Chem-trail Plane Photographed on the ground?, page 12

privacy

Pages: << 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 28 times

reply posted on 18-5-2008 @ 12:11 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by pikypiky

OK....piky....I quite understand your point. I hope you will understand mine!

The original point of THIS thread, has been debunked....can you accept that??

Now, having said that....we must next go to....Are Commercial Jets Spraying Stuff On Us? well...no....that has been pretty well shown to be false.

Finally....IF a nefarious scneme existed, to 'spray' on unsuspecting citizens....well, it would NOT BE DONE from 30,000 feet, for god's sake!!!

Please face science, and reality: Commercial Jets do not 'spray' chemicals. I have flown the jets in question, for nearly 22 years....and I assure you, we did not carry any extra weight as it pertained to to these supposed 'chemicals'.

Every commercial jet, when dispatched, has these weights, known by the pilots....the OEW....this is the Operating Empty Weight....this will include the weight of the airframe, and the estimated catering....and the estimatd Crew weight, all based on ESTIMATES!!!!

Added to this 'weight' is the fuel, and the payload. The payload consists of the cargo....and the passengers, and their checked baggage.

The passengers are averaged at, Summer Weights....185 lbs each... (Yeah, right...)

The luggage...at 23.5 lbs each....not weighed, just counted....each bag...

yeah, right!!

Of course, the 'payload' is bad on B*S* averages....but we DO know the weight of the fuel....and that is what really matters....because the fuel quantity is the real point, for any flight....but, because of the price of fuel, there is a strong incentve to save fuel, as much as possible...
and that is how airlines try to eke out any profit they can, given the environment they are forced to operate under...

reply posted on 18-5-2008 @ 12:44 AM by pikypiky

reply to post by weedwhacker

I can accept that this thread is debunked and that science is real. While I do not doubt your background and expertise in commercial airlines, I see no reason to accept completely science as part of my reality. I am willing to go beyond my comfort zone and think outside the box for once and find out the truth to the chemtrail believers.

I value your input, WW.

reply to post by GeordieRacer

Yeah, I experimented with one ‘anti-chemtrail’ doohickey but I’ve no scientific evidence to support that one event.

[edit on 2008-5-18 by pikypiky]

reply posted on 18-5-2008 @ 12:55 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by pikypiky

pikypiky...that is a very nice response....a star for you, and you have just been given an upgrade in my personal opinion...which means nothing on this board, of course....but I hope you understand my intent.

WW

reply posted on 18-5-2008 @ 03:12 AM by firepilot

Originally posted by pikypiky
reply to post by weedwhacker

I can accept that this thread is debunked and that science is real. While I do not doubt your background and expertise in commercial airlines, I see no reason to accept completely science as part of my reality. I am willing to go beyond my comfort zone and think outside the box for once and find out the truth to the chemtrail believers.

I value your input, WW.

reply to post by GeordieRacer

Yeah, I experimented with one ‘anti-chemtrail’ doohickey but I’ve no scientific evidence to support that one event.

[edit on 2008-5-18 by pikypiky]

However, at the same time, Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Proof.

Chemtrail proponents have never yet succeeded in offering real proof, and what they do try to offer up, is often so easily debunkable as to be silly, like the topic of this thread.

I am willing to consider topics and ideas "outside the box", but at the same time, there needs to be something supporting it, as with any unconventional theory.

Go look at chemtrail websites with an open mind if you want. Look at their claims, and see if they ever have anything substantive to support those claims. The reality is, they never do, but you can look for yourself.

reply posted on 18-5-2008 @ 06:05 PM by BlasteR

reply to post by firepilot

We all know that solid proof of chemtrails is lacking. But does a lack of proof prove anything either? Skepticism is tricky.

What I take issue with is the fact that Ted T posted these photos which he obviously would have known were refueling pods if he would have spent one minute doing a google image search (I think it took me one or two minutes to find this exact model actually). Then you had all these really speculative statements by Ted T mixed in with all this. And people wonder why everyone is so confused about chemtrails in general. It's because the people who try to point out the evidence may or may not know what the hell they're talking about.

I guess Ted T did come back and say that he was mistaken about the photos, but if he would have taken the time to research what refueling pods look like, fuel tanks, etc.. and compare them with these photos, wouldn't he have known he was wrong? He made this whole post with all these photos and all these links and it meant nothing because he didn't even try to debunk anything whatsoever. It took me 2 minutes to find this exact model on google typing in an image search for "refueling pod".

I'm still waiting for something tangible to come along that proves chemtrails are real. ( something that doesn't include photos of contrails or refueling pods).

-ChriS

[edit on 18-5-2008 by BlasteR]

reply posted on 18-5-2008 @ 06:58 PM by firepilot

You arent going to get any proof. I have told them many times, go look at websites with aircraft photos, where you can actually tell the kind of aircraft, who it belongs to, etc, like airliners.net, and tell me which ones are the chemtrail planes.

Usually (although not in the case of this thread), they shy away from pics like that, because then they can easily be proved wrong. Instead, they point to contrail pictures where a contrail persisted, or a picture of intersecting contrails, as proof, but where nothing is actually definitive.

I have even offered to answer questions regarding aviation and aircraft, but rarely will they ever ask any questions. And on chemtrail boards, they quickly ban pilots too.

Here is an example of chemtrail reasoning. Lots of times, they would post about a big persistent contrail, then how the next day, the sky was cloudy, so in their reasoning, the chemtrails made the sky cloudy.

However, an observant person would notice that often before weather systems arrive, you start to find increased cirrus clouds, since even Boy Scouts have saying about a halo around the moon (cirrus) leading to rain the next day.

Its just that the same conditions that lead to more cirrus (either colder or more moisture) also lead to contrails being more pronounced.

reply posted on 31-1-2009 @ 08:47 AM by Anonymous ATS

Pages: << 9 10 11 12 >> ^^TOP^^