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.

 

Is this normal? (chemtrails)

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PinealGland

Check THIS out...this video puts my video to shame, with respect to sheer quantity of trails.... 73 trails! It's videos like this that convince me that if you're going to believe this video is contrails, then you just hate the sun.


Why wouldn't 73 planes make 73 contrails if the conditions were right?

And why do they have to be chemtrails for peopel to love the sun?

Why can't we say "Hey - contrails block the sun!"?


And I looked for a video I had bookmarked where they actually show footage of the spraying from another NEARBY plane. They're like 300 meters apart, as they're both flying in the air together... on video.... AND you clearly see that the trails come out of the EXTRA NOZZLE THAT IS BUILT ONTO THE PLANE. You see it come out of the nozzle in broad daylight, and then billow outwards to be twice the size of the actual plane immediately upon discharge.


I'm guessing that is the icing test aircraft - you'll find out all about it here - contrailscience.com...

It's not a secret, and it plays a very important role in ensuring aviation safety.




Later in the video you can also see pictures of the INSIDE of the plane where they take out regular passenger seats and replace them with all these "kegs" of the toxins. ...but OH the video was removed from youtube by the user. Don't you love that?


Probably becauser it is a total hoax - a photoshop job done by someone to manufacture "evidence" for chamtrails as discussed in the link above.

Also the original photo is still available where it was first posted - on airliners.net - www.airliners.net...


And, HAHAHAHAHAHA. ---> Like anybody believes Wikipedia for topics like this. What a joke.


what about them is wrong?

sounds like you are able to celarly identify any inaccuracies, lies, dis-info, half truths - please tell teh rest of us too!!
edit on 12-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


The vapor dissipated rapidly. It didn't last for hours. It didn't form a cloud.

And if people can look at those photos of U-turns and say that's normal commercial jet traffic, they wouldn't believe in chemtrails if they were flying the jets themselves with a fuselage full of chem containers feeding nozzles on the wings.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PinealGland

And I looked for a video I had bookmarked where they actually show footage of the spraying from another NEARBY plane. They're like 300 meters apart, as they're both flying in the air together... on video.... AND you clearly see that the trails come out of the EXTRA NOZZLE THAT IS BUILT ONTO THE PLANE. You see it come out of the nozzle in broad daylight, and then billow outwards to be twice the size of the actual plane immediately upon discharge. Later in the video you can also see pictures of the INSIDE of the plane where they take out regular passenger seats and replace them with all these "kegs" of the toxins. ...but OH the video was removed from youtube by the user. Don't you love that?


Do you mean this:


Would it change your opinion at all if you found out that was a hoax?

What about this:
www.airliners.net...


If you found out what those barrels were for, would you re-consider your opinion at all?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth
reply to post by Uncinus
 

The vapor dissipated rapidly. It didn't last for hours. It didn't form a cloud.


Right, well there is a tiny difference between a cup of coffee, viewed from ten feet away, and a jet engine spewing out a gallon of superheated water (and masses of condensation nuclei) per second, viewed from the ground.

Toss enough cups of coffee into the air in the right conditions, and it WILL last for hours. See "ice fog".

www.google.com...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth
And if people can look at those photos of U-turns and say that's normal commercial jet traffic, they wouldn't believe in chemtrails if they were flying the jets themselves with a fuselage full of chem containers feeding nozzles on the wings.


But what people point to as "chemtrails" are almost NEVER u-turns. You just get that one photo, and it's quite obvious what it is - a racetrack contrail.

contrailscience.com...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll

If TPTB, or anyone else for that matter, wanted to poison the human race, then why add chemicals to aviation fuel?.........wouldn't it be far easier and efficient to add the chemicals to auto mobile fuel?


There actually have been experiments where they had another "gaspipe" on a car, emitting bacteria. There's been many experiments on people in the recent decades. The US government has thrown light bulbs full of bacteria into subways. They play dirty. Where did I get this info? www.corbettreport.com somewhere there... anyway...

As for the idea that it's too costly..... well yeah... but haven't you heard of the Federal Reserve? That dates back to 1917. Didn't you see when bankers stole 10s of trillions (via threats of Marshall law and blood on the streets) and only told citizens where 2 trillion went, YEARS later - it went to domestic media and foreign banks... and those other trillions? Anybody care to ask? Anybody care at all? ...About ANYTHING anymore? Do you even care about your kids? Are you one of those spineless people that just watches authority figures sexually assault your children in the name of safety?

The scientists proposing geo-engineering admit, in that movie What In The World Are They Spraying, that it is "free-riding on our grandkids", what they're doing. I'm not speaking to anyone in specific here. I've heard the argument that this would simply be too costly a THOUSAND TIMES and it makes no sense. If they're going to make new tasers that can be shot from 100 feet away, and cost like 100$ per taser bullet thingy... but they fail to see that people only steal when they're poor and frustrated.. usually... I mean if you shot that same "suspect" with 300$ to take care of that month's rent for him, maybe he would be "rehabilitated". But no. We're a sick society, drunk on vengeance, without any long-term memory, filling up prisons faster than we chug energy drinks and coffee mixed with alcohol. We prefer to create the conditions necessary for the acts we punish, instead. Makes sense...? No? Then watch out! You may have a pulse.

Oh they also poison your food and water... so ... you know.... they're not so stupid that they'll only try the AIR. They also poison your mind with TV and the endless lies they piss all over you. The new food safety bill in the US has devastating effects on that note. They scrutinize the local farmer to death while checking only 3% of imported food.

Anyway, when you drink fluoride you absorb more of the aluminum you come into contact with. Men as young as 25 with altzeimers these days. Strange. Also, when magnesium ions mix with aluminum ions, they clot your blood. They're spraying us with fungus too. I know it sounds strange and crazy... but ... are you really that surprised that the world is strange and crazy? Rid yourselves of this illusion of modernity. We are not modern. Like I said, our society is drunk on vengeance and it runs on war and destruction. The only modern thing is the technology that has divorced us from nature and from each other. Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm being bleak, here. Things usually get worse before they get better... at least with stubborn creatures like us. We are barbaric but there is still a window of opportunity to change our ways before we become more zombie-like than we already are. Now is the time to rid ourselves of the ways that do no work for us and to remember who we truly are.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Yeah I fully considered that those photos or ANY of the photos and videos about this are a hoax. I've also fully considered that I'm experiencing health problems, and so were my neighbours, at the time I got interested in this. They had no idea why they were experiencing gastro-intestinal problems. They were going to the doctor to get blood tests to try to figure it out. I'm also seeing more and more people get sick every day. And forget the nozzle argument... if you prefer. Deal with the raw data I presented, where I mentioned a scientist in that what in the world are they spraying film, where he admits it will harm their grandkids and doesn't care. Respond to the fact that I see bubbles every time it rains and I didn't when I was younger.

And sure, whatever. Believe they're 73 contrails blowing all over the sky. Have a ball. At least we can agree that the sun is NICE, right?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PinealGland
 


You really need to come back down to Earth....get a grip on reality, man.....

You seem to be close to the edge, paranoia is getting to you. For your own sake, seek help.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by PinealGland
 


You really need to come back down to Earth....get a grip on reality, man.....

You seem to be close to the edge, paranoia is getting to you. For your own sake, seek help.


Look dude. I'm trying to keep this mature, here. Talk about the points I raised. The more you ridicule me and ignore my messages, the content of what I'm saying, the more you lose credibility. You are transparent. I already addressed this and you keep doing it. That's fine. Keep wasting your energy.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
But what people point to as "chemtrails" are almost NEVER u-turns. You just get that one photo, and it's quite obvious what it is - a racetrack contrail.

One photo? How about hundreds? And holding patterns are at those really high altitudes we're told account for the persistence of the trails? And multiple U-turn trails all appear to have been made at the same time (judging by thickness) yet no one would claim a whole group of jets flies holding patterns that tight. But I suppose you all can come up with some obscure set of conditions to account for it, and a counter-story for everything. :shrug:



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


Do you know what a "standard rate turn" is for a jet?

Or a standard holding pattern?

i'll tell you - it is a 180 degree turn in 1 minute, followed by 1 minute straight flight, folowed by anothe 180 degree turn into another 1 minute straight flight - 4 minutes in all, and repeated as often as required.

For a jet at about 550mph the diameter of the 180 degree turn is about 5 mils - might be 6 - I did do some calculations a while back - it's not too hard.

If the wind is blowing the contrails generated in such a patten then you get a repeating series of contrail turns - it is not common, but ther are plenty of photos illustrating the principle.

If the wind up there is blowing 60mph then any contrails can move 4 miles in 4 minutes - so almost the diameter of the turns.

That is how you get repeating "holding pattern" contrails offset across the sky, just like other contrails being blown across the sky.

these figures are not ones I dredged up out of my imagination - they are bog-standard aviation facts - this is how aircraft fly holding patterns.

And they fly them whenever they are ordered to do so by ATC - I've got ex-747 captains working with me who say they have been orderd to do so over the middle of the Pacific Ocean while cruising at 35,000+ feet in order to ensure they arrive at their destination at the correct time!

Edit: Here's another example of a "racetrack" contrail that was NOT a holding pattern - video, radar plot and pilot's comments are at this page - www.disclose.tv...

edit on 12-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PinealGland
 





There actually have been experiments where they had another "gaspipe" on a car, emitting bacteria. There's been many experiments on people in the recent decades. The US government has thrown light bulbs full of bacteria into subways. They play dirty. Where did I get this info? www.corbettreport.com somewhere there... anyway...


I'm sorry, but do you really expect me to take that site seriously?.......really?

Point me to a reputable site with scientific data to back up your outlandish claims, and we'll take it from there.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PinealGland
 



Talk about the points I raised.


I did....especially regarding your time-lapse video...since it was on topic of this thread. The rest, in your long off-topic rant, was disturbing and shows, actually, what many of us realize about the state of mind of people who fall for this "chem"-trail scam, and nonsense. There are usually elements of other paranoid beliefs at work....



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by PinealGland
Deal with the raw data I presented, where I mentioned a scientist in that what in the world are they spraying film, where he admits it will harm their grandkids and doesn't care.


The thing is though, whenever someone DOES focus on what you ask, they give a very reasonable explanation, and then you ignore it and change the subject. How about you address the issue of all the inaccuracies in "What in the World are they Spraying"? Does not the vast amount of errors in that film give you ANY concern as to its overall conclusions?

And regarding the scientist you mention, he said "it's not really a moral hazard. It's more like free-riding on our grandchildren." He does not say he does not care.

By "it" here's he's referring to the problem of global warming. "Moral hazard" has a specific meaning in economics, and it's similar to "free riding", which is also an economic term. He was clarifying that the moral hazard OF DOING NOTHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING will primarily impact our grandchildren.

And I know you don't like wikipedia, but the definitions are real, and will help explain what he means.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Do really see what his opinions are, watch his TED talk:
www.ted.com...

He's actually very thoughtful about the problem, and how to do the right thing. It would see he cares quite a bit.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RapTek
 


Wow......so much is wrong, I'm at a loss where to begin. You have bought into the "chemtrail' story hook, line, and sinker.
Please, read about weather, the atmosphere, and aviation from sources that exclude the word "chemtrail." There is about 80 years of studies, not just stories or reports, concerning every aspect of the what and why of contrails that you would have to somehow forget everything you ever learned in any science class. Real science that hasn't changed.
Then look for "chemtrails." See how long they have been around? No one can agree, but the first time I've seen the word "chemtrail" used coincided with the introduction of the internet into the lives of the average citizen. Since that time, the hows and why's of "chemtrails" has changed, quite a bit. Why, if "chemtrails" are real, are there so many changes and different stories?
Or refute the science people talk about here. Show us the error of our ways, not just your opinion, but something substantial that shows science is wrong.
We'll wait........



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

If the wind is blowing the contrails generated in such a patten then you get a repeating series of contrail turns - it is not common, but ther are plenty of photos illustrating the principle.


I programmed a racetrack contrail simulator that demonstrates this, and lets you interactively adjust the various speeds and turn rates:

contrailscience.com...

Here's a screenshot


There's also a lot of interesting analysis (with math and everything) in the comments second on the post:
contrailscience.com...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


COOL!!!!!!
CAFFEINATED AIR!!!
Think of the time, mess, and money saved.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PinealGland
 


Well, you on the other hand believe that you can tell the content of something miles away from you by sight alone. And have never searched for the actual testing being done on that plane. Here's a hint.....the barrels are a closed system. And the plane from behind? Was a hoax video, which is why the people inside the plane making the video are heard laughing about posting it on YouTube.

You, my friend, have fallen for a known hoax or two. Or three.
Next time, do balanced searches and exclude the word "chemtrail" when you are looking things up. Science has an answer for everything any "chemtrail" story or picture has put out. An easy answer.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
It's funny...it was just this morning I came up with a theory on chem trails but it was based on them really only existing in the northern hemisphere. This down under story killed my thought. Thanks for that!



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Cool program...

Umm, you are aware that the holding pattern information of "Standard Rate" turns is for smaller, slower airplanes (or, larger jets when configured so as to fly at those slower speeds). Typically, because of control issues, 30° to about 35° of bank is considered the "standard" for smaller, slower airplanes.... (on commercial jets, it is normally 25° in the turns. This is also for safe handling, and passenger comfort). The rate of turn, and thus the radius, will vary according to speed in the turn.

There are many complicated factors, but the gist is (for the discussion of contrails) since the contrails won't form below about 25,000 feet, we can ignore lower levels and operations below that. In the cases when large jet airliners must hold up at those higher levels, then they cannot configure with high-lift devices (slats/flaps) due to operating limitations as published by the manufacturer and the national aviation authority (FAA in the U.S.). Typically, the limitation is 20,000 feet....we cannot extend slats and flaps above that altitude.

The minimum safe "clean" speed will be calculated depending on altitude, gross weight, and ambient temperature....to provide the 1.3G stall buffer margin, for safety. This is always an indicated speed, and up at altitude the true airspeed is significantly higher than indicated....true is what translates to groundspeed, in no-wind conditions. And thus, ground tracks. Your calculator accounts for winds aloft effects, though.

The published USA and ICAO maximum holding pattern speeds allow for this, by upping the Max speed as you go higher:

(USA)
  • Up to 6,000 ft MSL: 200 KIAS
  • From 6,001 to 14,000 ft MSL: 230 KIAS
  • 14,001 ft MSL and above: 265 KIAS

    (ICAO)
  • Up to 14000 ft: 230kts
  • 14000 ft to 20000 ft: 240kts
  • 20000 ft to 34000 ft: 265kts
  • Above 34000 ft: M0.83

    (These all predicated on Indicated airspeed, to simplify it for pilots. ATC realize that true speeds are higher).

    Also, the "standard" holding pattern defines the INBOUND leg as a "one minute" length. However, in real-life operations we can request, and are usually granted variations on that. With the modern computer Flight management Systems, you just enter the value you desire (usually we define it as a fixed distance, in nautical miles....this results in more time between the two end turns, and is more comfortable for all involved), it programs the hold for you, "draws" it virtually (and on the EFIS screen) and the autopilot will follow it, correcting for the winds, as they tend to make you drift away from the hold point. Of course, the contrails, once made, will drift off...as your program demonstrates.


    Here's an Aircraft Turn Calculator program online. Playing with the values will show better what I try to explain....remember for airliners (in this discussion of contrails) use 25 as the value in the "Turn Bank Angle" box. That calculator does not adjust for altitude and temperature....so the Airspeed value should be the proper TAS (True Air Speed) you wish to examine.



  • new topics

    top topics



     
    7
    << 4  5  6    8  9 >>

    log in

    join