AZ residents at chemtrail hearing: ‘We’re being sprayed like we’re bugs and it’s really not

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
Aircraft flying at 5-6000 ft and 160mph would be really easy to photograph - so where' those photos??

a reply to: vethumanbeing

They wouldn't be leaving trails if they were going there. You do realise that there are on average thousands of commercial flights a day crossing the country, right? There is an average of 5,000 flights a minute if you add general aviation to the mix.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

"The dingo ate me pics!"

But yeah, another good point.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

If they were at ground level. At higher altitude the conditions are completely different.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vethumanbeing

It's not nitpicking, it's fact. Even pushing up the throttle in a turn is only going to get you so far. If you make hard turns near stall speed you stall.

I'm well aware of the capabilities of the A-10 and how tight it can turn, but it's subject to the same rules as any other plane.

I really have no idea why you think the A10 is subject to the same aerodynamics of other designs, it has a different purpose and was created so, its a light specialized bomber not a fighter/interceptor (tell that to Lockheed in '63 when they rolled out the SR71," that planes design IS JUST NOT OBEYING THE RULES OF FLIGHT (of other planes) as we know it". B2, B17, I don't know, these unconventional designs are tricky (that is why there are suicidal test pilots available for hire).

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vethumanbeing

All A-10s have the same stall speed. Going slow would actually make them turn wider, not sharper. There is a specific speed that they maneuver best at. They won't make sharp turns near their stall speed because they'll either stall in the turn or just after it, when they bleed energy and slow down.

No! The radius or sharpness of a banked turn is defined by the formula r=v^2/g tan theta, where r is the radius, v isthe true air speed, g is the g loading and theta is the angle of bank. So for a given bank angle (say 60 degrees) the radius or size of the turn increases in proportiion to the square ofthe speed. And a 60 degree bank turn gives you a 2g load factor. The stall speed does increase but The stall speed is proportional to the square root of the secant of the bank angle (secant being the inverse of cosine). Plug in the numbers and a 60 degree bank gives you a new stall speed increase of 40%. So the banked maneuvering stall speed is 168 knots. Va, or maneuvering speed of the Thunderbolt II is 232 knots so everything is fine. At anything above a sustained 5 gs, the induced drag does scrub off some speed but at a typical attack weights 250 knots seemed to be an effective operating speed for close in maneuvering.

a reply to: F4guy

And yet, I've watched birds turn at slower speeds and get into trouble just as I mentioned.

Maneuvering at slow speeds is asking for trouble.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vethumanbeing

They wouldn't be leaving trails if they were going there. You do realise that there are on average thousands of commercial flights a day crossing the country, right? There is an average of 5,000 flights a minute if you add general aviation to the mix.

I don't live across the country experiencing 5,000 flights a minute even if I added casual recreational aviation to the mix. I'm more specialized in one particular environs (about a 1/2 acre).

a reply to: vethumanbeing
Your story is a bit different from what I'm used to hearing. I'm trying to find a reason to believe that it might be true. You're not helping.

If what you claim is true you really need to record this. It blows my mind that if all of what you have claimed is true ,(aside from what you have admitted that you don't know) that no one in your area has video of this available to see.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vethumanbeing

If they were at ground level. At higher altitude the conditions are completely different.

I don't understand your post, if the planes? were at ground level flying at full velocity or the horizon is at a higher altitude than it should be doing something that could get it thrown in county jail if caught. This is the problem with the 'trails" they don't blow away as these patterns are laid down when there are no wind condition factors (the reflective powder on the topiaries) the dry coughing humans experience and those nose bleeds livestock experience are all at ground level (feet on the earth).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

And you keep bringing up the lack of planes in that area. With that many flights over the US there is nowhere that doesn't have dozens of flights going over.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

You mentioned the lack of humidity. That's at ground level. At altitude there's plenty of humidity, or there wouldn't be persistent trails.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vethumanbeing

You mentioned the lack of humidity. That's at ground level. At altitude there's plenty of humidity, or there wouldn't be persistent trails.

You apparently have never lived in a desert environment. If there is any accumulation of humidity it would take the form of clouds; these grid patterns seem to be laid down in the absence of those formations (clear skies); and if the purpose is to seed at the higher altitudes (where there is moisture), its not working.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: F4guy

And yet, I've watched birds turn at slower speeds and get into trouble just as I mentioned.

Maneuvering at slow speeds is asking for trouble.

One small problem there, birds are not fixed wing aircraft, they make mistakes when over compensating, or draw the wings in prematurely or too late and they crash.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vethumanbeing

And you keep bringing up the lack of planes in that area. With that many flights over the US there is nowhere that doesn't have dozens of flights going over.

Not on the same flight paths. Tucson International is not a hub its a shuttle port; like Midway is to O-Hare. Nearest one is Phoenix for direct routes east/west, and that is 180 miles away, routes out of to from Tucson generally would not intersect. I suppose what I am saying is "Has anyone in Phoenix noticed anything strange regarding vapor trail grids".

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: vethumanbeing
Your story is a bit different from what I'm used to hearing. I'm trying to find a reason to believe that it might be true. You're not helping.
If what you claim is true you really need to record this. It blows my mind that if all of what you have claimed is true ,(aside from what you have admitted that you don't know) that no one in your area has video of this available to see.

If you were experiencing it as a 'witness' (and or an uninformed lab rat experiment) you would have no reason to doubt my testaments. I'm not sure anyone in my area hasn't documented this; I will ask around (there is a CD floating about). I am helping by shear fact I am contributing to this forum topic and you are responsive (meanwhile I will keep my Gizmos charged and vid this).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I'm not talking about birds. That's another way of saying airplanes.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

They're not going to Tuscon, they're going over it. It doesn't matter how small the airport is, there are still hundreds of planes going over.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I am helping by shear fact I am contributing to this forum topic and you are responsive

In the context of my statement, which you are free to comprehend, you're not helping me believe your story.

And now you have finally said something truly interesting. Any good CT could see that as an admission that your role is to generate traffic/posts. Think about it.