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

page: 5
129
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The only conclusive way to prove the existence of chem trails is to sample it. Fly behind it and take a sample then get it to a lab to analyze its content and compare to "conventional" standards.

So anyone up for building an UAV that's faster than a jet airplane?




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Ouroborus2012


Or maybe, just maybe, I understand the dynamics of an aerofoil passing through saturated air?

And maybe you could understand it too, if you did the reading, looked at the science and understood the concept instead of doing the sheep thing of looking up, seeing "lines in the sky" that you don't understand and automatically assuming something untoward is happening?

Maybe you could attempt to understand that the atmosphere is full of pockets of warmer and colder air, and is in constant dynamic motion so that no part of the sky is quite the same as another, so a body moving through the sky can sometimes generate contrails, and other times not?

Is your belief in this subject so blind that you cannot bother to research such phenomena, and instead just choose to follow blindly what people claim about chemtrails instead of reading and researching atmospheric science dating back to WW2 when contrails were first noticed?

Did you ever consider - just possibly - that I might have been studying this kind of thing, and aviation subjects for many many years, and my assessment of the video might be born out of that experience?

By your tone, and your arrogant dismissal of my post those things never even crossed your mind at all. Nope. Its just easier to attack in a snide and sarcastic manner, born out of your own ignorance.

ATS is a conspiracy site. Its also a discussion board. Its also a place for intelligent and critical thinking. Yes, that post was my opinion but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, frankly my opinion of that video is a damned site better informed than yours is and can be backed by actual science, where as yours is based on..... what exactly?




For starters, the "by your tone" paragraph you wrote is exactly what I was referring to about your particular comment. Your comment was EXACTLY what you wrote. A "snide and sarcastic manner" is exactly what you've been using. But, like you said, it's easier huh? Especially when you go in to debunk mode and start pounding your chest and slinging out every big science word you can think of.

You "science speak" sounds like a great idea! Please send me the atmospheric documentation about this particular video that you studied to come up with your scientific conclusion.

I'm correct to assume that you have that data, right? Surely you wouldn't just post a random answer as "fact" based on assumptions from previous incidents? Especially with your extensive scientific knowledge of the subject.

I am most anxious to review the conditions of the atmosphere at that particular flights altitude for that day. It would also be quite helpful if you'd include the planes number and date of this flight. I would like to use that to verify flight paths and speed.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by star child
reply to post by Phage
 

Ok. so that explains the high altitude planes. could you explain the very low altitude ones that constantly fly over where l live causing grids of the things. l am not living anywhere near flight paths.


"Flight paths" are pretty much a thing of the past. Airways (or 'airborne highways') used to be defined by low frequency radio ranges which each broadcast 4 paths. Later, we had very high frequency omnidirectional ranges (VORs) which defined Victor Airways.
With the advent of LORAN, and then inertial navigation, and now GPS, the capability exists to 'go direct' from point to point. Now, when you file a flight plan, say from Tampa to Miami, instead of telling the FAA I'm going from TPA V (Victor509/511 MIA, you just tell them TPA-MIA Direct. You miss the bends in the airways so it's a shorter straight line. Everywhere is now a flight path. And altitude is not as important as temperature for formation.
For fun, try a website called flightaware.com. If you input the identifier for the airport (large or small) closest to your residence it will show the radar picture for all aircraft on an IFR flight plan in that area. If you see a trail, you can identify the aircraft, its altitude and speed, origin and destination.There will be a 3 line data block if you put your cursor over the little airplane symbol. The fist line is tail number or airline flight number and aircraft type; 2nd line is altitude in hundreds of feet and ground speed in knots next line is origin and destination, so, for example

UA432 A32x
370 442
FXE JFK
would be United Airlines Flight 432, an Airbus 320 cruising at 37,000 feet at 442 knots (508 mph) from Ft Lauderdale Executive Airport to New York's JFK.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No, cloud seeding is ONE aspect of weather modification.

There are other types of weather other than rain.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Well, I haven't found anything about contrails being produced as weather modification experiments


And you won't find any evidence of contrails being used in or produced due to weather modification experiments, because a contrail is a normal condensation trail that is created normally by an aircraft in flight.

A chemtrail however, isn't a natural physical phenomena. These are the 'trails' being discussed, and mentioned in connection with weather modification experiments. You seriously don't see the distinction between the two types of trails?

There are plenty of non-establishment websites out there that could enlighten you further as to the difference.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by star child
reply to post by Phage
 

Ok. so that explains the high altitude planes. could you explain the very low altitude ones that constantly fly over where l live causing grids of the things. l am not living anywhere near flight paths.


HOLD IT !!!!....You said : " very low altitude ones that constantly fly over where l live".

since that happens so often, you can take photos and video and post them here.

You can U2U me to let me know when you got that evidence. I'll wait for you. About chemtrails, I'm not sure what to think yet, You can solve my problem AND CLOSE THE CASE FOREVER.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Unfortunately, irrational people keep ignoring scientific evidence & logical thinking, thereby unnecessarily scaring people who are susceptible to such ideas.

There is no such thing as a "chemtrail".



Screw all those threads. I have common sense.

Almost everything is a chem trail.

What is a Chemical? Almost everything?

What is a Trail? A line?

So this mustard on my hot dog, is a Chem Trail.

Mustard = Chemical
In a line = Trail.

My hot dog is covered in Chem Trails.

That is what the two words actually mean. It is ambiguous and utterly vague and could refer to literally anything you want it to.

That is why I try to never use the term myself, because of the obvious pitfalls it creates.

So how could you ignore basic English and logical fact by saying there is no such thing as a chem trail?

What the hell are you referring to?

Weather modification? It's a FACT - Proven.

Global Warming Shielding? Thats a Theory-Unproven but with plenty of patents surrounding it giving it high possibility of coming into reality VS a theory that has NO patents behind it.

Poison Cloud Spray? Theory-Unproven , and sadly I must say it's an absurd theory will little to no supporting evidence what so ever.

Regular Contrails? Fact- Proven
Contrails ARE Chem trails too. H20 is a Chemical. A line is a trail. Therefore a contrail is a chem trail.

Haha! That was fun.

So are you saying Contrails don't exist? Since they are technically according to English language, chem trails.

Or are you referring to one of the theories I mentioned above.

Can we move this subject into a more specific direction instead of flinging over generalized terms around without having any definitive direction of attack?

I am not attacking you Maybe...Maybe Not; I am just "nudging" you to clarify your statements


And that goes for everyone else too. Speak more specifically please. Thanks.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 

There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites which spout utter nonsense about how it is impossible for contrails to last for more than a few minutes. There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites which spout utter nonsense about "testing". There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites that claim persistent contrails didn't existing until the mid 1990's. There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites which are utter nonsense.

I prefer sources ("non-establishment" or otherwise) which make sense and understand meteorology.

BTW, I'll ask again for this:

I did mention an admission on video, from the US military, in response to questioning regarding grids of 'chemtrails' around the time period of the late 90's or early 2000's, claiming the trails were the result of 'weather modification experiments'.



[edit on 7/18/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





No. They are not stabilizers.


According to both you and neformore, they are indeed stabilizers. Stabilizers that you call vortilons and neformore calls fences..and i call stabilizers, since that is exactly what their function is - to help stabilize the aircraft, and prevent stalling.

An aircraft being buffeted would be inherently less stable than an aircraft that is not being buffeted, wouldn't you agree?

neformore says:



..underwing fences on the plane designed to reduce air buffeting..


If an aircraft is being buffeted about, and adding these devices, whatever you, neformore or i name them, cancels out the buffetting and STABILIZES the aircraft, you are nitpicking and being deliberately obstinate by not acknowledging the simple fact that they act as a stabilizing device, and hence ARE STABILIZERS.

Now, given that these devices are attached, would you mind addressing my original question i posed before you chimed in with your diversionary tactic of naming convention?

I'll remind you what it was:

Is it conceivable that 'nozzles' are attached to these stabilizers? (or vorilons or fences)



But what difference does it make?


The difference it makes is that you decided to go off on a tangent and debate me on naming convention of the devices underneath the aircraft wing.

If you don't want to discuss naming convention and think it irrelevant, perhaps you shouldn't have gone on continually about vortilons and vortices and just answered the question i made when i referred to stabilizers...that's the difference it makes.

You still don't seem to understand what stabilize means, but i guess that's for yourself to ponder.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
There is proof of weather modification all over the place. It's not exactly very secret or anything.

It's a fact we have seeded hurricanes to attempt to change their trajectory.

It's a fact nations seed clouds to induce rainfall.

However, we do not know if they are using "fleets" of aircraft to pour stuff in the air 24/7. It seems rather unlikely to be this widespread. Logistics and all.

I will find you the official Texas government weather modification website where they list many different types of modification they do and times/dates/locations of operations they have undertaken.

www.license.state.tx.us...

Currently, cloud-seeding projects designed to increase rainfall from convective cloud towers are conducted in nearly 31 million acres of Texas (or almost one-fifth of the state’s land area). In administering the Texas Weather Modification Act (enacted by the Texas Legislature in 1967), TDLR’s weather modification program issues licenses and permits for these projects, many of which have been in existence since 2000. The projects use specialized aircraft and sophisticated weather radar systems, operated by skilled meteorologists, at sites near Amarillo, Plains, Pecos, San Angelo, and Pleasanton.

I really like the Texas website, I found it several years ago (I think?).

More stuff.

The U.S. government routinely conducts experiments on weather modification, and has been doing so for at least half a century. Previously classified under such names as "Project Cirrus" (1947) and "Project Popeye" (1966), weather modification is no longer a secret practice. In fact, a bill (S517) was sponsored in 2005 by Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Republican, "to establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes." This bill did not become law. Yet, there is reason to believe that various government institutions are carrying out numerous legal and illegal weather experiments without informing the public.


This isn't just a suspicion of the United States. The Chinese government announced in April the creation of the first-ever artificial snowfall over the city of Nagqu in Tibet. The event was only one in a series of Chinese weather modification experiments that have been going on for years. China, in fact, now conducts more cloud seeding projects than any other nation.

From www.globalresearch.ca...

Project Cirrus/Stormfury
en.wikipedia.org...

Operation Popeye
en.wikipedia.org...

Text from Bill S.517
www.govtrack.us...



Enjoy friends.



[edit on 18-7-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Phage
 


He didn't mention Vortilons or vortices.

He did mention fences and stability though...and he is MUCH less ignorant than the majority of the membership regarding aviation...his words, not mine.

So i guess, we are ALL correct then.

Fences, Vortilons are to aid in stabilizing the aircraft. So they are stabilizers, are they not?

No, they are not. An aicraft has a vertical stabilizer and a horizontal stabilizers (or, in some cases, a stabilator). Vortex generators, or vortilons or fences, or boundary layer energizers, which is a term that hasn't been mentioned, do not add to stability.They transfer airframe energy into the airflow to delay separation of that airflow from an airfoil section.
Actually a stalled autorotation of an aircraft is one of its most stable conditions. By delaying the stall over certain airfoil sections, vortex generators hinder that stability.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites which spout utter nonsense about how it is impossible for contrails to last for more than a few minutes. There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites which spout utter nonsense about "testing". There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites that claim persistent contrails didn't existing until the mid 1990's. There are plenty of "non-establishment" websites which are utter nonsense. I prefer sources ("non-establishment" or otherwise) which make sense and understand meteorology. BTW, I'll ask again for this: I did mention an admission on video, from the US military, in response to questioning regarding grids of 'chemtrails' around the time period of the late 90's or early 2000's, claiming the trails were the result of 'weather modification experiments'.


There are plenty of websites that also are choc full of evidence of something other than normal contrails or fuel dumps being routinely sprayed on the citizenry too, if you had a mind to look objectively at them.

I will indeed have a look through my extensive collection of media for the clip i mentioned and that you refer to above..if you ask politely and say please.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Yeah, right on cheers mate, but i'm not going into that one again.

Thanks anyway.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
MY GOD!!!

I could only stand to read through two pages...I am sorry to say the level of ignorance was blinding, and here we are at five (!!!) pages so far (with only a few notable exceptions).


Now, people...pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION!

The pilots heard chatting are being sarcastic! If you can't realize that from listening it's because either you've never met or hung around pilots to understand their senses of humor, or you just don't understand human nature at all.

Airline pilots LAUGH at the "chemtards" that post obvious videos of contrails and call them "chemtrails"!!!


I have 30+ years and have been in exact same positons before, following other jets, either above, or below. I have seen contrails like that so often I can't even count. They are CONTRAILS!!!!!

That is a DC-10/MD-11. It might be a KC-10, but hard to tell because I don't have good video monitor resolution to tell if there's a boom or not.

Folks....all three airplanes mentioned above have THREE ENGINES!!!

The contrails, when they form, come out as cylindrical, at first....you are seeing them, in that video, forming in the engine exhaust as it is just leaving the engines, and they are jsut starting to form. IF you could look a few thousand feet aft, you'd see the contrails combining into a more familiar shape, to resemble cirriform clouds...because that is essentially what they ARE!!!

Really...don't buy into this "chemtrail" BS. If you want ot believe in it, fine. I'd recommend you don't spend any money on books, DVDs, or anything though...but, it's your money to waste, and there's a sucker born every minute I guess.

What is so , so sad is that ANYONE is scientifically-challenged enough to believe this garbage...it astonishes me.


Should add...regarding the features that are prominent under the wings of the DC-10/MD-11 series of airplanes. Contrary to Chadwickus and nefermore, those are merely the fairings that encase the trailing edge flap hinges.

I should know....I have several thousand hours flying the DC-10.....


[edit on 18 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by apexvin
Hi, ive read through the thread, and would like to point out that aircraft regularly dump unspent fuel into the atmosphere.

someone has probably already mentioned it, i apologies if that is so.

Peace


I would heartily disagree with using the term regularly. A fuel dump occurs in an emergency. It occurs because many aircraft are certified to take of at a higher weight than they are certified to land. That is because the weight on landing is exacerbated by the sudden decelleration from a descent. If an aircraft has a max landing weight equal to its max gross take off weight it has no need for a fuel dump. In some aircraft, there is no dump valve and an 'overweight' landing only necessitates an inspection. An example would be the Airbus 300.
So, if you take off at MGTOW and lose an engine on climb, you would look at the weight and decide whether a dump was necessary. In 40 years of air transport flying, I have never heard of dumping fuel as a routine matter. Never.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
hmmm..

Awkward silence while the skeptical powers go and google some key words in previous posts so they can provide links to the first available website that supports their skeptisism.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
So, let me see if I understand. These are supposedly chemtrails, which according to a post on page one are meant to keep up "compliant, stupid and sick", but YOU, the wonderful posters of ATS, are unaffected? You are the sole survivors of this chemical spray? Really? You think that YOU are the sole genius left amongst your community who knows the REAL truth behind the chemtrails, everyone else having been reduced to compliant, stupid, bed-ridden dullards?

Give me a break.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ouroborus2012
How dare us come to a conspiracy website and think such things when it's so obvious by the data that was given to us about that video that it was "saturated air" etc..

Oh wait, there was no data and it's just his opinion much like everybody else has their own opinions..


So by your assessment, since we are members of a "conspiracy website" we must blindly believe in any conspiracy that exists? LOOK OUT! there is a reptilian from hollow earth right behind you!

See how silly that is.

Now as far as chem trails go, please tell everyone here what they will do to you. Will they make you sick, lazy tired, fat, ugly, blue, orange, dead, or amazingly healthy? Pick one of those and we can discuss where these affects are taking place and pinpoint the aircraft responsible. Taking into account the speed of the jet stream and altitude of said "bad juice" of course.

I think that watching Clint Eastwood westerns will make you a stronger individual. But without proof, nobody will believe me. Much like a chem trail.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
MY GOD!!!

I could only stand to read through two pages...I am sorry to say the level of gnorance was blinding, and here we are at five (!!!) pages so far (with only a few notable exceptions).




Really...don't buy into this "chemtrail" BS. If you want ot believe in it, fine.
I should know....I have several thousand hours flying the DC-10.....



[edit on 18 July 2010 by weedwhacker]


And you survived??

It ain't a Boeing - it needed three engines.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Mason mike
 


hm, your comment made absolutely no sense at all.. 3 paragraphs of complete jibberish and something about Clint Eastwood is all I got from it.

Perhaps if you had read what you quoted clearly, you'd see the point being that there is ZERO data provided with the video.. Therefore, NOBODY knows what it is. There is only theory whether it be "scientific" or "conspiracy" and that sarcastic over tones towards the OP and those who believe it is uncalled for.





top topics
 
129
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


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