Chemtrailers, I'm calling you out!

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by adeclerk

 

Um yeah your right contrails do form several feet behind airplane's, Why are the trails coming off the plane's in the picture's I've provided, starting immediately behind the wing and would be clearly visible to anyone on board ?

They weren't forming directly behind the engine, how else would the condensed water vapor have time to freeze!?

They form dozens of feet behind the engines.

sigh...are we back to firefighting aircraft are yet again included in chemtrails? I thought it was about high altitude persistent contrails, if we are going to call firefighting slurry as now part of the chemtrail conspiracy, this is just getting loony.

So are you going to backdate chemtrails now to the advent of firefighting aircraft?

And no, they do not dump from high altitude, you are just obviously reading anything you see on chemtrail sites.

And BTW, no that is not vapor coming out of the engines, thats water droplet that have condensed out of vapor. Vapor is water in gas form, such as that it is in the air at all times. Funny, more photos from airliners.net that chemtrailers have taken, stripped out any information, and then used it to promote chemtrails.

Why is it that they have a need to steal photos, remove watermarks and copyright info, and never tell what the origin of the photo is and what it is of?

reply to post by adeclerk


So your saying I don't see this while I'm flying because it's out of my field of vision ?


Because I would see that, its clearly visible from every window on the plane, or can you honestly not see that ?

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by adeclerk

 

So your saying I don't see this while I'm flying because it's out of my field of vision ?

Because I would see that, its clearly visible from every window on the plane, or can you honestly not see that ?

No, it would not be visible from every seat on the plane, but probably visible from the rear seats. Are you now including the A380 airliners as part of chemtrails?

reply to post by firepilot


Your the one that asked why they would use a 747, I am showing you that they do ? Are you seriously so out of it that you forgot what your question was ?

reply to post by DrunkNinja


You have no idea:

The airport here offer's flights that use small plane's, medium sized plane's and big planes, its based on the supply and demand concept ....

Oh?? SO, someone like me who was in the airline business for about 30+ years (last 23 at a major airline) doesn't know what he's talking about?

And, "airports" don't "offer" flights. You have companies (airlines) doing business, and they choose the size and model of airplane based on many factors, to include the airport destinations (small airports can't accomodate certain large sizes) and what equipment they actually own (or lease) and operate!

Your local airport has many companies that compete, is likely....hence,the different "sizes".

And, a 747 passenger jet is going to fly the route it is scheduled for, regardless....UNLESS there is some mechanical reason, and they have to substitute....but, airlines find it MUCH easier to make a substitute, in a situation like that, with the SAME type...because, of crew concerns. IF it's a different model, they have to find an entirely new cockpit crew.....AND, it is a hassle for passengers, because the seating is different, etc, etc....

I told you.....you have little to no comprehension, as you make this claims. I'd stop, and think.....

reply to post by firepilot


Are you stupid enough to tell me that on A380's this is standard emissions ?

Originally posted by Trueman
Why would I do that? Are you gonna pay me?....or I gotta do it just to have the satisfaction of convincing you?

Let's do the opposite, you go up there with a camera on your helmet and breath the crap behind the planes.

Wow. I see the OP's point. A whole lot of people believe in chemtrails, but they have not been able to substantiate that these chemtrails actually DO anything at all. What are these "chemicals" doing? This guy wants the OP to climb up there and measure it. Why? If they're doing something, shouldn't you be able to measure it on the ground?

1. They are modifying human behavior and turning people into sheeple!

That's really one of my favorites. But the chemtrail believers are strangely unaffected by this behavior modification. (Or ARE they!)

2. Chemtrails change the weather!

OK, why? Actually, seeding clouds to produce rain has been around for a long time, but beyond that issue there's supposed to be a nefarious plot to "change the weather" in a way that benefits TPTB, but no one else. The weather, BTW, and climate, are pretty much the same as always. Yup, it's getting a tad bit warmer, but there's no real reason to believe WE are causing it. besides, if you believe that, the chemtrails from your car exhaust are FAR more effective.

So basically what we have is this: People believe that "chemtrails" do something, but no one can measure what they are doing, detect what they are doing, or in any way say what they are doing at all.

Or they could be, umm, contrails.

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by firepilot

 

Your the one that asked why they would use a 747, I am showing you that they do ? Are you seriously so out of it that you forgot what your question was ?

Yes, Evergreen uses around 12 747s for its cargo airline, and only at most 3 of them are modified for firefighting missions. And yes, I am quite familar with the aerial firefighting industry. Does my time on a DC-4 and DC-7 airtanker earn me the title of chemtrail pilot?

Since i am also extremely familiar with the "weather modification" industry and what companies are involved and what projects there are, there is no reason to use a 747 for cloud seeding. It would be pointless, and the outfits that high companies for it, could never afford a large plane, and its useless to use a 747 for that. It is NOT used for anything weather related, but if you have proof that it is, then let us now.

You know you can look up their flights on flightaware by the N registration number, which you can get from the photos of Evergreen aircraft on airliners.net.

reply to post by DrunkNinja


Do you not understand perspective? The contrails form at a specific distance aft of the engine locations. WHEN you view the airplane head-on, from a distance, that gap is harder to see....it is perspective.

Why is this so difficult?

Another A-380 (Or, perhaps the same one, from this video?):



NOTE their location, at the time of filming.....and, THINK!! And, learn.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Here's a list of the 20 plus planes that united airlines flies
www.ehow.com...
Why do they have different types of planes ? because when they have a route that only has 20 people boarding a plane they don't use a 747

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Well, first of all, this is my last post on this thread. I've realized that no one else on this thread is willing to put themselves out there and I'm pretty sure why.

Secondly, in case you aren't aware, this is not the chem-trail website. There are many, many, many more chem-trail forums that you can troll. I hear there's quite a few quiet demonstrations as well. It looks like you have a lot of time to kill, maybe you can go check them out?

Third, the fact that you cite anything Wiki as a legitimate source tells me the rest.

Peace

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by firepilot

 

Are you stupid enough to tell me that on A380's this is standard emissions ?

Great photo - here's a bunch more - www.flickr.com...

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by firepilot

 

Are you stupid enough to tell me that on A380's this is standard emissions ?

What are we supposed to be looking at? That 'chemtrail' is indistinguishable from a contrail! Unless....it is a contrail?

Originally posted by indigo25
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Well, first of all, this is my last post on this thread. I've realized that no one else on this thread is willing to put themselves out there and I'm pretty sure why.

Oh we know why...

Secondly, in case you aren't aware, this is not the chem-trail website.

It is a public forum, with a specific sub-forum "Geo-engineering and chemtrails" - so wrong on that too!

There are many, many, many more chem-trail forums that you can troll.

chemtrail sites are often moderated and do not allow even eth apearance of being interested in actual evidence - so if you don't want o be challenged on the facts then I suggest you go to them - 'cos they won't let me say anything that can be supported by science!

I hear there's quite a few quiet demonstrations as well. It looks like you have a lot of time to kill, maybe you can go check them out?

You seem to thnk I'm new at this?

Third, the fact that you cite anything Wiki as a legitimate source tells me the rest.

The fact that you automatically dis it without bothering to check the various links to scientific articles and organisations tells me a lot more!

Peace

Liar!

reply to post by firepilot


Since i am also extremely familiar with the "weather modification" industry and what companies are involved and what projects there are, there is no reason to use a 747 for cloud seeding. It would be pointless, and the outfits that high companies for it, could never afford a large plane, and its useless to use a 747 for that. It is NOT used for anything weather related, but if you have proof that it is, then let us now.

OKAY I already provided a link to the evergreen website saying that one of the 747 supertanker markets but here it is again www.evergreenaviation.com... your experience counts for nothing when a company that make's fortunes modifies a 747 for weather modification but hey your the expert right ?

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by firepilot

 

Since i am also extremely familiar with the "weather modification" industry and what companies are involved and what projects there are, there is no reason to use a 747 for cloud seeding. It would be pointless, and the outfits that high companies for it, could never afford a large plane, and its useless to use a 747 for that. It is NOT used for anything weather related, but if you have proof that it is, then let us now.

OKAY I already provided a link to the evergreen website saying that one of the 747 supertanker markets but here it is again www.evergreenaviation.com... your experience counts for nothing when a company that make's fortunes modifies a 747 for weather modification but hey your the expert right ?

Everything stated there refers to the supertanker being used for dropping chemicals in the same way that the chemicals are dropped on wildfires, did you even bother to read it? It has no spraying capability whatsoever.

Originally posted by DrunkNinja
reply to post by firepilot

 

Since i am also extremely familiar with the "weather modification" industry and what companies are involved and what projects there are, there is no reason to use a 747 for cloud seeding. It would be pointless, and the outfits that high companies for it, could never afford a large plane, and its useless to use a 747 for that. It is NOT used for anything weather related, but if you have proof that it is, then let us now.

OKAY I already provided a link to the evergreen website saying that one of the 747 supertanker markets but here it is again www.evergreenaviation.com... your experience counts for nothing when a company that make's fortunes modifies a 747 for weather modification but hey your the expert right ?

They are a private company, who makes money by getting their aircraft hired. If their aircraft sit, they go broke. So they want them hired and they are offering them up for anything. They will fly them around empty if someone paid them to.

They could list on their website that their 747s can fly to Mars, but that does not make it true. If someone wanted to hire a 747 for cloud seeding, then yes they would gladly offer up a plane. But that does not mean it has happened.

I know the "Weather mod" business and industry and I know what aircraft are used and why. Most all planes in cloud seeding are twin cessnas, twin pipers and some single engine planes. But not very many though.

Do you know why it would be pointless to try seeding at high altitudes where the water is already frozen?

reply to post by DrunkNinja


No!

...because when they have a route that only has 20 people boarding a plane they don't use a 747.

Geeze, I told you it would take a long time, to explain all the complexities in airline scheduling practice!!

You have no concept about what I already told you? Airport sizes....gate and ramp capacity, and runway lengths. Range abilities, of various airplanes, and YES, market demand. Historical market and passenger traffic totals are taken into consideration, WHEN they schedule their fleets. But, they DON'T just 'tinker' with schedules willy-nilly!!


There are many, many more factors to consider....maintenance schedules, where each type can get work done, and when each specific airplane needs regular, required work....ALL those aspects are in play, in decision-making for an airline.

To substitute, last minute, the airplane type affects the crews, as I mentioned....because there is always a lay-over crew in the city where it is scheduled to land, and THEY are trained only on one type at a time....so, now you have the crew that is supposed to work the return flight, but it's the wrong airplane.....so they dead-head. PLUS, you still have the problem of getting a new crew...and, you cannot dead-head that crew in, and have them turn right around and work back, if total flight time exceeds 8 hours .... they have to have crew rest, first.

Etc, etc, etc....

Like I said....you have no idea....

AND, that article is old.....United doesn't operate the separate "Ted" anymore. And, there aren't "20 types".....basically, six or seven types. That article talks about the "fleet", but the very smaller jets and turbo-props aren't flown by United employees...those are separate companies, doing business as "feeders" for United. They have their own, internal fleet mixes, and scheduling....



.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Actually your clueless your arguing about crew changes and runway lengths when all I said was airlines use smaller planes to transport 20 people. I used the word swap and that you threw you off the context of the sentence. A common issue of those that don't read well.