Chemtrails or Contrails Over Florida

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


This is what the OP said.

checked the online air traffic (domestic and international) and nothing was shown flying in the area, except one flight heading to South America.


I must have missed you showing they were wrong..

Ohh, thanks for the offer of free tutoring but if I need to learn something it's much smarter to pay an expert.


He's got the "9-11 Omission Report" Syndrome.
Don't brooch it. There by, don't answer it.




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 







Could early planes fly high enough to leave contrails? Were any of the planes used in WWI capable of flying high enough to leave a contrail?


Most of the aircraft of the WWI era were really limited in altitude. The best was the SPAD 13 at about 15,000. The Fokker Eindecker (monoplane) made famous by Max Immelman could struggle up to 14,000 feet. The Red Baron's Fokker DR1 was also limited to 14,000'. Supplemental oxygen was not available then and above 12,000 feet things start to get really foggy from hypoxia. Additionally, the typical airfoil section back then was a very thin, low aspect ratio highly cambered wing, leading to premature airflow separation and an aerodynamic stall. Plus, without turbocharging or supercharging there just isn't enough oxygen that high to support stoichiometric combustion and you run out of power. The Fokkers used an Oberursel U-1 engine putting out a whopping 100 hp at sea level. The Boeing designed B-17 , on the other hand, had oxygen and 4 1200 horsepower each Wright 1820-97 turbo-supercharged enigines. It had a max altitude of 35,800 feet although its best speed was at around 25,000 feet. It left contrails. See, goodsky.homestead.com... .



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack


Ohh, thanks for the offer of free tutoring but if I need to learn something it's much smarter to pay an expert.


Kudos to you for actually reading his posts. I cannot get through them cause all I get is this!

BIB, what are your experiences with chemtrails? I know Australia gets them quite often cause I come across many complaints and awareness groups on the Internet.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



BIB, what are your experiences with chemtrails? I know Australia gets them quite often cause I come across many complaints and awareness groups on the Internet.


To be honest, I'm in Melbourne and haven't seen much in the way of ANY persistent trails..
I go to Albury a bit and that's right under what is arguably the busiest flight path in the world..
I have seen up to 7 jets flying the same path in my field of vision but never a persistent trail..

So I have zero firsthand experience...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Wow. Now I give you even more credit of being impartial and fair! Not sure how you're avoiding them but keep it up.

Seven planes at once....doing what? Landing? Taking off? Or at high altitude soaring about?

I never see more than maybe two conventional planes at the same time at high altitude. It's not that common. But then again, I'm not watching 24 hours a day. And if there are planes passing one another, I just don't happen to catch them. But I do see these chemtrailers though and it peeves me to the core.


About me being half alien.
I am Rh-negative. My blood origin is unknown.
Rh positive are traced to Rhesus Monkeys.
I rather come from star people than apes! Hence why I probably have better eye sight?. Could be. I stopped caring a while ago



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



Wow. Now I give you even more credit of being impartial and fair! Not sure how you're avoiding them but keep it up.
Seven planes at once....doing what? Landing? Taking off? Or at high altitude soaring about?
I never see more than maybe two conventional planes at the same time at high altitude. It's not that common. But then again, I'm not watching 24 hours a day. And if there are planes passing one another, I just don't happen to catch them. But I do see these chemtrailers though and it peeves me to the core.


lol, most don't accept an impartial stance..
To some, like Weed. I must be on one side or the other, black & white is all they see..
I like to look at all sides and if you read some of my posts you will see I'm happy to call out bothe sides..

The 7 planes?? All on the same route, though 4 heading north, 3 heading south..
All at cruise altitude as that's about the halfway point..
Checkout the flights between Melbourne and Sydney..
It's only an hour flight but there's 4 major airlines flying that route with very frequent flights...

edit on 29-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Human_Alien
 
To some, like Weed. I must be on one side or the other, black & white is all they see..


Like most pilots weed is paying attention to ops manuals, SOP's and the written word. If we go down that conspiracy road we probably won't live to fly another day.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by C46driver
 



Like most pilots weed is paying attention to ops manuals, SOP's and the written word. If we go down that conspiracy road we probably won't live to fly another day.


Well Geoengineering is hardly a conspiracy..

Do I think chemtrails are being sprayed to kill off the population??
No way, that would be a silly way to do it and makes no sense..

Do I believe in chemtrails??
I'm on the fence but have seen some classic pics which are hard to fathom..

Do I believe the Government hides things from us?
Hell yeah.!!!!



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Do I believe in chemtrails??
I'm on the fence but have seen some classic pics which are hard to fathom.


We're doing some serious cloud seeding here, have done it for years and IT'S NOT CHEMTRAILS.

In fact the only time i've ever expected chemtrails was when one of our ww2 birds came back to land with an engine on fire and a black trail of avgas and oil behind it.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Those are contrails, they are formed from the moisture from the jet fuel being exposed to the cooler air and can form as a "seed" to form clouds around.
In places in the sky where there's no or very little moisture in the air, they don't form or last a very short time. Other places they last, and can stick around for awhile depending on air conditions.


There was 75% relative humidity that day
www.wunderground.com...

I have found a connection on relative humidity, altitude, and contrails. I just posted it on another thread.

I do like the photos and documantation op.
edit on 29-1-2011 by liejunkie01 because: sorry forgot link



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Kudos to you for actually reading his posts. I cannot get through them cause all I get is this!


That explains so much.
edit on 29-1-2011 by laterallateral because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Here in Coral Springs, where almost everyday is a clear day no clouds in the sky, recently we've been having quite a bit of chemtrails. there was another member who described a chemtrail that was so long, that I could see it outside my home 2 days ago. It's sad.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
edit on 30-1-2011 by mr10k because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by C46driver

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Human_Alien
 
To some, like Weed. I must be on one side or the other, black & white is all they see..


Like most pilots weed is paying attention to ops manuals, SOP's and the written word. If we go down that conspiracy road we probably won't live to fly another day.


Let's forget op specs and SOPs and such and get down to the job of designing an aircraft to fit the mission profile that fits witness statements.
WEIGHT CARRYING CAPACITY. Photos show trails that are about the same size as one half of one horizontal stabilizer on a Boeing 757. Full span of the horizontal stab on a 757 is 49'. So we have a trail 12.5' in diameter. So the cross section area is 6.25^2 * pi, or 123 square feet, or 11.4 square meters. Witnesses describe trails that go from horizon to horizon. Line of sight from 40,000' is 265 miles each way, or 530 miles, or 853,000 meters. So the volume of the trail is 9,724,000 cubic meters. To get enough opacity to be clearly visable from 40,000' away, you would need on the order of 20% by volume of the sprayed substance. Since most claim it's aluminum (Al), let's use that. So you need 1,944,800 cubic meters of aerosolized Al. For ease of doing this stuff in my head, let's round to 2 million m^3. Since density is given in grams/cubic centimeter, we multiply 2.8 g/cm^3 times the volume of the Al and get 5,600,000 grams or 56,000 kg. Now pictures of "chemtrails" often show four trails being left, so to leave 4 visible trails of Al from horizon to horizon, you would need to haul 224,000 kg. Since cost is always an object in aircraft design, we would like to use something already flying as a starting point. Oh-Oh - big problem. Nothing flying today can haul that payload. A 757 maxes out at 114,000 kg. The C-5, although much bigger, is limited to 118,000 kg. The king of the heavy lifters, the Russian Antanov An-124, can go a hefty 136,000 kg. Houston, we have a problem.
SIZE. We need to carry 8 million cubic meters of the stuff. That is, if the particles are compressed to a solid, a block measuring 200 meters on each side. Drat! Another problem. the 757 interior is only 36 meters long and 3.5 meters wide. And we need an aircraft cabin 200 meters long and 200 meters wide. Maybe we should talk to the Russians. Nope, no help there. The Antanov cabin interior is also only 36 meters long.
WING LOADING. To be able to fly and not have the wings fall off, we need to keep wing loading, that is the total weight of the beast divided by the wing area, at about the 700 kg/m^2 level. The 757 is 661 kg/m^2. If the empty aircraft is really light, let's say it can carry its own weight, and the only thing I've ever flown that could do that was the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, gross weight would be about 450,000 kg, so we need about 650 square meters of wing area. In order to operate at altitude we will need an aspect ratio (span/chord) length of 8 or so. So we use the formula 8x*x=650, and see that we need a wing span of 200 meters and a chord of 25 meters. Holy embiggenate Batman! That's 600 feet plus change. That's four 757s wingtip to wingtip. Or maybe I should say winglet to winglet if we're talking the 757-200WL or 757-300 aircraft.
Has anybody noticed a 600 foot long, 1200 foot wide(including cabin), and 600 foot tall behemoth cruising the friendly skies lately?
Living an empirically based reality is such a buzz kill.
edit on 30-1-2011 by 4nsicphd because: not enough sleep to spell. On layover in Dubai



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 



Damn fine job!!!

Too bad, though....some members may come along, and use the "Charlie Brown's teacher's" voice again.....because they've tuned out, checked out, long ago.......

Trying to cram logic and sense into a brain that isn't equipped to handle it? Well, after several failed attempts, there is a point where one must, unfortunately, admit that not everyone can be educated.

Sadly, some simply lack the mental capacity. Sad, what a shame.....



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Here in Daytona, the skies are covered with trails, way more than usual.
Of course, the weather is perfect for contrails, and there's increased flight traffic due to the Rolex 24 being held this weekend (which is annoyingly loud, by the way). I don't know if this is affecting other areas of Fla., but that's what I got here. I don't buy into the whole "chemtrails" deal, personally, but that's just me.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Not that fine a job. I forgot the design considerations for wing-bending/zero fuel weight. (Do they make wing attach bolts that big?); thrust to weight ratio (I figure about 8 CF-6s should do.); per wheel weight limits ( The C-5 has 26 wheels. With that few I figure our new CT-666 will sink up to its brake line fuses on any asphalt.); Runway width limits? With a 600 foot track, we better design some really good FOD guards.) And for anyone who knows how difficult it is to taxi a 747 from 30 feet up in the air, I suggest at least 5 video cameras. And how about an M-60 Main Battle Tank as a tug? For a mandatory position report, do you estimate arrival time of the nose or tail at the intersection?
I know it's futile but it's fun. Herre's a photo of the model from which the CT-666 will be built: www.kristofmeunier.fr... . Or maybe www.kristofmeunier.fr...



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
OP back again. OK, so I’ve read all the, shall we say, interesting posts and replies. First of all I want to thank all of you for your contributions and informative and lively discourse. I am a pragmatic person with a curious and open mind. Now, that being said, I’m not ready to sit on one side of the fence or the other on this topic. Weedwacker made very good points. I checked the H8 high altitude enroute sectional and the jetways seem to correspond to the photos…somewhat, but good enough for me. I also did some more due diligence on P&W and Rolls Royce, both turbojet and turbofan engines and their exhaust characteristics. All seem to agree with Weedwacker’s comments.
Equally intriguing are the comments from Human_Alien (love the moniker). Personally, I cannot dismiss out of hand the existence of chemtrailing and anthropogenic geo-reengineering. That does not necessarily mean that what I photographed were chemtrails, though. So, bottom line is that I am not convinced one way or the other, so will fall on the side of Occam’s Razor and stick with “contrails” for now or until convinced otherwise.
BTW, the photo below shows those two aircraft “flying together” – one with a contrail and one without. They were much clearer in my 7x50 binoculars then the zoomed-in 10mp photo. Just one last curiosity.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


What you got there, you got there some of them contrails, son......

In Daytona....close enough to Jacksonville to use their radiosonde readings (weather balloon observations) for today:


311.4 9144 -40.2 -47.5 46
300.0 9400 -42.5 -49.5 46
297.8 9449 -43.0 -50.0 46
296.0 9490 -43.5 -50.5 46
272.0 10055 -46.7 -56.7 31
267.0 10178 -46.7 -55.7 35
250.0 10610 -50.3 -59.3 34


That is a snippet....Full Readings Here.

University of Wyoming Source Here.

First column is pressure (which equates to altitude), described in millibars. 300 Mb is about 30,000 feet. AND, next column is the altitude in meters, so you can convert. Next, temperature/dewpoint in degrees Celsius. Then, the Relavie Humidity (RH). Quite high, isn't it? Seems that conditions are ripe for contrails.

NOW...that location? LOTS AND LOTS of air traffic, that area. Every day...and NOT just because of the location being Daytona.

www.skyvector.com...

Look for the Aeronautical Charts there, on that link, for yoru area....you want the "Enroute" charts, because they depict the high altitude Jet Airways routes. Those are where you will see the majority of the airplanes, cruising overhead at 30,000 and above, flying along...AND, not always directly "on" those routes, either. Varies, depending on many factors regarding Air Traffic Control.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
People have better things to do than to start a new conspiracy. Our world is a mess as it is.

If this wasn't problematic nor registering red flags with the common folk then "What In The World Are They Spraying?" wouldn't be attracting and holding a lot of interest with others.

People want to be able to explain everything. And everything, I mean everything! However, the realization of life is, everything has an alternative explanation. Bad, good, unknown, unaccepted and ugly.

Just because this resembles something we've grown accustomed to seeing, doesn't mean that's what it is. If you don't at least consider chemtrails as a possibility then you're doing a great disservice to yourself and the next generation.

I am not saying this is poison necessarily because I don't believe birds for example would be able to tolerate flying through them, like they do, for the past 15 years, without millions of them dropping out of our skies. But I do believe in part, they are modifying our weather (and/or magnetic field) in conjunction with HAARP and I feel, the results will yield dire consequences.

The most spiritual, peaceful, non-conspiracy-oriented, Shaman-like people are saying they're doing something in our skies. So this is not limited to fear-mongers. People are waking up at an alarming rate. Great!!!

And if you chose to believe all that's put out in front of you (as half-truths which in turn, equals a whole lie) then you're in for a rude awakening when this world, as we know it, comes crumbling down.
Governments and religions are about to go belly up real soon.

I will not argue this with the likes of the weedwackers of the world any longer. They are a complete waste of energy who have not either evolved quite yet (to realize what's happening) or....they're on a mission to debunk everything that goes against the establishment.

It's up to you to start looking and reacting differently to the world events that are currently transpiring. It's your decision to accept it, fear it or change it. And if you choose the latter, the change starts within.
edit on 30-1-2011 by Human_Alien because: spelling





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join