Chemtrailers: Your time is NOW!

page: 19
34
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Navigator
 


While there are seasonal differences in the atmosphere, at flight level ground temp and conditions mean nothing. The atmosphere is chaotic and dynamic. It is not homogenous with layers and pockets of differing temps, humidity, saturations, even winds.
Judging altitude is difficult and requires specialized training and lots of experience to do well. Have you had either?
Planes turn. Why do people not think about that? Of course they turn in the air. What you saw as a 90 degree turn was probably nothing besides the usual turn. Perspective can make lots of things seem different than the expected. Besides, if the contrail wasn't forming, you can't do anything more than say it turned and is flyinng in a different direction. "Racetracks" and "circles" are common for holding patterns.
I wouldn't have been smoke, btw. It's overwhelmingly water, with hydrocarbon soot and CO2. A gallon of jet fuel produces 1 gallon of water from combustion. This triggers the atmospheric water to condense, and can produce an addition 20,000 gallons of water. Anything diluted 20,000 times with water is actually going to be very dilute.




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Why do people continue to hold up videos as "proof"? Proof of what, exactly? Chemical composition? How? Intent? How? That what is being shown is somehow different than anything else in the sky? How?

All a "chemtrail" video can show is that someone can use a camera and computer, but doesn't understand atmospheric science. Or chemisty. Or aviation sciences. Or physics. Or clouds. Or weather. Or climate.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Teeky
 


Teeky, I remember contrails when I was a kid. There are more of them now, but there are more planes. You probably didn't notice them until you saw the first "chemtrail" video. I did notice, because my father commuted to work by plane for most of my childhood. They look like they do now, same size, persistence, etc. And I'm 49, so that was in the 60's and 70's. So to me, they obviously have NOT changed. Also there are pictures and films from World War 2 showing big, billowing contrails. Lots of them because air raids were made up of lots of planes. Look up "Memphis Belle" on YouTube. These are from the 1940's. It's not pretending, it is fact that they have not changed.
Why do contrails last for hours? Why do you think they can't? A contrail is water droplets/ice crystals and the exhaust from jet fuel through a jet engine. They are water and pollution. Just like a cloud. How many clouds do you see form and dissipate in the matter of a few minutes? I'm guessing zero.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by Teeky
 


Teeky, I remember contrails when I was a kid.


I never saw a buzzard when I was a kid. Now I see them all the time. Does that mean they are a new species which didn't previously exist?

In any case, whatever we saw, there is no question that others did see them and did photograph them and did study them in the 1960s

ie Peter Kuhn 1970 (a paper I've linked to so many times on ATS I think it's possible at least one other person may have read by now, yet no-one has ever tried to debunk it)



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


I have completed a canadian commercial pilots course and This is my area where I did my training I know the vector airways here.On a hot summer day in the middle of a big high presure system the atmoshere is pretty calm and no where near cold enough to create a vapor trail.These planes made four passes over about three hours the trails did not dissipitate they spread and slowly drifted toward the valley and would spread out and look like high cirrus cloud they would last up to seven or eight hours.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


You posted that list of threads on the freakin previous page.

You don't have to cram it down the throat of every single poster that disagrees with you.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

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


You posted that list of threads on the freakin previous page.
You don't have to cram it down the throat of every single poster that disagrees with you.


Point of No Return.....



"You posted that list of threads on the freakin previous page.
You don't have to cram it down the throat of every single poster that disagrees with you."



I agree.....I don't HAVE to do that!!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



[edit on 6-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 




Why did you qoute me twice?



You posted it 3 times from pages 15 to 19, can't you use your own arguments in the discussion you're having in this thread?

The poster shares a testimony, of strange "contrail" behavior, he cllaims to be a pilot(or training to become one?:edit), and you talk down to him saying chemtrails are a paranoid delusion.

He never even used the word chemtrails in his post.

"Here look, these are threads with people saying chemtrails are not real"

"Therefore chemtrails don't exist."

Like you're making a public service announcement.

I think I can make a list of threads that have a premise that is "pro-chemtrail", and keep reposting it, if I am too lazy, or incapable of making my own argument.






[edit on 6-6-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Thanks for proving my point.

I know you love to repeat other posters' work, and suck up to them in the process.



1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").


Tsk, tsk.




[edit on 6-6-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Navigator
 


I'm sorry, Navigator, but I feel I must jump in here with some questions, based on your post here:


I have completed a canadian commercial pilots course and This is my area where I did my training I know the vector airways here.On a hot summer day in the middle of a big high presure system the atmoshere is pretty calm and no where near cold enough to create a vapor trail.



The "canadian commercial pilots course" you refer to...was it merely the test-prep, textbook-type study? OR, have you actually gotten your Canadian pilot's licence? If not yet licenced, how much practical experience do you have under your belt?

en.wikipedia.org...

As you are no doubt (?) aware, it is similar to the US system, under jurisdiction of the FAA, in terms of Airman Certificate licen(s)ing ('license' is the American spelling). One progresses gradually, starting from Student, to Private and eventually, after accumulating sufficient experience, and additional training, can go on to get qualified with a Commercial Licence (or higher).

However, of course, along the way is a lot of what we term "Ground School". Simply, the study undertaken on the ground, either in a structured course administered by accredited institutions, or on one's own. ALL to ultimately be able to pass the various written exams one must hurdle, on his/her journey to becoming an ever more experienced pilot, and earning more advanced Certificates and Ratings.

NOW...I am puzzled by your assertions, and terminology (although it could be a simple typo):


I did my training I know the vector airways here.


Ummmm...we refer to those as "Victor" Airways. Down here in the States, and yes, even up in the 'frigid' North.

BUT (and I'm surprised you didn't realize this) 'Victor' Airways are only associated with 'low altitude' routes (in North America). Victor Airways are not valid ABOVE FL 180.
(That's an important concept to remember, hope you might be catching on by now...)

Next:


On a hot summer day in the middle of a big high presure system the atmoshere is pretty calm and no where near cold enough to create a vapor trail.


NOW, you are simply repeating the same mistake that laypeople make!! It sounds as if you're equating the temperature conditions on the ground (under the 'high pressure system') and saying that because it's a "hot summer day" where you are, that it must also be too hot at altitude for contrails to form?!?


Is this the gist of your assertion? Because, if it is...I can tell you you are in error.

You've 'completed' the commercial study, right? Go back and study the section, again, on meteorology. I would expect (well, I know) that every pilot's licensing study course has that section.

I suggest a review on the topic. Pay particular attention to the adiabatic lapse rate information, for starters.


Back to 'Victor' Airways (low altitude) versus 'Jet' Airways (high altitude...above FL 180).

It is entirely correct that airplanes at or below 18,000 feet are very unlikely to form contrails...the air just isn't conducive to that, at those low altitudes.

To learn more about the structure of Airways, both US and Canada (although I don't know where in Canada you are, I'll just randomly pick) a person can either go to an airport and BUY the associated navigational charts, OR...you can view them for free here:

skyvector.com...

Actually, that source is for US charts....but, for say...Quebec, you can type in the ICAO airport code (CYQB) and the chart will center there, but it will mostly show hte US airspace south, not the Canadian airspce farther north.

You probably know what a "Sectional" and "WAC" chart are...the buttons labeled "Enroute L-x" or "Enroute H-x" (where "x" is a number of the chart) will display the IFR charts, both 'Low' and 'High', as selected.

Those charts all have panels at the ends with a key to deciphering most of the symbols and terminology, too.

Enjoy the free lessons!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Breaking news!!! For our 'hoser' cousins Up North!!


skyvector.com...





[edit on 6 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





It is entirely correct that airplanes at or below 18,000 feet are very unlikely to form contrails...the air just isn't conducive to that, at those low altitudes.


Jeah, but wasn't he saying that he saw planes flying at these altitudes, that were leaving trails?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


NO...my impression from reading the post made by Navigator (that I responded to) is that he/she was somehow equating his/her 'knowledge' of the low-altitude Victory Airway structure with the observed routes of the airplanes that made the contrails.

Seemingly unaware that Jet Airways, at high altitudes where passenger jetliners typicaly cruise, are laid out differently, in most cases.

Also, based on this:


These planes made four passes over about three hours the trails did not dissipitate they spread and slowly drifted toward the valley and would spread out and look like high cirrus cloud they would last up to seven or eight hours.


The reference to "look like high cirrus clouds" indicates that he/she was SEEING cirrus clouds! AND, cirrus does only form at high altitudes.
~~~~~
Here, I tend to 'Wiki' too often, so another source is nice to view:


The most common form of high-level clouds are thin and often wispy cirrus clouds. Typically found at heights greater than 20,000 feet (6,000 meters), cirrus clouds are composed of ice crystals that originate from the freezing of supercooled water droplets. Cirrus generally occur in fair weather and point in the direction of air movement at their elevation.

ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu...

The ONLY reason this "chemtrail craze" has developed, worldwide, is due to the ignorance, of the general public at large, of the science of meteorology!! See my quote: Carl Sagan was a visionary, yet even HE didn't foresee (or maybe he did) the utter devastation of people's understandings of concepts beyond "American Idol" or {"Britain's Got Talent"!! Falling lack of standards in many Western educational schooling systems are likely at fault......
~~~~~
Continuing:

Further, the fact that there were only THREE airplanes in the course of four hours indicates that it is a fairly infrequently travelled area of Canada (OR, other flights passing by were at different altitudes -- even a difference of a few thousand feet can mean NO contrail, versus the other altitudes where they DO form. Or, particular regions or 'pockets' of sufficiently moist airmasses, scattered or spread about horizontally. Even on a slant. Remember to think in THREE dimensions!).

Additionally, cirrus clouds (as I keep saying, and any meteorologist will also confirm) do form naturally. Has been the case since before mankind evolved....

The passing of a jetliner can contribute to this naturally-occuring trend....actually instigating further development. It isn't that arcane, nor hard to understand once schooled in the science.





[edit on 6 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sorry, a cloud formed by aircraft exhaust trail, is not a cirrus cloud.

You can spin it all day long, but still remain wrong.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
 


???


Sorry, a cloud formed by aircraft exhaust trail, is not a cirrus cloud.


Actually....well, correct, not AT FIRST. Not as defined in generalized teminology for 'cirrus'. BECAUSE of the method of formation (a jet airliner is NOT a 'natural' occurence, I'll grant) the initial shapes are artificially formed.

HOWEVER, it is the content and MAKE UP of the ice crystals that define the nature of the clouds, as they evolve. Natural forces act on the contrails, after they've been formed, to 'spread' them out....whenyou see them spreading out (just as they will naturally do, also) you are seeing 'cirrostratus' formations.

ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu...

Really....this is just a matter of going out and getting educated about meteorology!

You could consider the contrails a form of altocumulus, in a way, upon being first formed. (I might wonder if we could coin a new term --- "cirro-cumulus"? Maybe Ox or Essan has an opinion on that?...) Altocumulus don't generally form naturally at 30,000 feet, but, again...the jets do this, NOT nature. nature adapts them, and modifies them, according to prevailing conditions in the various airmasses.

ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu...

I don't know how much easier this is to explain!



[edit on 6 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker.....



"The ONLY reason this "chemtrail craze" has developed, worldwide, is due to the ignorance, of the general public at large, of the science of meteorology!!"


Well said, weedwhacker.....

Well said!


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




Originally posted by weedhwacker
...wonder if we could coin a new term --- "cirro-cumulus"?


Well, figures I write, and don't look stuff up...must have had the term in the back of mind, for all these years...because it ACTUALLY IS already a defined form of cloud!



Cirrocumulus clouds are high-altitude clouds that usually occur at an altitude of 5 km to 12 km. Like other cumulus clouds, cirrocumulus clouds signify convection. Unlike other cirrus clouds, cirrocumulus include a small amount of liquid water droplets, although these are in a supercooled state. Ice crystals are the predominant component, and typically, the ice crystals cause the supercooled water drops in the cloud to rapidly freeze, transforming the cirrocumulus into cirrostratus.


en.wikipedia.org...

Again...there is wide variety in cloud types, and sometimes no clear demarcation between specific types, either. Same is true for contrails. People who believe in "chemtrails" must think that ALL contrails are the same, or some such notion. Maybe that's at the root of these misconceptions......



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OurskiesRpoisoned
 


Oh, and since your claim below got THREE 'stars', guess a third response might be in order (?):


Originally posted by OurskiesRpoisoned
Sorry, a cloud formed by aircraft exhaust trail, is not a cirrus cloud.


...because, found yet another handy link.

This is so simple, and explains it as well....we've used a lot of words, but maybe this particular arrangement of MORE words will start to sink in:


Contrails

The white streaks you see coming off high-flying jet airplanes are called contrails, which is short for condensation trail. Contrails are clouds that formed when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles that exist in aircraft exhaust. The water vapor comes from the air around the plane and the exhaust of the aircraft.


Short and sweet.

windows2universe.org...




[edit on 7 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Navigator
I have completed a canadian commercial pilots course and This is my area where I did my training I know the vector {sic} airways here.On a hot summer day in the middle of a big high presure {sic} system the atmoshere {sic} is pretty calm and no where near cold enough to create a vapor trail.These planes made four passes over about three hours the trails did not dissipitate {sic} they spread and slowly drifted toward the valley and would spread out and look like high cirrus cloud they would last up to seven or eight hours.


Well, he sure sounds like a reel pilut, doncha think?


For anyone who is willing to entertain the thought that 'navigator' has really done a "canadian commercial pilots course" - I'd suggest you also take a look at his only other post here, and .. err.... ok then ....

For anyone who is promoting 'chem'trails' can you answer these very simple questions...

1. How is it that NOT ONCE, in amongst all the 'chem'trail claims, has anyone, even at 'chem'trail websites, posted video evidence with full PROVENANCE? What I mean is this - if you post a video of 'trails', it should be pretty easy to provide all the supporting information - (exact) time and place, direction (with verification). This would allow the flight to be identified (eg flightaware) and the altitude determined. Then the atmospheric conditions at that altitude can be verified via a number of sources (eg weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html).

2. How is it that despite some $6000 being collected by the chemtrail scammers to do so (that attempt 'vanished' and so did the money), no-one has ever managed to get an in-situ air sample proving chemtrailing? Before you bring up the stale objections, it is actually not that difficult to hire a plane capable of flying at 30Kft, and most of the US airspace is 'uncontrolled'. I reckon I could do it for under $6000...

Trouble is, if they came back with just water and the expected combustion products, their income stream from chemtrail books and videos might be reduced. Can't have that, can we. No wonder the $6K vanished.

I challenge anyone who sees these 'all the time', to get off your lazy backsides and do the hard yards. Video the flight, telling us what camera, what zoom, what direction - include local landmarks (eg a street intersection sign) so we can verify where it was, and also have a radio running in the background so we can verify the date and time. No edits.

And then we'll use flightaware and atmospheric soundings to see if contrails *should* have existed for that flight.


Go on - let's see the evidence, instead of all this useless posturing and fearmongering.





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum