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.

 

Houston Chemtrails on 9/11

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
jalopnik.com...



Apparently this was seen over Houston on 9/11 of this year.


According to NASA, they were the product of a WB-57 used for high altitude research


NASA claims the chemtrails was testing for huricanes.

So did NASA just officially admit they are doing chemtrails to test for the environment?

p.s. I didn't notice this story anywhere else on ATS, so I decided to post it because that's the easiest way to see if it is already on ATS or not




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Looks like a racetrack .

Second line .



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

According to NASA, they were the product of a WB-57 used for high altitude research


NASA claims the chemtrails was testing for huricanes.

So did NASA just officially admit they are doing chemtrails to test for the environment?


No, they admitted that a craft used to test for hurricanes created trails in the sky.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Come on "chemtrails are a hoax' people. What say you to this? Flight paths, right?


Funny, I just posted on the hurricane Igor thread earlier and comment how here in south east Florida, I saw for the first time in months, chemtrail (or as I put it: Non-Contrails) yesterday over the Atlantic Ocean.

Hmmmmmm.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


why would they test for hurricanes over the city and not the gulf of Mexico? Maybe they just want to have somebody make a thread on ATS to talk about them.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
That was taken somewhere down round the south side, maybe mid houston. I was on the north end and got several pix. This is a plane in a holding pattern. I thought it was holding for Bush IAC, but it was for it eventually headed southeast towards Hobby. Whatever the case, I thought it was odd because there were several planes flying at higher altitudes producing no trails. This one particular plane was moving at high speeds around Bush Intercontinental.

ATC allowed planes to take off, meaning there was nothing abnormal in otherwise restricted airspace. Usually, in the evenings, incoming approach is east to west. There were others in holding patterns at this time, but to the north and at higher altitude.

Why would NASA conduct such a test in restricted airspace? This bird was straight up over Houston and Bush. The direction of departure could have been hobby or Ellington AFB. And given the rate of speed that this fella was moving, I wouldn't put him above a 14k ceiling. If he was higher than that he was blowing Mach 3.





edit on 14-9-2010 by Arrowmancer because: Filling in info...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
That was taken somewhere down round the south side, maybe mid houston. I was on the north end and got several pix. This is a plane in a holding pattern. I thought it was holding for Bush IAC, but it was for it eventually headed southeast towards Hobby. Whatever the case, I thought it was odd because there were several planes flying at higher altitudes producing no trails. This one particular plane was moving at high speeds around Bush Intercontinental.

ATC allowed planes to take off, meaning there was nothing abnormal in otherwise restricted airspace. Usually, in the evenings, incoming approach is west to east. There were others in holding patterns at this time.

Why would NASA conduct such a test in restricted airspace? This bird was straight up over Houston and Bush. The direction of departure could have been hobby or Ellington AFB. And given the rate of speed that this fella was moving, I wouldn't put him above a 14k ceiling. If he was higher than that he was blowing Mach 3.


edit on 14-9-2010 by Arrowmancer because: (no reason given)




Why are you saying this if there's an article stating NASA claiming something else? Not everything on ATS is controversial and arguable.
Besides, I've been in a few holding patterns in my life and they were usually a lot bigger than that. I'm just sayin'............



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Already discussed here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was a NASA test flight at 50,000 feet. Those are contrails.

--airspoon



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 

Actually, it was flying at an altitude of about 49,000 feet with a goundspeed of about 350-400 knots. There isn't a lot of traffic up there.
flightaware.com...


It's part of the GRIP project (Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes). The purpose is to study how tropical storms develop into hurricanes. The WB-57 has been flying missions since August 27 (when conditions have been favorable) and will continue doing so through September 24th. They flew today as a matter of fact.
flightaware.com...

The WB-57 carries an imaging radiometer which measures microwave emissions from the ocean surface. From 48,000 feet, they don't have to be right over the ocean to do the imaging.



edit on 9/14/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I'll be heading to that thread. I agree that not everything on ATS is arguable. But there's no way that airplane was at 50k feet. Max airspeed on the WB-57 is 80% of Mach1. If this guy were at 50k, he was way over Mach1.

My point was that there could be a mundane explanation, but that what I've read and what I saw were two different things.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 

So Houston center is posting false track information?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I'm crunching numbers to try and look like less of a fool. Shouldn't have weighed in without fact under me. I can tell you what I saw, and I can see the flight path and know the capabilities of the aircraft. Something's not adding up to me. Simple as that. Let me crunch and I'll jump back into it or admit that I'm an idiot.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Classic holding pattern:




Originally posted by airspoon
Already discussed here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
It was a NASA test flight at 50,000 feet. Those are contrails.


I guess that kills the whole chemtrail theory as chemtrailers claim that there are no such things as persistent contrails...



edit on 9/14/2010 by defcon5 because: Add



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Defcon5.....

That's right.....that's exactly what holding patterns look like.

They design them like that to disguise the chemtrails.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Aight, thanks to the challenges here, I full expected to completely disprove myself on this thing. There are four points to this post:

1. Given the track data from FlightAware, the average ellipse should have been somewhere round 120 miles. I measured (as best as I could using overlays from Google Maps and the 610 Loop as a reference) the smallest of the ellipses from the flight path.

2. 120 miles, at 430 miles per hour (350 knots, Mach 0.58) would take 16 minutes 43 seconds.

3. Took pictures with my camera phone that had the time on them. The ellipse I saw took 7 minutes 28 seconds. In the video below, the ellipse takes less than five.

4. 100 miles in five minutes would require a speed of 1,200 miles per hour. That's fairly close to mach 2 and far exceeds the performance capability of the WB-57.



I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong, but given the info I got here and what I saw with my own eyes, things just weren't adding up. So I've considered a few things that might show where I'm wrong.

1. The plane wasn't at 50k. That's more than 9 miles up. I thought I could see it.
2. If that plane WAS at 50k, then those contrails were hundreds of yards thick. Has nothing to do with the actual post, but it's an interesting thought...
3. The only reason I thought it was at such a low altitude was because of how fast it moved. Cant' see anything involving research moving that fast that high up
4. It's possible that these spirals were to gain higher altitude for the survey/study/test/whatever. If that's so, then when it left Ellington and went southwest, wouldn't that have given it the opportunity to gain the altitude?
5. I'm pretty sure someone here's gonna destroy this post and I welcome it. I'd hate to be right.


edit on 15-9-2010 by Arrowmancer because: ...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


If it were going that fast you would have heard a sonic boom. There is no mistaking them they rattle, and even have been known to break, windows.

I think your going to find that your calculated mileage is way higher then reality.


Exact breakdown of speeds, altitudes, and distances:
flightaware.com...


edit on 9/15/2010 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
I'll be heading to that thread. I agree that not everything on ATS is arguable. But there's no way that airplane was at 50k feet. Max airspeed on the WB-57 is 80% of Mach1. If this guy were at 50k, he was way over Mach1.

My point was that there could be a mundane explanation, but that what I've read and what I saw were two different things.


Wow, more chemtrail believers commenting on aviation and getting everything wrong, yet again.

WB-57 is a high altitude research aircraft. And the airspace above those airports is not "restricted airspace" either, it is civil airspace, and there are no laws against flying there as a civilian either.

It did not do over Mach 1 obviously, and it was not at a low altitude. All you have are your perceptions and feelings about how fast it was, or how high it was.

Here is the flightaware tracking of it
flightaware.com...

It would be nice of the chemtrail crowd would stop giving out disinformation and complete falsehoods?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
If your calculations are showing a WB-57 as doing Mach 2, well that should be a really good indication that your assumptions and data and inherently wrong. That does not mean there is something amiss with the aircraft or the mission

I have flown aerial research missions, and sometimes we would do an orbit at a certain altitude. But also if we were doing a profiling mission, we may start at a certain altitude, and slowly spiral our way up or down too, depending on mission requirements.

There are a multitude of reasons why an aircraft could be doing racetrack patterns, or even somewhat of a spiral too. Why some of you have such a sinister eye when it comes to airplanes, who knows, it is completely ludicrious. What is it about airplanes that some of you have such feelings of dread when you see them?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 





Wow, more chemtrail believers commenting on aviation and getting everything wrong, yet again.


Sigh. Yet another spoon-fed ATSer who jumps to conclusions that were never even hinted at. Where, exactly, firesomething, did I state that I had any belief this was related to Chemtrails? I was commenting on the event itself, but I won't be so blind as to believe that chemtrails aren't possible. I've seen zero hard evidence that there has been any chemical tampering with our air. Any rookie chemist can take samples of the air himself and ascertain what's in it. I don't really think chemtrails are an issue, nor do I have the slightest interest. It was the event of the airplane that took my interest. Stop jumping to conclusions; it does you no justice.

Look, I've been over the flight data. I've talked about this with someone I respect who has also told me I'm chasing ghosts. But that's what separates us. I can see an event with my own eyes and read the report on what I saw and I know which view of it I trust.

I want you people to go back and read through your posts and mine and ask yourself, in the light of all the 'evidence' that you've provided, why am I, a logical, sane person, still clinging on to it.

It's not because of a hope that there's something going on. It's for the hope that there isn't. Which one of you had the decency to ask me what more I knew before hammering me into the pavement? I'm quite capable of reading the same flight data as you. I'm quite capable of pinpointing coordinates, the same as you. But I'm also capable of making logical conclusions based on personal observation.

So, if we know that the WB57 isn't capable of the performance that I (and many other Houstonians) believe we saw, what alternatives are there? Either I was misjudging the craft's speed (and Mach 2 to 3 versus 350 knots is a pretty staggering misjudgment for someone who lives between two of the busiest airports in the US and just outside of an Air Force Base...), or the craft laying out the contrails I witnessed wasn't a WB57.

If I can look at the navdata, pinpoint when and where the plane was every minute it was in the air, wouldn't I be able to cross reference that with what's up in the old brain pan and come to the same inevitable conclusion as you? But since I'm going on about it, then either what I saw based on geographical location and intimate knowledge of the area I live in since birth was completely incorrect, or the navdata didn't match up with what I (and other Houstonians) observed.

Compile that with the fact that NASA was flying this mission on probably the most sensitive date of the year as could pertain to aircraft flying in ways counter to the norm, without so much as a public notification to a single local news outlet (It's true. The Houston Chronicle actually had to call Ellington and NASA after being inundated with queries). You'd think common decency and common sense would have prevailed on such a simplistic matter. Exhibit A

I will be the first to admit that it could all be in my imagination. That a combination of events, including the memories of the day, the oddity of the strange patterns, and stress from normal every day life, could have contributed to an error in my judgement. Such things have happened before... Not to me as far as I can remember, but would I really know if it had?

Still, I would be remiss if I just dismissed my concerns out of hand, would I not? What place in this world would I be taking if I just completely dismissed it? I don't jump off the deep end without reason. Perhaps I've laid out my thoughts in the wrong way and been misunderstood, perhaps I was understood clearly and dismissed as a loon. Whatever the case, I'm not here for your approval. I was hoping that someone here would walk me through this and find something I didn't see. Such a person has attempted to help me and for that I am greatful.

I have been reading up on restricted airspace. I will concede that the skies over Houston aren't restricted. That was an error in that I didn't do the research before I posted.

But Firepilot, the condescending tone and arrogance of your post boiled my blood, sir. Unless you were sitting on board that craft or witnessed it's flight from the ground, you are in no position to dispute what *I* believe I saw. Get your facts together before you start running off at the jaw, sir. I count six baseless, judgmental accusations in your double posts and this really isn't the place for it. Deny Ignorance. I was aware of most of the information in your post before you posted. I was made aware by the previous posters in the thread. I appreciate you weighing in, though. But I would appreciate it if you checked your attitude and judgement before doing so again.



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



radiometer which measures microwave emissions from the ocean surface

So the Earth emits microwave emissions and there is still hope for an electrical universe.
Small but there is a signal.
Looks like a loop antenna in the sky that will pickup radiation if the trail has some
metallic content.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join