This isn't about geoengineering. The point of me stickying this was to try and get someone to even define what they think is happening here.

those of us on the board who have followed the topic passionately

AWESOME, OK, I have someone. Let's FG.

First, can we even define what chemtrails even is? Who's doing it? Random Bill Gates projects with specialized planes with no passengers on board? We need someone to explain exactly the program results in six chemtrails over the houses of 200+ chemtards / day on five continents. I'm being dead serious. Explain this.

This is literally the "chemtrails" theory. Am I wrong? So why can't anyone explain this? I'm assured that the trails start and stop? If so, explain the mechanism that accomplishes this on commercial aircraft?

I worked at in airline for almost five years. Explain the logistics of this. A 737 lands in Calgary and goes directly to the gate. I'm an airport nerd, I'm sitting there for HOURS before my flight (it's not uncommon for me to sit for three or four hours just enjoying the activity). The aircraft ONLY gets refuelled, no other "below wing" activities happen other than a ground check and baggage being loaded. Where's the chemicals coming from all the time? Off the plane goes to Vancouver, and, along the way, it's making what you guys call "chemtrails". OK, FINE... How?

You say the poison is in the fuel. It's aluminum. Do you guys even know how jet engines work? Holy cow, aluminum in the fuel is not new. It makes aluminum oxide. Aluminum oxide is biologically non-toxic and inert. That's your poison? It's not highly reactive and doesn't easily decompose to release or otherwise bond with ambient harmful substances. That's chemistry talking. Basic research. Why am I getting looked at like I have two fucking heads, here?

Occam's Razor—which, BTW, isn't "the simplest explanation is true" it states that the explanation with the fewest UNSUPPORTED assumptions is true.

We don't need "people spotting" the differences in the skies. We need people learning how the new jet engines work and how incredibly more efficient they burn fuel. We need a reproduceable and rigorous scientific method to prove this and as usually that's nobody but me is saying this

This isn't about geoengineering. The point of me stickying this was to try and get someone to even define what they think is happening here.

those of us on the board who have followed the topic passionately

AWESOME, OK, I have someone. Let's FG.

First, can we even define what chemtrails even is? Who's doing it? Random Bill Gates projects with specialized planes with no passengers on board? We need someone to explain exactly the program results in six chemtrails over the houses of 200+ chemtards / day on five continents. I'm being dead serious. Explain this.

This is literally the "chemtrails" theory. Am I wrong? So why can't anyone explain this? I'm assured that the trails start and stop? If so, explain the mechanism that accomplishes this on commercial aircraft?

I worked at in airline for almost five years. Explain the logistics of this. A 737 lands in Calgary and goes directly to the gate. I'm an airport nerd, I'm sitting there for HOURS before my flight (it's not uncommon for me to sit for three or four hours just enjoying the activity). The aircraft ONLY gets refuelled, no other "below wing" activities happen other than a ground check and baggage being loaded. Where's the chemicals coming from all the time? Off the plane goes, and it's making what you guys call "chemtrails". How?

You say the poison is in the fuel. It's aluminum. Do you guys even know how jet engines work? Holy cow, aluminum in the fuel is not new. It makes aluminum oxide. Aluminum oxide is biologically non-toxic and inert. That's your poison? It's not highly reactive and doesn't easily decompose to release or otherwise bond with ambient harmful substances. That's chemistry talking. Basic research. Why am I getting looked at like I have two fucking heads, here?

Occam's Razor—which, BTW, isn't "the simplest explanation is true" it states that the explanation with the fewest UNSUPPORTED assumptions is true.

We don't need "people spotting" the differences in the skies. We need people learning how the new jet engines work and how incredibly more efficient they burn fuel. We need a reproduceable and rigorous scientific method to prove this and as usually that's nobody but me is saying this