Contrail/ Chemtrail Research Thread

page: 30
67
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Chemtrailskill
 


Dude this is a research thread - have you got any actual research to back up all your shouting??

Don't you think that having 5 times as many aircraft flying now as 30 years ago might be responsible for making 5 times as many contrails for example??




posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Chemtrailskill
 


Whoa there. Start from the top. Why do you think chemtrails exist?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I live in Concord, North Carolina and I was out picking up a few capacitors to fix my HDTV/Monitor. When I went to leave I looked up and saw these straight lines going from 1 horizon to the other. I grabbed my cell phone and took 2 pictures of them. One picture has 3 chemtrails (look closely) and the other has about 4 or 5 chemtrails. This was taken about 4 miles from where I live. The town I took the pictures in was Kannapolis, North Carolina, about 15 miles northeast of Lowes Motor Speedway. Now today the skies are just a grayish/black color but you can see a little peephole in it every once in a while and above this cover, through the peepholes the sky is beautiful.






posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Hey, all you wonderful people out in ATS land. Please, understand that I'm not here to argue what I believe. I simply wish to share some pretty pictures that I took this morning, and some information about the current weather around the Chattanooga, TN area. You know, in the spirit of what the OP was intending for this thread to be.


Okay, so I walked out of my apartment this morning at 9:30 am to see a trail being formed right above me. It was pretty cool, lol.





And a close up...





This is the trail that it left behind, right in front of the sun






And then I looked off to the left and another one was being formed. 9:34 am





And, after that second one, there were two more. The 3rd one was formed almost parallel to the 2nd one, and you can see the fourth one being formed at the top left corner, almost parallel to the other two:





By 9:50 am, there were four in the sky.
It's like they were painting it for me, hehe.





These were the clouds west of the trails:





And this is the weather report for our area today:









Anyway, hope everyone has a delightful day!
I guess I need to get my umbrella out of my closet. It's so warm today. I love being able to wear short sleaves in November.

edit on 22-11-2011 by GypsyHeart because: forgot to say where I lived, lol



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I seem to have had some success with Flightglobal Atlas on tracking aircraft. I noticed two aircraft leaving thick visible trails. The sort that chemtrail believers tend to think are some sort of tanker engaged in spraying so I grabbed my camera, snapped them, and rushed inside to find a match. We are a relatively low traffic area so it wasn't difficult.

I thought I recognised the red tailed Turkish crescent emblem of THY and the distinctive blue top of a KLM jet and this is what I found when I got on the PC (with pic to illustrate)



Flight number THY8
Operator Turkish Airlines
Speed 477kts.
Origin Washington, Dulles International
Destination Istanbul, Ataturk
Registration TC-JDJ
Hex Code 4BA88A
Manufacturer Airbus
Type A343
Model A340-311
Serial 0023

And;



Flight number KLM644
Operator KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Speed 521kts.
Origin New York, John F. Kennedy International
Destination Amsterdam, Schiphol
Registration PH-BFD
Hex Code 484003
Manufacturer Boeing
Type B744
Model B747-406 (M)
Serial 24001



So, two normal commercial flights passing through my airspace, leaving trails for no other reason than they just do.
edit on 24-11-2011 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Further to my previous post, today I saw two planes crossing paths in a clear sky. This is the sort of sighting that is so beloved of chemtrail believers. They say that airliners don't cross paths and if planes do its is a sign they are sprayers. Though there is no explanation of why sprayers would need to cross.

A perfect opportunity then to put this theory to the test. This is what I saw;



Zooming in, so that I might identify them better this was the view.

firstly travelling across my line of sight in a Northerly direction;



And then travelling directly along my line of sight, facing West



Flightglobal Atlas again showed only two possible links in my area, with the rest of the sky being completely clear both on screen and in reality, as follows.



Registration G-EUYC
Hex Code 405EE0
Manufacturer Airbus
Type A320
Model A320-232
Serial 3721
Flight number SHT6T
Operator British Airways
Speed 375kts.
Origin London, Heathrow
Destination Glasgow, Abbotsinch



Registration N780UA
Hex Code AA9249
Manufacturer Boeing
Type B772
Model B777-222
Serial 26944
Flight number UAL903
Operator United Airlines
Speed 388kts.
Origin Munich, Franz Josef Strauss
Destination Washington, Dulles International


At first I suspected failure as the rather blurry dark blue hull of the A320 was recognisable, but the United 777 looked completely the wrong colour.

However a google for the term United 777 revealed that I was simply out of touch, witness here;



And so there we have it. Two unrelated commercial flights, one Intercontinental and one domestic, making a cross in the sky.

Glad to be of service



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
It is a mixture of chemicals and different sprays. The effects are population mind control and global weather modification. It is the secret government that hides in plain site.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Yes, in the case of United, this is now the paint scheme being adopted, as part of the merger with Continental. It is indeed our (Continental's) paint scheme....all they did is change the name and font to "United":


However a google for the term United 777 revealed that I was simply out of touch, witness here;



The entire merged airline will eventually have the same livery.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
That's very lax of them. I do like the old Continental livery, but after the merger I thought they might bring out an all new look. At least they won't have paid consultants millions of dollars for this idea, did they?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I may be biased, but I happen to think it's the sharpest-looking paint scheme in the industry.

The old CAL slogan, "Proud Bird with the Golden Tail" is stylized there, and the globe symbol denotes a world-wide route structure.

Here, from the 1960s:




When it comes to identifying the airliners that are mistaken for so-called "chemtrail sprayers", having the knowledge of various company paint designs helps. Of course, not everyone can remember them all, but fortunately there are plenty of "Plane Spotter" websites out there, for research and comparison.

Airliners.net is chock-full of examples to review.

It is complicated, too, when some companies change their schemes, or when the "special editions" are out sometimes. Continental decided to celebrate its 75th anniversary (ironic, and a "last hurrah") with a retrospective "Proud Bird" design on a modern Boeing 737-900:



This is the "Proud Bird" logo ("The Airline That Pride Built") from before the jet age, originally. The "Golden Tail" was part of that branding and marketing, from the late 1950s.

(Sorry, a bit nostalgic. "Continental Airlines" officially "died" three days ago....as of 1st December, the FAA Operating Certificates are all combined, and the radio call sign of "Continental" is no more)....



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I just wanted to put this up for you guys that are in the industry and expose yourselves daily.
They have researched what it does to you, but I have not found studies on airborne pollution and what it does
to us on ground as you fly over.


Kerosene-based fuels have been used for many decades. Over 2 million military and civilian personnel each year are occupationally exposed to various jet fuel mixtures. Dermatitis is one of the major health concerns associated with these exposures. In the past, seperate absorption and toxicity studies have been conducted to find the etiology of such skin disorders. There was a need for integrated absorption and toxicity studies to define the causative constituents of jet fuel responsible for skin irritation.



Chronic exposure to jet fuel has been shown to cause human liver dysfunction, emotional dysfunction, abnormal electroencephalograms, shortened attention spans, decrease sensorimotor speed and changes in immune functions (Harris et al., 2001). Repeated application of petroleum middle distillates to the skin causes chronic irritation and inflammation (Freeman et al., 1990; Grasso et al., 1988).



These studies revealed that there were no significant differences in HC disposition across JP- 8 and JP-8 (100) jet fuels. Similarly the previous studies conducted in our laboratory concluded no significant differences among three different fuel types (Jet A, JP-8 and JP-8 (100)) with respect to 147 IL-8 release. Therefore, one can propose that components responsible for jet fuel induced skin irritation must exist in all fuel types, eliminating the possibility of performance additives as the causative constituents. The remainder of this thesis was focused on the identification of such HC constituents. Since all fuel types are mixtures of different aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, we proposed that these HC themselves could be responsible for fuel induced skin irritation.



Aircraft fuel maintenance workers may be exposed to liquid fuel for more than 10 min. In cold climates, JP-8 aerosol may be formed when a cold jet engine is started because JP-8 has a low flash point. This plume coming from the jet engine for a short period of time on startup is visible as a white cloud and contains fuel aerosol droplets in addition to ice crystals. A crew chief standing in this plume might get sufficient JP-8 aerosol on the clothing and skin to raise concern about skin penetration (McDougal and Rogers, 2004). Due to the complexity of jet fuels, it is not easy to determine their hazardous effects. The question is: what types of interactions can be experimentally determined or what markers should be selected to see their toxic effects on skin after exposure to a mixture of hundreds of individual constituents?


repository.lib.ncsu.edu...



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


FABULOUS!!! Tell that to the THOUSANDS of people who work around airliners, day in, day out!!

OH and let's check the veracity of the "author" of that "source"??


'Faqir Muhammad. Topical absorption and toxicity studies of jet fuel hydrocarbons in skin.
(Under the directions of Dr. Jim E. Riviere)


ANYONE wish to challenge this person? Should be easy.....

edit on Fri 16 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 

So I can quote you?
Proudbird the Pilot says
North Carolina State University is a Joke?
www.ncsu.edu...


Dr. Jim E. Riviere of Raleigh, Burroughs Wellcome Fund Distinguished Professor of Pharmacology and Director of the Center for Chemical Toxicology Research and Pharmacokinetics at North Carolina State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, has been elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.

edit on 16-12-2011 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


FABULOUS!!! Tell that to the THOUSANDS of people who work around airliners, day in, day out!!



Actually I'm pretty sure they would know that kerosene is at least an irritant already - I know I did - it is not something you would want to bathe in, although we used it, and all sorts of other dodgy chemicals (MEK, toluene, 111trichloroethylene (I think), etc) as common cleaning materials.

Like most petro-chemicals you should limit your exposure.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead
Whoa there. Start from the top. Why do you think chemtrails exist?


Visual Evidence...





posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Definitely NOT a Contrail...






posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by wirehead
Whoa there. Start from the top. Why do you think chemtrails exist?


Visual Evidence...



What is it that visually differentiates a chemtrail from a contrail, and how was this established as the case?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
For some reason I cannot view the image or open it in a link, I just see a little blue square with a ? In it, in both posts.

I would like to see what is "definitely not a contrail" though, if it can be sorted?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


His (zorgon's) first post above called " visual evidence
" is the hilarious image that a bird photographer happened to catch of a seagull in flight, when the bird just happened to be in-between the camera and an airliner at cruise altitude.....and perfectly aligned to show the contrails from the jet coming out the bird's rear.

(Or else it was photoshopped?)

The Photo



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


The next one is of a Malaysia Airlines B-777-200 with it's left engine on fire and belching white smoke, obviously a serious condition that occurred during take-off, since you can see the photographer snapped the picture as the landing gear was not yet finished retracting. (Plus, you can tell by the flaps and slats settings):

HAD TO DELETE!! The website is full of pornography!!!


SO....after a bit of sleuthing, and I found the original copyrighted image (I DOUBT if the website -- "supremepower.co.uk" -- above is also an owner, or if they paid to display the photo) at airliners.net. Wasn't hard to find @"airliners", they have a pretty good search function over there:

Airliners (dot) Net Photo



9M-MRI (cn 28416/155) About 10 seconds after liftoff from runway 19R something happens with the left engine. Alot of smoke and fragments of metal and other material falls down on the runway. At first the pilots don't get any indications in the cockpit and plan to go on to Kuala Lumpur. Then we decide to call Arlanda duty officer to make sure that they have noticed the pieces from the engine on the runway. Shortly after that the pilots requests fueldump and return to ARN safely. [Nikon D70, Nikkor 80-200 f2.8]



"ARN" is the Arlanda Airport IATA code. Main airport in Stockholm, Sweden. Now, the part about the pilots "not noticing at first" is hard to believe.....I think it's the photographer's personal opinion. The engine is in the process of destroying itself, but it's plausible that it was not a total poser loss....and perhaps there were a few seconds of delay before they noticed the indications. Also, there is no fire detection in some cases, when the damage is fully contained inside the engine itself. If the spool-down in thrust output is gradual, it takes a few moments to "feel" it in the controls.


edit on Mon 19 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
67
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join