• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chemtrails again

robinson said:
Contrails can last all day. There is continuous cloud cover from them over many countries because of the magnitude of planes flying the same routes.
Click to expand...

I had not before witnessed such a dramatic change from clear blue skies to overcast weather before, all due to airplanes. It wasn't a particularly humid day, and I haven't seen anything like it since.

Right now I can see short, temporary contrails from high altitude jets overhead. If the weather was different (at 40,000 feet) there would be lingering contrails. I live in a high traffic area, both military and civilian jets. They are always flying. On days with no contrails you can't even see them. On days with the right weather conditions, they form an overcast.
Click to expand...

If this is true, that overcast weather is an incidental consequence of condensation trails in high air-traffic zones, then what does this say about the feasibility of weather control?

After 911 when the skies were clear, measurements found weather changes are directly attributable to contrails, visible or not. That much cloud cover changes both the heating during the day, and the cooling at night. During WWII contrails were considered as a weapon, to block sunlight over Germany, to destroy crop production.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Do you have a source relating how the weather changed after air traffic was grounded post 9/11?

On a bad day commercial flights create an overcast over large areas of the US and Europe. It isn't on purpose, but it sure as hell effects those below.
Click to expand...

Well, I have to accept the possibility that what I saw was harmless condensation. On the other hand, I'm not completely convinced.
 
Tippit said:
That's interesting. Do you have a source relating how the weather changed after air traffic was grounded post 9/11?
Click to expand...

There have been several studies done on various aspects of the three-day no-contrail window after 9/11 that you can find by doing a search on Google Scholar, including:

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/Minnis.sim.AAC03.pdf

http://www.ottokinne.de/articles/cr2004/26/c026p001.pdf

http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/contrails during 9-11.pdf
 
Tippit said:
I had not before witnessed such a dramatic change from clear blue skies to overcast weather before, all due to airplanes. It wasn't a particularly humid day, and I haven't seen anything like it since.
Click to expand...
I've seen such "dramatic" changes before. In the absence of evidence of an actual chemtrail plot, it's much more parsimonious to assume you simply noticed this particular occurrence and was struck by it, than to believe it was truly unique.
Tippit said:
If this is true, that overcast weather is an incidental consequence of condensation trails in high air-traffic zones, then what does this say about the feasibility of weather control?
Click to expand...
Ordinary contrails do have cumulative effects on cloud formation and climate, though ineffective for "acute" weather control. NASA, for example, is very much into this topic. Here are some papers on the topic.
Tippit said:
That's interesting. Do you have a source relating how the weather changed after air traffic was grounded post 9/11?
Click to expand...
Here's a 2002 newspaper article about it. The conference papers listed above have more technical articles.
Tippit said:
Well, I have to accept the possibility that what I saw was harmless condensation. On the other hand, I'm not completely convinced.
Click to expand...
That's reasonable. Try asking yourself - where is the hard evidence for a deliberate, massive, secret campaign, and what exactly it would be trying to accomplish? How would you distinguish such a campaign from ordinary contrails happening?
 
Swing Dangler said:
Are there date and time stamps on covert programs if chemtrails are indeed a covert program?
Click to expand...
Reusing my reply from post #195:

Corsair 115 said:
If the effect is an artificial one, then follow-up questions as to the nature of what the chemicals are and how long the spraying have been going on strike me as entirely reasonable. Particularly if one is convinced of the legitimacy of the chemtrail explanation, as I would expect such a person would want to investigate the subject in depth.
Click to expand...


It would seem both you and Tippit have done nothing in the way of further investigating the claim that chemtrails are a legitimate phenomenon. It would appear you can't even offer speculation.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
http://www.supercell.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20

A bunch of stuff I compiled during battles with chemtrailers.

Note that when I write "unmarked", it's what the chemmies would call it when they photograph it from 6 miles away with a cheap equipment and overexpose it into unmarked whiteness.
Click to expand...

Nice collection.

Here is a particularly nice persistent contrail:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/National-Jet-Systems/National-Jet-Systems/0928639

And a contrail love fest:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapore-Airlines/Singapore-Airlines/0556245
 
bje said:
We are not talking about the past, Tippit. Pay attention: we are suggesting you use Flight Explorer for the future.

Again, you have no basis for concluding you saw spraying and have brought nothing to the table to support your claims.
Click to expand...

Actually he tripped over his own feet, fell into the table and broke it.
 
Tippit said:
I had not before witnessed such a dramatic change from clear blue skies to overcast weather before, all due to airplanes. It wasn't a particularly humid day, and I haven't seen anything like it since.



If this is true, that overcast weather is an incidental consequence of condensation trails in high air-traffic zones, then what does this say about the feasibility of weather control?



That's interesting. Do you have a source relating how the weather changed after air traffic was grounded post 9/11?



Well, I have to accept the possibility that what I saw was harmless condensation. On the other hand, I'm not completely convinced.
Click to expand...

Every time you look in the mirror you see something you have never seen before.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
They are spraying Fabreeze up there. That's how outside gets that fresh outside scent.
Click to expand...

Co-ordinating the chem trails with ground smells is but a small part but we do it proudly.

Hump and dump it: the motto of "The Rectum Group"
 
robinson said:
I've video taped planes leaving contrails in patterns. It seems pilots don't like to fly through a contrail, so they keep laying a new one parallel to the earlier ones. When you have cross traffic, it creates a grid pattern.
Click to expand...


If the air mass is moving at an angle to the flight paths, and the planes tend to follow the same flight paths at regular intervals, then yes, there will be a series of parallel lines.
 
Tippit said:
I had not before witnessed such a dramatic change from clear blue skies to overcast weather before, all due to airplanes. It wasn't a particularly humid day, and I haven't seen anything like it since.
Click to expand...


The humidity at ground level has nothing whatsoever to do with the humitiy at flight altitudes.

The same thing with the temperatures. with the ambient temps at flight altitudes around -40 degrees* or so, contrails are not water, but ice.

Are you familiar with the concept of ice supersaturation at high altitudes?






* a cookie to anyone who can explain why I didn't indicate F or C.
 
Never forget that water vapor is invisible, that you won't find liquid water way up there, that "relatively humid" may be very dry, and the word "sublimation", in your discussions with the ICP.
 
robinson said:
That is actually true. Jets leave a trail of pollution behind them, all the time. And nobody asks for permission, much less worries about it. Air traffic has always polluted.

But even if people were complaining about just the pollution from jets, they would get treated badly. [/e]

Nobody asks permission to drive cars, either, and cars have always polluted. Perhaps you'd be treated badly for badmouthing aircraft manufacturers and airlines over pollution if you happen to be a Legislator working for the state they're based in, but as an average citizen, you'd not likely take any more flak over it than anyone who badmouths Microsoft because vista is a memory hog.


That said, the EPA recently revised aircraft emissions standards for good reason, and I'm sure they can do better than that.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom