It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemtrail pics 11-10-06

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
This is a hoax…
Just this one story alone should show all the Chemtrailers out there that this whole topic is a hoax,


Explain how this can POSSIBLY prove what you suggest it does? Why do you think the absence of solid evidence of additional external or internal tanks ( It's pretty well understood that it's either plainly military or that it will be added to the fuel of commercial planes) proves that chem trails are not real?


and that there are groups/people who find it amusing to perpetrate this hoax.


I don't find this at all amusing and i will prove that by sticking and trough pointing out all the inconsistencies in your dismissive and insulting diatribes.


If you still don’t believe me read this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



And i am not sure what he thinks his proving but he sure seems agitated. One can not deny what one sees and if some can not figure out how they are doing it that hardly proves it ain't so! Now you know i wont put up with your vapid denials so if you must insult those who report on reality at least do so by means of information that actually addresses the observed persistent trails in the sky.

Stellar

[edit on 8-3-2007 by StellarX]




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Explain how this can POSSIBLY prove what you suggest it does?


The fact that this “mechanic” article can be shown to be a hoax should prove to any logical person out there that there are folks propagating chemtrails as a hoax. That was the point I was trying to make.



Originally posted by StellarX
Why do you think the absence of solid evidence of additional external or internal tanks


There are no external tanks on commercial aircraft.


Originally posted by StellarX
( It's pretty well understood that it's either plainly military or that it will be added to the fuel of commercial planes) proves that chem trails are not real?


I have shown you in the past the exact contents of what is contained in Av-Gas. This mixture has not changed its weight/gallon since the 80’s when I first worked as a fueler, before the chemtrail hoax existed. Again, as I have told you in the past, you can go and buy the exact same fuel that is used in the aircraft from your local airport and have it tested. Have you done that yet?


Originally posted by StellarX
And i am not sure what he thinks his proving but he sure seems agitated.


That post was made by me years ago. Yes, at the time I was getting agitated over the debate because its not only silly, but insulting to aviation folks. Lets be honest here, you guys are basically accusing folks that work in aviation of causing harm to the public in general, when they actually take great pride in safeguarding the traveling public and public in general.
The point of that post was two fold. First it mentions this “mechanic hoax” specifically, second because it shows exactly what equipment is used to pump anything on each aircraft, and what it pumps. How much more can anyone do to prove this as a hoax to you then to tell you how to go prove it to yourself. I have told you now exactly what each piece of equipment does and that you can go get the fluids analyzed yourself. What more can I offer you online to try and show you that this is BS?



Originally posted by StellarX
One can not deny what one sees and if some can not figure out how they are doing it that hardly proves it ain't so! Now you know i wont put up with your vapid denials so if you must insult those who report on reality at least do so by means of information that actually addresses the observed persistent trails in the sky.


As I have told you before, you need to look more at the increase in traffic, and the changes in the engines. There was a video posted on this site not to long ago, which I cannot find now. The video had “Cherokee People” as its music background; if that helps anyone else find it. In that video the person filming admits he was in the approach path of Dullas Airport, but try’s to show chemtrails in the fact that certain aircraft are leaving trails while others are not. If you look at the ones leaving trails, they are higher and have the larger wing mounted turbofans, the ones not leaving trails are MD-80’s/DC-9 with smaller tail mounted turbofans.

If you still don’t believe that these contrails existed years back, then how about coming from the Willard Reese of the 457th bomb group:

WWII Contrails

Yes, we certainly did. Contrails were so thick that they became clouds. We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. We flew a different route coming back than going in partly to avoid the contrail clouds that we created. There are some pictures of contrails on my web site - none of these are shown to be very heavy but there were time when we were near the end of the bomber stream and the contrails were so dense that it was no dfferent than flying in clouds. A thousand or more planes (4000 internal combustion engines) can make a lot of contrail at 25000 feet or more.
Hope this helps.
Willard Reese- 457th Bomb Group


No…
Hows about
Ronald D. Spencer of the 788th Bomb Squadron, 467th Bomb Group, 96th Bomb Wing, 2nd Bomb Division 8th Air Force:


WWII Contrails
My recollection is that the contrails persisted for some time. While I don't recall timing them, I would guess that they could be seen for fifteen minutes or more. At times, Germany appeared to be almost covered by contrails as far as you could see. Essentially creating a cloud layer which could possibly persist for hours I suppose. The bombers' in more or less straight lines, the fighters', usually above us, more random as they criss crossed or circled. A common sight was the escorts dropping their tanks and heading off after the bad guys.

The contrails also tended to create a cloud layer which restricted the visibility of the following aircraft. So, contrails represented a problem to us and were to be avoided if at all possible. The idea of poison clouds is obviously ludicrous to those who have regularly experienced them.


Or Hal Province of the 34th Bomb Group:


WWII Contrails
We were, in effect, clouding the sky over Germany. In an effort to eliminate this phenom we were told to go to "Angels5" which meant that we were to add 5 hundred feet to our scheduled bombing altitude. So we went to 21,000 +500 or 21,500 feet and the problem did not resolve. If anything it got worse! We kept adding 500 foot increments to our scheduled altitude until our aircraft reached 27,500 feet, still trailing contrails.

Since the war I have, on many occasions, called attention to aircraft marking up the sky and my memory goes back to March 18, 1945. My sons would also call my attention--"Dad, there's another airplane marking up the sky!". I have noticed that when certain cold-air masses flow south over the US that the phenomenon occurs. With many of the commercial aircarft fllying at altitudes in excess of 20,000, I am not surprised to see contrails quite often. I believe the idea that aircraft are spraying poison is absurd!


You starting to get the point here, it’s a hoax…
An internet hoax that grew legs and took on a life of its own. That “mechanic” article, was written by an aviation person as a joke. The reason I know it was written by an aviation person is because the original article had pictures included with it, pictures that could only be taken by someone with ramp access.

Soooo....

If you will not believe people such as those above, and you will not follow advice from folks like me that tell you how to check this out for yourself, then what will you believe?

Will you believe in a rational explanation to the contrary of your thesis, or have you made up your mind and are unwilling to accept anything that might prove your thesis incorrect?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Here let me put this all into one place for you so its easier to find:

A) Potable Water pumped by a Potable Water Truck.
B) Blue Water pumped By a LavTruck.
C) Av Gas Pumped by either a Hydrant Fuel Truck or a Tanker truck.
D) Engine Oil put in a can at a time by hand.
E) Hydraulic Fluid put in a can at a time by hand.

Other systems that look like they might be pumping something:

A) Engine start air in case of APU failure, provided by a Pneumatic Jet Start Unit.
B) Air Conditioning provided by a Portable Air Conditioner Unit.
C) Electricity provided by a Portable Ground Power Generator.

As to the contents of AV-Gas, they have remained constant since the 80’s when I worked on the ramp, and continued to be the same when I was back out there in 2000. The Specific weight per gallon of AV-Gas was 6.84Lbs/Gallon, with variation in density dependant on barometric pressure. The weight and weight/gallon are extremely important to know when fueling because the fuel-load is given in pounds, the aircraft gauges read in pounds, but the billing and hobbs meter read in gallons. So a fueler has to know how much he pumped and justify that to the gallons pumped on the hobbs meter for billing purposes.

Here is a bit about that additives of jet fuel:


Jet A
JET A

Jet A is a similar kerosine type of fuel, produced to an ASTM specification and normally only available in the U.S.A. It has the same flash point as Jet A-1 but a higher freeze point maximum (-40°C). It is supplied against the ASTM D1655 (Jet A) specification.

AVIATION FUEL ADDITIVES

Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications.

A few additives in common use are as follows:

1. Anti-knock additives reduce the tendency of gasoline to detonate. Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) is the only approved anti-knock additive for aviation use and has been used in motor and aviation gasolines since the early 1930s.

2. Anti-oxidants prevent the formation of gum deposits on fuel system components caused by oxidation of the fuel in storage and also inhibit the formation of peroxide compounds in certain jet fuels.

3. Static dissipator additives reduce the hazardous effects of static electricity generated by movement of fuel through modern high flow-rate fuel transfer systems. Static dissipator additives do not reduce the need for `bonding' to ensure electrical continuity between metal components (e.g. aircraft and fuelling equipment) nor do they influence hazards from lightning strikes.

4. Corrosion inhibitors protect ferrous metals in fuel handling systems, such as pipelines and fuel storage tanks, from corrosion. Some corrosion inhibitors also improve the lubricating properties (lubricity) of certain jet fuels.

5. Fuel System Icing Inhibitors (Anti-icing additives) reduce the freezing point of water precipitated from jet fuels due to cooling at high altitudes and prevent the formation of ice crystals which restrict the flow of fuel to the engine. This type of additive does not affect the freezing point of the fuel itself. Anti-icing additives can also provide some protection against microbiological growth in jet fuel.

6. Metal de-activators suppress the catalytic effect which some metals, particularly copper, have on fuel oxidation.

7. Biocide additives are sometimes used to combat microbiological growths in jet fuel, often by direct addition to aircraft tanks; as indicated above some anti-icing additives appear to possess biocidal properties.

8. Thermal Stability Improver additives are sometimes used in military JP-8 fuel, to produce a grade referred to as JP-8+100, to inhibit deposit formation in the high temperature areas of the aircraft fuel system.

POWER BOOSTING FLUIDS

It used to be commonplace for large piston engines to require special fluids to increase their take-off power. Similar injection systems are also incorporated in some turbo-jet and turbo-prop engines. The power increase is achieved by cooling the air consumed, to raise its density and thereby increase the weight of air available for combustion. This effect can be obtained by using water alone but it is usual to inject a mixture of methanol and water to produce a greater degree of evaporative cooling and also to provide additional fuel energy.


You can purchase any of these fluids yourself if you want to test what is in them.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Explain how this can POSSIBLY prove what you suggest it does? Why do you think the absence of solid evidence of additional external or internal tanks ( It's pretty well understood that it's either plainly military or that it will be added to the fuel of commercial planes) proves that chem trails are not real?


Well, it's pretty well understood that the chemicals found in chemtrails cannot possibly be found in aviation fuel. Why the heck would I want all sorts of heavy metals corroding a turbine?

How come the weight and density of fuel is unaltered by these chemicals?

Do you have any idea how many Military planes would be required to carry out a spraying project?

How would you hire loads of pilots then order than to fly back and forth all day long with no explanation?

You seam to keep saying that air traffic increases 4% per decate. YEAH RIGHT! My sources say 3-5% per year, with huge increases in the amount of flights because of high reliabilty jets coming out. eg. 717-200, E-jets, and CRJ's.

If you're going to report a conspiracy you call reality, then argue that it's true, how about addressing some of our questions? Not once have told me a scientific explanation why Contrails can't persist?

Again the 12th time, what is stopping contrails from persisting?


I don't find this at all amusing and i will prove that by sticking and trough pointing out all the inconsistencies in your dismissive and insulting diatribes.

Look at your interation with me in other threads. The only person insulting is you.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Well, it's pretty well understood that the chemicals found in chemtrails cannot possibly be found in aviation fuel. Why the heck would I want all sorts of heavy metals corroding a turbine?


Agreed PisTonZOR.
To take this even one step further, what about all the airline’s diesel ground equipment that is fueled with the same gas? Why don’t we see chemical trails coming from the engines of tugs, pay movers, ground power units, and jet starts? Airports stock tanks of normal gasoline for ground equipment that uses normal gas, but all the diesel stuff uses the same exact AV-Gas that goes on the aircraft. There are fuel trucks that have a normal hand held pump handle same as you use at the gas station strictly for doing ground service support and they pull their fuel from the same tanks which they use to fuel the aircraft. Av-Gas is exactly the same as diesel with some additional additives after all.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
i went skydiving and fell through one of these chemtrails, i was having a great time until i reached the ground and discovered my suit had been eaten through. also, my parachute was barely intact not sure how i made it down. one things for sure, i didnt even remember the fall down, or who i was for a second. clearly something is up...



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Well
i went skydiving and fell through one of these chemtrails, i was having a great time until i reached the ground and discovered my suit had been eaten through. also, my parachute was barely intact not sure how i made it down. one things for sure, i didnt even remember the fall down, or who i was for a second. clearly something is up...


Sorry but I am going to call BS on this one…
If what your saying is true, and I know its not, then why not post a picture of the equipment after the fact so we can see it? Better yet why don’t I get a statement from Zephyrhills jump school, and see what they say on the topic?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Well
i went skydiving and fell through one of these chemtrails,


at what altiude was this ?

waa you canopy open at this point ?


i was having a great time until i reached the ground and discovered my suit had been eaten through.


really ? what material and thickness was this suit ?


also, my parachute was barely intact


what was the manufacturer and pattern of your canopy ?


not sure how i made it down. one things for sure, i didnt even remember the fall down, or who i was for a second. clearly something is up...


did you seek medical attention , that was the diagnosis ?

they were the polite questions

PS - before replying please familarise youself with the T&C , specifically - " posting information knowing or believing it to be false is prohibited "



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
There are people who still believe in this chemtrails hoax? I thought this already died out.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The fact that this “mechanic” article can be shown to be a hoax


I am not sure that one can or that you have but whatever the case it most certainly did not make the trails in the sky go away so it's completely irrelevant if his lying or not.


should prove to any logical person out there that there are folks propagating chemtrails as a hoax.


There is no such thing as a 'logical person' and by your apparent definition ( anyone who thinks differently are not thinking 'logically') we should be thankful.


That was the point I was trying to make.


And as accurate as the rest of them in my opinion.


Originally posted by StellarX
There are no external tanks on commercial aircraft.


Which is basically my point and certainly that does not lead to less chem trails...


Originally posted by StellarX
]I have shown you in the past the exact contents of what is contained in Av-Gas.


You have shown what is contained in commercial Av-gas as per standards that are normally used and once again i am not sure what you think you have proved. Telling us what the standards are hardly changes what we observe and your contributing nothing in that regard.


This mixture has not changed its weight/gallon since the 80’s when I first worked as a fueler, before the chemtrail hoax existed.


It may not have changed in those flights that leaves regular contrails but how can you suggest that it's the same for the flights that leaves these massively persistent trails?


Again, as I have told you in the past, you can go and buy the exact same fuel that is used in the aircraft from your local airport and have it tested. Have you done that yet?


You think the organization involved in this scam will sell me whatever is used to create these chem trails or that it is now sold as regular fuel everywhere in the world? Why do you think they are simply distributing whatever causes these trails as regular fuel?



That post was made by me years ago. Yes, at the time I was getting agitated over the debate because its not only silly, but insulting to aviation folks.


It's not insulting as much as it questions what they know and exposes what they clearly do not. All aviation folks are clearly not involved ( no more so than all economic majors are involved in raping the third world) and while those aviation folks who don't know what is going on might arrogantly assume that they 'know it all' they clearly do not and have simply not explained what they have been asked to explain.


Lets be honest here, you guys are basically accusing folks that work in aviation of causing harm to the public in general,


Some are but as i have repeatedly said in the past i think chem trails are being laid for the good of Europeans and Americans and that any health side effects are largely incidental ( it might still be hurting or killing a few but then the US government tested the result of fallout on it's own troops and injected millions with dangerous vaccines known to cause death and serious health side effects in large minorities) and in their opinion not something preventable or important at this stage.


when they actually take great pride in safeguarding the traveling public and public in general.


It's much safer to travel by air than it is by road ( especially in the US in Europe) so i don't think anyone who is at all informed questions the integrity of the industry as such. We are talking about a small ( or possibly large ) minority that might very well also believe they are acting in the public interest as i am quite sure i have proved in the past.


The point of that post was two fold. First it mentions this “mechanic hoax” specifically, second because it shows exactly what equipment is used to pump anything on each aircraft, and what it pumps. How much more can anyone do to prove this as a hoax to you then to tell you how to go prove it to yourself.


You are trying to deny reality by telling us what you know and while that will convince those who have not done any real research of their own it can't change my mind because it's simply not specific to what we have seen. Clearly the fuels used in the chem trails laying planes are differently and if you can not address that your not telling me specifically anything new.


I have told you now exactly what each piece of equipment does and that you can go get the fluids analyzed yourself. What more can I offer you online to try and show you that this is BS?


Because it can and clearly have not changed what we see in the skies. Chem trails are still there and if regular fuel can not do that ( as you seem happily attempt proving; and i am not disagreeing) then you must address why we see what we do.


As I have told you before, you need to look more at the increase in traffic, and the changes in the engines.


The engines have not changed significantly in the last ten years and certainly can not explain the appearance of chem trails. Increased traffic is certainly not important either as there were no great and sudden increases in the last decade as i have proven by source material. Three percent per decade is hardly 'significant' in that it can give rise to totally new atmospheric 'conditions'.


There was a video posted on this site not to long ago, which I cannot find now. The video had “Cherokee People” as its music background; if that helps anyone else find it. In that video the person filming admits he was in the approach path of Dullas Airport, but try’s to show chemtrails in the fact that certain aircraft are leaving trails while others are not. If you look at the ones leaving trails, they are higher and have the larger wing mounted turbofans, the ones not leaving trails are MD-80’s/DC-9 with smaller tail mounted turbofans.


Is there any way to determine how long lasting the contrails are the higher altitude lasted? Why do the flights leaving chem trails so often not show up on flight explorer? Who operates these flights?


If you still don’t believe that these contrails existed years back, then how about coming from the Willard Reese of the 457th bomb group:



Yes, we certainly did. Contrails were so thick that they became clouds. We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. We flew a different route coming back than going in partly to avoid the contrail clouds that we created.


Once again until we see 500 or 1000 commercial airliners flying in formation i simply do not see the relevance. I have in the past posted abundant material to prove that the contrail formation were hardly a regular occurrence either. That being said on not one of the photos posted earlier is it made so 'clearly' evident that the contrails are persisting for 'hours' after the planes past and in almost all the photo's the planes creating the contrails are still visible? Considering the speed of those bombers that is not a very long 'contrail' at all and well within what is expected on rare occasions.



There are some pictures of contrails on my web site - none of these are shown to be very heavy but there were time when we were near the end of the bomber stream and the contrails were so dense that it was no dfferent than flying in clouds.


As i said he is remembering one thing and has so far been unable to substantiate it with the type of 'abundant' evidence that is so often suggested by those who seem to make a living by denying observed reality. If you were flying at the end of a bomber stream it's no surprise that the short term contrails 'lasting minutes' would have presented a very real hazard to formation keeping and that has never been contested by me or anyone else here. If you have forgotten why i say lasting minutes...


One unique type of cloud is manmade. Contrails occur when exhaust from jet engines condenses. A narrow line of moisture makes up the contrail. Winds eventually dissipate it; in some instances conditions permit the contrail to survive for many minutes (their straight lines do distort). Contrails are believed to affect weather by raising both short and long-term temperatures (one estimate is for about a third of a degree per decade). Here is a MODIS image taken over the southeast U.S. on January 29, 2004 showing a large number of contrails (at times more than 2000 planes are over the North American continent at any one time):

rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...



The condensation trails (contrails) that form in the wake of high-flying jets are another interesting example. These cylindrical clouds have variable lifetimes and water concentrations depending on environmental conditions. In some cases the contrails can persist for many minutes. But they do slowly diffuse, much like the smoke plume emitted by an acrobatic aircraft.

www.sciam.com...




A thousand or more planes (4000 internal combustion engines) can make a lot of contrail at 25000 feet or more.
Hope this helps.
Willard Reese- 457th Bomb Group


And this is no surprise and to be expected whatever you may or may not believe related to contrails or chem trails.


No…
Hows about
Ronald D. Spencer of the 788th Bomb Squadron, 467th Bomb Group, 96th Bomb Wing, 2nd Bomb Division 8th Air Force:


WWII Contrails
My recollection is that the contrails persisted for some time. While I don't recall timing them, I would guess that they could be seen for fifteen minutes or more.


That would mean that he had a vantage point from which to observe the 100 km odd contrail the plane left in that 15 minutes. Since i find that to be unlikely ( for many more reasons than one) lets just say i need something more solid than what he thinks he remembers ( he makes it abundantly clear that he is in fact guessing) in respect to persistency.



At times, Germany appeared to be almost covered by contrails as far as you could see. Essentially creating a cloud layer which could possibly persist for hours I suppose.


He 'supposes'? Does he remember how big Germany is and how small a B-17/B-24 formation of 1000 bombers are? I'm sorry but to many liberties are being taken for him to serve a purpose i am sure he is not even aware of.

en.wikipedia.org...:Bomber_stream.jpg

How does that 'cover' Germany?



The bombers' in more or less straight lines, the fighters', usually above us, more random as they criss crossed or circled. A common sight was the escorts dropping their tanks and heading off after the bad guys.


And the pictures taken indicates that the planes leaving contrails are seemingly always in sight of whoever is taking the pictures meaning that the contrails were extending for mere miles behind the bombers as is normally expected when conditions allow.



The contrails also tended to create a cloud layer which restricted the visibility of the following aircraft. So, contrails represented a problem to us and were to be avoided if at all possible.


Which certainly does not prove or disprove anything as contrails are expected to last long enough ( when they form) to hinder observation in such relatively tight formations.



The idea of poison clouds is obviously ludicrous to those who have regularly experienced them.


No one is suggesting that regular contrails are poisonous...


Or Hal Province of the 34th Bomb Group:

WWII Contrails
We were, in effect, clouding the sky over Germany. In an effort to eliminate this phenom we were told to go to "Angels5" which meant that we were to add 5 hundred feet to our scheduled bombing altitude. So we went to 21,000 +500 or 21,500 feet and the problem did not resolve. If anything it got worse! We kept adding 500 foot increments to our scheduled altitude until our aircraft reached 27,500 feet, still trailing contrails.


Which points out how hard it is to predict conditions suitable to contrail formation in any exact way.As to the claim that they were 'clouding the sky over Germany' it's obvious what sort of liberties were taken with the truth as it's a pretty big place and relatively persistent contrails ( lasting many minutes) only on those very rare days when atmospheric conditions allows. On those days they are not only a hazard but one that cost many many Allied lives.

I have in the past posted some quotes that indicates you can actually determine quite specific things about the date of a given photo as the relative scarcity of persistent contrails ensures that it could have been taken only on the few occasions ( 3 -5) that given bomber formation encountered such atmospheric conditions. I am sure i posted it in response to one of your posts so feel free to dig it up.



Since the war I have, on many occasions, called attention to aircraft marking up the sky and my memory goes back to March 18, 1945. My sons would also call my attention--"Dad, there's another airplane marking up the sky!". I have noticed that when certain cold-air masses flow south over the US that the phenomenon occurs. With many of the commercial aircarft fllying at altitudes in excess of 20,000, I am not surprised to see contrails quite often.


So suddenly we have to wait for' cold air masses' ( one presumes he means 'fronts') to get marking contrails that forms 'X's in the sky that with the second trail that overlays the area where where dramatic wind shear is evident? Either persistent contrails are not strange at all or they are but that is not being proven by relying on what World War two veterans remembers.



I believe the idea that aircraft are spraying poison is absurd!


I doubt it's intended to be poisonous but from what i have read some people most certainly experience harmful side effects.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   

You starting to get the point here, it’s a hoax…


It's no hoax in my opinion but as always you can dismiss what you see if that suits your interests best.


An internet hoax that grew legs and took on a life of its own. That “mechanic” article, was written by an aviation person as a joke.


It did not start on the Internet as you well know and if you can prove the mechanic 'article' was written as a joke that would help clear up that side issue.


The reason I know it was written by an aviation person is because the original article had pictures included with it, pictures that could only be taken by someone with ramp access.
Soooo....
If you will not believe people such as those above, and you will not follow advice from folks like me that tell you how to check this out for yourself, then what will you believe?


I don't really care when those ' in the know' make such vague and mostly incoherent accusations so mechanic or no mechanic means little for me.


Will you believe in a rational explanation to the contrary of your thesis,


When, or rather if ever, it's presented i can assure you that i will.



or have you made up your mind and are unwilling to accept anything that might prove your thesis incorrect?


My mind is made up in terms of relative overwhelming nature of the evidence so far but as always i have been wrong before and can , somehow, be that here. I am not trying to 'defend' or propagate the chem trail evidence ( i have created no threads or post's that is not in response to what i consider to be lies or misrepresentations/ignorance ) but will keep pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments made by those who attempt to dismiss it as a 'hoax'.

Next post...


Originally posted by defcon5
Here let me put this all into one place for you so its easier to find:
Other systems that look like they might be pumping something:


Why assume something is being pumped? Why assume a commercial operation and why assume you are one of those they have trusted to work with such flights or equipment?


As to the contents of AV-Gas, they have remained constant since the 80’s when I worked on the ramp, and continued to be the same when I was back out there in 2000.


So then according to you if it's a commercial operation it's not in the fuel; where in your opinion does the substances that leads to the chem trails come from? Do you have a opinion or do you just deny reality on the basis that you can not explain it? Gravity does not exist because we can not explain the how and the why?


The Specific weight per gallon of AV-Gas was 6.84Lbs/Gallon, with variation in density dependant on barometric pressure. The weight and weight/gallon are extremely important to know when fueling because the fuel-load is given in pounds, the aircraft gauges read in pounds, but the billing and hobbs meter read in gallons. So a fueler has to know how much he pumped and justify that to the gallons pumped on the hobbs meter for billing purposes.


So one assumes that the 'fuelers' would have to be involved if the operation is commercial at all? How do you explain their silence given the observed differences in contrail persist ency? How do you explain the silence of all those in the past who were part of large government or other conspiracies?

Here is a bit about that additives of jet fuel:


Jet A
JET A
Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications.
A few additives in common use are as follows:


Can we have a list of the more 'uncommon' one's? These additives then apparently have no noticable effect on performance or weight of the fuel so why am i to presume that whatever creates chemtrails will?


5. Fuel System Icing Inhibitors (Anti-icing additives) reduce the freezing point of water precipitated from jet fuels due to cooling at high altitudes and prevent the formation of ice crystals which restrict the flow of fuel to the engine. This type of additive does not affect the freezing point of the fuel itself. Anti-icing additives can also provide some protection against microbiological growth in jet fuel.


Would this not potentially result in less ice in the 'contrail' for later contrail formation?


POWER BOOSTING FLUIDS
You can purchase any of these fluids yourself if you want to test what is in them.



I am quite confident that the fuel or additive that creates chem trails wont be for sale at commercial airports. Do the American army sell the vaccines it used on those who served in the gulf war to the public? Lets not presume stupidity where we have no reason to suspect it...

Stellar



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Posted by StellarX
I am quite confident that the fuel or additive that creates chem trails wont be for sale at commercial airports. Do the American army sell the vaccines it used on those who served in the gulf war to the public? Lets not presume stupidity where we have no reason to suspect it...


I don't know about you but in my country you can't buy vaccines.
Our government funds the vaccinating process if a new disease is found and requires vaccination.

And to claim that buying fuel at commercial airports won't work because they probably won't sell the stuff that causes the chemtrails anyway is like those conspiracies in which the government is the suspect.

There won't be a truth because you claim that the people that are supposed to supply the truth are lying.

I have a better idea:
1.: Buy a hot air balloon
2.: Go fly up to the skies
3.: Grab some Chemtrail from the sky.
4.: Analyze it.

If the trails are too high, search for someone else with a primitive airplane that can reach the altitude, and still go grab it.

Rather than speculating and making claims about stuff that's in the sky, why don't you actually GO UP THERE and GRAB your evidence.

Problem solved.

[edit on 11/3/07 by -0mega-]

[edit on 11/3/07 by -0mega-]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   




I am not sure that one can or that you have but whatever the case it most certainly did not make the trails in the sky go away so it's completely irrelevant if his lying or not.

But it does show that some of Chemtrail evidence is fake.




Which is basically my point and certainly that does not lead to less chem trails...

Where is the Chemtrails stored on a plane then?

In tanks? Nope
In fuel? Nope
External tanks? Nope

Where else?


You have shown what is contained in commercial Av-gas as per standards that are normally used and once again i am not sure what you think you have proved. Telling us what the standards are hardly changes what we observe and your contributing nothing in that regard.

He has shown us what is in all Avgas currently availible at Airports. Avgas is not like car fuel, it is carefully measured and weighed. Any variation and the fuel will be destroyed.

The reason for this is pretty obvious...



It may not have changed in those flights that leaves regular contrails but how can you suggest that it's the same for the flights that leaves these massively persistent trails?

Tell us what exact planes these are then I'll find out.


You think the organization involved in this scam will sell me whatever is used to create these chem trails or that it is now sold as regular fuel everywhere in the world? Why do you think they are simply distributing whatever causes these trails as regular fuel?

You do not understand, all Avgas is pretty much exactly the same. If any pollutants are found, the fuel will be discarded. No special fuel fuels planes.


Clearly the fuels used in the chem trails laying planes are differently and if you can not address that your not telling me specifically anything new.

What are these Chemtrail laying planes?


Three percent per decade is hardly 'significant' in that it can give rise to totally new atmospheric 'conditions'.

LMFAO! I think you've ignored me. "Deny Ignorance".


It's 3-5% per year.


Is there any way to determine how long lasting the contrails are the higher altitude lasted? Why do the flights leaving chem trails so often not show up on flight explorer? Who operates these flights?

In the right conditions Contrails can last forever. It's already been proven a million times.

Flights leaving persistant contrails should show up using Flight Explorer. If they don't, then Flight Explorer is not working correctly. Anyway, you're the Conspiracy theorist, you find out what type of planes they are.


Once again until we see 500 or 1000 commercial airliners flying in formation i simply do not see the relevance.

A contrail from one plane will last the same time as contrails from 500 planes.


That being said on not one of the photos posted earlier is it made so 'clearly' evident that the contrails are persisting for 'hours' after the planes past and in almost all the photo's the planes creating the contrails are still visible? Considering the speed of those bombers that is not a very long 'contrail' at all and well within what is expected on rare occasions.


There is no such thing as 'normal contrails' and 'abnormal contrails'. All Contrails are formed using the same principle. Persistant contrails are very common and are formed when the conditions are right.

Contrails lasting a few seconds are rarer than persistant ones.


No one is suggesting that regular contrails are poisonous...

Uh. Yeah you are actually.

You are saying a normal phenomina is poisonous when it clearly isn't. All it is, is ice particles persisting in the air because of the weather conditions. Do some research on clouds and the weather.


So suddenly we have to wait for' cold air masses' ( one presumes he means 'fronts') to get marking contrails that forms 'X's in the sky that with the second trail that overlays the area where where dramatic wind shear is evident? Either persistent contrails are not strange at all or they are but that is not being proven by relying on what World War two veterans remembers.

Do you have any idea how planes navigate? Doubt it.





So then according to you if it's a commercial operation it's not in the fuel; where in your opinion does the substances that leads to the chem trails come from?

Well if it's a commerical operation, or any jet operation, it is from normal contrails and common weather conditions which create your poisonous persistant contrails which are perfectly normal.


So one assumes that the 'fuelers' would have to be involved if the operation is commercial at all?

Where else?


Can we have a list of the more 'uncommon' one's? These additives then apparently have no noticable effect on performance or weight of the fuel so why am i to presume that whatever creates chemtrails will?

The uncommon ones would be diferant additives to prevent iceing and to kill off bacteria.


I am quite confident that the fuel or additive that creates chem trails wont be for sale at commercial airports.

Why? I've already explained that fuel is carefully measured and taken care of.

In big letters jst so you can see it:

WHY CAN'T CONTRAILS PERSIST?

[edit on 11-3-2007 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
sorry, trying to post a link.

[edit on 3/11/07 by Demetre]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Well, it's pretty well understood that the chemicals found in chemtrails cannot possibly be found in aviation fuel.


Well then feel free to provide me with a list of the chemicals found in chem trails as i have never seen something that i could verify. Once again that may not be the case for regular aviation fuel but that is not what i am claiming!


Why the heck would I want all sorts of heavy metals corroding a turbine?


Because they are handsomely rewarded for whatever ( if any ) damage results?


How come the weight and density of fuel is unaltered by these chemicals?


There are apparently plenty of additives in aviation fuel that does not seem to affect it's weight so it's now evident even to me ( thanks Defcon) that it's not only possible but probably given a government requirement for such materials to be developed and employed in aviation fuels.


Do you have any idea how many Military planes would be required to carry out a spraying project?


Probably at least a few hundred....


How would you hire loads of pilots then order than to fly back and forth all day long with no explanation?


Why would you need pilots?


You seam to keep saying that air traffic increases 4% per decate. YEAH RIGHT! My sources say 3-5% per year, with huge increases in the amount of flights because of high reliabilty jets coming out. eg. 717-200, E-jets, and CRJ's.


3% per decade but it's possible that that is a figure for traffic all over the world. Feel free to include sources as i included mine earlier on.


If you're going to report a conspiracy you call reality, then argue that it's true, how about addressing some of our questions?


How about responding to the answers i have provided to every one of your questions without simply restating the questions as if i never typed a single word?


Not once have told me a scientific explanation why Contrails can't persist?


Not once have you provided me with a scientific explanation why Contrails can persist for many hours or even a day. I HAVE provided you with quotes suggesting so very strongly that 'many minutes' is what we should expect on those rare occasions where the atmosphere allows.


Again the 12th time, what is stopping contrails from persisting?


I addressed this numerous times before and if you will not dignify my earlier responses with some recognition ( any response that indicates you even read them) i will start treating you in the same disdainful spiteful fashion.


Look at your interation with me in other threads. The only person insulting is you.


I will let whoever is reading this judge the both of us.


Originally posted by PisTonZOR
You've insulted me three times on the subject of Chemtrails.


Make a list then as this will at least indicate to me which parts of my posts ( if any) you actually read. It's hard to tell by the general absence of feedback to the answers i provide...

Stellar



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR

In big letters jst so you can see it:

WHY CAN'T CONTRAILS PERSIST?



Because they cause global warming
Hence all the research being carried out by the likes of NASA to study the effects of persistent contrails and ways of reducing them.

btw - I think this paper by Minnis etal should be read properly by anyone interested in 'chemtrails':-

enso.larc.nasa.gov...

I doubt you'll find it discussed on any of the conspiracy sites though.


Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by PisTonZOR

You seam to keep saying that air traffic increases 4% per decate. YEAH RIGHT! My sources say 3-5% per year, with huge increases in the amount of flights because of high reliabilty jets coming out. eg. 717-200, E-jets, and CRJ's.


3% per decade but it's possible that that is a figure for traffic all over the world. Feel free to include sources as i included mine earlier on.


Something I'm very interested in because of the aforementioned impact on global warming.

This is a summary of CAA data for the UK in 2005:-


Air transport movements (landings and take-offs of commercial aircraft) at UK airports grew by 6 per cent from 2004 to a total of 2.3 million. At the UK’s regional airports air transport movements reached a total of 1.3 million, an increase of 8 per cent on 2004, and at the London airports there were again over one million movements, with a 3 per cent increase on 2004. The biggest increases in air transport movements were at Luton, up by 11,200 or 17 per cent, Gatwick, up by 10,800 or 4 per cent, and Liverpool, up by 9,600 or 24 per cent.


I don't have data for the USA, but according to this news story


About 750 million passengers flew on U.S. airlines last year, up from 579 million passengers in 1995 and 395 million a decade earlier. Passenger traffic will top 1 billion by 2015 and double or triple by 2025, the FAA predicts.


So assuming the increase in passengers is reflected in a similar percentage increase in actual flights, it's nearly doubled since 1985

I don't know whether military flights have increased but one would assume they may well have done in connection with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I think I've finally got this 'link' thing down.

These were taken last week from My home in PA. I've taken chem-trail pics before but the trails always traveled in 1 direction, horizontally. I've never seen them in grid form before though. I personally believe that this is proof of chem-trails. I have no actual evidence of the crap that they were spewing out but what else could it be? There were 4 or 5 planes working in this grid form. They were too high up for Me to see but I believe they were jets. In one of the pics You can see that a jet is in the process of turning from making horizontal lines to making vertical lines for the grid pattern. The grid pattern goes as far as I could see into the horizon. I live roughly 60 miles from Baltimore and BWI and 45 miles from DC. This a.m. while taking My son to school I noticed more of the same only they were 'washed out' like they were there a few hours already. What do You guys think?






posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Ooops, here are the pics of the jet turning to create the grid. Sorry, I thought include them all the 1st time.





Peace. K*



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Demetre

I personally believe that this is proof of chem-trails. I have no actual evidence of the crap that they were spewing out but what else could it be? There were 4 or 5 planes working in this grid form. mtrails010.jpg]
[/URL]


They look exactly like normal contrails, consisting of ice particles, so why assume them to be anything different?

Now, maybe something was being sprayed? But what you see is not the results of spraying - and anyway, at that altitude anything sprayed would not come to earth for possibly thousands of miles ...... That's why you don't see crop sprayers flying at 30,000ft


As for why an aircraft appears to be flying in a grid pattern? Maybe it was doing some sort of survey?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Yesterday evening before sunset I was looking up into the sky and saw two very dark and strange looking chemtrails in the sky. There were two airplanes that had a black trail behind them moving upwards in the sky. I'm not sure if it was just because it was in the evening that the trails appeared black or not. I could see these two off in the distance, mean while overhead there was a very dark looking trail right above me. Has anyone else ever seen black chem trails?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join