Chem-trail Plane Photographed on the ground?

Like I said before, thats the back end of that model of the CFM-56 turbofan engine. Many modern engines have that. Go look at any KC-135 with those engines too.

If you really want to believe thats some silly chemtrail nozzle, fine, but now you have to include UPS DC-8s with those engines too. So is UPS just a secret chemtrail fleet in disguise?

cdn-www.airliners.net...

[edit on 12-5-2008 by firepilot]

[edit on 12-5-2008 by firepilot]

I know everyone keeps saying that chemtrails started in the mid 80s.
But I remember seeing them over up state NY in the mid 70s. They flew in the peculiar criss cross pattern when I was up there on hunting trips. I would watch the planes for weeks at a time. I could not help wonder why an airplane would be flying a checkerboard pattern in the sky all day every day over forests miles from nowhere not even farmland. I had nothing else to do but watch the planes, as I sat there.

This has been going on a long time.

I always see people saying it's just one plane flying patterns. Do you realize how many flights a day cross the United States? It's in the thousands. Especially in the New York area.

Exactly Contrails, and crossing contrails, have been going on since contrails first happened.

I would like a logical explanation of how if contrails interesect, then it means chemtrails, since you have jet turbine powered airplanes going in all different directions.

LMAO--I definitely know better than that. I sometimes see 3 or 4 of these guys spewing that crap out simultaniously, in different sections of sky. Whatever the heck they're spewing out of them, it's no small time operation, this stuff is going on 24/7, with tons of different jets bellowing this junk out all over the atmosphere.

Yes, there are at times thousands of jet aircraft up at any given time, especially mornings. Spewing dihydrogen monoxide which sometimes condenses, even freezes too and hangs around a while!

And sometimes their paths even cross!!! Take shelter everyone!!!!

reply to post by cutbothways

---

The exhaust of the HP core of the engine has this conical body in the centre which helps direct the airflow efficiently around the outside of it with the minimum of turbulence, on some engines it is concealed within the aft nacelle and on others, like this model of CFM 56, it protrudes from the back. The small open ended tube that protrudes from this at the extreme rear end is the Aft Fairing Drain Tube and it simply allows any excess hydraulic fluid or oil that might collect at the back of the engine to drain away and not become a problem, as its name suggests. It is just a hollow cone with no mechanical parts inside it.

First Choice A320

DHL DC-8

SAS 737

[edit on 12-5-2008 by waynos]

The best evidence any chemtrailer ever has is "what I saw" or "I smelled this." What a crock. No one who believes in this stuff can even handle a sane conversation with zaphod, ozweatherman, or one of the other great scientifically educated people on this forum. They just keep calling out how much this is happening. Have you ever been to an airport? DO you know how many planes take off in a day?

The thing is, I used to buy into it, but I grew out of that within a few threads on the subject. Logic won.

You are like orderlies in a hospital trying to talk grey matter with a brain surgeon, you lose.

reply to post by firepilot

---

UPS-United Poison Sprayers? Who would've thunk it?

I'm definitely switching to FedEx for all my shipping needs!

I am interested in why some contrails evaporate but other trails would linger for sometimes hours. I post a video that shows a normal contrail and then one that lingers and spreads. www.youtube.com...

You know what's a trip? The amount of you folks that jump on these threads and start hurling insults and personal attacks. What are you guys, 12 years old?

Don't agree there's anything to chem-trails? Cool! Why don't you state your cases without all the status quo childish nonsense?

I think Zaphod has done quite a fine job here, and he actually didn't have to resort to the 3rd grade name calling and ridicule to state his position. Some of you other folks would do well to follow his example.

reply to post by Witness2008

---

rt has to do with temperature, altitude and humidity. On drier hotter days they dissipate fairly quickly but on cooler days they hang around longer which allows them to spread more. This also applies to different altitudes. The higher the contrail (where it is colder) the longer it lasts.

Maybe a bit over simplistic but its like asking how come sometimes snow melts the same day and other times it hangs around for weeks?

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

---

I have been polite and civil in this thread and asking what I believe to be legit questions. I do not understand why I have had numerous insults flung at me. It seems to me that the rational down to earth questions just do not get answered, instead I get personal attacks with the exception of a couple of members..they know who they are.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

---

It's funny that you should question people's maturity after posting the below Internet slang:


ROFLMAO!

reply to post by waynos

---

Longer? How much longer? The planes in the video are not seperated by much altitude given they both cross under an already spreading trail.

reply to post by waynos

---

not to mention that temp, rh, wind direction and speed change constantly so where one trail seems to last a while before dissipating, another one made shortly after it may dissipate right away. Ive been at many sights where the weather station at one level is gusting at 15 kts to the west at 10 degrees but then a station further up (at the same time) is showing 5kts east at 16 degrees. then they do a complete 180. Mother nature and her weather patterns are amazing.

reply to post by Witness2008

---

interesting because if you read through this thread there are just as much mud slinging by you or the other pro-chemies yet still NO solid evidence to PROVE your case in the debate.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

---

I do apologize, my contributions have been trite and without any evidence to back them up..

However, I am sincerely frustrated with the fact that people who believe in this phenomenon always go back to the exact same points they stated 5 pages back..

I will contribute this however. I post this on many chemtrail threads. Beyond science, chemtrailing does still not seem logical.
1. Expensive
2. Easier ways.. water, food, etc.
3. There is no evidence that they work at all, so even if they used to be prevalent, why would they still be trying?
4. The REAL "dangerous" people like I, who live in small towns with our guns and radical ideas are being trailed less, I wonder why?
5. If it had anything to do with mind control, why are we dissenting against our government MORE?
6. Why would they poison us when they could much more easily just round us up and throw us in an enclosure. Bullets are cheaper than air contamination.

None of it adds up..


And trails that linger longer and some that disperse? Different altitudes. Read the threads. Different altitudes, wind conditions, etc. Your eye cannot interpret the altitude of a cloud next to another.

reply to post by SantaClaus

---

Thanks man, I appreciate your input here. I definitely am of the suspicious mind when it comes to this stuff, and the whole covertness of the operations is what makes me further suspicious, but I am always open to BOTH sides of the issue. It could be nothing at all like you guys have made a good case for, but it could also be some sort of covert Op IMO.

Not making a statement, just tossing out possibilities.

reply to post by Witness2008

---

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion? It is impossible to judge the height separation between aircraft from the ground. There have been many photo's published of 'near misses' of aircraft that appear to have nearly crashed that were nothing of the sort so this distant video cannot be conclusive.

Something else I forgot to mention in my post is that another factor would be what throttle setting the engines are running at, with whether a plane is climbing, cruising or descending affecting the fuel/air/vapour mixture. There are just so many variables in this that visual evidence alone cannot be conclusive, something more would be required like, maybe, verifiable analysis?


I am not saying that I can conclusively prove that chemtrails are rubbish. I can't, even though I myself do not believe in them. It is just that all the evidence I have been presented with (such as on this thread) is easily explainable, even without my own knowledge.

There was a major thread some time ago about an RAF Canberra that was 'proven' to be used for laying chemtrails when it was nothing of the sort. It was being used to spray water vapour into the path of following aircraft to conduct anti icing trials, but this (100% accurate and true) explanation was far too mundane for the 'pro-chemtrailers' to accept.

It is this attitude I was referring to on an earlier post. If these people simply refuse to accept even the possibility that an explanation I know to be true is correct then why should I taken anything else they say seriously? Do you see what I'm saying?

I will say though that this is an attitude I have not seen from you.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by waynos]