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