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.

 

CLOSE-UP VIDEO: Pilot filming plane spraying into the air

page: 26
129
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd


We have a problem, cave. There is almost no moist air in the upper atmosphere. Saturated air at 30 deg C (common at sea level) contains 3%, give or take a little, water vapor (OK Brits, vapour). As temperature decreases, the moisture carrying ability of air decreases (a reflection of the kinetic energy of the
molecules and atoms in the air. A common temperature at the tropopause is -55 deg C. At that temperature, the vapor pressure of H2O (g) is so low, water vapor is virtually non-existent. If you're going to make a cloud, yoy've got to take the cloud making stuff with you. Aircraft do, in the form of hydrocarbon fuels. If you combust a hydrocarbon in oxygen, yhe products are carbon dioxide and water. Jet fuel is primarily Dudocane, a long chain hydrocarbon. That means it has the hydrogen to mix with the diatomic oxygen in the atmosphere. Let's review - hydrogen plus oxygen makes, yup, water. Aviation gasoline also produces water when burned. So you get vapor trails from the exhausts of the engines on the planes in the thousand plane raids of WWII. You can get aerodynamically produced condensation on warm days in humid air. But at stratospheric altitudes, it's simply too cold and dry.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]


Then how do you explain storms that go up to 60,000 feet? Thunderstorms hitting 30-40k feet is quite common. And cirrus? Thats up that high as the flight levels too.

Where do chemtrail believers com up with all of this?




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Come Clean
 


Come Clean....please read the thread!!!!

Phage covered that, a few pages back....THEY HAVE ALL BEEN PAINTED!! What you found is an OLD photo...Phage brought the proof in sources, they were all repainted solid gray by 1993!!!

~~~~~

AND, as I pointed out when it (similar old paint scheme) was brought up before, LOOK at the stripe on top of the fuselage!!


Observation skills are important in this topic, especially. THAT is why the HOAX continues so easily, and the hucksters win usually --- because people fail to see the obvious, and misidentify what they DO see, very very often....



[edit on 20 July 2010 by weedwhacker]


LOL!!!! So Phage knows for a fact that all KC-10's were repainted? When was the video made?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 

I don't know.
I also don't know what difference it makes whether or not the plane is a KC-10. It isn't dumping fuel and it isn't spraying "chemtrails". It is producing aerodynamic contrails.


[edit on 7/20/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Come Clean
 

Any idea when that photograph was taken?

0433, 0434 and 1950 were the only KC-10's to retain the original blue & white over gray paint scheme when the USAF began painting the fleet in the low-visibility scheme. 1950 received her low-vis gray paint in 1997, as did 0434. In March of 1998, 0433 was also repainted, bringing the era of the white-top KC-10 to an end.

www.kc-10.net...


What kind of proof is that? How do we know you just didn't write this up in your basement? Then post it as some kind of proof.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


You already got a star??


Anyway...read again:


So Phage knows for a fact that all KC-10's were repainted?


Not only Phage, but ALSO THE SOURCE HE POSTED IT FROM!! As I mentioned, in MY post above. Read, please, and think before posting.


When was the video made?


Really? Wanna go that route??

Well, according to the OP, when he started this thread, he said it was made "yesterday".

At YouTube it says it was made very recently, was posted 18 July.

SO, instead of looking it up yourself, I see it's better to just attempt to be snide, instead??

Doesn't work here....

~~~~~~

Follow-up, for hte Newbie:


Originally posted by Come Clean
How do we know you just didn't write this up in your basement?


Really? Resorting to impugning long-standing members??

Like I said -- that doesn't work here.



[edit on 20 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 




What kind of proof is that? How do we know you just didn't write this up in your basement? Then post it as some kind of proof.

Oh, you're a real piece of work.
As I said, it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference what kind of aircraft it is.


[edit on 7/20/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Come Clean
 

I don't know.
I also don't know what difference it makes whether or not the plane is a KC-10. It isn't dumping fuel and it isn't spraying "chemtrails". It is producing aerodynamic contrails.


[edit on 7/20/2010 by Phage]


I agree. It's not chemtrails in the sense of what they say. But I would imagine it has some chemicals in it. The craft I worked on leaked like a sive. So the condensation does probably contain chemicals called JP-4 or JP-5. If it's really cold out then it's JP-8. In other words, condensation mixed with jet fuel.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Come Clean
 


You already got a star??


Anyway...read again:


So Phage knows for a fact that all KC-10's were repainted?


Not only Phage, but ALSO THE SOURCE HE POSTED IT FROM!! As I mentioned, in MY post above. Read, please, and think before posting.


When was the video made?


Really? Wanna go that route??

Well, according to the OP, when he started this thread, he said it was made "yesterday".

At YouTube it says it was made very recently, was posted 18 July.

SO, instead of looking it up yourself, I see it's better to just attempt to be snide, instead??

Doesn't work here....

~~~~~~

Follow-up, for hte Newbie:


Originally posted by Come Clean
How do we know you just didn't write this up in your basement?


Really? Resorting to impugning long-standing members??

Like I said -- that doesn't work here.



[edit on 20 July 2010 by weedwhacker]


Post and taken are two different things whacker.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


"JP-4" huh??


The desire for a less flammable, less hazardous fuel led the U.S. Air Force to phase out JP-4 in favor of JP-8; the transition was completed by the fall of 1996.


en.wikipedia.org...

(There's more, if you wish to research --- or, just keep speaking from that lower orifice...)

~~~~~

I'm most familiar with the civilian classifications, NOT the military names...Jet-A is essentially JP-8, minor differences in additives.

Jet-A1 is used in colder applications, for its lower freezing point. But, in modern passenger jets that's not a problem in most climates...biggest concern is long flights in winter, and very cold ambient temps at altitude...so crews must be cognizant, and sometimes change altitude if fuel gets too cold...but Jet-A is most common. Some airports change out, seasonally...especially in northern latitudes. They are otherwise the same fuel.

There is also Jet-B, but I have never had occasion to use it....

[edit on 20 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 20 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Who ever pointed out it might be an Omega KC10 may be correct as well as to the operator. But regardless of who it is, we are simply seeing water vapor condensing behind jet engines......



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by 4nsicphd


We have a problem, cave. There is almost no moist air in the upper atmosphere. Saturated air at 30 deg C (common at sea level) contains 3%, give or take a little, water vapor (OK Brits, vapour). As temperature decreases, the moisture carrying ability of air decreases (a reflection of the kinetic energy of the
molecules and atoms in the air. A common temperature at the tropopause is -55 deg C. At that temperature, the vapor pressure of H2O (g) is so low, water vapor is virtually non-existent. If you're going to make a cloud, yoy've got to take the cloud making stuff with you. Aircraft do, in the form of hydrocarbon fuels. If you combust a hydrocarbon in oxygen, yhe products are carbon dioxide and water. Jet fuel is primarily Dudocane, a long chain hydrocarbon. That means it has the hydrogen to mix with the diatomic oxygen in the atmosphere. Let's review - hydrogen plus oxygen makes, yup, water. Aviation gasoline also produces water when burned. So you get vapor trails from the exhausts of the engines on the planes in the thousand plane raids of WWII. You can get aerodynamically produced condensation on warm days in humid air. But at stratospheric altitudes, it's simply too cold and dry.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]


Then how do you explain storms that go up to 60,000 feet? Thunderstorms hitting 30-40k feet is quite common. And cirrus? Thats up that high as the flight levels too.

Where do chemtrail believers com up with all of this?
The storms that go to 60,000 carry theirown moisture up with them by convection fueled in large part by the heat of condensation.Energy, in the form of heat (motion of molecules/atoms) is acquired bt water when it evaporates. This latent heat It is released back into the system upon condensation, fueling a rise of this now less dense air, which condenses more, releasing more heat, and building the towering Q even higher. It takes a whole lot of moisture laden air at the surface to build the monster thunderstorms. Think warm air over warm water creating an eyewall and thunderstorm bands. And cirrus clouds are ice crystals not water vapor. For a graph showin that he % of water vapor asymptotically approaches 0 as the air cools, see hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

And I am not a believer. I've spent thousands of hours making contrails. None making or seeing chemtrails.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
The storms that go to 60,000 carry theirown moisture up with them by convection fueled in large part by the heat of condensation.Energy, in the form of heat (motion of molecules/atoms) is acquired bt water when it evaporates. This latent heat It is released back into the system upon condensation, fueling a rise of this now less dense air, which condenses more, releasing more heat, and building the towering Q even higher. It takes a whole lot of moisture laden air at the surface to build the monster thunderstorms. Think warm air over warm water creating an eyewall and thunderstorm bands. And cirrus clouds are ice crystals not water vapor. For a graph showin that he % of water vapor asymptotically approaches 0 as the air cools, see hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

And I am not a believer. I've spent thousands of hours making contrails. None making or seeing chemtrails.


Oh I realize this, just responding to the assertion thats its impossible for there to be enough moisture for clouds at 30,000 or so like was asserted.

I have flown many a thunderstorm research mission, and the amount of science knowledge put forth by our chemtrail believers makes one wonder what ever happened to our science classes.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by 4nsicphd



Oh I realize this, just responding to the assertion thats its impossible for there to be enough moisture for clouds at 30,000 or so like was asserted.

I have flown many a thunderstorm research mission, and the amount of science knowledge put forth by our chemtrail believers makes one wonder what ever happened to our science classes.


Yeah, I know. I teach Chemistry and physics at the university level and I'm appalled by the ignorance of incoming freshmen.
And if the Texas Board of Education gets its way, it'll be worse. I don't think I want my airplanes designed by someone who thinks pi=3.000 just because the bible says so.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


"JP-4" huh??


The desire for a less flammable, less hazardous fuel led the U.S. Air Force to phase out JP-4 in favor of JP-8; the transition was completed by the fall of 1996.




You do know the air farce is not the only military to use aircraft right? Tell me, what kind of gas does the Navy and Marines use in their aircraft?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by B767300CA
Who ever pointed out it might be an Omega KC10 may be correct as well as to the operator. But regardless of who it is, we are simply seeing water vapor condensing behind jet engines......


I believe Boeing uses white also. Civillian companies can't use military schemes.

But that's besides the point. Not all KC-10's are olive drab. Gray for the people who don't know the difference.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean

Originally posted by weedwhacker


"JP-4" huh??


The desire for a less flammable, less hazardous fuel led the U.S. Air Force to phase out JP-4 in favor of JP-8; the transition was completed by the fall of 1996.




You do know the air farce is not the only military to use aircraft right? Tell me, what kind of gas does the Navy and Marines use in their aircraft?


Navy and USMC, and also Coast Guard use JP-5




[edit on 20-7-2010 by firepilot]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


OK...something I missed first time, thought to ask, since it might make a difference. Based on your comment here:


The craft I worked on leaked like a sive.


..it implies you have experience around military aircraft, from one nation or another. Your use of the military designation for the fuel is an additional clue.

However, saying it "leaked like a sieve"? This is to somehow imply that the DC-10/KC-10 ALSO leaks??
That is really quite silly,** and if you were a pilot (you aren't, it's kinda obvious, sorry) then you'd know why.

BTW...only airplane can think of that "leaks like a sieve" is the SR-71. Reason is logical, once you know why...

OR, perhaps your equipment was in very bad disrepair??


But, in any case, based on what's in the video, this is nonsense:


In other words, condensation mixed with jet fuel.


At least you're getting closer, with the "condensation" comment.


Still, puzzling that you are so incorrect, given your military experience?


**Reason that fuel doesn't just "leak" out of a DC-10/KC-10 should be obvious...do I have to explain it???


[edit on 20 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I must agree with those on the thread that see only normal contrails. As I have read the thread I have noticed people savagely and desperately holding onto opinions despite facts to the contrary. I understand believing in something passionately; but isn't it a waste of time to continue to believe in something that has obviously been shown to be false?

I have read posts stating these do not occur over urban areas followed by posts that say they do. I have read posts that show examples of persisting contrails dating back to the 1940's; and I have read posts after that which say there is no proof of persisting contrails before the 90's.

I have seen people's valid sources baselessly denigrated and I have seen people's erroneous opinions be celebrated. I do not understand the psychological process that enables a human mind to cling to falsehoods.

The facts vs the opinions have been weighed and in my opinion the facts show that there is no such thing as a chemtrail.

Now that I have said this I can collect my salary as a professional disinformation agent of the U.S. Government. Now that I've earned my pay i'm going to Disney World! (lets hope they spray some cloud cover its hot in Orlando)

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Dilligaf28]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Looks like moisture the plane is flying through...

The "nozzles" are obviously wing stabalizers.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Invisible King
Looks like moisture the plane is flying through...

The "nozzles" are obviously wing stabalizers.


Shhhh, you are messing with their delusions. They want to believe those flap hinge fairings are nozzles.
Even though from the video when there is a trial, its obviously nothing to do with those

Its quite funny though.

And for as worked up as they get over it, the extent of their outrage never gets them to leave the comfort of their computer. You would think they would at least start having some public chemtrail protests! But that requires getting away from the computer





[edit on 20-7-2010 by firepilot]



new topics

top topics



 
129
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join