It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Essan
Well, to be honest Stellar, every meteorologist on the planet would agree that those remarks you persist in quoting are inaccurate.
Especially those who have been recording and studying persistent contrails over the past few decades and who today are investigating ways to prevent them occurring due to their impact on climate.
As to other conspiracy theories - the question is: who is misleading who? And why?
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
You were not attacked. You claimed that the trails above you were CHEMTRAILS. WE asked for your evidence of such great claims. You still have not provided it.
Your pictures show contrails. Contrails absolutely DO stay in the sky for long periods of time.
Comparisons were made between satellite-identified contrails and contrail persistence estimates from flight data for 53,844 U.S. continental flights performed during the week of November 11/12-18, 2001. The satellite data were processed by NASA Langley Research Center using methods for identifying contrails as described by Mannstein . Given detailed knowledge of the aircraft types and radar-based trajectory data, simulated contrails did not match contrails observed in the satellite images. First, striated cirrus cloud formations were misidentified as contrail pixels. This resulted in the "contrails" typically aligning N-S, while most aircraft routes are aligned E-W. Perhaps 40-50% of the contrail pixels were misidentified. Second, a total of 60-90% of the contrail pixels (all demonstrated to be either contrails or clouds) occurred in areas where the assimilated meteorological fields showed RHi < 100%. This demonstrates that the RHi fields, although representative, do not accurately portray the true RHi fields on a given day in 2001.
Once formed, the contrails were allowed to spread based on wind shear. It was assumed that the
contrails precipitated with a fall speed of 3 cm s-1. This fall speed produced a spreading rate of 6 km
h-1, the same as that determined for the isolated military contrails. Although the isolated contrails
spread to widths as large as 40 km, it was assumed that the maximum width would be 12 km because
it corresponds to the length-weighted average width of the military contrails. No new nucleation
was allowed so that the optical mass (OM) remained constant as the product of the optical
depth (OD) and the width once the OD reached it peak according to the log-normal function,
To persist, contrails and cirrus require RHI > 100%. Because of negative biases in the relative humidity measured at cold temperatures (Miloshevich et al. 1999), RHI infrequently exceeds 100% in
the USA radiosonde record. Furthermore, the RUC model adjusts and smoothes the RHI field so
that it differs from the radiosonde measurements. While the older version of the RUC used here
(discontinued 18 April 2002) yields RHI > 100% more often than the radiosondes, it is still biased
low. Thus, it is necessary to increase the RHI from radiosonde measurements for T < 0°C or set an
artificially low value of RHIt.
When scientists at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory started studying contrails for the Air Force and Navy, they found that contrail ice particles are one five-thousandth to two five-thousandths of an inch in diameter. This is small but not small enough. One way to suppress contrails, the scientists reasoned, would be to make their water form particles smaller than a wave length of light. Then they would not reflect light whitely like clouds or snow.
Much of the actual experimental work was done in the Cornell Laboratory's high-altitude chamber. Researchers dressed in Arctic clothing were sealed inside while much of the air was pumped out and the remainder chilled as low as—85° F. Then they lit a small blowtorch with jet engine fuel and studied the captive contrail that it created in the cold, thin air.
What they were searching for was a material to feed into the incipient trail and make its water form ice particles too small to reflect light. Hundreds of materials were tried. At last a hygroscopic (water-attracting) powder was found that promised to do the trick and meet practical requirements. The laboratory built a mechanism to shoot it into the exhaust of one engine of a B-47. It reduced the contrail to a thin wisp a few hundred feet long. Later improvements made the trail completely invisible.
Like natural cirrus clouds, contrails can impact
climate through their radiative effects. Persistent
contrails often form in air with relative humidities with
respect to ice (RHI) exceeding 100% but with relative
humidities with respect to water (RH) less than 100%.
Cirrus cloud formation generally requires RH > 100%.
Thus, contrails can form clouds in conditions that would
not support the formation of most natural cirrus. Cirrus
coverage over the USA grew by 0.010/decade between
1971 and 1996, while declining over other land areas
with minimal air traffic 0.017/decade.
The values of RHI at 225 hPa (~12 km) plotted in
Fig. 4 show one supersaturated area over central OH
and Indiana at 1200 UTC and no areas at 1600 UTC.
Over PA, RHI ranges from 90% at the OH border to
50% at the eastern PA border. Over Pittsburgh (PIT)
underneath contrail A at 1200 UTC, the RUC RHI is
80%, while near Aberdeen, MD (ABD), close to C at
1200 UTC, RHI = 55%. A similar value is found over
Dulles, VA (IAD) near contrail D, while RHI = 80% over
Blacksburg, VA (BLK) near the end of E. These values
are too low for sustaining contrails.
Espeically when the temps are cold. This is fact. And there are professionals here who have explained this over and over.
Thefore, I (and a few others) are actually the one denying your ingorance.
Again, can you please provide us with your proof that chemicals were being sprayed above you. Thanks! It will help us all in this long winded debate!
Originally posted by 4theye
i think the debunkers here are on a salary. you can show evidence, logical arguments, and proof all day long and they will refute it with all kinds of nonsense to the bitter end of their shift, whence the next shift clocks in to take over damage control. c'est la vie.
WASHINGTON, April 11 (Xinhua) -- American Airlines, the largest U.S. air carrier, canceled 570 more flights on Friday, or 25 percent of its schedule, leaving tens of thousands of passengers stranded, CNN reported.
The move came after the airline failed twice to meet an airworthiness directive by the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA.
American Airlines has canceled nearly 2,500 flights in the past three days.
Over the past three weeks, U.S. carriers overall have shut down about 3,700 flights because of inspection issues, with the potential of cancellations continuing into the summer, leading to multi-million-U.S.-dollar daily losses, according to industry analysts.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, and 737-900 series airplanes. This AD requires an inspection of the vertical fin lugs, skin, and skin edges for discrepancies; an inspection of the flight control cables, fittings, and pulleys in section 48 for signs of corrosion; an inspection of the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew, ball nut, and gimbal pins for signs of corrosion; and corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports indicating that moisture was found within the section 48 cavity. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the correct amount of sealant was applied around the vertical fin lugs, skin and the skin edges. Missing sealant could result in icing of the elevator cables, which could cause a system jam and corrosion of structural and flight control parts, resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane.
Effective 8 April 2008
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, 747SP, and 747SR series airplanes powered by General Electric (GE) CF6- 45/50 and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) JT9D-70, JT9D-3, or JT9D-7 series engines. This AD requires repetitive inspections to find cracks and broken fasteners of the rear engine mount bulkhead of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes, this AD mandates a terminating modification for certain inspections of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. This AD results from reports of web and frame cracks and sheared attachment fasteners on the inboard and outboard nacelle struts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks and broken fasteners of the inboard and outboard nacelle struts, which could result in possible loss of the rear engine mount bulkhead load path and consequent separation of the engine from the airplane.
Effective 8 April 2008
Originally posted by atlasastro
Why would the "powers that be" need to use chemtrails to destroy the population.....we are doing a pretty good job of it already......
check out all the crap we eat,
the drugs we take, the air we breathe,
the stress we place on ourselves,
the way we polute or own environment,
surround ourselves with excessive micro, ectro, and magnetic waves....
not to mention radiation.......
and now lets talk about war, and weapons and crime, and famine....and.....oh yeah....
now we need chemtrails in commercial airliners that are all going broke.
.......let me guess...all those luxury sea liners are really behind the melting of the Polar Ice Caps.
Originally posted by StellarX
Contrails do not stay in the sky for long periods of time ; at least they did not use to as atmospheric conditions simply did not allow for that.
So plenty of contrails aligned in the opposite directions of where they were expected and even more where atmospheric conditions ( RH too low) does not allow.
Originally posted by apex
So why exactly would it necessarily be to make more supposed 'chemtrails'? And why would said chemicals be inserted into the airflow in the hot jet exhaust anyway, since thats where the contrails form from?
Probably the best-known of the aerial geoengineering proposals was that put forward in 1997 by Edward Teller and entitled ‘Global Warming and the Ice Ages: Prospects for Physics-Based Modulation of Global Change’ subsequently popularised in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled ‘The Planet Needs a Sunscreen’.
Teller proposed deliberate, large-scale introduction of reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, a task he claimed could be achieved for less than $1 billion a year, between 0.1 and 1.0 percent of the $100 billion he estimated it would cost to bring fossil fuel usage in the United States back down to 1990 levels, as required by the Treaty of Kyoto.
Characteristic of the politics of Teller is the fact that he both ridiculed the idea of global warming and at the same time put forward what he represented as a solution to global warming. ‘For some reason,’ Teller observed sarcastically, ‘This option isn't as fashionable as all-out war on fossil fuels and the people who use them.’
Both the Pentagon,s aerosol operations and its limited nuclear wars are deeply interconnected. We can trace the beginnings of Operation Cloverleaf right to the Strangelove brain of Dr. Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb and proponent of nuking inhabited coast lines to rearrange them for economic projects.31 Before he died in 2003, Teller was director emeritus of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where plans for nuclear, biological and directed energy weapons are crafted. In 1997, Teller publicly outlined his proposal to use aircraft to scatter in the stratosphere millions of tons of electrically-conductive metallic materials, ostensibly to reduce global warming.32
Shortly after Teller,s presentation, the public began seeing frenetic chemtrailing. In 2000, CBS News admitted that scientists were "looking at drastic solutions for global warming, including manipulating the atmosphere on a massive scale." CBS confirmed that the plan to load the air with tiny particles would "deflect enough sunlight to trigger global cooling."33
Teller estimated that commercial aircraft could be used to spew these particles at a cost of 33 cents a pound.34 This gives credence to a report by an airline manager, forced by a compulsory non-disclosure agreement to remain anonymous, that commercial aircraft have been co-opted to assist the military in consummating Project Cloverleaf.35 A 1991 Hughes aircraft patent confirms that sunscreen particulate materials can be run through jet engines.36 A science textbook now used in some public schools discusses the sunscreen project by showing a large orange-red jet with the caption, "Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen." The logo on the plane says "Particle Air."37 The implications of this crucial information should not be understated. A program to make America,s millions of annual jet flights a source of specially designed particulate pollution is serious business.
It will be noted that in October of 1997 a change in the reporting system of visibility data was reduced from a former maximum of 40 miles to a limit of 10 miles. It is a reasonable question to ask as to why that change was made, and whether or not it was made in anticipation of certain events to follow that involve large scale aircraft aerosol operations over large scale geographic regions.
It is observed that there are highly significant degradations in the visibility data immediately following this change in the reporting method. Immediately after this change, the dramatic increase in visibility reports of less than 10 miles is quite apparent.
The graphs shown are taken from climatic archive data available for Santa Fe, NM from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. Three different time periods are shown to aid in demonstrating the magnitude of change which has occurred in visibility. The first graph shows all data available inclusive from Jan 1994 to Mar 2001. The second graph shows the transition zone during which the visibility standards were altered. This graph showns a period from Jan 1996 to Dec 1998; the change in reporting standard was made in Oct 1997. The third graph shows recent data, where visibility below 10 miles is now a regular occurrence. This graph shows the period from Jan 1999 to Mar 2001.
The proposed revisions address two categories of particulate matter: fine particles (PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10-2.5), which are smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter but larger than PM2.5. EPA has had national air quality standards for fine particles since 1997 and for coarse particles 10 micrometers and smaller (PM10) since 1987
EPA last revised the particulate matter standards in 1997. Under terms of a consent decree, EPA agreed to propose whether to revise the particulate matter standards by December 20, 2005; and committed to finalizing any revisions to the standards by September 27, 2006.
Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality
"I think this assistance is too generous, it gives too much money, it goes far beyond compensating the airlines for those three days that government edict was in effect and the question I have is clearly we are compensating them for far more," said Fitzgerald, who like some other Republicans, openly worried that the bill was being passed too fast.
Originally posted by Beefcake
I'm not trying to sway opinions because i don't really care who believes me i'm just giving my 2 cents in 2 posts, not my 50 cents in 50 posts.
Where there is smoke there is fire and there is a fire in this thread for sure.
Originally posted by Twisted Pair
reply to post by Zeus187
The Tanks you saw were for BALLAST / BALANCE Testing!!!
This was not meant to be a one-liner, but check out your sources!
Originally posted by Gerizo
Originally posted by Zeus187
Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by Gerizo
So rainbows are chemtrails to then?
dont be a flippin muppet dude, thats exactly the # we dont need in here, if these people want there intellegence insulted we will go watch sesame street or doctor phil.
if people here are insulting yours.... dont bother clicking in...
A flippin muppet? Wow! I don't think I insulted anyone's intelligence.(check your spelling)Ok,maybe now I did. Don't bother clicking in....ill comment if i chose too, if you don't like what i'm saying then simply click the ignore button.