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: 9
7
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


why do "u-turn" contrails mean anything? aren't planes just vehicles being driven by humans? couldn't they just be turning to... turn?

like, to change direction or return to where they came from? don't they ever just take a plane up and fly it out a certain distance for testing or maintenance checks and then turn around and go home? haven't flights ever been grounded? or human error led to a skybound version of "whoops, wrong turn"? if your'e taking off out of a western-facing runway, but need to go south, you're going to have to turn at some point.

it seems like there are at least a dozen plausible, common sense answers to the u-turn problem that should be explored before we chalk it up to a chemtrail conspiracy.

keep in mind; i'm not sold on one side or the other, i'm just pointing out a flaw in the logic.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by network dude
 


wow. finally!
i don't come down on one side or the other of the "chemtrail" debate, i think it's ugly and i'm sure there are things we could do to eliminate the visual pollution of the persistent contrails. it also is the same to me as smog from your car; its pollution. i just HATE when some debunker comes in and talks s * i t to all the chetrailers without that simple, clear explanation. so thanks for being smart AND civil. a rare combo on these forums.



Uh no you can't reduce the 'visual pollution' of any contrail. In simple terms you are seeing water being released as a by product of combustion. All forms of combustion releases water. Check the chimnies of any house in the winter. Check the tail pipe of cars in the winter. The higher the humidity, the longer it lasts.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by network dude
 


wow. finally!
i don't come down on one side or the other of the "chemtrail" debate, i think it's ugly and i'm sure there are things we could do to eliminate the visual pollution of the persistent contrails. it also is the same to me as smog from your car; its pollution. i just HATE when some debunker comes in and talks s * i t to all the chetrailers without that simple, clear explanation. so thanks for being smart AND civil. a rare combo on these forums.



Uh no you can't reduce the 'visual pollution' of any contrail. In simple terms you are seeing water being released as a by product of combustion. All forms of combustion releases water. Check the chimnies of any house in the winter. Check the tail pipe of cars in the winter. The higher the humidity, the longer it lasts.


Well they could reduce the contrails by pushing the airplanes lower, which would make chemtrails happy.

However, unfortunately it would result in more emissions, more pollution, shorter range for aircraft, more ground delays and more actual pollution too, along with increased costs of airline tickets. Since it is the visual aspect that scares chemtrailers, they would go along with this



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


[why do "u-turn" contrails mean anything? aren't planes just vehicles being driven by humans? couldn't they just be turning to... turn? ...

A turn that tight with passengers would garner lawsuits, as I said. These pilots aren't your average car drivers; this is a false analogy-- a type of logical fallacy, since you seem interested in pointing out such things. Pilots have flight plans to follow and would be fired for "oops" turns like that.

Again, these aren't average car drivers, and you really need to abide by the standards the debunkers are demanding of us: don't just "what if", produce documents. Anything is possible, but not everything is probable, especially in such numerous instances. Such things, esp. leaving persistent trails, should be rare but they're not.

I'm sorry, but if you're looking for flaws in logic, look at the other side too, and your own "what ifs".



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


What????


A turn that tight with passengers would garner lawsuits....


Your lack of knowledge about aviation is showing, and it's disturbing. Because, it is at the core of the misunderstanding that continues on the topic of "chem"-trails.....



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SaberTruth
 

Your lack of knowledge about aviation is showing, and it's disturbing. Because, it is at the core of the misunderstanding that continues on the topic of "chem"-trails......

:eyes rolling:
I pointed out that this person making claims of poor logic was using poor logic in the process. You have to jump in and insult, like it's an obsession.

General note: any other newcomer to the thread, I'm not going to respond no matter what because of these others who can't discuss things without belittling others. Sorry.
edit on 14-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SaberTruth
 

Your lack of knowledge about aviation is showing, and it's disturbing. Because, it is at the core of the misunderstanding that continues on the topic of "chem"-trails......

:eyes rolling:
I pointed out that this person making claims of poor logic was using poor logic in the process. You have to jump in and insult, like it's an obsession.

General note: any other newcomer to the thread, I'm not going to respond no matter what because of these others who can't discuss things without belittling others. Sorry.
edit on 14-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: (no reason given)


He did not insult you, he said you lacked knowledge in aviation. That is not name calling, however it was a comment on what you said.

Every chemtrailer I have ever seen post on here, lacked knowledge in aviation. Its not insulting them to point it out. I wished everyone who believed in chemtrails would try to learn more about aviation.

edit on 14-5-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dadfortruth1
 


Pretty normal. I don't understand how people are just starting to see contrails.

1972


sometime before 1981



1940s





posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
firstly i just want to thank all the members who have contributed to this threat

I have learned alot,from both sides. and the debate has been interesting to say the least.

alot of people didnt read my post correctly, but i didnt put it as good as i could have, so i understand some of the misconseptions. Yes i have seen millions of contrails, but from where i live i have never seen them turn.

i will say i am starting to climb down one side of the fence, although i will stay open to any possibility's.
I do not like how some people here label others "chemtrailers" It almost seems as if a select few are on ATS only to
discredited and make people who are open to the idea of this conspiracy look like nutters, just because they are "pilots" or are in the aviation industry.
I work as a full time photographer, and i know that "spirit orbs" are just out of focus dust particles exposed by the flash. but i will keep an open mind as i have seen some hard to explain cases. But i do not chase all the orb threads just to bash people with limited knowledge on the subject.

when it comes to chemtrail theorys, I see people who work in aviation the same as i see doctors in the field of imunisation or drugs, they are educated at the grass roots to believe what they are trained, this does not mean giving a child ritalin is the right way to go, i hoope im making sense.

I can see how this (chem spraying) could be happening on a global scale, i believe there are two major jet enginge manufacturers who supply engines for passenger aircraft, so wouldnt it be easy for these engines to be designed to operate with fuel containing other elements?

All i really know, is somthing is making people sick. whether it be from fluride in our water, additives in our food, chemtrails in our air, the list goes on. we need to keep searching for the truth, as our leadrers wont tell us.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


i know contrails are normal, but from where i am, its the change of direction that is not normal.
and if you read the description from your 3rd image "condensation trails made by aircraft - training or testing flight. passenger planes rarely deviate in their course exept in a holding pattern."

i am no where near an airport large enough for commercial aircraft.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dadfortruth1
 


Planes fly over places with small, or no, airports.

And the picture you are referring to was taken sometime before 1981. I would attribute most changes in direction to way points, avoiding military fly zones, unexpected complications, and increased air travel just to name a few.

Passenger jets are also not the only types of planes that make contrails, and I think the picture in question still shows what I am trying to point out.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


i understand what your saying, and i agree. but i started this thread with photos i took last week of contrails that change direction, and i have not seen this from my location before. and thats what i ment by "is this normal?"
i have said before that i have seen plenty of contrails but not the change of direction.

and the desription of one of the pictures you posted gives my question merit. "passenger planes rarely deviate in their course exept in a holding pattern" so are the aircraft in my pics in a holding pattern? or are they not passenger planes?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Heres more contrails. As you will see many are not in a straight line.

Also, I would like to point out wind affects clouds. why would it not affect contrails... which are clouds.

1967


Not sure the year, but its pre 70s


I think this is 1987


1986



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadfortruth1
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


i understand what your saying, and i agree. but i started this thread with photos i took last week of contrails that change direction, and i have not seen this from my location before. and thats what i ment by "is this normal?"
i have said before that i have seen plenty of contrails but not the change of direction.

and the desription of one of the pictures you posted gives my question merit. "passenger planes rarely deviate in their course exept in a holding pattern" so are the aircraft in my pics in a holding pattern? or are they not passenger planes?


I wasn't on any of them, I truly don't know what types of planes they were.

And I answered your question "Is this normal?" with "Pretty normal" and a few pictures. If you want to take the word of a book neither of us have read as absolute fact in every (commercial) flight ever made, that is your choice. I believe it still a valid piece of evidence that shows what I am trying to say.

So yes, again, your pictures show normal activity in the sky.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 





If you want to take the word of a book neither of us have read as absolute fact in every (commercial) flight ever made, that is your choice.

no i dont take it as absolute fact, i just thought it gave my question some merit. I understand your not familiar with my location, so your not to know that this is an abnormal sight for my area , but it is.




so are the aircraft in my pics in a holding pattern? or are they not passenger planes?

i didnt mean this in a negative way to your post on my part. the pics you uploaded just spiked my thoughts again. i can understand if they are in a holding pattern, i may be wrong but i would have thought i was to far away to see them go into a holding pattern (im about 480kms from a large airport) they could be other type of aircraft, and this too would be unusual for my location, but not necessarily somthing worthy of a conspiracy thread.

I know wind can spread and change direction of clouds but i think these photos show a clear change of direction.

btw thanks for uploading those pics, they are pretty cool.

an earlier post suggested they might be converting their route because of high turbulance, this still seems like the most logical answer to me.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I understand you are searching for truth.

I just don't see your pictures showing anything out of the ordinary. There are a litany of reasons a flight could change path.

And I feel I should clarify about the wind, I don't think your photos are even showing that much reaction to wind. or maybe I should say, I don't think wind is the cause for the turns in your photos, but i am not discounting it.

Here is the link that I downloaded the pictures from. there are tons more on the site. Including a bunch more from WWII. contrailscience.com...

Also, if you post your general location someone might be able to get some pics of the air travel over your location. Just don't be too specific if you do, lol.

edit on 14-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join