 years. It does not look like long thick spreading trails.

    Geoengineering has only been talked about, there’s no evidence that anyone has ever tried any of the proposed schemes.

  17. GoyimTheGreat says:

    The simple fact that the image displaying different altitudes of a seemingly different instance each was the exact same image. You moved the trail slightly…should have done more to hide the truth. You made a page to basically look like the khazarian imposter you must be. I forgive you , though. The grant money must have been worth it, devil.

  18. Alexey says:

    Here is a time lapse video that could be a textbook case on this subject:

    No details of time lapse are specified. My educated guess is that it is one frame per one second, so that the whole 2.5 minutes video corresponds to one hour of real time.

    There are four contrails in this video, from the planes crossing the frame at the following times:
    1st – 00:03 – 00:10, a persistent spreading contrail;
    2nd – 00:41 – 00:48, short contrail that runs mostly outside the 1st contrail along its left edge;
    3rd – 01:03 – 01:10; another persistent spreading contrail;
    4th – 01:43 – 01:51, short contrail that runs mostly inside the 3rd contrail.

    The difference between the spreading contrails on one hand and the short contrails on the other hand is apparent and probably is due to their different altitudes. What is less apparent is the high degree of similarity of evolutions of the two spreading contrails. The 3rd contrail at 01:10 nearly perfectly alines with the 1st contrail at 00:10, suggesting that the routs of two planes were almost identical. The 3rd contrail drifts and expands with “one minute of lapsed time” delay at practically the same speed and rate as the 1st one. A high rate of the trail expansion suggests that both planes had flown into a vast atmospheric layer of a very high humidity (supersaturated vapor) and triggered its condensation. The passage of the first plane has visualized this layer with long faint streaks to the left of its expanding trail. Note that the second expanding trail lays within this layer and does not move relative to it. Similar conditions have led to similar results. The other two planes appeared to have missed this layer as they probably have flown above or below it.

  19. SR1419 says:



    Are you referring to the image of 3 different altitudes? He specifically states its the same image just scaled differently…its illustrative…

    the point is still relevant and true.

  20. MikeC says:

    Which part of Uncinus’s comment under the photo gave it away??

  21. kelly says:

    different altitudes? this is for one in a thousand let your friends know something is going on.

  22. bbrraadddddd says:

    Can someone help me understand why when I see short quickly fading contrails they don’t stop and start but when I see persistent contrails, they often stop and start?

  23. captfitch says:

    That’s a good question and I guess I for one have never noticed that but I would suspect that it comes down to the fact that the longer ones don’t really start and stop immediately behind the plane but in fact are always going. It’s just that after time some areas of the trail do not remain, leading to the appearance of gaps.

    But why focus on the oft repeated claim that chemtrails “start and stop”? Do you believe this trait indicates that there is some sort of malfunction in the chemtrail delivery system as many have stated? Or is there some other reaosn that starting and stoping is indicative of an unnatural source.

    Because it would seem to me that the fact that the trails do, in fact, start and stop is a a far greater indication that they are natural and thus subject to natural variations in atmospheric condition.

  24. Yeah, I think it’s just way more noticeable with the longer trails, especially as the starting and stopp is often after the fact – parts of the trail fade away quicker than others. With a shorter trail it’s all fading away, so even if the fade speed varies, you don’t have the rest of the trail to use as reference.

  25. Another aspect of that is that many of the most dramatic on-off contrail videos show planes that leave aerodynamic wing-surface contrails, which by their nature tend to be both more persistent, and more reliant on the atmosphere (as no water is added). It’s an interesting question.

  26. bbrraadddddd says:

    @ captfitch before I recently found this site I was sure chemtrails existed but now I have doubts because I have found a lot of sensible explanations for the persistent contrails here. Where i live, I usually see an aircraft with a trail behind it and after a very short period it will stop and the contrail will persist or I will see an aircraft with a contrail behind it that fads away quickly but stays behind the aircraft during the whole time I am watching it, which leads me to suspect that the persistent contrails are being deliberately turned on and off
    I understand that it is just what it looks like to me and that, there is probably an explanation but I still feel suspicious. So in order to ease my suspicions, I need to find more answers that will satisfy me. With so much bad information around it is really hard to find the truth and I constantly test everything I think I know.

  27. KellyKell says:

    Hello, my english is poor please dont judge my intelligence by its standard and use yours to understand it.Im at this site and i read about the top third of posts, the problem i see is not con or chem its “pancake” collapse, its cant operate a shiftstick prius but can fly a bus ten feet of the ground into selected offices( donald rumsfeld 2.3 tril sept 10.)its J.F.K. only a madman can deny a bullet through the forehead and for the girls its Diana (and child) in gay Paris.Its wheres the missing link then or to be sensible wheres the mulitude of missing links, its our trusted bastion the BBC is a joke, FOX,CNN just sicker jokes for sicker people.Their dumbass reliegons preach the end of the world and i fear their trying hard and maybe others do hence a belief in unknown chemical spraying of us and gaia.I’ ve been watching the skies for a couple of years now since it was pointed out to me, but after reading this site im happy with the explanations given of improved engine efficeny and altitude.Not happy with what that means to cloud condidtions and pollution on OUR planet.

  28. bbrraadddddd says:

    Where I live we get short persistant contrails (ones that look like they ‘start and stop’). They gradually spread over most of the sky during the day.
    One common explination given for short contrails is that the sky only has patches of area that is suitable for persistant contrails. If that is the case I don’t understand why they don’t just dissapear when they drift and spread because they should be drifting into patches of sky unsuitable for contrails.

  29. The contrails behave in this respect like smoke – they move WITH the air. So the patch of air that contains the contrail is moving.

    You can think of the sky approximately as one huge patchy block of air that moves as one.

  30. bbrraadddddd says:

    So the patch of air that is cool and humid enough to stop the contrail evaporating/melting is spreading out?

  31. captfitch says:

    Sure, could be. Or maybe it’s spreading up, or down. Or maybe the planes are all climbing up to find smooth air, or descending down to find it. All sorts of things are possible in the sky.

  32. Contrails expand mostly sideways. They start and stop lengthways.

    They also spread mostly via wind sheer, and only somewhat by diffusion.

    Describing it as a patch that is spreading out is not very helpful. The atmosphere is essentially a fluid, with different layers and regions moving around. The wind speed gradients between any two points in the atmosphere will cause whatever is at those points to move apart or together.

  33. Knowledge says:

    1st of all explaining contrails has Nothing to do with chemtrails. Weather modification is FACT. Scientists said as last resort to global warming they would spray to block sun rays. NOW when they do this, say they start next month, All the contards will say there contrails because everything is a contrail to a contard therefore there opinion is obsolete and ignorant/uneducated. I only see trails go up accross and down so what passenger jet takes people towns over ? I Never seen a passenger jet spray a chemtrail once. Only the short trip jets that leave a rainbow like trail only about a town or 2 long

  34. Ross Marsden says:

    Geoengineering is NOT the same as weather modification. No one is denying that there are wx-mod operations going on. This is not what the chemtrails are purported to be, either.

    Contrails have everything to do with what you think are chemtrails.

  35. Nick says:

    wow. Very enlightening, it’s a shame though that there seems to be no place for logic, or common sense that might lead to a true discussion. amazing. circular logic and insult the other party if they support their argument with science and don’t agree with yours.

    If it helps, after many many years of research I know who killed Kennedy. I really do.

  36. Hugh Jarse says:

    I am H. Jarse, Senior Director of the North American Chemical Craft Center. We are to blame for the Chemtrails. I may take a lot of heat for saying this, but we’ve been controlling populations for decades with high altitude chemical deployments.

    For proof look at what happened in Vancouver after the Stanley Cup game when our pilots mistakenly activated the japaleno dispenser instead of the Lilac & THC that the government paid for. (Yes, we refunded the $23,000.00)

    Rest assured that you’ve seen your last true chemtrail, as our budget was recently increased by 60%. This allows us to finally afford the overtime costs for the pilots to spray at night. We’ve wanted to spray at night since 1962, but the budget never allowed it.

    Into the dark we go….

    Enjoy the day,

  37. JFDee says:

    Ah, controlling populations means … slowing the rate of human multiplication by how many percent ?
    Lowering gross life expectancy by what time amount?

    Man, you should be required to pay back all your funding. Lousy job.

  38. Ross Marsden says:

    Hugh, off topic I know, how do you pronounce your surname? Is it of Dutch origin, or Spanish.
    Only ask’n.

  39. JFDee says:

    If you pronounce the name in a standard way, it will – purely coincidentally – sound like “huge arse” …

  40. Concerned Citizen says:

    Uncinus this article is the best I’ve read on the subject and the comments section is equally as interesting and informative. It might be helpful to put some on the points made in the comments into the article. Thanks for all the info I will definitely tell my friends about this.

  41. imakeopsname2 says:

    “In another chapter, ‘Large Area Coverage Trials’, the MoD describes how between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii , which mimics anthrax. These releases came from a military ship, the Icewhale, anchored off the Dorset coast, which sprayed the micro-organisms in a five to 10-mile radius”

    i would call these chemtrails for above said purpose, but how are we supposed to know the exact purpose of certain spray ops, it could differ from country to country, city to city, we dont know the reason but we will blow the EFFIN doors off and find out why their poisoning our air with more than just jet exhaust. we cant guess its micro organisms to test some virus out on the environment, how do you know what the exact purpose is for chemical operations going that you could possibly debunk every visitor to this site in the world and history, so your wrong contrail science .com. this is proof of it, and you cant state any information into ongoing research so fuck off uncinus

  42. VACCUM says:

    propellor planes hundreds of feet above ground in utah with persistent contrails that fell to the ground doesnt count as science on the contrail only supporting side.

  43. JazzRoc says:


    Large Area Coverage Trials – Trials to test the civil defense response to chemical or biological attacks by inter-continental ballistic missiles, and other cheaper methods.

    were exposed to bacteria – Of the types found in copious quantities on your nose right now, unless you’ve washed yourself in the last five minutes.

    i would call these chemtrails – Which don’t exist! As deposited they were sprayed from barges, roadside vans, and from a lone Camberra bomber in a fine stream at a height of 2000 feet.

    we dont know the reason – You may not, but we all know they were trials to test the civil defense response to chemical or biological attacks by inter-continental ballistic missiles, and other cheaper methods.

    we can’t guess its micro organisms to test some virus out on the environment – you don’t have to. Viruses weren’t involved. The problem faced by the aggressor is how to widely distribute bacterial spores in a local environment. The problem for the “victims” is to identify what and where it is.

    you cant state any information into ongoing research so fuck off uncinus – Uncinus doen’t have to. The information is known already. The original aggressor (USSR) doen’t exist any more, but there are plenty lining up their turn. What’s known is known is known. What will play out will play out. Everyone knows that the UK has this scenario well worked out, and any aggressor will be surprised by the response it achieves.
    Of course this has not the slightest thing to do with “chemtrails”, which are a MYTH.
    Fuck off yourself.

  44. VACCUM says:

    they “mimic the effects of anthrax” if thats to test population response time then thats just cruel and unusual, who the fuck wants to be sprayed with that shit, and if its “sprayed in a fine line at 2000 ft” and they are chemicals in the air, then are they not trails of chemicals thus, disproving the myth? well their’s are chemtrails that no longer exist, you would say assumedly, but what could they be doing now that you know not? you need to realize this has been going on under various operations names and classifications with alluding purposes and sciences. chemtrails chemplumes chemstacks whatever you want to call them they are a classified injustice to the human rights.

  45. VACCUM says:

    lets call them military testing releases within public and populated areas, the people would require consent with full knowledge of the products being RELEASED, before any such case takes place for defense purposes or not.

  46. MikeC says:

    Vaccum – neither do statements about things that can have many innocent explainations – an isolated statement that prop planes were leving trails in Utah, without any other evidence, means nothing more than prop planes were leaving trails in Utah – it doesn’t tell you, me, or anyone else anything about what those trails were.

    Were they firebombing or spraying agricultural chemicals or seeds? Were they making smoke trails at an airshow??

    Care to supply some more information about this??

  47. VACCUM says:

    no because they did it consistently over and over and over all the population, not isolated to a farm nor low enough, it was however easily hundreds to a couple thousand feet above my head

  48. Jay Reynolds says:

    Vacuum, I assume since this was done over and over that you bothered to take a photo.
    No? Well you missed the holy grail….
    Seriously, go to google images, put these words in quotes like this:
    “low altitude chemtrails”
    and tell us which photo best represents what you saw.
    Oh, and keep a camera ready next time.
    As you can see at the google results, no one has photographed what you are claiming,
    and I’ve been waiting 14 years…………..

  49. Chemtrails or Contrails says:

    LOL @ the comment about Alex Jones not being able to accept other viewpoints “even if it’s published by a major newspaper”. LMAO, w ell that there’s your problem. Perhaps you need to look into who owns that “major newspaper” and look further into why he would not believe anything it states.

    Misinformation, diversion and simply lying to the generl population has been huge part of the way governments interact with thier people.

    If you want to believe everything that scientist’s, governments and the media (yes even major newspapers) preach to the public, then that’s your choice.

    If you want to live life always thinking inside the systems box, that again is your choice.

    If governments or rather major corporations, even smaller private ones want to load up thier planes and spray the population, then that is thier choice. Could it be done, for sure. Is it being done, probably.

    Why? there are many possible reasons. Kind of like how fluoride which the government says is good for our health/teeth is actually very poisonous and is a by product of the aluminium and pesticide industries, oh and hitler used it as a “make you dumb” treatment for captive jews.

    There are many mainstream scientists today that preach this or that, and have the mentality of my theory is proven and fact and yours isn’t. Hey let them be that way, that is probably what’s best for thier evolution.

    No one doubts contrails as a plausable fact of keeping a plane in the air, but many doubt that goverments are not employing ways to dumb down and keep people opressed.

    Got a viewpoint, great. be sure that someone nearby will have a different one. That’s what makes us perfectly human.

    Believe or do not believe, the choice is yours.

  50. JFDee says:

    Chemtrails or Contrails said:
    “Believe or do not believe, the choice is yours.”

    If you are inclined to believe rather than research, that’s fine. Nobody doubts that.

    The problem here is mass (or rather group) hysteria, which may turn dangerous. If people are discussing attacks on “spraying planes” or starting to harrass ATCs or pilots, they are crossing the line. Personal liberty is limited by the well-being of the fellow human.

    About scientists: if everything was indeed a matter of their “mentality”, we wouldn’t be able to use computers or cell phones. There are such things like theories turned to proven facts.

    If you make a scientific claim which cannot be confirmed by other scientists, you are marginalized and lose your reputation.

    Unfortunately, and this has been discussed before, someone from the media may give you a platform for your bogus claims, just to stir up controversy which is always good for their business. This distorts the image of science that the audience will receive..

    It may be advised to look up scientists presented on TV or online, to find out their standing in the international scientific community.

  51. Monad says:

    With all due respect, what this website presented here is opinion, not the empirical proof which is necessary to debunk a specific claim. The theories presented above do not prove that contrails are not purposely laced with chemicals, and here’s why:

    You have no control element to your theorem. In other words, you attribute the emission events which some suspect to contain aluminum oxide and barium to normal contrails, however, to prove that aluminum oxide and barium trails are definitively not what is being observed, then you must demonstrate empirically how actual aluminum oxide and barium spray events differ observably from normal contrail events.

    In other words, while it may be true that normal contrails do behave as you say (persistent, spreading, and contingent on several factors such as type of engine, altitude and atmospheric conditions), it may also be true that aluminum and barium-laced trails behave the same way. And to reiterate, until you demonstrate that aluminum and barium-laced trails behave differently from the normal contrails you point to, then you’ve no empirical basis to support your attempt to debunk the specific claim.

    Admittedly, it would require special resources and investment to spray actual chemtrails from a jet for the purpose of experiment, but just because it may not be feasible for you to man a jet and actually spray chemicals for the sake of observation does not make your presented theories empirically valid.

  52. MikeC says:

    Monad you have the logic backwards.

    Contrails are known to exist – it is up to the people who claim that some trails are other than contrails to show some evidence hat it is true. So far there has been not 1 single piece of verifiable evidence that supports the existence of contrails, in all hte 15 or so years the hteory has existed.

    Also it is impossible to test EVERY contrail – proving that 1 or 10 or 100 does not show that some other trail is actually a chemtrail.

    But it only takes 1 test of a chemtrail, showing that it is what is claimed, to prove that chemtrails exist – but no-one has done it.

    Some say it cost about $50k to make “What in the world are they spraying” – for that amount of money they could have hired dedicated atmospheric research aircraft to go and take samples of contrails and check.

    but they didn’t do that – instead they made a movie that proves nothing at all.

  53. Jay Reynolds says:

    If metallic particles were being sprayed, which is the claim made by chemtrails promoters, they would be visible on radar. The persistent contrails don’t.

    But the chemtrails promoters offer plenty of bunk that can be debunked, and that is what happens here.

    I see you didn’t complain about any of the debunking, evidently you couldn’t find anything to complain about. Your complaint seems to be that we cannot debunk the possibility that something may have or may be sprayed in the future. I say let’s keep watching out for that time, but all the bunk is actually counterproductive towards that end. There is so much bunk put out that the chemtrails believers simply ‘believe’, any actual spraying would probably get lost in the noise.

    In 1999, I wrote this about chemtrails:
    “Contrail formation mechanisms are ordinary and contrails themselves are increasing in number as a result of increased air traffic. Reports of persistent contrails are within what is known to be naturally possible. Contrail studies are underway which will increase our knowledge of their causes, frequency, and effects. High altitude contrails are not consistent with effective dispersal of
    chemical or biological agents. No known toxic or harmful components have been proven to be in JP-8+100 fuel. Ethylene dibromide is not a viable chemical warfare agent when delivered through jet engine combustion. No medical reports, material analysis, or documentable and confirmable evidence has been presented which supports the hypothesis that chemical or biological agents are currently being delivered or can be associated with jet contrails. There is a threat to Americans from germ and chemical warfare, and vigilance should be maintained. Speculation and rumor without factual and specific information can only dull that vigilance. Those with factual information have a moral obligation to publicize those facts, but those who “cry wolf” are not acting in the best interest of this nation.”

    The statement has withstood the test of time.

  54. JFDee says:

    Monad said:
    “With all due respect, what this website presented here is opinion”

    You mean, all of this website?
    What about the physics of contrail generation? Vapor + supersaturation, can all be reproduced in labs.

    Can you point out specific issues that you count as opinion (as opposed to fact)?
    I’m sure there are some, but hardly any that refer to the basics of contrail generation.

  55. Critical Thinker says:

    Monad, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. One cannot prove a negative, which is what you are asking for when you ask for proof that chemtrails don’t exist.

    If I said unicorns exist, can you prove that they don’t? Your argument would probably be along the lines of “There is no documentation/fossils to say that they do”, and I would say that they exist anyway. That is essentially what is happening here with chemtrails.

  56. MikeW says:

    I’m 28 years old I have never had a real job so I spend a lot of time outside smoking weed and meditating. I also love to watch the stars. I have been doing this almost every day since I was young so lets say for about 20 years. Gradually I have been noticing more persistent contrails that up to now were not a concern until November of this year 2011. Now the planes fly over my house almost daily with long contrails that seem to stretch from central Michigan to Lake Michigan a distance of about 65 miles. Since these planes are leaving unusual trails that I have never noticed before in my 20 years of sky watching I have now been to record these planes. I know there are a lot of people who are skeptical that something is going on here and offer a lot of good evidence that this is normal behavior but I am just not convinced.
    We have a US patent #4686605 H.A.A.R.P says this


    U.S. Patent No. 4,686,605
    I claim:
    1. A method for altering at least one region normally existing above the earth’s
    surface with electromagnetic radiation using naturally-occurring and diverging
    magnetic field lines of the earth comprising transmitting first electromagnetic
    radiation at a frequency between 20 and 7200 kHz from the earth’s surface, said
    transmitting being conducted essentially at the outset of transmission
    substantially parallel to and along at least one of said field lines, adjusting the
    frequency of said first radiation to a value which will excite electron cyclotron
    resonance at an initial elevation at least 50 km above the earth’s surface, whereby
    in the region in which said electron cyclotron resonance takes place heating,
    further ionization, and movement of both charged and neutral particles is effected,
    said cyclotron resonance excitation of said region is continued until the electron
    concentration of said region reaches a value of at least 10.sup.6 per cubic
    centimeter and has an ion energy of at least 2 ev.
    2. The method of claim 1 including the step of PROVIDING ARTIFICIAL PARTICLES in
    said at least one region which are excited by said electron cyclotron resonance.

    What are these artificial particles in at least one region which are excited by said cyclotron resonance? And what forms the AIM mirror in the patent drawings?

    To me seems like it could be whats coming out of the planes in my videos



    I will continue to record and document this phenomena feel free to follow me on youtube mikewahby

  57. The next line in the patent explains it:

    3. The method of claim 2 wherein said artificial particles are provided by injecting same into said at least one region from an orbiting satellite.

    HAARP affects the ionosphere. That’s about twenty times higher than any plane can fly. So injecting particles would have to be done from a satellite, or a rocket. Not from a plane.

  58. Jay Reynolds says:

    I assumeyou have been documenting your observations by taking photos of the ‘trails. Please consider using these suggestions to do more, to actually identify the planes you see. If you need help after yu read the link, just make a comment and you wil find some help:

  59. JJ says:

    Thank you!!!! This alleviated sooo much frustration I have felt with this whole subject. Its not like I don’t think that corporations and/or the government are capable of some pretty unspeakable, unthinkable, horrendous things, but it just makes it impossible to find out the truth when people start making stuff up. If there is a conspiracy, it would be to make people look at the sky so that they miss what is really going on right under their feet.


  60. DrVoel says:

    Hello from Greece and congratulations for the excellent explanation on the formation of contrails and debunking the whole chemtrail siliness, .

    My question goes to the aviators among you. As a passenger on commercial aircraft I have often witnessed a faint/not so faint vapor trail trailing the wingtip and sometime the extended flaps during landing. What is the physics of that?

    Also, on various pictures of military aircraft I have noticed some vapor trails forming on the base of the wings, at the leading edge, especially on high-g maneuvers.

    I would also be extremely grateful for an explanation of that physics as well…

  61. Alexey says:


    These are aerodynamic contrails, see elsewhere on this site: https://contrailscience.com/aerodynamic-and-rainbow-contrails/

  62. Michael says:

    your all nuts… yes people who believe in chemtrails often get it wrong but the fact remains that the militry do what they want when they want barium is used for ducting… aluminium levels and barium levels are sky high wherever there are excessive contrails… and the climate is changing. I have seen many a blue sky changed to white sky purely by the impact of aircraft. Yes you can look online and identify some of these.. but maybe about ten percent of them! We have militry aircraft bombing around at various altitudes… we know they are up to something. I dont live near any military base but a huge helecopter.. the type with 2 propellors has been doing a route of aproximately 15 miles triangular over and over again. Hovering in certain places for 10 minutes plus… making very stange noises like a motorbike over my house… purely coincidental of course.
    Last week every day was thick contrail induced cloud. Every night the sky went pink. Which one dude above thinks is the colour of aluminium.?!
    The temperature dropped to sub zero and strange winds came and dissapeared from midnight to early morning.
    The cloud dissapeared or ‘changed’ to leave a strange transparent uniform pattern (stars visible) This happened at least 3 days in a row. The first day that comes along that large contrails dont form…. along comes rain and snow.. the film of cloud goes.. and our skies look natural. I have no doubt they are spraying metal particles into the atmosphere… and using Haarp to manipulate the weather… and in this case to prevent rain until the freezing cold conditions passed. The snow we had melted.
    Weather by design. Or is it something far more sinister….

  63. Do you have a link to evidence showing high aluminum levels? Everything I’ve seen so far has been bogus.

  64. tefal says:

    I see these alot in the sky,, but thought it was that some planes are going faster, and at super sonic speeds it leaves a trial, as this happened to fighter jets, but some new ones like the Euro fighter don’t have the trial at the back of the plane.

  65. MikeC says:

    It probably does when the conditions are right – this video shows a small fighter leaving a massive contrail at about 1.50 – it’s not clear enough to be identifiable tho. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV69Y1SVUbQ

  66. MikeC says:

    And then just browsing around I found this – RAF Typhoons making contrails – http://www.flickr.com/photos/fineclicks/6650336003/lightbox/

  67. vic.vega says:

    Dear all, it would be nice to add some informations about the (not-so-common, perhaps) case in which one plane leaves, at the same time, contrails with different characteristics.
    E.g., I’ve recently been pointed to an amateur video where there is a four-engine plane who leaves four contrails, one for every engine. However, the innermost two are “persistent”, while the outermost vanish after few seconds. Here it is:

    Of course, this is presented as a “proof” that there is something wrong going on, because, obviously, all the four engines are at the same altitude and the external conditions are the same.
    As a scientist, I immediately thought about two possible explanations:
    -) In a four-engine plane is not obvious that all the engines are driven at the same regime and some asymmetries (included possibly this one) could be related to this. To all the pilots who read this blog: is this assumption correct?It is possible/common to drive different engines (of the same plane) in different ways?
    -) The outermost trails are influenced much more by the vortexes developed at the end of the wings, compared with the innermost ones.

    I got interested in the question, so googled briefly but I couldn’t find that much about this kind of situations. It would be really nice to have some feedback here or to be pointed somewhere else (every link would be appreciated)

  68. Here I have stitched together some stills from the video, so you can see better what is going on:

    I think what is happening is all the contrails essentially mix together. The two regions that persist longer are from the wingtip vortices. The low pressure in the vortex means the air is cooler faster, hence the ice crystals have longer to form, and end up slightly larger, and last longer.

    This apparent four-into-two is not at all new. Something similar is found in the 1972 book Clouds of The World, section 11.2.4


  69. vic.vega says:

    Thanks for the quick reply and for the explanation Uncinus.That’s really interesting!:-)
    Btw..from the superposition of frames it seems quite clear that what I thought at first (innermost persisting, outermost not) was not correct: in fact it’s more the other way round, although, as you pointed out, at a certain point it becomes really difficult to distinguish a trail from the near ones.
    Thanks again!

  70. captfitch says:

    I can answer the engines question. All four engines should be operated as close as possible to each other at all times except possibly for taxi. The way to accomplish this is to vary the amount of fuel each engine recieves slightly as some engines run very slightly different than others. Now- on older engine the difference may be higher but if it’s hung on a 747 they should all be newer turbofan engines. But after the exhaust leaves the engines the aerodynamics have more affect on the trails than what the engines did.

  71. Johnny says:

    Your full of shit. How much did the FFA and government pay you to do this write up? Who do you work for? I call BULLSHIT! there is no way that two engines from two different planes on the same day one causes trails and on does not. Keep your eyes on the skies and weather patterns. If you notice on a day that you see many trails the next day or so there will rain. Gimme a break. If it affects the weather then something is going on.

  72. Strawman says:

    Your points have already been explained. If you disagree with the explanation, point out where it’s wrong. If you can’t, please refrain from insinuating fraud.

  73. michael says:

    i can give a scientific explination to why my remote control fell from the sofa to the floor.. or i could just say i knocked it off the sofa! No amount of scientific explination changes the fact that NONE passenger airlines are spraying a smog creating substance all over our skies.. away from common flight paths and in a way that appears to be deliberately creating clouds. You wanna say its water vapour others wanna say its chemical… either way it shoudn’t be there and its causing an impact on our environment and upsetting many people. If it were just air conditions then all the aircraft would have to do is fly a little higher or lower in a different air mass… but instead of just DEALING with the problem they DENY IT EVEN EXISTS and tell people they are PARANOID and call it CONSPIRACY. THIS IS BANG OUT OF ORDER.

  74. Nobody denies contrails exist.

  75. michael says:

    who said they did???!!!

  76. Strawman says:

    So, will you be discussing the reality of different conditions in the atmosphere soon?

  77. michael says:

    any reality is merely a side agenda we’ve all seen hot air baloons we know about air fronts etc etc.. you are using such detail to try and digress and avoid the main issue. You hope by winding people up who have woken up you can turn them into nut cases or terrorists or even worse…. and put em away… anything to cover your fragrant LIES. Away with you

  78. michael, you said

    You wanna say its water vapour others wanna say its chemical… either way it shoudn’t be there and its causing an impact on our environment and upsetting many people.

    Which seemed like you accepted the issue was just normal contrails.

    You then said:

    If it were just air conditions then all the aircraft would have to do is fly a little higher or lower in a different air mass… but instead of just DEALING with the problem they DENY IT EVEN EXISTS

    Which seemed to suggest people denied that the problem exists.

    Combining those two suggestions, I pointed out that nobody denies that contrails exist. If the problem is simply contrails (your first suggestion), then nobody is suggesting they don’t exist. They are just not doing anything to stop contrails from forming, as that would cost money.

  79. GregOrca says:

    ” either way it shoudn’t be there and its causing an impact on our environment and upsetting many people”

    Michael, WHY shouldn’t it be there? Do you think the laws of physics should be changed somehow as a result of people not liking the natural results of such physical laws?
    Everything humans do causes an environmental impact.
    Have you considered not eating food?
    Growing food produces a considerable impact on the environment.
    So does shopping for food.
    I’m presently involved in a campaign involving shopping bags entering the marine environment and resulting in vast impacts on marine species.
    There is rock solid evidence for that environmental impact directly leading to death and reduction of marine species populations
    There is no such evidence for effects from contrails.

    I’m rather unhappy that I can’t flap my arms and fly. It has annoyed me most of my life and upsets me greatly. It shouldn’t be that way. It should be easy to fly if nature was fair to both birds and people.
    Instead we have to resort to SCIENCE and engineering in able to fly.
    Why should we have to rely on intelligence and understanding of complex physics to be able to design flying machines?
    Doesn’t that discriminate against people who don’t understand such complex subjects! How can that be right, for flight physics to be so discriminatory!

    Have you seen speed boats race about on the ocean and lakes and rivers? They leave those unsightly white wakes. It’s horrible. It’s visual pollution.
    Will you join me in a campaign to try to ban the white spray the govt is causing behind speed boats?
    It shouldn’t be there. Water is not white. Everyone knows its blue or clear.
    Ask your neighbour “Is water white?” They will probably say no. So the white wakes must be a chemical don’t you think?

    Or in the manner of a govt shill will you say: “but anyone who knows anything about boats knows such white trails behind speed boats is normal”

    People who know a lot about aviation know the white trails behind aircraft are normal too.
    People who DON’T know a lot about aviation sometimes think there is something unusual.

    You think airliners should change their flight altitude just because it upsets people when they leave contrails?
    Perhaps you would prefer them to fly at lower altitude so they encounter denser air and have vastly greater fuel consumption and encounter much greater turbulence?
    Just because YOU don’t like the look of the trails that other people have not worried about for 70 years, you think that pasengers should suffer through greater turbulence, jet fuel consumption should greatly increase and ticket prices should go up to accomodate the reduction in efficiency.
    Jet liners can’t fly much higher so the only direction they can go to accomodate your aesthetic whims is down into denser air.
    So 80,000 airliners per day full of passengers should become less efficient and less comfortable based on your personal distaste of the same kinds contrails that were around for decades.
    Can you suggest anything else the rest of the world needs to change based on your aesthetic concerns?

  80. GregOrca says:

    So whilst that post was deliberately provocative, many people will say that they have legitimate concerns about what the trails are out of a concern for the environment and they should be told in detail, there should be disclosure about the trails.

    The irony of such comments is that there has been over 70 years worth of public disclosure of what the trails are, in science journals, in films, in popular science magazines, in newspapers, on tv news, etc etc.
    The issue is not that there is no disclosure. The issue is that the documented reality is not what conspiracy theorists want to hear.

  81. Michael says:

    I dont recycle carrier bags i bring them home and use them as bin bags to avoid messing up the kitchen bin! hahaha.
    Speedboats… not even going there…its a completely different issue as are plastic bags or visual asthetics…. you are purposefully digressing. We are talking about PERSISTANT CONTRAILS AND/OR CHEMTRAILS depending on what you choose to believe they are. Passenger airliners very rarely leave persistant contrails usually they clear up in seconds or minutes. Other aircraft that people cannot or will not identify…most likely MILITARY aircraft are leaving persistant contrails in a manner and pattern that looks VERY PURPOSEFUL. It is belived by many..because of these observations that the contrails contain chemicals that are purposely put there.
    It is believed by me that you know fine well what they are up to and are here to attempt to diffuse or confuse the discussion. I have seen all your scientific reports and studies into cloud formation… and contrail formation. They tell me that sometimes persistant contrails can occur. But the environmental impact is being ignorred…because there really are also groups of people spraying our skies on a regular basis. The RAF in the UK are fully aware of it and do not keep information on their public files. So when people enquire they say we have noinformation regarding any spraying of any ‘noxious’chemicals. Using the word NOXIOUS carefully because they believe what they are spraying is not noxius.
    Get a grip and stop being a puppet man…

  82. JFDee says:

    “Passenger airliners very rarely leave persistant contrails usually they clear up in seconds or minutes”

    I’m afraid you are mistaken there. Formation of persistant contrails is possibe with all kinds of planes. It depends mainly on the local conditions. Even planes with piston engines can create them.

    If a contrail will dissolve quickly depends on the relative humidity of the air around it. Do clouds always dissipate quickly? They even grow if the conditions are right, don’t they?

    See this applet for a demonstration of different conditions:

    About “VERY PURPOSEFUL”: it would be really bad if the daily air traffic would not follow a purpose. There are veritable “streets” in the sky, preferred routes between destinations, complete with crossings.

    Now add a bit of wind which can be very strong and at the same time steady 36000 feet above. Then you get wonderful parallels and grids.


  83. michael says:

    You clearly refuse to understand and are trying to educate! Der!!!! Blind fool!! Normal passenger airines DO NOT take the paths we are whitnessing! Look man ive seen it all..read it all… i know they have to sometimes circle and wait to get called in to land etc… im really not interested. This is NOT what we are seeing. These planes are NOT carrying passengers .. you can track the passenger carrying planes and spot them because they fly SMOOTHLY! Passengers only wear seatbelts at takeoff or landing or in turbulence!!!! There would be cups of tea allover the place compensation claims the lot if there were passengers on the flights i see! Deeeer lol! Is this what you call a fuel dump? Because if it is i wanna know why the RAF and or whoever…are dumping so much fuel.. a training process is one thing but daily dumping is another. It aint a fuel dump and you know what it is….! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85gZrhI3v3s

  84. JFDee says:

    So maybe you have a video or a photo of the paths you are witnessing?

  85. JFDee says:

    About the video you linked: what do you think is unusual about it?

    I don’t think it is a fuel dump either. It looks like a fresh contrail on the track of an old one. Good persistent contrail conditions. Probably no cross wind, so the old trail was not blown to the side.

    This is rather a good example of the kind of “street” that I referred to.

    How do you know there are no commercial routes over your area?

  86. michael says:

    You are clearly insane. Look at the telegraph poles as a representation of ‘flat’… .. these planes are not taking off or landing… or full of passengers.. any passengers would of been thown about! I filmed it myself and saw the normal passenger airliners go past as this was happening, at the normal angles, on the normal flight paths with the normal contrails. For whatever reason this cloud was constructed.. you wanna call it a ‘pocket of air’ that was ideal to contrail formation… whatever….. the question remains is why were none passenger planes all flying into the same airspace at a crazy angle…. forming a cross that would be visible from satellite? Indeed it was visible 15 + miles away.

  87. JFDee says:

    I did not say the planes were landing or taking off. On the contrary, contrails form less often below the ususal travelling altitude.

    Why do you think this is no passenger plane? Where does it not fly smoothly? It’s clearly holding course very straight. The contrail gets a bit twisted behind, also nothing unusual there.

    About the cross: this is what I referred to in my post above. Nothing unusual or rare. Why should it be?

  88. JFDee says:

    Oh, and about the angle: it’s a matter of perspective. See the “UFO” and “rocket” contrail stories in this blog.

  89. michael says:

    it is flying at an angle ive heard of colour blind but not angle blind! The angle was greater than what one would expect at a take off or a landing. Passenger planes do not randomly pretend to land or take off???!!!

    ”Ladys and gentlemen could you please fasten your seatbelts and take up your brace position. Your pilot has spotted some ideal contrail formation conditions ahead and would just like to plummet a few hundred feet as though we were landing then sharply rise so that he can leave a big contrail right ontop of that old one, thankyou for flying easyjet!”

  90. michael says:

    the horisontal telegraph pole gives a perspective… and the fact that it was visible as a verticle cloud from my home gives it perspective.. stop clutching at straws man and get real.

  91. JFDee says:

    This plane is flying level as far as I can see. Why do you think it is climbing?

  92. JFDee says:

    If it flew right over your house and the contrail was visible long before, it looked indeed “vertical”.

    That is the effect which caused the “Los Angeles Missile” uproar and others:

  93. michael says:

    i did not say it flew over my house… read the words i have written, look at the telegraph pole… and stop linking me to texts that defend your lies! I KNOW THE CLOUD WAS VERTICLE because i was standing on flat ground and could see it .. and other aircraft flying around you fool!

  94. JFDee says:

    Don’t believe me – ask the web. Google for “vertical contrails”.

  95. michael says:

    it was a cross…. one going from left to right was horizontal .. the other was verticle. Full stop period. The Lord rebuke you.

  96. JFDee says:

    Did you see a religious meaning in this cross?

  97. GregOrca says:

    Michael, look at this mysterious image:

    It shows the path taken by mysterious unmarked unseen high speed vehicles at low level. Notice the inexplicable X formation.
    Such a formation cannot be natural. Notice the other mysterious grid lines nearby parallel to the main lines.
    Surely there must be some hidden meaning to such geometric features, X marking the spot for military satellites for instance.

    Why do you think the mysterious white trails behind speed boats is a different issue?
    What could be the purpose of those boat trails? They are so glaringly obvious and not something seen in nature. They must be deliberate.
    You do not see such white trails behind fish or ducks.
    On busy waterways they are seen forming X shapes, grids, circles, zig zags,’Surely these symbols have a special meaning or are marking locations on teh sea to be spotted by satelites.
    Such satellites can apparently see numberplates from space so spotting such large white symbols on water is well within their capability.

    You say passenger aircraft cannot be flying the paths you see or people would spill their tea.
    Have you ever been on a passenger jet?
    It would be interesting to know how much travel you have actually done in passenger jets.
    There are effectively no lateral g forces in an aircraft. This is something not understood by landlubbers unfamiliar with flying who base their preconceptions on cars cornering.
    Aircraft seats require no side support the way car seats do
    Planes bank in turns which means all cornering forces are vertically downwards relative to the passengers, which means that even a tall glass of champaign will not spill or tilt, even if the plane is at 45degrees or more to the horizontal in a steep turn.

    Even when doing a complete aerobatic barrel roll tea or drink will not spill.
    I’m sorry, but your comment just indicates you are unfamiliar with fundamental aviation physics.

    If you have had the experience of travelling on a high speed banking train such as japan’s Shinkansen you will be familiar with the fact that some of the dining cars feature tall champagne glasses and that even when high speed cornering the level of liquid in the glasses does not move. This is because the trains also bank like aircraft and within cabins, the gforces are directed down through the floor rather than sideways.

    The trails planes leave in the sky look purposeful because the planes DO have a purpose.
    Their purpose is to fly people to different destinations .
    Some people wish to fly in a northerly direction. Some south. Some wish to travel easterly or westerly.
    It is confusing to some people that those travelling north south often intersect paths with those traveling east west or other compass points.
    When these paths cross they are known as “intersections”.
    There are vast numbers of these intersections because there are vast numbers of airports around the world in different geographical positions.
    Planes have a very neat trick. When they meet at an intersection, they do not need to wait at traffic lights or enter round-abouts as featured above.
    Instead they have the ability to travel at different altitudes so that they do not crash at these intersections.
    Engineers cleverly fit them with wings for this exact purpose.

    This ability of aircraft to fly at different altitudes seems to be a not very well understood concept amongst many chemtrail believers. They so often wonder why aircraft in a similar part of the sky have different contrails and assume that aircraft must travel at the exact same level the ways cars do.
    Not so. Best to keep those clever wings in mind.

    Passenger planes DO regularly leave long lasting persistent contrails.
    Your claim as noted by JFdee above is simply not true.

    Chemtrail believers regularly make the claim that it is impossible for ice crystals to last longer than a few seconds in the atmosphere.
    I hate to deflate your heartfelt belief in this matter but whole economies are built on the fact that ice crystals can last a very long time within earth’s atmosphere.
    You may be familiar with the phenomenon know as snow.
    Snow are water ice crystals. Their appearance is not rare, uncommon, unusual nor suspicious.
    These atmospheric ice crystals can persist considerably longer than a few seconds to a minute.
    Your claim does not seem to be based on any scientific fact.
    You seem to have adopted your claim from people who have no understanding of atmospheric science yet publish such claims with no citation on the internet..
    If you disagree would you like to cite an atmospheric science paper that supports your claim that contrails can only last a few seconds?
    There are over 70 years worth of atmospheric science documents on aviation and contrail formation to choose from.
    That should give you plenty of scope to find a single paper that supports your claim.

  98. michael says:

    very impressive how that works but i am absolutley 100% certain that if i had a hot cup of tea on my table as a flight lands or takes off…. it would spill all over the place! And you know it would too! Now stop complicating a very simple issue! The only way you can disprove chemspray is to identify each of the aircraft take me to their landing spot and allow me to inspect them! But you or no one else can or will do this because you know the crack! The aircraft will not identify themselves or be tracked.

    The other possibility of course is that we have a bunch of rich kids flying about for fun in whatever flight pattern they choose…. spending thousands of pounds on pleasure aviation and doing what they like when they like wherever they like…. winding up many… and that air traffic control have no idea who they are and no control over them. This adds up too.

    Either way…… aircraft emissions are turning blue skies white at worst… or creating a thin visible ‘film’ on at least 35% of blue clear sunny days here in the uk. This the FACT THAT it is affecting our skies.. and the amount of UV we get. Lack of UV means lack of vitamin D means decreased calcium utilisation increased flouride adsorbtion increased health problems premature puberty for children dietry problems behavioural problems depression reduced immunity poor sleep.. etc etc etc…

    All we have to do to prevent this.. IF ITS JUST CONTRAILS…. is lift or drop the flight patterns where persistant contrails become a risk. But nope.. if it costs a few quid more in fuel bills….. cant be done…well piolots deserve to be on 200k + salaries whilst the rest of the human species earns 7 to 20k??? Bullshit its all bullshit. The fact is the elite.. SUCH AS PILOTS couldnt give a TOSS about ordinary folk. Sickness is BIG MONEY BIG BUISINESS not one human being needs 100k a year to live on but our country and ALL countries are RUN by people who wouldnt even get out of BED for less than 1k! Bill gates n co run this emmissions thing.. they are behind the HAARP weather mods programme that has been used worldwide for years now and thats why they need particulate matter in the atmosphere. The food we eat has BEEN genetically changed to surivive in a MAN changed world…we need to SUPPLIMENT our diets or get sick! Meanwhile all of the original seeds are kept away in storage…. i wonder why. The wheat you eat is not what your grandfather ate… the water is different… and the air is different. I do not need to prove it scientists are proving it worldwide. You just say.. theres no proof that it comes from aircraft.

    We have had NO SNOW in the uk this year.. very minimal. Why.. because the powers that be are monitoring the air all of the time… watching the rivers of ice flowing around… and applying radiowaves to air suspended metal particles in the athmosphere as and when nessecary. This creates a minor temperature increase.. which in turn lifts water vapour.
    EVERY time it has been very cold at ground level… its been DRY. And CLEAR. Every time its been warm at ground level.. its been wet. Weather by design. Not co incidence. Red sky almost every night these days. Never used to be this way.

  99. captfitch says:

    I wish i made 200+ salaries. More misconceptions.

Comments are closed.