It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

page: 16
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 





I think they complement the excellent content in this thread that is being provided by Chadwickus, Phage, Essan, OzWeatherman, etc...


That's a lot of asses to kiss.




On a more serious note;

www.trbav030.org...




Abstract
A mobile aerosol sampling facility was installed and operated on the NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) Sabreliner high altitude research aircraft, for the purpose of sampling aerosols related to cirrus cloud phenomena. During this project the opportunity arose to do field sampling on jet exhaust aerosols, and these results are reported here. Aerosol properties sampled include concentration, size distribution, and hydration properties. The aerosol sampling facility features two electrostatic aerosol classifiers (EAC's), in tandem, with a saturator in between. The saturator allows the aerosol to be equilibrated at 100% relative humidity between sizings with the EAC's. The facility occupies about the space of two short equipment racks on the aircraft, and collects samples through a tube projecting through the aircraft skin. Exhaust samples were taken from Pratt and Whitney PT 6-42, JT 12A-8, and JT 15-D-4 engines, all burning Jet-A fuel. The results indicate that aerosol sampling offers a real time means of detecting and tracking jet exhaust plumes, even in the absence of visible smoke or ice contrails. A good correlation is found between engine exhaust aerosol properties and those generated in laboratory combustors. This cirrus aerosol field sampling program was done in support of the NASA/NOAA project FIRE (First ISSCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) Regional Experiment).

www.informaworld.com...=jour~content=a771379515




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
 


OurskiesRpoisoned.....

A*s kisser here again!


May I ask a question?

How long have you been reading about "chemtrails"?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
PONR, I will check out that contrail study when I get a bit more time.

Thanks for posting it.

[edit on 29/5/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 





Why'd you have to put those images in my head before breakfast!!!


Well, it's saturday night overhere!

Bon apetit!




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   


Certain heavy metals, especially vanadium, were found in jet exhaust and may be useful chemical fingerprints. Analysis of JP-5 fuel standards revealed a suite of alkylbenzene hydrocarbons, which may also aid in fingerprinting aviation emissions. Sediment samples taken at coastal wetlands near airports indicated the presence of the same heavy metals as those found in jet exhaust samples.

pubsindex.trb.org...

Vanadium. Hmm, this metal wasn't mentioned in OP.

Is Vanadium toxic?



Vanadium, an important air pollutant derived from fuel product combustion, aggravates respiratory diseases and impairs cardiovascular function.

www.informaworld.com...=a793995479&db=all

But don't you worry folks, the author of the OP, claims to be an expert.

These chemical contrails are completely harmless.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 

That report, like most everything that come from Carnicom, is deeply flawed.

Most importantly, the upper air data used is satellite derived. While such data can be useful for forecasting purposes,it is not accurate enough to determine upper air conditions for the purposes the report uses. In order to do that, actual measurements from radiosondes would have to be used.

Next, since the "mysterious" flights were not tracked by Flight Explorer (which does not track all flights), there is no way to determine the altitude at which those unidentified aircraft were flying yet the report claims that they should not have produced contrails. How can he make that claim?


The report regarding September 11 is a topic of quite a bit of debate. There are conflicting studies.

We conclude that the increase of the diurnal temperature range over the United States during the three-day grounding period of 11–14 September 2001 cannot be attributed to the absence of contrails. While missing contrails may have affected the DTR, their impact is probably too small to detect with a statistical significance. The variations in high cloud cover, including contrails and contrail-induced cirrus clouds, contribute weakly to the changes in the diurnal temperature range, which is governed primarily by lower altitude clouds, winds, and humidity.
Source


Do we experience fewer clear days because of air traffic? Maybe, but often the first evidence of an approaching weather system is that contrail formation is facilitated by the influx of moisture. The chances are good that the cloudiness would occur without the presence of the contrails. On days when the conditions are not conducive to contrail formation we don't see contrails or cirrus clouds. It is really the weather that causes the contrails, not the converse.

Do you really never have any clear days in Europe except when the planes are not flying? There are never any clear days when they are? I find that a little hard to believe. Did you check the upper air data on those clear days when the planes weren't flying? That might have been instructive.

[edit on 5/29/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Don't need to have an account to read what's written here.

Why don't you post a few of the pro-chemtrail threads?

Why don't you post links to research, like this;



The results of this study suggest that the range of size of particulate emissions from some jet engines clusters below 1.5 mm and that the emissions contain heavy metals. Therefore, jet exhaust particulates (JEPs) have the potential to adversely affect both the environment and human health. Little is known about the particulate component of jet engine emissions.

www.areco.org...





[edit on 29-5-2010 by OurskiesRpoisoned]


Nice you provided a link, but it does nothing to your cause. I'm familiar with this report. You seem to have misunderstood, discounted, forgotten, or are unaware (as opposed to thinking no one would follow the link and purposely avoided) of the sampling and intent of the study. It's a ground level study, with sampling done in a wetland adjacent to an airport.

Like any engine, there is a time when the mixture is "rich", producing more exhaust fumes. Take-off is when the engines are working at maximum, producing more exhaust. Airports have a lot of planes, producing more exhaust.

The report is more about AIRPORTS and their surrounding environments, than jet exhaust at altitude, where contrails are created.

It's not actually apples to oranges, but it is lemons to oranges.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 






That report, like most everything that come from Carnicom, is deeply flawed.


I'm not sure why you say it's from Carnicom, some guy named M. Steadham did the investigation.




Most importantly, the upper air data used is satellite derived. While such data can be useful for forecasting purposes,it is not accurate enough to determine upper air conditions for the purposes the report uses. In order to do that, actual measurements from radiosondes would have to be used.


That's what you say, off course. I don't know. The conclusion of the research is not entirely dependant on the accuracy of acquiring the air conditions.



Next, since the "mysterious" flights were not tracked by Flight Explorer (which does not track all flights), there is no way to determine the altitude at which those unidentified aircraft were flying yet the report claims that they should not have produced contrails. How can he make that claim?


No, it does not track all flights but:


Aircraft flying via VFR (visible flight rules) are not part of the datastream, however this is irrelevant to this study since the lowest altitude at which contrailing was observed during research was 31,000 ft. and there are no VFR flights allowed in a Class A airspace, above 18,000 ft., although there is one very rare exception to this rule. Military flights are filtered from the datastream by the FAA for security reasons.



The conclusion was that the unidentified planes left the most persistant long lasting trails.

They were all flying above 31,000 ft., wich would make them militairy planes, flying at that altitude, with VFR.

The problems you have with the research don't affect that piece of evidence, it's interesting no matter what.




Do you really never have any clear days in Europe except when the planes are not flying? There are never any clear days when they are? I find that a little hard to believe.


Off course, it were sunny days, but normally on sunny days, you always see the trails dispersing, forming a haze, you still see blue sky off course, but you get clouds that are there purely because of the trails.

I heard a lot of people comment about how clear the skies were without the planes flying.











[edit on 29-5-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


You're welcome.

I have to warn you, Phage thinks it sucks.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Just read through the "Chemtrail Central" link. There are a lot of errors in reasoning and method. For example:
"To be valid, a hypothesis must be disprovable, or falsifiable. This hypothesis is falsifiable if inconsistent data is not found."
No, to be valid a hypothesis must be PROVABLE. Inconsistent data is not going to be found if the hypothesis is true.
"Timing of the duration is achieved by counting seconds or using a stopwatch while observing ..."
So, did they use the "one Mississippi, " method or the "one thousand one," method? Maybe they sang "ABC" to time 20 seconds? Stopwatches are both cheap and easy to find, to not use one in a "scientific" observation is ridiculous and not scientific.
"As the exact altitude is not available via Flight Explorer, the atmospheric data that is recorded is taken from the altitude that has the most favorable conditions for contrail persistence at that hour. This provides the "benefit of the doubt" best-case conditions."
Oh, really? Did he use only well-trained observers? Judging altitude is not an easy thing to do. How did they identify the distance between observer and plane? That take specialized training as well. In the pictures along with the report, the plane is hardly visible. They are very far away. Perhaps out of the region covered by the radar? Would have been something to check out. At least I would have.
Earlier, he concedes that military planes are excluded from the radar image. Perhaps the "unidentifiable" planes should have been easy to identify, at least as being military jets, had the observer been closer. A military jet, as opposed to commerical, is easy to identify in profile, if you can really see it well enough to make a "good" observation.
These are just three of the things on the page that made my bulls**tometer go "ping". So I looked around the entire site a bit more. They have altostratus/cirrostratus undulatus clouds misidentified. They have cloudbows and irridescence misidentified. They have "dark chemtrails". They have "grids" and "triangulation".
All in all, the site is how I remembered it the first time I saw it....crap masquerading as science. It has no credibility.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 

You're right. I got Carnicom confused with Chemtrailcentral.

Yes, he is using satellite derived data.

The soundings provided by NOAA/GOES provide a profile of the characteristics of the atmosphere for a given area. Soundings for Houston, TX have been utilized to collect:

GOES are geosynchronous satellites. The conclusions are dependent on that data because that data is used to determine at what levels contrails are likely to form and persist. If the data is not accurate (and it often isn't, you can compare it to the actual soundings at various stations) neither are the conclusions reached by using it. And yes, he does use the data. Or he tries to anyway:

One highly persistent trail was measured for as long as it could be viewed from one location at well over 5 hours of persistence. As the exact altitude is not available via Flight Explorer, the atmospheric data that is recorded is taken from the altitude that has the most favorable conditions for contrail persistence at that hour. This provides the "benefit of the doubt" best-case conditions.

This is utter nonsense, he has no idea of the correct altitude so he selects a "best-case" situation from inaccurate data. That isn't science.


For the same reason the "data" about the unidentified planes is useless. It doesn't really matter who the unidentified flights were. What matters is the altitude they were flying at and the conditions at that altitude. That is not available. There is no reason to believe that they were not flying at altitudes at which conditions were conducive to persistent contrails while other aircraft were not.

The entire report is meaningless.

[edit on 5/29/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





You're right. I got Carnicom confused with Chemtrailcentral.


It's ok, every source you don't agree with is flawed, it must get confusing to tell them apart.



This is utter nonsense, he has no idea of the correct altitude so he selects a "best-case" situation from inaccurate data. That isn't science.


The lowest observed contrail was at 31,000 ft, so all others were above that.

Like I pointed out, anytihng flying at that altitiude that doesn't show up on Flight Explorer, should be a militairy aircraft.

It doesn't really matter how accurate the air measurements are, the fact stands that the planes that left the longest lasting trails, were unidentified, flying above 31,000 ft., making them militairy.




This is utter nonsense, he has no idea of the correct altitude so he selects a "best-case" situation from inaccurate data. That isn't science.


It's a good way of estimating the altitude with the means at his disposal.




There is no reason to believe that they were not flying at altitudes at which conditions were conducive to persistent contrails while other aircraft were not.


Well, he put them in the "best case" conditions so, so noone is saying otherwise. Also, he knew they were above 31,000 ft., so he knew his lower limit.

The important conclusion, is that the biggest, most persistent contrails were released by unidentified planes.

How coincidental is it that those planes all would happen to fly through optimal air conditions for contrails, while the registered flights didn't?




The entire report is meaningless.


Not it's not, some altitude estimates may not be super accurate, the fact remains that unidentified flights, above 31,000 ft, and therefore militairy, are leaving the most persistent contrails.

None of the indentifiied flights were leaving these kind of trails.

Coincidence?

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 





It has no credibility.


If you can't see that the conclusion of the report is valid, you have no credibility.

Non of the registered flights were leaving the most persistant contrails, the unidentified ones were.

If you explain this by saying this is coincidence, and all unidentified flights that left the most persistent contrails, were flying through optimal conditions, and identified ones weren't, you aren't credible.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


I can't say that because the observations done in the report are meaningless. If you can't see a plane, and you don't have any idea how far away it is because you cannot find any data on it's flight, then that observation is not valid.

To claim it is valid, and supports the hypothesis, you would have to believe that lack of data is okay. It' is not okay. He excluded planes that he could not pinpoint on radar. If they are not on radar and are not close enough to identify as a military jet, then the planes he claims are spraying should have been excluded as well.

Besides that, the other "information" on the site is wrong. The entire site has no credibility because they make easily proven wrong assumptions elsewhere on the site. The report is just like the site.

And yes, the planes are far enough away to easily been in a region with differing conditions.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


Fact remains that the largest and most persistant contrails observed, were made by planes that couldn't be identified.

This is a seperate fact, and has nothing to do with air measurements.

How do you explain this? Coincidence? The unidentified planes all happened to fly through perfect contrail conditions, and all identified planes happened to fly through bad contrail conditions.

What are the chances?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


It's the atmosphere, a dynamic and chaotic place. It is very possible. It is observed everyday, everywhere and is questioned in many "chemtrail" videos.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
It doesn't really matter how accurate the air measurements are, the fact stands that the planes that left the longest lasting trails, were unidentified, flying above 31,000 ft., making them militairy.


Well military aircraft have to fly at some height


But the fact remains that on many many occasions exactly identical contrails are observed being produced by normal commercial aircraft. Over the UK for example.

So are we saying that a chemtrail is simply a contrail produced by a US military aircraft?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 





Well military aircraft have to fly at some height


Yes, your point?




But the fact remains that on many many occasions exactly identical contrails are observed being produced by normal commercial aircraft. Over the UK for example.


How would you know what kind of aircraft is leaving a particular contrail?

Did you perform similar research, but better?

And exactly indentical to what?




So are we saying that a chemtrail is simply a contrail produced by a US military aircraft?


I think you need more time reading this thread, and less putting words in my mouth.

First of all, I never said they were chemtrails.

Secondly, I'm just saying that the conclusion of the research taking place in that particular area, was that the very persistant trails were left by unidentifiable planes, contrairy to the planes that were registered.

The lowest contrail was at 31,000 ft, anything flying above 18,000 ft. and is not registered is a militairy plane, according to the study.

I think this is the fifth time I've repeated this conclusion, is it that hard to understand?

I didn't think of it, just repeating what's in the report. Maybe you should read it, if you want to discuss it.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


If you consider someone a dreamer, then so be it. I'm sure people here are bigger then to worry about someone thinking they are a dreamer.


Just because someone doesn't know everything about meteorology, chemtrails, airborne aerosol spraying systems, the atomisation of fluids or can't perform air sample tests behind a moving aircraft, doesn't mean somebody isn't spraying something into the sky for some purpose.


So, because "someone" doesnt know everything about "meteorology, chemtrails, airborne aerosol spraying systems...blahblah," DOES mean that "someone" for "some reasons" IS spraying "something" in the air.

That is the most hypothetical defense i have ever read. You cant just claim "something" is true because a lot of people who dont know anything about the situation have no reason not to believe that "something" is true. Its kind of... like... stupid?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Oh....I see you're still stuck on that flawed "study", conducted in 2001, and focusing on an area around Houston, TX?

They used "Flight Explorer"!!


"FE" is notoriously unreliable, it does NOT (did not then, anyway) display ALL data from the FAA radar and computers.

Look up the website....note the company that owns it? "Sabre". That is the proprietary computer sytem that is a subsidiary of the AMR Corporation...AMR is the parent company of American Airlines.

SO....the so-called 'missing' or 'unaccounted for' flights? They simply were not included, since the data was filtered BY Sabre, not to "hide" anything, but because it didn't need a lot of the data....Sabre looked at regualrly scheduled passenger flights mostly. Didn't care about anything else in the FAA computer systems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update: Historically I remember 'Sabre' as American's computer reservation system, but it looks like it's been spun off into its own Corporation, over the intervening years. It provides much more than just AAL's needs, nowadays...

(http
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre_(computer_system)
[ugh! -- ATS doesn't like the underscore symbol in link addresses...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Sorry, but that "study" has been brought into these "chemtrail" discussions before, last time I remember was about a year or so ago....it was trash then, and it's still trash today.

Pay attention to the source, and pay particular attention to how a biased "study", with a pre-conceived expectatio will skew the "results"...this is known as 'pathological science'. Tailoring the observations and 'data' obtained to fit the preconception. You can research the phenomonon; it sullies quite a lot of what passes for 'science' sometimes.


If you want a valid, real-time (not 'FE') source that will include ALL flights that are in the FAA computer database on IFR flight plans within the 48 States, use www.flightaware.com...


[edit on 31 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join