PDA

View Full Version : The Deafening Silence on the Chemtrail Phenomenon



Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 05:22 PM
Greetings !

As a reasonably well educated sort of person I started taking notes around a year ago on the subject of Chemtrails. That is, on the idea that aircraft are systematically and regularly dropping chemicals on populated areas of the world. (I'm sure you know the story).

Now, I'm aware that there are thousands of video clips of these on Youtube and elsewhere. And I'm also aware that they go unacknowledged in the mass media. In fact, here in the UK I recently made the special effort of contacting the largest charitable organisations who deal with ecological and nature issues to ask their own views of this phenomenon. I was surprised to discover that they had nothing to say on the subject. (Organisations like Greenpeace, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and so on).

So I submit to the expert members of this forum the following.

1. A QUESTION - Can any person seriously show us from science (any science) how 'contrails' can account for the following two video clips -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x8-2TAHXfU

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4R-lnfsveI

And finally, (3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-afMDA4iwYA

Now, I realise there are guys out there who get their mortgages paid for denying that chemtrails are a plain fact of modern times. And who keep telling us they are 'contrails'. Any chance we can see the science to support the 'contrail' interpretation of the above clips ?

You see, I think that avoiding this issue is ridiculous. That people all over Europe are really alarmed at this relentless spraying of landmasses with no acknowledgement of it taking place almost daily.

I live near London and have watched them being formed deliberately by several planes criss-crossing each other. Many times. With witnesses. I have even filmed them, photographed them, and there is no reasonable doubt about their activity.

So, please, can you finally acknowledge the existence of massive project to spray the landmasses of populated areas ?

Thank You

tusenfem
2009-Aug-28, 05:40 PM
I for one am not convinced by those youtubes that these are chemtrails (cannot understand a word of the second one).

Living near London, with like, 4 airports around it, I would be surprised not to see a criss cross of contrails over the city.

You need to come up with better evidence. And the statement that "people all over Europe are alarmed" is highly exaggerated. If I would ask my next door neighbour what a chemtrail is (s)he would look at me with a big question mark on his/her face.


Also, I am moving this to CT, where it belongs.

BertL
2009-Aug-28, 05:45 PM
Now, I realise there are guys out there who get their mortgages paid for denying that chemtrails are a plain fact of modern times. And who keep telling us they are 'contrails'.
Is this kind of slandering even allowed on BAUT?

nomuse
2009-Aug-28, 05:53 PM
This is not astronomy. At least throw in something about how chemtrails are part of the plot to hide the fact that the sun turned white, or to hide PX from view (but on the latter, there are already extant threads).

aurora
2009-Aug-28, 05:55 PM
If I was going to spray something, and wanted it to affect the ground, I don't think I would spray it at 35,000 feet and have it drift thousands of miles before whatever it was settled out of the atmosphere.

That is why agricultural spraying occurs very near the target field.

You'll find that the reason various organizations ignore the issue is that it is pretty silly.

Argos
2009-Aug-28, 05:55 PM
Sorry, Beethoven, but I´m quite sure that there are more people bringing home their pay from planting alarmist claims on the media.

I wouldn´t contact Eco NGO´s for info, since they´re interested parties, and generally tend to the alarmist side. They are not the best sources of knowledgeable info, and they´re not independent. Contact your local university physics department instead.

Swift
2009-Aug-28, 05:57 PM
Beethoven,

First, welcome to BAUT.

Second, the topic has not been ignored around here. Here (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/17557-help-me-debunk-chemtrails-belivers.html), for one, is a huge thread about the topic.

Third, if there was a "massive project to spray the landmasses of populated areas", how is it being done? Who is making all these chemicals? Where are the planes, with the tanks of these chemicals? Who is loading it on to all these planes and flying it? And how come out of all these hundreds or thousands of people, none of them is talking about it, whereas every minor celebrity and political scandal is splashed around the press immediately?

Contrails, on the other hand, are a very well know phenomenon, are well explained by our knowledge of the atmosphere, and have been observed for as long as planes have flown that high (at least as far back as WWII). There is no mystery about them and that's why organizations are uninterested.

Lastly, and I'll put on my moderator hat for this one, I strongly urge you to read the rules (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html#post564845) and the Advice for Conspiracy Theory (CT) supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/86593-advice-conspiracy-theory-supporters.html). One of the aspects of them is that it is up to you to defend the CT, it is not up to us to disprove it (though we may volunteer to do so). It is also up to you to answer questions put to you.

Swift
2009-Aug-28, 06:01 PM
This is not astronomy. At least throw in something about how chemtrails are part of the plot to hide the fact that the sun turned white, or to hide PX from view (but on the latter, there are already extant threads).
Because of its connections to atmospheric chemistry and aeronautics, we have allowed Chemtrails in the CT forum.


Originally Posted by Beethoven
Now, I realise there are guys out there who get their mortgages paid for denying that chemtrails are a plain fact of modern times. And who keep telling us they are 'contrails'.Is this kind of slandering even allowed on BAUT?
Given that it was phrased "there are guys", and not "you guys", I'll assume it was not aimed at the members of BAUT. Let's let it go for now.

I do remind everyone to keep it polite.

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 06:02 PM
So, what IS the science which explains these plane trails as 'contrails' ?

I have many video clips of these being formed in a clear blue sky with the sun shining. Now, tell me this is a 'conspiracy theory' when, we see, nobody can tell us the science for them being a 'con trail' ?

Reasonable question, yes ? Here are the clips again -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-afMDA4iwYA

And here are images of the INSIDE of one of the planes who are spraying this stuff -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4R-lnfsveI

Seems like it's time to defend the contrails interpretation, right ?

:lol:

slang
2009-Aug-28, 06:02 PM
First video: interaction between two layers of air with different temperature and/or humidity. You don't expect the air to be a nice smooth bunch of gas, do you? You need only experience some buffeting or worse turbulence in an airplane once to know better.

Second video: glanced over it, it shows the inside of an airliner, rigged for testing. There's a thread on it here on BAUT.

Third: only bothered to watch the start, it shows several contrails. Some seemingly from airliners, and one that I thought to be a pair of fighters. These kinds of images are normal if you live in an area with an air corridor overhead.

Beethoven, these descriptions are not really meant for you, because I expect you'll just shrug them off. They may however save others a few valuable minutes of their lives.

Swift
2009-Aug-28, 06:09 PM
Here (http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/) is a huge NASA website on the science of contrails.

This is from the history page

Q: When were the earliest contrails observed?

A: The first published reports of contrails appeared during and shortly after World War I when aircraft were finally able to reach the altitudes required for contrail formation. An early example of contrail formation was observed during the flights of the pilot Zeno Diemer in 1919, when he reached altitudes as high as 30,500 ft above Munich, Germany.


And here is the beginning of the contrail science page

What are contrails?
Contrails are clouds formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) that exist in aircraft exhaust. Some of that water vapor comes from the air around the plane; and, some is added by the exhaust of the aircraft.
The exhaust of an aircraft contains both gas (vapor) and solid particles. Both of these are important in the formation of contrails. Some elements of the exhaust gasses are not involved in contrail formation but do constitute air pollution. Emissions include carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons such as methane, sulfates (SOx), and soot and metal particles.


And from the FAQs

Q: Where do contrails form?
A: Contrails are human-induced clouds that usually form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km - about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40ºC). Because of this, contrails form not when an airplane is taking off or landing, but while it is at cruise altitude. (Exceptions occur in places like Alaska and Canada, where very cold air is sometimes found near the ground.) Thus, people who live under major air traffic routes, not people who live near major airports, are those who will see the most contrails. (However, some major airports are also under major air traffic routes, which can lead to confusion.) You can use an Appleman chart to predict contrail formation for your area. Of course, a contrail cannot form if no airplane passes through.

peteshimmon
2009-Aug-28, 06:17 PM
You should concentrate on what they are known
to drop over us. Icebombs are the occasional
hazard that appears in the local press the
World over. No one killed so far touch wood.
And when the on board septic tank gets too
full (a particularly beery crowd say) then
the overflow is not into the bilges of the
aircraft. Oh dear no! The trails probably have
a trace of lubrication oil vapour included
but the passengers on the plane will get a
much higher concentration if the air intake
through the jet engines is badly maintained.

The septic tanks include powerful disinfectants
these days. A few decades ago it was
noticed that cholera cases were arising in
places under air routes.

No need to speculate about unknown stuff,
what we do know is disconcerting enough.

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 06:31 PM
So, what IS the science which explains these plane trails as 'contrails' ?

As Swift posted, with a simple search the information on the science involved is available.


Seems like it's time to defend the contrails interpretation, right ?

No need to "defend" a known scientific phenomena...

The onus is on you...please present evidence for the existance of chemtrails.

grant hutchison
2009-Aug-28, 06:31 PM
First video: interaction between two layers of air with different temperature and/or humidity.Specifically, those are roll clouds, like the famous Morning Glory clouds (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090824.html). So, yes indeed, not contrails.

Grant Hutchison

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 06:35 PM
Well, let's get this issue sorted out once and for all. I have just posted (twice) images of a plane with spray tanks inside the plane.

Secondly, the planes spraying this stuff over large parts of the world daily are NOT passenger airliners (at least, not the visible stuff). They are small to medium sized private jet planes.

Thirdly, they are not at an altitude of 35,000 feet. They are far lower. And they can be seen (as anyone can see) above urban areas deliberately criss-crossing with their trails often in the sky for an hour and more.

Entire websites exist on this phenomenon. So let's not go round and round in circles. Can anyone show us the SCIENCE to support the view these are contrails of jets ? I have been studying this subject for over a year. These cannot be contrails. A contrail disappears within a minute or so at most. These are light material in solution which often remain in the air for over an hour. As already said. They are not contrails. They are material being ejected out of small to medium sized jet planes above rural areas all over the world.

The flight paths taken by these aircraft have nothing to do with airports. They are deliberately planned to release material systematically to fall above areas of the map. Often criss-crossing each other. As every person who has studied this subject can see.

So, again, what is the SCIENCE that proves these are normal contrails ? I have asked this question many times already on various websites and still nobody can answer it.

The answer must surely be these are NOT contrails. They are material being dropped in suspension. Light material. Which falls, eventually to the ground. As is today recognised in the USA, Europe, Australia, and many, many other parts of the world. In fact, the patterns they make have often been photographed by satellites and there are many, many such images.

These are not normal flights. They are deliberate acts of bombarding the urban areas with material. This been suppressed, fudged, avoided by government national and local. In Germany scientists themselves have been protesting against this for years. The same in the USA.

tofu
2009-Aug-28, 06:40 PM
So, what IS the science which explains these plane trails as 'contrails' ?

water vapor from hot engines comes into contact with cold air at a pressure that puts it past the saturation point. The result is condensation.

Any questions?


And here are images of the INSIDE of one of the planes who are spraying this stuff

False! That photo was taken inside a Boeing 777 during FAA certification. Here's an article about it. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/commercial_aviation/ThingsWithWings/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3A670595a5-1834-4307-a3f8-7e3149056986) You want the airplanes you fly in to be safe, right? You want an airplane to continue to fly and be stable even if 11 people go to the lavatory at the back of the aircraft all at the same time, right? Well, how do you propose to test that? The answer is, you put tanks of water in the plane, and then you can pump them around to simulate different load conditions.

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 06:40 PM
As Swift posted, with a simple search the information on the science involved is available.



No need to "defend" a known scientific phenomena...

The onus is on you...please present evidence for the existance of chemtrails.


So, RAF, you want to treat the general public as if they are plain stupid, don't you ? You want to say the onus is on them to prove they are not contrails ? I have already asked anyone here to show us the physics of contrails at low altitude on a warm day at speeds not in excess of 300 knots. Because jets do not fly above that speed at low altitude, as every pilot knows.

So, again, what about the images I have posted of spray tanks inside these planes ?

Or shall we keep going round and round in circles ?

Thank You

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 06:47 PM
water vapor from hot engines comes into contact with cold air at a pressure that puts it past the saturation point. The result is condensation.

Any questions?



False! That photo was taken inside a Boeing 777 during FAA certification. Here's an article about it. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/commercial_aviation/ThingsWithWings/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3A670595a5-1834-4307-a3f8-7e3149056986) You want the airplanes you fly in to be safe, right? You want an airplane to continue to fly and be stable even if 11 people go to the lavatory at the back of the aircraft all at the same time, right? Well, how do you propose to test that? The answer is, you put tanks of water in the plane, and then you can pump them around to simulate different load conditions.

You ask if I have any questions. Yes, when will you explain how the 'contrails' of low altitude jets (none of them commercial) are made in grids above populated areas which stay in the sky for over an hour on bright, sunny, warm days ? Your 'explanation' is no explanation at all. These are deliberate acts of contamination. And more and more people are seeing that they are not being explained. With ten thousand video clips of them now available worldwide and nothing but circular arguments.

These are not water condensation from high flying fast jets because contrails disappear with seconds of formation.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-28, 06:53 PM
Why are chemtrail claims only backed up with pictures?
Why is all the chemical they are spraying unknown?

If there was even any hint that these trails have anything to do with chemicals, especially in the numbers that they are being presented, then why doesn't somebody take samples and test it?

Or do they just find water vapor and traces of burnt hydrocarbons?

And why would they do it in the daytime?

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 06:55 PM
So, RAF, you want to treat the general public as if they are plain stupid, don't you ?

Where did I say that? If you expect to be taken seriously here, then don't misrepresent what other posters say.


You want to say the onus is on them to prove they are not contrails ?

The idea of chemtrails IS an extraordinary idea therefore YES...it is up to the believers in chemtrails to demonstrate that chemtrails exist.


I have already asked anyone here to show us the physics of contrails at low altitude on a warm day at speeds not in excess of 300 knots. Because jets do not fly above that speed at low altitude, as every pilot knows.

No...you didn't specify low altitude, warm (what is "warm") days, or speeds lower than 300 knots...so it is disingenous to say that you've "already asked".


Or shall we keep going round and round in circles ?

Oh, i doubt this thread will last that long.

Gillianren
2009-Aug-28, 06:57 PM
So, again, what about the images I have posted of spray tanks inside these planes ?

Or shall we keep going round and round in circles ?

Well, it would help if you'd actually read what's already been written. Since there is an abundance of evidence that you are wrong, it would help if you were able to demonstrate that you are not.

tofu
2009-Aug-28, 06:58 PM
So, RAF, you want to treat the general public as if they are plain stupid, don't you ?

Perhaps 1% of people believe that contrails are chemtrails. That 1% of people tells the other 99% that they are just plain stupid for refusing to believe. So I would argue that it's you who treat the general public as if they are stupid.


You want to say the onus is on them to prove they are not contrails ?

Here's the deal: I have photographic evidence of contrails from decades ago. You chemtrail guys come along decades later and say, "those things you've been looking at all this time are not actually what you think they are."

Yes, I do require you to prove it. The default hypothesis, established over decades of high-altitude air travel, is that contrails are condensation trails. If you challenge that default hypothesis, then yeah, the onus is on you to prove it.



Or shall we keep going round and round in circles ?

Oh we will. I'm going to ask you to correlate a particular contrail sighting with a specific aircraft type and flight number, and you're going to ignore me or tell me that's not possible. You're going to keep repeating your claims even after they've been answered. When people ask you what purpose there would be in spraying chemicals that just hang in the air, you're going to ignore them. You're going to pretend that photos of contrails from WWII don't exist.

I'm absolutely positive that we will be going round and round in circles.

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 06:58 PM
These are deliberate acts of contamination.

"Contamination" with what???

Tell us all what chemical is being used to "contaminate" us.

djellison
2009-Aug-28, 06:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x8-2TAHXfU


That is called 'Wave' - it's a well documented and well USED meteo phenomenon familiar to many glider pilots.



2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4R-lnfsveI


Not sure what's going on there but it looks very similar to the sort of equipment that I saw inside the first Airbus A380 used to emulate the mass loading of the interior by pumping fluid around.



And finally, (3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-afMDA4iwYA



Looks like normal contrails to me. How or why are these any different to contrails, exactly.

Also - please provide your single best piece of evidence that people are having their mortgages paid to deny chemtrails.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-28, 07:05 PM
So, please, can you finally acknowledge the existence of massive project to spray the landmasses of populated areas ?
Why would you think anyone on this board would even know about a conspiracy if these things are held in such secrecy?

Or are you just poking around message boards trying to find that random government coverup artist that is going to make the mistake of saying something?

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-28, 07:08 PM
In fact, here in the UK I recently made the special effort of contacting the largest charitable organisations who deal with ecological and nature issues to ask their own views of this phenomenon. I was surprised to discover that they had nothing to say on the subject. (Organisations like Greenpeace, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and so on).
So; what does that tell you?

tofu
2009-Aug-28, 07:14 PM
Yes, when will you explain how the 'contrails' of low altitude jets

What low altitude contrails? Got any proof?


(none of them commercial)

The majority of aircraft that I've seen leaving contrails are commercial. Tell me Beethoven, do you even own a pair of binoculars? Can you tell the different between an A330 and a 767? Do you really have any clue at all what you're seeing when you look up into the sky? Or do you just see a little dot and a contrail and jump to the conspiracy conclusion?


These are deliberate acts of contamination.

Earlier, you asked if we were going to go around and around. Well, here's where we start. I'm going to ask you what you mean by "contamination" and you're going to ignore me or give a non-answer.

Count Zero
2009-Aug-28, 07:14 PM
"The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance caused by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formations of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside."

-- Flight to Arras, by Antoine de Saint-Exupery. c. 1942

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 07:26 PM
...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x8-2TAHXfU

You seem to want to corral the answers into the maxim, "Skeptics say all chemtrails are really contrails." The goal is not to explain chemtrails in terms of contrails regardless, but to explain the observation by the most parsimonious means. The features in question are not observably being emitted by any aircraft, so to require them to be explained as contrails in this case is arbitrarily restrictive. These we might seek to explain according to meteorological principles. There is certainly no evidence in this video to suggest the clouds we see were deposited by some aircraft intending to deploy a chemical widely.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4R-lnfsveI

There is already a thread somewhere at BAUT to discuss this photograph.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-afMDA4iwYA

I fail to see anything in this video that cannot be explain in terms of contrails.

Now, I realise there are guys out there who get their mortgages paid for denying that chemtrails are a plain fact of modern times.

I certainly haven't met any, and that's certainly not the reason I dispute the "chemtrail" explanation for this and related phenomena. You should focus on the criticism you can't explain away by alleging ulterior motives for having made it.

You see, I think that avoiding this issue is ridiculous.

Asking for proof that exceeds wild handwaving claims is not an evasion, nor is it ridiculous.

So, please, can you finally acknowledge the existence of massive project to spray the landmasses of populated areas ?

When there is evidence that is best explained by that hypothesis, then it will be acknowledged. You won't win any points here by suggesting that everyone already "knows" that things are really happening as you suggest they are. Claiming your critics are insincere is a weak argument.

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 07:31 PM
THREE PLAIN FACTS

1. There are entire websites on the Chemtrail phenomenon. In Germany, the USA, the UK, all over Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.

2. Day after day commercial jet planes at LOW altitude (i.e. below the height of commercial airliners and plainly visible to an observer at ground level) criss-cross the sky above urban areas leaving trails which remain in the sky for over an hour. These planes are NOT travelling at high altitude. Nor are they flying about 300 knots. They often form grids when there are several making these trails. These are NOT contrails. There are NUMEROUS examples of chemical analysis of the material that has been picked up after this material fell to ground level.

Now, can anyone here provide us with the physics of contrail formation in summer at low altitude at speed below 300 knots ? Because these aircraft are not flying above that speed.

And can anyone show us a jet plane at low altitude on a warm, cloudless day making contrails that remain in the sky for over an hour ? If not, I must conclude that you guys are living in denial of a fact known to the vast majority of people who have eyes in their head.

Thanks

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 07:32 PM
...

So, RAF, you want to treat the general public as if they are plain stupid, don't you?

I don't see where he did this. Why do you seem so eager to take offense?

You want to say the onus is on them to prove they are not contrails?

If you claim these are deliberate acts of contamination, then yes you bear the onus to prove that. You seem to want to shift that burden of proof onto others by insisting they form an affirmative rebuttal in favor of contrails.

I have already asked anyone here to show us the physics of contrails at low altitude on a warm day at speeds not in excess of 300 knots.

Why do you think these conditions do not allow contrails?

So, again, what about the images I have posted of spray tanks inside these planes ?

It was discussed at length some time ago on this board. Please search for "chemtrails" and see how this topic has been extensively covered. Since a discussion already exists here, and you have not availed yourself of it, you are the one going round in circles.

...contrails disappear with seconds of formation.

I have observed this not to be the case.

Nommos Prime (Dogon)
2009-Aug-28, 07:37 PM
Well, they certainly had a chemical "delivery system" way back in the 1960s s ...
Here is a USAF Plane over Australia

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 07:37 PM
...

There are entire websites on the Chemtrail phenomenon.

The publication of claims does not establish that the claims are true. There are web sites alleging a great number of things.

These are NOT contrails.

You seem to have a very narrow interpretation of the conditions in which contrails can form.

There are NUMEROUS examples of chemical analysis of the material that has been picked up after this material fell to ground level.

Such as?

Now, can anyone here provide us with the physics of contrail formation in summer at low altitude at speed below 300 knots?

I fail to see how the aircraft speed matters. Altitude matters only where it is a rough determiner of other more direct effects such as pressure, temperature, and humidity. Absolute temperature does not matter as much as temperature relative to the dewpoint at the selected altitude.

If not, I must conclude that you guys are living in denial of a fact known to the vast majority of people who have eyes in their head.

Accusing people who disbelieve your assertions, saying that they are closed-minded or in denial is not a substitute for establishing a case for your beliefs. You have simply made a straw-man case for dismissing ordinary phenomena.

captain swoop
2009-Aug-28, 07:38 PM
Beethoven, when have you seen a jet flying at 'low altitude' (Please tell us what low altitude means) and at less than 300 kts(please tell us how you decided this speed)

There are lots of photographs of contrails over london from WW2 and the Battle of Britain. On the ground all the population could see of the battle going on over their heads was the swiling, looping contrails.

When I lived in London (for over 16 years) all I saw flying 'low' were aircraft inblound to Heathrow or coming in and out of Dockland Airport. I lived in greenwich and worked in Islington and Soho so I think I have a good handle on this.

Contrails were from high flying aircraft.

tofu
2009-Aug-28, 07:39 PM
1. There are entire websites on the Chemtrail phenomenon.

LOL! Seriously?


2. Day after day commercial jet planes

Wait. A minute ago you said they were non commercial. I'll assume the quote above is a typo and that you're still suggesting these aircraft are not commercial airliners.

You're wrong. They are, for the most part, commercial jets. If you happen to live near a military installation, then you might see 20% of the heavy traffic is military. Your problem is, you don't own a pair of binoculars. You don't bother to look at these aircraft. You just assume.


at LOW altitude

I don't think so.


And can anyone show us a jet plane at low altitude on a warm, cloudless day making contrails

Can you show us a jet plane at low altitude making chemtrails?

Argos
2009-Aug-28, 07:44 PM
Beethoven, lets reduce it to the absurd for a while: assuming that chemicals are being spread in the atmosphere to contaminate populations, who, in your opinion, would benefit with that? The powers-that-be? What´s the use of contaminating, crippling, disabling, the work force and the customer market?

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 07:47 PM
Beethoven, when have you seen a jet flying at 'low altitude' (Please tell us what low altitude means) and at less than 300 kts(please tell us how you decided this speed)

There are lots of photographs of contrails over london from WW2 and the Battle of Britain. On the ground all the population could see of the battle going on over their heads was the swiling, looping contrails.

When I lived in London (for over 16 years) all I saw flying 'low' were aircraft inblound to Heathrow or coming in and out of Dockland Airport. I lived in greenwich and worked in Islington and Soho so I think I have a good handle on this.

Contrails were from high flying aircraft.

Captain Swoop,

You have seen many images of aircraft leaving criss-crossed trails in the sky above areas which are densely populated. You are aware that jet planes do not fly above 300 knots at low altitude (i.e. below around 10,000 feet). In fact, commercial jet airliners fligh much higher, around 30,000 feet.

My question is this - how do you explain that jet planes (not commercial ones) are often seen above London and other big cities at far lower altitude, travelling less than 300 knots, even on days which are cloudless and in good weather, which leave behind in the sky for over an hour trails ? These are not, cannot be 'contrails' and I ask anyone to show us a contrail which can be formed at these altitudes and those conditions.

It cannot be done. These are not contrails. They are something else. They are material being deliberately pumped out of these planes which slowly descends to the ground. And it is going on daily, worldwide. So says the evidence beyond all fair and reasonable doubt.

Thanks

slang
2009-Aug-28, 07:51 PM
You are aware that jet planes do not fly above 300 knots at low altitude (i.e. below around 10,000 feet). In fact, commercial jet airliners fligh much higher, around 30,000 feet.

Beethoven, how do commercial jet airliners get to 30,000 feet? And back down?

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 07:54 PM
They are material being deliberately pumped out of these planes which slowly descends to the ground. And it is going on daily, worldwide. So says the evidence beyond all fair and reasonable doubt.

If that be so, WHAT CHEMICAL is being used??

This is my 2nd attempt at a direct question.

Argos
2009-Aug-28, 07:54 PM
^^
Maybe Beethoven is unaware that he/she is required to answer direct questions in this section.

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 07:54 PM
Beethoven, lets reduce it to the absurd for a while: assuming that chemicals are being spread in the atmosphere to contaminate populations, who, in your opinion, would benefit with that? The powers-that-be? What´s the use of contaminating, crippling, disabling, the work force and the customer market?


Argos,

Let's deal with the facts. It's an acknowledged fact (admitted by the British Ministry of Defence) that in the 1950's and 1960's they released trials of chemicals in the air above parts of the UK. That's not a conspiracy theory but an admitted fact. It was published in UK newspapers when the news was finally released (owing to the Freedom of Information legislation here in the UK).

In the USA, to date, literally hundreds of attempts have been made to get the US government to admit that these chemtrails ARE being formed above many areas of the country. To date, without success. Despite thousands and thousands of video films, photographs etc. I dare to say you yourself must have seen examples yourself.

Now, that leaves us two options. Either these trails (which often criss-cross each other at low altitude, even in good weather and which are formed by non-commercial flights) are contrails, or they are not. It seems to me that until people can show us they are contrails there are fair and reasonable grounds for saying this is material being systematically and deliberately dropped on the ground by organisations which are contractors to the governments for reasons which, at this time, are unknown to us.

I do not say they are toxic materials. They may be. But that is not the issue. The question is whether there is a phenomenon worthy of us being aware of and whether we can get to the truth of it. Because one thing is sure, to date, the politicians are not talking. Nor are those who claim to be interested in the ecology and natural history of this Earth.

I am saying that these flights are sinister, unaccountable and unexplained and that it's time ordinary people got explanations for what is going on.

Regards

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 07:57 PM
...

You have seen many images of aircraft leaving criss-crossed trails in the sky above areas which are densely populated.

Is it no wonder that densely-populated areas would require the services of aircraft more than a rural environment?

In fact, commercial jet airliners fligh much higher, around 30,000 feet.

Commercial jets that are landing at or taking off from airports fly at low altitude over populated areas.

how do you explain that jet planes (not commercial ones) are often seen above London and other big cities at far lower altitude...

Having spent too short a time in London to comment on this, I leave that to others to answer.

However, as an inhabitant of "another" big city, and having my office under the approach pattern to my airport (a major hub for Delta Air Lines) I can comment there. The vast majority of the traffic there is commercial, despite the fact that an entire air refueling wing of the Utah Air National Guard is stationed there, that there is another airport within ten miles that bases the F-16s of the Utah ANG, and that 30 miles to the north is a major U.S. Air Force base.

They fly at low altitude in this case because they are either landing or taking off. There is, nevertheless, high-altitude traffic over my part of the country.

...travelling less than 300 knots

Approach speeds for such aircraft are routinely less than 300 kts. I struggle to determine why you believe aircraft speed applies so strongly to whether a contrail is produced.

...even on days which are cloudless and in good weather

Why do these factors necessarily determine whether a contrail will form?

which leave behind in the sky for over an hour trails ?

It is unclear why you believe that contrails cannot persist for more than a few seconds. It is unclear how you are able to determine that these durable contrails must have been formed by low-altitude, low-speed traffic.

So says the evidence beyond all fair and reasonable doubt.

I see a great deal of reasonable doubt expressed here and elsewhere.

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 07:58 PM
If that be so, WHAT CHEMICAL is being used??

This is my 2nd attempt at a direct question.

I do not know. But one thing I do know. It's not water. It cannot be water. This is material in solution, in suspension. It often remains in the air for over an hour. It is dropped at quite low altitude from non-commercial flights. These are not, cannot be, contrails and I ask anyone, any pilot, to produce a contrail at such atitudes which will stay in the air for an hour on a clear, sunny day from such altitudes. To date, nobody can show a single example. And yet there thousands of such examples with THIS phenomenon.

On these grounds alone there are good reasons to ask 'WHAT is going on' in the skies above us ?

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 07:58 PM
^^
Maybe Beethoven is unaware that he/she is required to answer direct questions in this section.

...assuming he hadn't read the board rules...

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 08:01 PM
It's not water. It cannot be water. This is material in solution, in suspension.

Speculation noted...now prove it.

If you cannot provide evidence for this "material", then the rules of this board require that you withdraw our claim.

Argos
2009-Aug-28, 08:04 PM
I fail to see why would a government contaminate its own population and/or allow third parties to do so. I´d really like to know Beethoven´s opinion about it, since this argument is key to the discussion.

tofu
2009-Aug-28, 08:07 PM
I know it's early in the thread. I just want to do a quick check on my score:

Prediction:

I'm going to ask you to correlate a particular contrail sighting with a specific aircraft type and flight number, and you're going to ignore me

Outcome: So far it's true. All he has said is that the aircraft are "not commercial" He can't point to one and say, "on this date and time I saw this aircraft type"

Prediction:

You're going to keep repeating your claims even after they've been answered.

Outcome: So far it's true. He says that there are aircraft at low altitude and under 300kts. Multiple people ask for evidence, they ask how he knows they are under 300kts. All he does in response is to repeat the claim.

Prediction:

When people ask you what purpose there would be in spraying chemicals that just hang in the air, you're going to ignore them.

Outcome: True so far. Several people have asked this question. They've all been ignored.

Prediction:

You're going to pretend that photos of contrails from WWII don't exist.

Outcome: True so far. A couple of people have made reference to WWII - someone posted a quote from a bomber pilot. He's ignored them.

So far, Bethoven is right on track. Keep up the good work dude!

Swift
2009-Aug-28, 08:10 PM
These cannot be contrails. A contrail disappears within a minute or so at most. These are light material in solution which often remain in the air for over an hour.
From the NASA site I already linked to..

Q: Why are there more short-lived contrails than persistent contrails?
A: For a particular geographical location, it may seem that there are more of one type of contrail than another. Actually, the type and number seems to depend on the amount of moisture and temperature in the atmosphere where the plane is flying. If the area is fairly dry, then more short-lived contrails might be observed. If there is more moisture, such as along the east coast of the United States, there might be more persistent contrails observed.

--- and ---
Are there different types of contrails?
Contrails are all made of the same materials and are formed in the same way, but exist for different lengths of time. Because of the differences in contrail "life-spans", contrails can be divided into three groups: short-lived, persistent (non-spreading), and persistent spreading. See the Contrail Formation Guide for more information on how contrails form.




The flight paths taken by these aircraft have nothing to do with airports. They are deliberately planned to release material systematically to fall above areas of the map. Often criss-crossing each other. As every person who has studied this subject can see.

From the same site

Thus, people who live under major air traffic routes, not people who live near major airports, are those who will see the most contrails. (However, some major airports are also under major air traffic routes, which can lead to confusion.)

PetersCreek
2009-Aug-28, 08:12 PM
Beethoven,

You've been provided a link to our rules and to additional guidance on posting in the CT forum. Please take this as a warning to conduct the proposal of your theory in accordance with our rules. Support your assertions and answer questions in a timely manner. Failure to do so places your posting privileges at risk.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-28, 08:13 PM
Now that we've gone to another page.
Let me repeat my questions...

Post 19:
- Why are chemtrail claims only backed up with pictures?

- Why is all the chemical they are spraying unknown?

- [detailed lead in] then why doesn't somebody take samples and test it?

- Or do they just find water vapor and traces of burnt hydrocarbons?

- And why would they do it in the daytime?

Post 25:
-Why would you think anyone on this board would even know about a conspiracy if these things are held in such secrecy?

(the other question there can seem rhetorical, so I'll give a pass on that as long as you consider it)

Post 26:
- [organizations with nothing to say] So; what does that tell you?

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 08:15 PM
You have seen many images of aircraft leaving criss-crossed trails in the sky above areas which are densely populated.

Is it no wonder that densely-populated areas would require the services of aircraft more than a rural environment?

In fact, commercial jet airliners fligh much higher, around 30,000 feet.

Commercial jets that are landing at or taking off from airports fly at low altitude over populated areas.

how do you explain that jet planes (not commercial ones) are often seen above London and other big cities at far lower altitude...

Having spent too short a time in London to comment on this, I leave that to others to answer.

However, as an inhabitant of "another" big city, and having my office under the approach pattern to my airport (a major hub for Delta Air Lines) I can comment there. The vast majority of the traffic there is commercial, despite the fact that an entire air refueling wing of the Utah Air National Guard is stationed there, that there is another airport within ten miles that bases the F-16s of the Utah ANG, and that 30 miles to the north is a major U.S. Air Force base.

They fly at low altitude in this case because they are either landing or taking off. There is, nevertheless, high-altitude traffic over my part of the country.

...travelling less than 300 knots

Approach speeds for such aircraft are routinely less than 300 kts. I struggle to determine why you believe aircraft speed applies so strongly to whether a contrail is produced.

...even on days which are cloudless and in good weather

Why do these factors necessarily determine whether a contrail will form?

which leave behind in the sky for over an hour trails ?

It is unclear why you believe that contrails cannot persist for more than a few seconds. It is unclear how you are able to determine that these durable contrails must have been formed by low-altitude, low-speed traffic.

So says the evidence beyond all fair and reasonable doubt.

I see a great deal of reasonable doubt expressed here and elsewhere.

Hi there JayUtah,

1. No, it is not unusual to see all kinds of air traffic above London. But this traffic is special. It is always jet planes belonging to no commercial carrier. They fly below the height of commercial flights.

2. You ask what the relationship is between contrails and the speed of a jet plane. Well, firstly

a. Contrails are made at high altitude and these planes (as said) are not flying at high altitude. I estimate they are around 10,000 to 15,000 above the ground. Far lower than commercial passenger jets.

b. Contrails being formed by planes at low speed and altitude are highly unusual and I do not know of any case where a contrail can remain in the sky at low altitude made on a fine day by a slow moving jet aircraft. If you know of such an example please share it here.

3. The purpose of these flights is definitely not to land or take off, since the altitudes remain the same from horizon to horizon.

4. Contrails (according to the various sites I have seen) are formed by jet aircraft but I have regularly seen these formed and disappear within seconds while, in the very same sky, at the very same time, are jets making trails which do NOT disappear, and which remain in the same sky for over an hour.

5. A contrail is opaque, being composed of little more than water. But chemtrails tend to be thick white, fluffy-looking in appearance and quite stable. They do not disappear in seconds. They often remain and disappear only slowly, sometimes hours later. In many cases they can completely block out the sun in an otherwise sunny and cloudless sky. I have seen many such cases in London in the last few years. So have my neighbours and so have friends. I think that most people are too busy to see them right above their heads. But large numbers of people are so used to seeing them they say nothing.

Regards

Swift
2009-Aug-28, 08:15 PM
1. There are entire websites on the Chemtrail phenomenon. In Germany, the USA, the UK, all over Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.

There are entire website devoted to all kinds of silly and stupid stuff. There are websites devoted to Star Trek (probably more than there are Chemtrails) - does this make Star Trek true?

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 08:19 PM
...

I do not know.

But you claimed tests had been done to determine the chemical composition of the material you allege to have been sprayed. You're being asked to present that.

It's not water. It cannot be water. This is material in solution, in suspension.

"In solution" makes no sense in this context. "In suspension" makes sense, but the real word you're looking for is "aerosol." Why cannot ice crystals exist as a solid aerosol?

To date, nobody can show a single example.

But you describe a set of constraints within which we're supposed to operate which are neither physically-based nor consistent. You are clearly trying your best to make sure the contrail explanation doesn't apply. People here are legitimately asking you questions about why you've constrained the problem as you have.

Further, you seem anxious to characterize your critics as ideologically motivated or somehow in denial about the facts. When you arbitrarily and inconsistently restrict the types of answers they are allowed to give, how can we conclude other than that you are trying to deny them the ability to answer solely so that you can claim they cannot answer? And if they cannot answer, then this would tend to verify your implication that disbelief of "chemtrails" can have only ideological motivation.

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 08:21 PM
Swift,

Yes, there are websites on Star Trek. But I guarantee if you were in London today or any other day you would personally witness chemtrails being deliberately formed in the sky above you but you would NOT see Star Trek. And, when you saw them, these chemtrails being formed, with sometimes up to 8 jet planes simultaneously and often deliberately making trails which systematically criss-cross the entire sky, often leading to the obscuring of the sunlight within hours, you would agree here is something worth paying more serious attention to than any episode of Star Trek.

Regards

Swift
2009-Aug-28, 08:22 PM
4. Contrails (according to the various sites I have seen) are formed by jet aircraft but I have regularly seen these formed and disappear within seconds while, in the very same sky, at the very same time, are jets making trails which do NOT disappear, and which remain in the same sky for over an hour.
Are you saying contrails are ONLY formed by jets. Then how were they formed by prop planes as described already in WWII.
As far as some planes making contrails, and some not, again, from NASA

Q: There were two planes in the sky. One was flying north/south and left a persistent contrail. The other plane was flying east/west and did not leave a contrail. Why did one plane leave a contrail, but the other did not?
A: The two planes were flying at different altitudes - air traffic control has rules for spacing flights in different directions - so that the north-south flight path contained more moisture or was at a lower temperature than the east-west flight-path. The amount of moisture in the atmosphere can change considerably in a short vertical distance. It depends strongly on the origin of the particular air mass. There are also variations in the efficiency of aircraft engines, which can affect whether or not a particular plane will leave a contrail.


5. A contrail is opaque, being composed of little more than water. But chemtrails tend to be thick white, fluffy-looking in appearance and quite stable. They do not disappear in seconds. They often remain and disappear only slowly, sometimes hours later. In many cases they can completely block out the sun in an otherwise sunny and cloudless sky.
Are clouds made from the same chemical as your chemtrails? I've seen many clouds that are "thick, white, fluffy-looking in appearance and quite stable", yet clouds are also formed of water.

djellison
2009-Aug-28, 08:22 PM
4. Contrails (according to the various sites I have seen) are formed by jet aircraft but I have regularly seen these formed and disappear within seconds while, in the very same sky, at the very same time, are jets making trails which do NOT disappear, and which remain in the same sky for over an hour.

This is a symptom of the humidity of the air at different altitudes. Perfectly ordinary, natural phenomenon.

tofu
2009-Aug-28, 08:23 PM
this traffic is special. It is always jet planes belonging to no commercial carrier. They fly below the height of commercial flights.

This is NOT TRUE.

You don't own a pair of binoculars. You have never bothered to look at an aircraft leaving a contrail. You don't have the expertise to tell the difference between them if you did. How do I know that? Because the very first time you put a pair of binoculars up to your nose, you'll start learning and you'll soon drop this chemtrail nonsense.

Just admit it, all the research you've ever done is to watch youtube videos and occassionally to see a contrail with your naked eye.

Jason Thompson
2009-Aug-28, 08:27 PM
b. Contrails being formed by planes at low speed and altitude are highly unusual and I do not know of any case where a contrail can remain in the sky at low altitude made on a fine day by a slow moving jet aircraft. If you know of such an example please share it here.

Since the contention here is that all the examples you talk of ARE in fact examples of contrails being left in just the way you say they can't be, perhaps you should address this. You ask us for science of contrails. However, as the one making the claim the onus is on YOU to provide the science that says these trails are NOT contrails. Simply stating it as fact is not sufficient.


4. Contrails (according to the various sites I have seen) are formed by jet aircraft but I have regularly seen these formed and disappear within seconds while, in the very same sky, at the very same time, are jets making trails which do NOT disappear, and which remain in the same sky for over an hour.

The very same sky? What do you mean? The sky is not uniform from ground level to the top of the atmosphere. Conditions at 1,000 feet are not necessarily representative of conditions at 30,000 feet, and conditions directly overhead are not necessarily the same as conditions half a mile away. Furthermore the sky is fluid and constantly changing from minute to minute. On what basis do you conclude that these different trails are being left in 'the same sky'?


5. A contrail is opaque, being composed of little more than water. But chemtrails tend to be thick white, fluffy-looking in appearance and quite stable. They do not disappear in seconds. They often remain and disappear only slowly, sometimes hours later. In many cases they can completely block out the sun in an otherwise sunny and cloudless sky.

Sounds a lot like the difference between high altitude cirrus clouds and low altitude cumulus clouds to me, and both of those are composed of nothing more than water.

Argos
2009-Aug-28, 08:27 PM
Direct question, and I make a point that you [Beethoven] answer it:

Why would a state/government contaminate its own population and/or allow third parties to do so? What´s the rationale behind it?

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 08:28 PM
...

It is always jet planes belonging to no commercial carrier.

How did you determine this? Do you have any photographs of these aircraft?

They fly below the height of commercial flights.

You say later they operate at 10,000 to 15,000 feet. How did you estimate this?

Contrails are made at high altitude...

Not invariably true.

Far lower than commercial passenger jets.

Are you familiar with operating altitudes of regional passenger carriers?

If you know of such an example please share it here.

I see them all the time.

The purpose of these flights is definitely not to land or take off, since the altitudes remain the same from horizon to horizon.

Approach and departure operations for airports require aircraft to operate at a variety of altitudes and speeds, such as to implement holding patterns.

Contrails ... are formed by jet aircraft but I have regularly seen these formed and disappear within seconds while, in the very same sky, at the very same time, are jets making trails which do NOT disappear, and which remain in the same sky for over an hour.

"The very same sky" is misleading, since at any one time you are able to see a wide variety of operating airspace. Have you considered that local variations in temperature and pressure, as well as variations in aircraft design and operation, may account for what you see?

A contrail is opaque, being composed of little more than water. But chemtrails tend to be thick white, fluffy-looking...

This is a circular distinction. I have seen contrails exhibit quite a variety of behavior. You seem to be selecting one variant and arbitrarily defining it as a "chemtrail."

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 08:30 PM
I do not know.

But you claimed tests had been done to determine the chemical composition of the material you allege to have been sprayed. You're being asked to present that.

It's not water. It cannot be water. This is material in solution, in suspension.

"In solution" makes no sense in this context. "In suspension" makes sense, but the real word you're looking for is "aerosol." Why cannot ice crystals exist as a solid aerosol?

To date, nobody can show a single example.

But you describe a set of constraints within which we're supposed to operate which are neither physically-based nor consistent. You are clearly trying your best to make sure the contrail explanation doesn't apply. People here are legitimately asking you questions about why you've constrained the problem as you have.

Further, you seem anxious to characterize your critics as ideologically motivated or somehow in denial about the facts. When you arbitrarily and inconsistently restrict the types of answers they are allowed to give, how can we conclude other than that you are trying to deny them the ability to answer solely so that you can claim they cannot answer? And if they cannot answer, then this would tend to verify your implication that disbelief of "chemtrails" can have only ideological motivation.

In reply -

Ice crystals (and please correct me if I am wrong) may be formed by contrails, for sure. But only at high altitude. And (please correct me again if I am wrong) contrails are formed by jets travelling faster than at lower alitudes and soon disappear. They do not remain for over an hour in the sky. As you and I both know.

The only 'constraints' I have are the observed fact that these are not being formed by commercial passenger jets but by medium sized unmarked jets which fly at altitudes around (I estimate) 15,000 feet. And which are not taking off or landing. Since their altitude remains the same from horizon to horizon.

I do not accuse critics of being motivated by anything. Since most of the thread, so far, has been to explain the circumstances of what is being discussed. Explaining that these jets are not commercial passenger flights, are not landing or taking off, are travelling at less than 300 knots, and make these trails even on warm, cloudless days with these effects remaining plainly visible for over an hour. Often seen with 4, 5, 6, 7 or more other jets doing exactly the same, systematically, in grids over the whole surface of the sky above. And other times flying for no other reason (it seems) other than to lay these trails.

stutefish
2009-Aug-28, 08:31 PM
Now, I realise there are guys out there who get their mortgages paid for denying that chemtrails are a plain fact of modern times.

Beethoven, please present your evidence for this claim.

Jason Thompson
2009-Aug-28, 08:34 PM
The only 'constraints' I have are the observed fact that these are not being formed by commercial passenger jets but by medium sized unmarked jets which fly at altitudes around (I estimate) 15,000 feet.

What markings do you expect to be able to make out from 15,000 feet?


Since their altitude remains the same from horizon to horizon.

How do you judge their altitude is remaining constant?



make these trails even on warm, cloudless days with these effects remaining plainly visible for over an hour.

Warm and cloudless are irrelevant. The onus once again is on you to show that this is unusual behaviour for water vapour.


Often seen with 4, 5, 6, 7 or more other jets doing exactly the same, systematically, in grids over the whole surface of the sky above. And other times flying for no other reason (it seems) other than to lay these trails.

What evidence do you expect to see of the reason for any aircraft passing over your house? A big banner trailing behind it saying 'I am flying freight to Paris'?

captain swoop
2009-Aug-28, 08:34 PM
I have already stated, I lived in London for 16 years in Greenwich, I worked in Islington and the West End.

All i saqw at low altitude (apart from Captail Radio 'Eye in the Sky' traffic planes and some helicopters) were aircraft on the Approach to Heathrow, they turned over the 'Isle of Dogs' onto their final approach out to the West of London. I also used to see aircraft flying in and out of the Docklands Airport on the Thames in the 'East End'

I have never seen low flying aircraft 'criss crossing' the city leaving any kind of trail at low altitude.

I am still waiting for you to tell mw what 'low altitude' means to you.

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 08:42 PM
...

Ice crystals (and please correct me if I am wrong) may be formed by contrails, for sure. But only at high altitude.

You are wrong.

And (please correct me again if I am wrong) contrails are formed by jets travelling faster than at lower alitudes and soon disappear.

You are wrong.

The only 'constraints' I have are the observed fact that these are not being formed by...

You expect us to take your interpretations of observed air traffic and your understanding of the physics involved at face value. If we did this, it would constrain the type of answer we can give -- effectively eliminating all possibilities. Naturally you are being asked to justify these constraints.

I do not accuse critics of being motivated by anything.

False. You accused some of them of doing it as their paid profession.

tofu
2009-Aug-28, 08:43 PM
It is always jet planes belonging to no commercial carrier.

How did you determine this? Do you have any photographs of these aircraft?


You know Jay, I think this is a tactical error. It's easy for him to show a picture of a few military aircraft (perhaps taken at airshows) and to say, "this is what I see."

When the truth is: "10% of X are Y" and someone makes the claim: "all of X are Y" I don't think that asking for an example of an X that is a Y is the right way to go.



What markings do you expect to be able to make out from 15,000 feet?

I regularly identify aircraft type and livery for aircraft at even higher altitudes. For example, you can tell the difference between a NWA 747 an a Virgin 747 because both have a red tail, but the Virgin also has red on the nacelles.

Bethoveen has never bothered to look. He gets his information from youtube videos and believes all of it.

Swift
2009-Aug-28, 08:43 PM
Ice crystals (and please correct me if I am wrong) may be formed by contrails, for sure. But only at high altitude. And (please correct me again if I am wrong) contrails are formed by jets travelling faster than at lower alitudes and soon disappear. They do not remain for over an hour in the sky. As you and I both know.

Wrong. I've already posted several times information that different contrails can persist for different periods of time and are in fact classified by such characteristics.

If collections of water droplets or ice crystals (contrails) can not persist for hours, then how can clouds exists for hours? (this is a direct question)

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 08:44 PM
I realise there are guys out there who get their mortgages paid for denying that chemtrails are a plain fact of modern times.


I do not accuse critics of being motivated by anything.

I think that's "enough" for me...



eta...darn...Jay beat me too it. :)

novaderrik
2009-Aug-28, 08:46 PM
isn't a jet contrail essentially an artificially created cloud?
how low can clouds exist?

i've seen some pretty low clouds- a thunderstorm in the midwestern USA can have the base of the clouds a few hundred feet off the ground, and they generally happen on warm days. so why couldn't a jet contrail exist at low altitudes, too?

Swift
2009-Aug-28, 08:51 PM
isn't a jet contrail essentially an artificially created cloud?
how low can clouds exist?

i've seen some pretty low clouds- a thunderstorm in the midwestern USA can have the base of the clouds a few hundred feet off the ground, and they generally happen on warm days. so why couldn't a jet contrail exist at low altitudes, too?
Yes, contrails are essentially artifical clouds. From NASA

How are contrails different from other clouds?
Contrails are "human-induced" clouds since they are formed by water vapor condensing and freezing on particles from airplane exhaust.
My understanding is that fog is essentially a cloud, so I guess clouds can exist down to ground level. It seems apparent however, given the relative frequency of fog and clouds, that they prefer higher altitudes.

BertL
2009-Aug-28, 08:55 PM
Fogs are part of the conspiracy, though. Have you ever seen fog before NASA came into existence? ;)

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 08:57 PM
I guess clouds can exist down to ground level.

If you happen to live in the mountains, then "low altitude" clouds can certainly exist at "ground level".


eta...while the above is true, it really has little to do with this discussion.

captain swoop
2009-Aug-28, 08:58 PM
As for that, I live just under the Escarpment of the Cleveland Hills (not cleveland in USA) On a wet cloudy day the tops of the trees up behind Guisborough along the ridge line are in the clouds, on average they are at an altitude of 320 metres.

Gillianren
2009-Aug-28, 09:02 PM
Ice crystals (and please correct me if I am wrong) may be formed by contrails, for sure. But only at high altitude.

You are wrong.

And (please correct me again if I am wrong) contrails are formed by jets travelling faster than at lower alitudes and soon disappear.

You are wrong.

Not only is he wrong, but he was told he was wrong before this post. I was right--the circles here are not created by us.

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 09:12 PM
...

You know Jay, I think this is a tactical error. It's easy for him to show a picture of a few military aircraft (perhaps taken at airshows) and to say, "this is what I see."

Fine; if he wants to lie I cannot stop him. But when someone says he has made (or failed to make) an identification, then asking for evidence supporting that identification (or lack thereof) is not out of bounds. "Not commercial" includes private aircraft (both institutional and individual ownership) and governmental (military and non-military). Just because he can't attribute some livery to the Verrifast Plane Company doesn't mean it's on a secret mission.


For example, you can tell the difference between a NWA 747 an a Virgin 747 because both have a red tail, but the Virgin also has red on the nacelles.

See attached, sent to me less than an hour ago from a colleague at the Seattle airport.

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 09:37 PM
Not only is he wrong, but he was told he was wrong before this post. I was right--the circles here are not created by us.


So, Gillianren, you say that ice particles can form at low altitudes on a summer day when the sun is shining and there are no clouds in the sky. I would like you to show us how. Ice forms when water freezes, yes ?

Tell us, please, how water freezes at low altitude on a summer's day where the air temperature is around 70 degrees farenheit. I am really interested to know.

I have already said ice crystals can form at HIGH altitudes (up where commercial passenger jets fly). But they fly above 30,000 feet, don't they ? And I've said over and over again these jets are NOT commercial passenger jets. They are flying much lower. Can you even show us commercial passenger jets making trails of ice particles which stay in the sky for over an hour ?

No ?

And nor can you show us contrails from non-passenger jets flying much lower which stay in the sky for over an hour on a bright summer day. Because contrails do NOT stay in the air at low altitude for more than a few seconds.

Show us differently if you can. Let's have the SCIENCE. Isn't it time for you to produce some FACTS ?

Back to the drawing board, right ?

Thanks

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 09:40 PM
So, Gillianren, you say that ice particles can form at low altitudes on a summer day when the sun is shining and there are no clouds in the sky.

Again you misrepresent what another poster has written....

You really must stop that.

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 09:41 PM
...

Tell us, please, how water freezes at low altitude...

At what specific altitude?

...on a summer's day where the air temperature is around 70 degrees farenheit.

The air temperature at what altitude? How does pressure affect your claim?

And I've said over and over again these are NOT commercial passenger jets.

You've been asked to describe how you made this determination. Please explain how you know they were not commercial aircraft.

Beethoven
2009-Aug-28, 09:45 PM
Tell us, please, how water freezes at low altitude...

At what specific altitude?

...on a summer's day where the air temperature is around 70 degrees farenheit.

The air temperature at what altitude? How does pressure affect your claim?

And I've said over and over again these are NOT commercial passenger jets.

You've been asked to describe how you made this determination. Please explain how you know they were not commercial aircraft.

Show us a contrail from a jet plane which stays in the sky more than an hour when it flying at low altitude (i.e. below 20,000 feet). You can't do it, can you ? Show us one example. Just one.

There are thousands of examples of trails being made by non-passenger jet planes at these kinds of altitudes which remain in the sky for over an hour.

So, let's have your evidence of contrails doing the same for over an hour at the same altitudes.

You can't produce them because they don't exist. These are not contrails. They are, beyond reasonable doubt, something else. Chemicals being sprayed.

So, let's stop going round in circles. Show us a contrail below 20,000 feet which stays in the sky for over an hour.

You say these are all contrails. Right. Where is the scientific evidence of contrails lasting over an hour at such altitudes ? Just one single example. Still waiting. And still no answer.


Thanks

JayUtah
2009-Aug-28, 09:51 PM
...

You can't do it, can you ? Show us one example. Just one.

I have seen a number of such trails. I don't routinely photograph every contrail I see.

There are thousands of examples of trails being made by non-passenger jet planes...

You have been asked repeatedly to substantiate your identification of these aircraft as non-commercial. Please do so.

...at these kinds of altitudes

You have been asked repeatedly to disclose how you estimated or determined the altitude at which these aircraft were flying. Please do so.

So, let's stop going round in circles.

We are going in circles only because you refuse to answer questions that pertain to your claims. You simply reassert the claims.

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-28, 09:53 PM
You still don't "get it", although we might on occasion, we don't have to do a darn thing to prove you wrong...you have to prove yourself right.

That's how science "works" when an extraordiary claim is involved.

PetersCreek
2009-Aug-28, 10:02 PM
Beethoven,

You've been asked a number of direct questions. Our rules require than you answer them. "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. You may also whithdraw any claim of your that pertains to the question.

Consider this your final warning to follow our rules before you are suspended.

Count Zero
2009-Aug-28, 10:35 PM
There are thousands of examples of trails being made by non-passenger jet planes at these kinds of altitudes which remain in the sky for over an hour.

Then you should have no trouble showing several examples of these non-commercial aircraft crisscrossing at low altitude leaving trails. You repeatedly claim this, but you offer no proof (the links in the OP did not contain any such proof).

Please show some of these "thousands of examples" because I have lived in eight major metropolitan areas, and in 40 years of looking, I have never seen such a thing.

Thanks.

captain swoop
2009-Aug-28, 10:43 PM
OK Beethoven
I want your next post to include a n example of, or a link to an example of an airoplane at waht you call a 'low' altitude leaving a contrail.

You say there are thousands of them so you should have no problem.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Aug-28, 10:54 PM
And an explanation of how it was identified as non-commercial and how the altitude was estimated.

Jason Thompson
2009-Aug-28, 11:12 PM
Show us a contrail from a jet plane which stays in the sky more than an hour when it flying at low altitude (i.e. below 20,000 feet). You can't do it, can you ? Show us one example. Just one.

There are thousands of examples of trails being made by non-passenger jet planes at these kinds of altitudes which remain in the sky for over an hour.

So, let's have your evidence of contrails doing the same for over an hour at the same altitudes.

As I have already explained to you once, the contention is that those trails you describe and have provided images of ARE contrails. The issue is simply that these trails, which are known to exist, are identified by you as NOT contrails and by us AS contrails. Providing the images won't help, because we say those trails are contrails while you insist they are something else.

We do not have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. Start doing so.

sarongsong
2009-Aug-28, 11:23 PM
There are NUMEROUS examples of chemical analysis of the material that has been picked up after this material fell to ground level...Well give us one or two!
...can anyone show us a jet plane at low altitude on a warm, cloudless day making contrails that remain in the sky for over an hour?...Attached ThumbnailYou can tell these trails' altitudes? What are they and how did you determine them?

Dave J
2009-Aug-29, 12:16 AM
Beethoven,

If you would look through the long thread linked to at the start of this current thread, you would see numerous web links that discuss the SCIENCE of contrail formation. I learned a lot during that discussion...
Meanwhile, you go on about non-commercial, low altitude planes leaving contrails. How did you determine these facts...type (paintscheme) and altitudes?
The crisscrossing of paths over significant population centers is a no brainer for aviation enthusiasts and professionals.
As for your photos of the interior of sprayer planes, thats just normal setup of a plane doing CG range testing.
Lets talk about the science of contrails...temp, RH, DP, contrail factor..fun stuff like that. I still have the links in my "favorites" bar...

ETA: here's a very interesting site on contrails.
http://contrailscience.com/

Squink
2009-Aug-29, 02:45 AM
APOD of Morning glory clouds (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090824.html).

Wikipedia on Morning glory clouds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Glory_cloud).

I'd be shocked if this is not exactly what is depicted in Beethoven's first video.
I expect that much of the excitement over chemtrails arises when people who do not make a habit of looking at the sky have their attention drawn to it, and see something they don't understand.
Many people act quite surprised when you tell them something as simple as "the moon rises about an hour later each night." Pointing out a Kelvin Helmholtz wave (http://media.photobucket.com/image/%252522kelvin%20helmholtz%252522/mecrab/mecrab2/cd.jpg) to them would probably make them think that the aliens had landed.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Aug-29, 03:08 AM
Welcome to BUAT, Beethoven.

A shorter, more recent BAUT thread that dealt with "chemtrails" is "This Is Not A Real Photo Of The Inside Of A Chemtrail Plane Folks (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/75182-not-real-photo-inside-chemtrail-plane-folks.html)." From that thread, there is a link to a page (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/interiorofchemtrailsprayer11feb08.shtml) that features a photo of the interior of an alleged "chemtrail" sprayer plane. The linked page also features a debunking from, of all people, Ted Twietmeyer.

The same so-called "chemtrail" sprayer plane was the subject of an article at Contrail Science, '“Chemtrail” Aircraft Photos (http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail).' A photo of the interior (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-777-240-LR/0855967/L/) of the Boeing 777 by William Appleton can also be found at Airliners.net.

The YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4R-lnfsveI) by "Tanker Enemy Production (http://www.tankerenemy.com/)" provided by Beethoven in the original post of this thread misreads some of the text seen beginning at 02:14. "Sprayer!!" is actually "Sprayer 05"; "Hazard Inside" is "HAZMAT-INSIDE"; "Lock care" is "LOAD BANK." The same video was uploaded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghoaomHQB2g) to YouTube in Feb. 2008. Tanker Enemy's English blog is here (http://tankerenemy.blogspot.com/).

Alan G. Archer
2009-Aug-29, 03:41 AM
Well, they certainly had a chemical "delivery system" way back in the 1960s s ...
Here is a USAF Plane over Australia

Let me help your fellow BAUTers for your....

The paper is "A Stratospheric Air Tracer Experiment Using Zinc Sulfide (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/6/2/pdf/i1520-0450-6-2-373.pdf)" (619 kb PDF) by Earl G. Droessler, K. J. Heffernan, and E. K. Bigg, published in April 1967 in the Journal of Applied Meteorology, pp 373-79. Other AMS volumes are available here (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive&issn=1520-0450).

slang
2009-Aug-29, 08:19 AM
Let me help your fellow BAUTers for your....

The paper is "A Stratospheric Air Tracer Experiment Using Zinc Sulfide (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/6/2/pdf/i1520-0450-6-2-373.pdf)" (619 kb PDF) by Earl G. Droessler, K. J. Heffernan, and E. K. Bigg, published in April 1967 in the Journal of Applied Meteorology, pp 373-79. Other AMS volumes are available here (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive&issn=1520-0450).

Well... so much for keeping the big secret! I wonder if any of those people were ever heard from again, after the men in black saw after them..

formulaterp
2009-Aug-29, 09:05 AM
THREE PLAIN FACTS

1. There are entire websites on the Chemtrail phenomenon. In Germany, the USA, the UK, all over Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.

2. Day after day commercial jet planes at LOW altitude (i.e. below the height of commercial airliners and plainly visible to an observer at ground level) criss-cross the sky above urban areas leaving trails which remain in the sky for over an hour. These planes are NOT travelling at high altitude. Nor are they flying about 300 knots. They often form grids when there are several making these trails. These are NOT contrails. There are NUMEROUS examples of chemical analysis of the material that has been picked up after this material fell to ground level.

Math is hard.

Alan G. Archer
2009-Aug-29, 10:29 AM
Well... so much for keeping the big secret! I wonder if any of those people were ever heard from again, after the men in black saw after them..

Which people?

Did anyone notice that really bright flash coming from the visor of the BAUT astronaut wearing the red boxing gloves?

slang
2009-Aug-29, 11:11 AM
Which people?

Did anyone notice that really bright flash coming from the visor of the BAUT astronaut wearing the red boxing gloves?

Not really, but I do have a strange urge to redecorate the house and buy a pretty dress... :shifty:

TJMac
2009-Aug-30, 01:54 PM
I'm not sure if this thread has played itself out or not, but I'd like to go on record that I'm willing to deny chemtrails exist, if someone pays my mortgage. :lol:

I have seen a few of these sites that were mentioned by the original poster, and to date, I think I have not heard anyone speculate on what this "magic", and possibly sinister substance is that is being sprayed. Exactly how does it stay suspended for so long, and why would that be important?

This ends up being put in the same category as all the other useless speculative conspiracy theories, that mainly exist because someone is happier thinking that "big brother" is somehow up to no good.

TJ

nauthiz
2009-Aug-30, 02:27 PM
I have seen a few of these sites that were mentioned by the original poster, and to date, I think I have not heard anyone speculate on what this "magic", and possibly sinister substance is that is being sprayed.

It's mostly hydrogen hydroxide, but it is laced with alkanes and whatnot.

Donnie B.
2009-Aug-30, 03:01 PM
I'm not sure if this thread has played itself out or not, but I'd like to go on record that I'm willing to deny chemtrails exist, if someone pays my mortgage. :lol:

I'm willing to deny chemtrails exist, if someone pays my car payment.

And my car is paid for.

Jeff Root
2009-Aug-30, 03:56 PM
Beethoven,

I'd like to see some good, clear photos of those low-altitude planes making
chemtrails so I can identify the planes.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Tedward
2009-Aug-30, 05:42 PM
Without checking, there was an interesting document or comment posted in the another thread 9By Jazzrock) on this topic and it raised the issue of volume required for the usual trail and it exceeded the capacity of a jumbo?

Link (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/17557-help-me-debunk-chemtrails-belivers-13.html#post1446799)

Nextamundo, People all over Europe, how many have you asked? I suspect most are not aware of the CT. I live under the flight path corridor thingy that appears to lead in and out of the UK via west wales. There are contrails a plenty. To me this would appear to be pointless as it is both a scatter gun approach and a waste as it would blow out everywhere but the area under where it is dumped. Then we have the jet stream to contend with. Also, look at a plane with contrails in a pair of binos. What survives the exhaust temperatures?

If you were going to get down and dirty then instead of having airports full of passengers that cannot go anywhere because men in dark grey (black was so yesterday) filling planes up with goo, you get at the food and water directly. Not that I am advocating that, just that the air approach seems so vague in targetting.

In WWII pilots hated the contrails. Especially the USAF that flew in the day time. Another marker for the enemy to hone in with death in its many forms. They had no choice in the matter as bombing dictated height of attack among other things.


This may have some bearing in an interesting way. Its a data art thingy. The person takes data and represents it in an arty way. First time I have come across it and it was mentioned on a BBC radio 4 program.
Link to the BBC site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8206064.stm)

Please note the following link slows my aged mac down somewhat. But it represents the flight paths over the US from official flight data. Hope this has not broken any rules.
Link to the artists site (http://www.aaronkoblin.com/work/flightpatterns/index.html)

PS, any officials want to pay my mortgage the please do.

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-30, 06:45 PM
...represents the flight paths over the US from official flight data.

Taking a look at the continental U.S., I couldn't help but notice that there is a big "hole" showing No flights over Nevada right where "area 51" is!

Coincidence?? :lol:

nomuse
2009-Aug-30, 06:49 PM
The emanations from the alien have a radii of over fifty kilometers. For the rest of the US they need to use the blood extracts and spread it artificially.

Extracelestial
2009-Aug-30, 07:00 PM
THREE PLAIN FACTS

1. There are entire websites on the Chemtrail phenomenon. In Germany, the USA, the UK, all over Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.

2. Day after day commercial jet planes at LOW altitude (i.e. below the height of commercial airliners and plainly visible to an observer at ground level) criss-cross the sky above urban areas leaving trails which remain in the sky for over an hour. These planes are NOT travelling at high altitude. Nor are they flying about 300 knots. They often form grids when there are several making these trails. These are NOT contrails. There are NUMEROUS examples of chemical analysis of the material that has been picked up after this material fell to ground level.

Now, can anyone here provide us with the physics of contrail formation in summer at low altitude at speed below 300 knots ? Because these aircraft are not flying above that speed.

And can anyone show us a jet plane at low altitude on a warm, cloudless day making contrails that remain in the sky for over an hour ? If not, I must conclude that you guys are living in denial of a fact known to the vast majority of people who have eyes in their head.

Thanks

Hello B,
condensation of water vapor according to the pressurte drop in vorticees is described in Bernoulli's law of conservation of energy in fluid flow and more broadly, in thermodynamics first and second law. Have you ever heard of it or bothered to check? THEY hide it in books you know.

Living near Frankfurt airport (the second largest in Europe) I have seen contrails of aircraft flying both slow and low; i.e. when landing. Nothing mysterious about that and certainly nothing chemical as much as I can tell. However, I might well be paid by the NSA, CIA and KGB to say so, hence I wouldn't take my word for it were I you.

Last, I have moved, as many people do nowadays, from an area with few aircrafts flying over to an area with many; e.g. Frankfurt, Germany. I haven't noticed any effect of the air here. Would it have been chemically dowsed I'd certainly noticed changes in appetite, sichmess or fertillity. If that's what you're driving at. And so would have millions others. This is not science at least what you consider to be scientific but common sense.

So please stop wasting time and have a look into those long abandoned books from school about science and decent behaviour.

Ex

Gillianren
2009-Aug-30, 07:11 PM
You know, I'd posit that, far from being concerned, a majority of people have never even heard of this nonsense. It's not like some of the other conspiracy theories. This one is pretty obscure. And I mean, the Moon hoax one isn't, and I still come across people whose response to the idea is, "Wait, really?"

R.A.F.
2009-Aug-30, 07:18 PM
...a majority of people have never even heard of this nonsense.

Personally, I know that because of my "exposure" here and other places that I am hyper-sensitized to all the various conspiracies...but I choose to be that way. :)

Mr Gorsky
2009-Aug-30, 10:07 PM
Total aside here, but just recently I was at day two of the Ashes test match at Headingley, which is on the approach path to/from Leeds Bradford airport and counted over 30 aircraft approaching at low altitude before the lunch break (England were getting hammered, so it was far more interesting than the cricket), along with a number at (much) higher altitude leaving contrails that hung there for ages. It was quite beautiful.

A couple of weeks later I was at the Globe Theatre in London for an afternoon performance of Romeo & Juliet and, with the Globe being almost directly under the approach path to Heathrow, counted over 20 aircraft flying over at low altitude before Mercutio and Tybalt met their untimely end ... bet Shakespeare never had to deal with that particular distraction. IN this case the many high altitude aircraft left equally beautiful contrails behind but they lasted literally 15-20 seconds before fading away.

In both cases, all the low flying aircraft were normal commercial airliners, and on all of them I could even see which airline they belonged to, and the contrails looked exactly the same ... you know, white, fluffy, etc. ... just lasted different periods of time.

Two things strike me here:

If these aircraft are laying chemicals behind them, surely there would have been some study before now to show what these chemicals are and what effect they might be expected to have on the populus.

If these aircraft are laying chemicals, where is the benefit in having the trails linger unmoved in the sky for many hours at a time? How does this actually serve the spreading of the chemicals into the population below? Surely, chemicals designed to affect those underneath would disperse and come to ground much more quickly, and less visibly, than is being claimed.

I call "Poppycock" on Chemtrails. If only because Jay has claimed "Hogwash" for his own, and uses it to such good effect.

cjl
2009-Aug-30, 11:18 PM
5. A contrail is opaque, being composed of little more than water. But chemtrails tend to be thick white, fluffy-looking in appearance and quite stable. They do not disappear in seconds. They often remain and disappear only slowly, sometimes hours later. In many cases they can completely block out the sun in an otherwise sunny and cloudless sky. I have seen many such cases in London in the last few years. So have my neighbours and so have friends. I think that most people are too busy to see them right above their heads. But large numbers of people are so used to seeing them they say nothing.

Regards
A response to the claim here that contrails cannot be thick, white, and fluffy looking:

Would you contend that all of the following (spectacular) photos are chemtrails? Note that these are commercial aircraft (many with recognizable livery) and the contrails come from the engines, which is exactly what you would expect for condensed water droplets and ice crystals.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirates/Boeing-777-21H/0718260/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-India/Boeing-747-437/0726128/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirates/Airbus-A340-541/0698544/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-Cargo/Boeing-747-206BM%28SF-SUD%29/0239080/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Korean-Air/Boeing-747-4B5/0313586/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pakistan-International-Airlines/Boeing-747-367/0332946/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Corsair/Airbus-A330-243/0327186/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Boeing-747-436/0367476/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Thomas-Cook-%28Condor%29/Boeing-757-330/0494006/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/MyTravel-Airways/Airbus-A320-.../0506836/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Northwest-Airlines/Boeing-747-451/0287638/L/&sid=191e69c297cc8e584478c79f8c5b61b2
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cathay-Pacific-Airways/Boeing-747-467/0400771/L/&sid=191e69c297cc8e584478c79f8c5b61b2

Also, note the length of several of those trails. Contrails can be far more persistent than "a few seconds", depending on the temperature, humidity, and pressure (among other things) at the altitude in which the airplane is flying. In the right conditions, they can even form at ground level, as shown in this shot from Antarctica:

http://www.bohnetphotography.com/sitebuilder/images/SouthPole12-600x400.jpg

nauthiz
2009-Aug-31, 12:27 AM
A response to the claim here that contrails cannot be thick, white, and fluffy looking:

I have an easier one:

CLOUDS

tofu
2009-Aug-31, 12:45 AM
Would you contend that all of the following (spectacular) photos are chemtrails?

That's a great collection. I'm afraid Beethoven is long gone, having realized like so many before him that on this discussion forum he'll have to *gasp* discuss instead of simply preach. But I recommend that your question, and that list of photos, be the first response posted when the next chemtrail believer comes along.

cjl
2009-Aug-31, 12:58 AM
I have an easier one:

CLOUDS
Absolutely true :)

I figured that photos of actual aircraft might be more convincing to a conspiracy theorist though.

nauthiz
2009-Aug-31, 01:06 AM
I suppose. I was more thinking of just challenging the idea that clouds that are made of water cannot form an opaque mass.

Granted, all I'd expect harping on that example to accomplish is inadvertently sparking a new "chemclouds" conspiracy theory.

frenat
2009-Aug-31, 03:41 AM
Well, let's get this issue sorted out once and for all. I have just posted (twice) images of a plane with spray tanks inside the plane.

Nope. It was a center of gravity test setup for an airliner.


Secondly, the planes spraying this stuff over large parts of the world daily are NOT passenger airliners (at least, not the visible stuff). They are small to medium sized private jet planes.
Sure they aren't. Yet the vast majority of videos on this subject show passenger airplanes.


Thirdly, they are not at an altitude of 35,000 feet. They are far lower. And they can be seen (as anyone can see) above urban areas deliberately criss-crossing with their trails often in the sky for an hour and more.

You can tell the altitude of a jet with the naked eye? Oh that's right, you can't. The only "chemtrails" or persistent contrails I've ever seen happen to always be at the same level as cirrus clouds. Cirrus clouds are not typically low altitude. This tells me that the "chemtrail" believers aren't judging altitude well.



Entire websites exist on this phenomenon. So let's not go round and round in circles. Can anyone show us the SCIENCE to support the view these are contrails of jets ? I have been studying this subject for over a year. These cannot be contrails. A contrail disappears within a minute or so at most. These are light material in solution which often remain in the air for over an hour. As already said. They are not contrails. They are material being ejected out of small to medium sized jet planes above rural areas all over the world.

Contrals can persist or dissipate depending on the conditions. They are essentially cirrus clouds. If contrails always disappeared within a minute or so then cirrus clouds would not exist.



The flight paths taken by these aircraft have nothing to do with airports. They are deliberately planned to release material systematically to fall above areas of the map. Often criss-crossing each other. As every person who has studied this subject can see.

So, again, what is the SCIENCE that proves these are normal contrails ? I have asked this question many times already on various websites and still nobody can answer it.

Yes the flight paths do have lots to do with airports. Or are you one of those people that thinks because a path is seen near an airport and that jet is not landing or taking off from that airport that it is somehow not allowed? Jets can pass over other airports and do so all the time.

Something to think about. I currently live in Panama City, FL. There are very few contrails here persistent or not. There is also very little commercial traffic over the area. Just off the water are some very large military training areas (W151 and W470). These are routinely used by F-15 and F-22 fighters for their training. Because of this the majority of commercial traffic is routed around the area. Fighter planes tend to avoid contrail altitudes (yes they can be predicted) because they make them more visible to the enemy. No commercial traffic and no contrails, persistent or not. If "chemtrails" existed, wouldn't they still "spray" the area?

Here's some science for you. Contrails, and their ability to sometimes be persistent have been known about and studied for over 70 years. "Chemtrails" have only gained in popularity since the rise of the internet when the nonsense could more easily be spread.
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1942/naca-wr-l-474.pdf (http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1942/naca-wr-l-474.pdf)
Pay particular attention to the 5th page of the above document (marked page 4) where it talks about how contrails can persist given the right conditions. This was written in 1942.

The following are pictures of contrails from the past. The first two show persistent contrails and the third shows those contrails dispersing into cloud cover. Unfortunately I don't have a date for the third.

Dogfights create contrails over London's St. Pauls Cathedral during the Battle of Britain
in 1940- at sixty years one of the oldest contrail photos
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/stpauls.jpg (http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/stpauls.jpg)

Crewmen of an American ship watch the contrails as American
and Japanese planes fight it out above Task Force 58 in the Great
Marianas Turkey Shoot on June 19, 1944.
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/Taskforce58.jpg (http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/Taskforce58.jpg)

Satellite image of the North Atlantic corridor shows contrails west of Great Britain and in mid-Atlantic forming preferentially ahead of two different frontal systems due to higher moisture as the front approaches.
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/atlanticsat.jpg (http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/atlanticsat.jpg)

1981 NOAA photo of contrail at sunset (persistent spreading contrail from 81)
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/noaacon1981.jpg (http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/noaacon1981.jpg)

Many pictures of persistent contrails here taken from space on early shuttle missions. (starts an automatic slide show after a few seconds)
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/STSHH.html (http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/STSHH.html)

A navigator's log from WWII. Note in particular mission #24 and this quote "The contrails were dense, persistent - really hard to even see our own squadron."
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1393/andy2.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1393/andy2.html)

WWII pilot's diary Note mission #33
http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/crews/crews3/jensen.htm (http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/crews/crews3/jensen.htm)

More WWII pics
http://www.100thbg.com/mainmenus/airplanes/airplanes2/Trails6.jpg (http://www.100thbg.com/mainmenus/airplanes/airplanes2/Trails6.jpg)

http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/b17trails.jpg (http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/b17trails.jpg)




Another very good website specifically showing evidence of persisting contrails well before the 90's including some newspaper articles from the 40's 50's and 70's
http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/ (http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/)

Yes, persistent contrails have increased. Here are some more facts.

1. Jet traffic has doubled a few times since the 70's. It is projected to double again in just 10 years.

2. Jet engines today are more powerful than older models. This means they burn more fuel and consequently have much more water vapor in the exhaust.

3. Jets travel higher now (on average) partly due to increased traffic and partly due to increased power allowing higher flight. Higher flight means more contrails.

4. Evidence that airlines have changed their engines can be found in the noise regulations that the FAA has put out. Around 2000, Stage 3 regs went into effect. This is a regulation governing the noise output of jet engines and required every airline to either replace their engines or install hush kits. These newer engines are not only quieter but are more fuel efficient meaning again, more water vapor.

5. "Chemtrails" have debated for years now and yet not one supporter has collected a sample directly from a trail. They seem to be satisfied with collecting something on the ground and assuming it came from 30,000+ feet in the air. This is all despite previous promises that such samples would be collected.

frenat
2009-Aug-31, 04:06 AM
Taking a look at the continental U.S., I couldn't help but notice that there is a big "hole" showing No flights over Nevada right where "area 51" is!

Coincidence?? :lol:
And I bet they don't have any "chemtrails" there either.

pzkpfw
2009-Aug-31, 04:28 AM
I suppose. I was more thinking of just challenging the idea that clouds that are made of water cannot form an opaque mass.

The reverse can be interesting too.

I was watching something on T.V. where they were showing sped-up footage of clouds rolling over a mountain range. (The purpose of the shot was unrelated to this thread).

The clouds (big fluffy stuff) cascaded over the mountain then just appeared to "boil away".

No rain - they just kind of "dissapeared" as they got away from and below the mountains.

Just another effect of the combination of temperature and pressure on the water vapour.

Quite stunning to watch.

vinnyj22
2009-Aug-31, 05:09 AM
Not sure if this has been said before, so I'll just ask now.

Who is behind these "chemtrails"? Because if it is happening all over the world like you are alleging, wouldn't everyone be effected? Or are there special teams doing this that havent seen the light of day for years? And what about the pilots that are doing this? Are they intentionally exposing their families to these dangerous chemicals?

mahesh
2009-Aug-31, 06:14 AM
Total aside here, but just recently I was at day two of the Ashes test match at Headingley, which is on the approach path to/from Leeds Bradford airport and counted over 30 aircraft approaching at low altitude before the lunch break (England were getting hammered, so it was far more interesting than the cricket), along with a number at (much) higher altitude leaving contrails that hung there for ages. It was quite beautiful.

A couple of weeks later I was at the Globe Theatre in London for an afternoon performance of Romeo & Juliet and, with the Globe being almost directly under the approach path to Heathrow, counted over 20 aircraft flying over at low altitude before Mercutio and Tybalt met their untimely end ... bet Shakespeare never had to deal with that particular distraction. IN this case the many high altitude aircraft left equally beautiful contrails behind but they lasted literally 15-20 seconds before fading away.

In both cases, all the low flying aircraft were normal commercial airliners, and on all of them I could even see which airline they belonged to, and the contrails looked exactly the same ... you know, white, fluffy, etc. ... just lasted different periods of time....

Yes indeed, Mr Gorsky...a fascinating phenomenon.

I did shoot some photographs of contrails, a week or so ago, (specifically for the purpose of posting them here) under similar overhead flights circumstances.
We live, not many miles from Heathrow, under the approach lanes.
Unable to post/link/attach them right now. But will be able to, later, when I get home.

captain swoop
2009-Aug-31, 10:22 AM
Away in the distance down in the Tees Valley I can see the Cooling Towers at the Huge Petrochemical plants on the Tees Estuary and also Europs biggest Blast Furnace at Redcar. They are all producing persistant clouds today, they rise thousands of feet in the air in the right conditions, other days there is only a whisp.

JonClarke
2009-Aug-31, 11:22 AM
Away in the distance down in the Tees Valley I can see the Cooling Towers at the Huge Petrochemical plants on the Tees Estuary and also Europs biggest Blast Furnace at Redcar. They are all producing persistant clouds today, they rise thousands of feet in the air in the right conditions, other days there is only a whisp.

Think of all the mind-altering dihydrogen monoxide they are putting into the atmosphere....

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-31, 03:18 PM
... And (please correct me again if I am wrong) contrails are formed by jets travelling faster than at lower alitudes and soon disappear...
People have been correcting you all through this thread.
Adding that parenthetical statement seems useless at this point.

You keep asking "show me all conditions where contrails form".
That is not possible. We can give the science, and some varied examples. Unless you understand that science, no amount of examples will cover your request.

You are not answering questions with anything other than denying that it is possible.

Even after a weekend of being away from the board, I have yet to see you answer my questions. (granted you had one of those days off, but that should have still given you time to formulate a reply)

Please, go to post 50 (http://www.bautforum.com/1562139-post50.html) where I summarize these and reply.

Fazor
2009-Aug-31, 04:13 PM
Where c equals "conversation about 'chemtrails'", and r equals "risk of serious brain implosion", then
f(r)=r^c

If the government wanted to secretly "crop dust" our people, then why would they do it in broad daylight, when they could do it at night just as easily. Why would they let loose the chemicals in concentrated streams of unpredictable dispersal so high in the atmosphere? And why haven't any of the hudreds of thousands of environmental scientists come out and said "what the heck are these chemicals that are showing up in everything?" Hell, even if science is "in on it", why aren't these scientists fleeing populated areas to save themselves?

frenat
2009-Aug-31, 04:26 PM
Is Beethoven coming back?

Donnie B.
2009-Aug-31, 04:31 PM
Gosh, I hope not... he'd be pretty skeletal by now.

Fazor
2009-Aug-31, 04:57 PM
Gosh, I hope not... he'd be pretty skeletal by now.

Yes, but think of the music he's had time to compose . . . if it's possible to compose as you decompose.

AndrewJ
2009-Aug-31, 05:27 PM
Beethoven was deaf, y'know.

mahesh
2009-Aug-31, 05:43 PM
you guys are soooo naughty...

stutefish
2009-Aug-31, 05:55 PM
Beethoven was deaf, y'know.
I blame chemtrails. The reason we don't have any samples today is because the chemicals travel back in time, finally reaching the earth in the past, causing all sorts of aggravation to classical composers, illuminati, and the Knights Templar.

And the reason nobody has spoken out against all this is because the people and planes involved are from the future.

peteshimmon
2009-Aug-31, 06:36 PM
Fifty five years ago I was a nipper sitting
on kerbstones watching Royal Navy jets scream
overhead leaving contrails. Fascinating.
Now some think they are dusting people with
nasty stuff!

Or do they? Could there be directed rumour
mongers out there, dedicated to spreading
vaguely appealing possibilities to the
unsuspecting public at large? Funded by news
organisations to keep a store of likely
"issues" bubbling up? Or could it be a
media/government alliance? To keep people
worried about all sorts of things. And could
the Government.....er..I'm getting into a
paranoid conspiracy state here ain't I....
Ummm....carry on...as you were.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-31, 07:03 PM
And the reason nobody has spoken out against all this is because the people and planes involved are from the future.
Why do people always assume aliens or time travel when it comes to what people can do in the past?

Chemtrails have been around long before beethoven's time. In fact, we know it can be done from the back of a chariot in Roman times.

That part of history was a simple demonstration in a hysterical documentary that I have on DVD. It was done by some hysterian by the name of Mel Brooks.

antoniseb
2009-Aug-31, 07:53 PM
I'm going to close this down for now. If there is interest in reopening it after Beethoven returns, please alert the moderators.