You can call them chemtrails or contrails but what is that thing flying between them?

page: 6
86
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yeah, A.G., I'm pretty confused at this point myself and trying to find my way back to my original point which is now coming back and it was:

Comparing WWII skies with today's skies just goes to show how awful it all really is. That's what they look like and what does that tell us? Time for change.




posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


And you dont' think the Atom bomb was a strategic weapon??

but that's a bit OT........aircraft piston engines have 1 extra control that you are probably not used to - mixture. this is a manual control that affects teh richness of hte fuel/air mixture going into the engine. Different richnesses are used at different times - rich (lots of fuel) is used when starting and while the engine is cold - it is analgous to the choke on an automobile.

When teh engine is warm the mixture is leaned off, and it is also leaned off at higher altitudes..

So if an a/c has been operating with a rich mixture and the pilot has not properly leaned off you will certainly get a sooty trail.

There are numerous videos around of B-17's taking off en mass that show no great amounts of exhaust haze hanging around - here's a YT search result that has several WW2 era films along with modern ones. If a bomber had an engine that wasn't running "sweetly" by take off it probably would not actually start the mission at all - it would not be able to climb, form up and cruise with it's unit - it would "straggle" and just be a sacrifice to the defending fighters.

And the various videos around of bomber contrails are also clearly not exhaust - if they were exhaust from all those bombers they would be present at all altitudes and all times, not just occasionally.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

my original point:

Comparing WWII skies with today's skies just goes to show how awful it all really is. That's what they look like and what does that tell us? Time for change.



as I said - by all means protest about pollution (both chemical and visual) and contrails - and maybe even potential weather effects of "induced cirrus". It is known how to stop them - there's "just" a price to be paid for it, and you won't sufffer nearly as much debunking 'cos there's a lot of good info around abotu those - albeit not so much about the climate change aspects yet - just some initial possiblities IMO.

In terms of what is changing - aircraft numbers are expected to only increase for the foreseable future - eg see this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com... with the likes of the 787 coming online with even more efficient structures and engines. More countries are getting into manufacturing medium sized jets - such as China, Russia & Brazil all getting into teh 100-20 seat market & possibly looking at larger a/c too.

But when you start making claims of nefarious conspiracies to "spray stuff" for unknown purposes you're not helping the anti-pollution aspect at all & it's all too easy to debunk - even if that is not heeded.
edit on 17-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Regarding an indication of how aircraft numbers have increased across the board, in relation to higher instances of induced cirrus in the skies today, it is interesting to note that the total production of the Boeing 707, the best selling of the first generation jetliners, over a 25 year production life was a little over 1,000 aircraft.

The latest Boeing 787 has 800 aircraft sold before the first one even enters service, and it too is expected to remain in production for over 25 years, it's rival the Airbus A350 has so far sold a little under 500 and the first prototype has not yet flown and between them Boeing and Airbus have sold more that 10,000 of their "bread and butter" 737 and A320 models.

When the 747 "Jumbo" became the first wide body airliner in 1969 global demand was forecast to be 200-300 aircraft. Today, and with the latest and biggest ever variant of it about to enter service it too has exceeded a four figure sales total. I don't think people realise just how many commercial aircraft there are.

In terms of size too, which has a direct correlation with engine size and the size of the contrail left for a given condition. Immediately after WW2, the civilian version of the Lancaster heavy bomber, the Lancastrian, carried 12 passengers on short haul routes while a typical long hauler like the Constellation carried abou 70 passengers.

Today an airliner that seats fewer than 150 passengers is regarded as quite small, while the very biggest seat over 500 typically and are certificated up to 850 (the Airbus A380).

That's gonna leave a big trail compared to a Lancastrian! You don't even need to invent a fictional Chemtrail to see there might be a problem looming
edit on 18-10-2011 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
From the Airports Council International here's the link:

www.aci.aero...

These are statistics for total movements for the years 2000 through 2010. Leaping from 2000 to 2010 we find that LAX (a very busy airport in Los Angeles) had 783,433 total movements (a landing is a movement and a take-off is a movement) in 2000.

In 2010 LAX had 666,938 total movements which is 116,495 total movements down from 2000. That's down about 15%.

This statistic doesn't seem to reflect the common perception that air traffic is increasing exponentially.

Heathrow, a very busy airport in London, had 466,815 total movements in 2000. In 2010 there were 454,883 total movements. That's down 11,932 or about 2 1/2%.

Atlanta, tall hog at the trough in 2000, had 915,454 total movements. In 2010 there were 950,119 total movements. That's 35,665 total movements up or about a 3 1/2% increase.

Frankfurt (in Germany) had 458,731 total movements in 2000 and 464,432 total movements in 2010. That's an increase of 5,701 or about 1%.

Taking the 5 busierst airports (they're not always the same year to year) for 2000, the movements, rounded, total 4,083,500 compared to 2010, rounded, totalling 3,782,000. That's a decrease in total movements of 301,500. That's about a 7 1/2% decrease.

That looks like air traffic is decreasing and yet chemtrails are on the rise. And, BTB, considering the content of jet exhaust, I don't think it's a misnomer to call it a chemtrail and take it out of the benign water vapor category even for the persistent contrailers.

...disclaimer...when I first figured out the decrease in total movements between 2000 and 2010, it came to 10% fewer movements. By the time I went back to check the numbers it had changed to 7 1/2% fewer movements. This is from the internet where statistics are as fluid as algorithms can make them and I don't have hard copy to check so I make no claims for the stability of virtual copy.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Thanks for doing all that work, but simply cataloging the total movements at each individual airport is not showing the whole picture. It is far more complicated in the extreme.

It is also important to emphasize that the type of airplanes being used, in that ten-year span, also changed. In other words, the fleet mix.

There is a very important point to mention as well --- September 11, 2001. Since that data in the post above was compiled from year 2000 --- dips in movements can be accounted partially from that, and the economic downturn that occurred in the airline industry. Though, it did rebound. Connected with 9/11 and the economic impact, many airlines took that opportunity to retire their older jets (the ones with engines less likely to produce contrails under the wider range of conditions).

There was a lag, then a surge in orders and deliveries of newer airplanes, all becoming more prevalent as the years go on. These have the highest fuel-efficiency as yet, and are responsible for increasing contrails.

One more thing: The "chem"trail notions first began in the 1990s, and were spurred by charlatans keen on promoting the myth, in order to profit from it. But, that is also the time period of tremendous growth spurt, in the airline industry in the USA. Until 2001, of course, when the dip occurred.




edit on Tue 18 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


A couple of additional points I've been told which sound reasonable:

- RVSMallows planes to fly closer together, so more planes can be packed into the ideal cruising altitude, which are generally the same as the ideal contrail altitudes.

- regional carriers have moved more from turboprop planes to small jet planes, which tend to fly much higher, and so are much more likely to produce contrails.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
A lot of the "new" increase in aircraft sales is occuring in Asia AFAIK - the airline market in the USA seems quite stagnant, although passenger numbers did increase in the 1st 5 years of the 2000's

there is a lot of data out there about various aspects of the industry:

MIT airline study - a relatively in depth analysis of some large airlines operating statistics and revenue

UKCAA airport statistics page



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


-Yes

and,

-Yes

On both counts, thanks for adding that in. Too much to keep repeating so often, but these are additional facts that are often ignored by many who *believe*so fervently in the "Chem"trail myth and hoax.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Moving on in to the complexities you seem to want to embrace:

From the same link, leaving out data from 2000 and 2001 (which covers your objections on the impact of 9/11,) going from 2002 with the top 5 international airports logging total movements (a landing is a movement and a take-off is a movement) (what that means in case you didn't know is that there are only 1/2 the total movements that represent actual planes) (that's because if it lands, it takes off etc.) the number is 3,769,087 for 2002. Total movements for 2010 are 3,781,998. That's an increase of 12,911 for a total percentage increase of just over 1/3 of 1%. That's a flatline.

Your statement on the types of planes being used needing to be considered is irrelevant - that's in the statistical mix.

Your statements about 9/11 are taken care of in my first paragraph (leaving out data from the years 2000 and 2001.) Your statements about retiring older jets (whatever that means in this statistical analysis) are irrelevant - that's now in the mix since we've dealt with 9/11 (leaving out data from the years 2000 and 2001.)

Your namecalling i.e. "charlatans keen on promoting the myth, in order to profit from it." is a two-way street. Weather modification, commercial jet aircraft modification, production of new jet aircraft when modification of existing aircraft becomes too costly or not feasible, chaff and other chemical production, countries foreign from a U.S. viewpoint manufacturing and propogating the same stuff, have a lot of profiteers (profiteers: people who profit.) That's not even talking about the dis-information profiteers and the money to be made in swaying opinion and forming opinion. This isn't peanuts either compared to the isolated souped-up neo-painted video or picture or graphic that brings hits and therefore advertising revenue to various sites. The National Enquirer does alright but government contracts are not even in the same league. AT&T made a fortune 1 penny at a time but government contracts make fortunes overnight.

Here's my namecalling tit for tat: you all are circular. Get off the wheel.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Here's my namecalling tit for tat: you all are circular. Get off the wheel.


It's not the debunkers that are powering the wheel, in fact we are trying to stop the wheel, it's the chemtrail theorists who keep getting on and giving it a new spin, and a few who won't get off, and just keep trudging round.

The facts show that "Chemtrails" are just persistent contrail. Now yes, you could be complaining about there being too many persistent contrails. Or you could complain that the air force uses too much chaff in training, or that local water authorities do too much cloud seeding. Or that there's a lot of pollution. But those are not the chemtrail theory. Those are other issues.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ProudBird
 

Your statement on the types of planes being used needing to be considered is irrelevant - that's in the statistical mix.


In terms of numbers....but not in terms of how many contrailsare being made.

Turbo-props rarely leave contrails because they usually fly too low.

If they are being replaced by jets that do leave contrails then that is a very important consideration in how many contrails are being generated.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



"....As the World.... Wheel Turns" -----


Your namecalling i.e. "charlatans keen on promoting the myth, in order to profit from it."


It is not "namecalling" to state a fact, when referring to a known liar and con artist.

The genesis of this myth began with intent, by a few, to sell supposed "remedies" to help *protect* and *cure* from an imaginary new *danger* in the skies --- (cue dramatic music) --- "Chemtrails!!" (Be afraid...be very afraid......!)

From a most excellent thread, dug up out of the archives for review and relevance:


Myth- People are waking up to the obvious chemtrail spraying operations
Fact- Art Bell originally started the chemtrail idea back in 1999, when promoting a miracle cartilage/ joint cure for sufferers of joint aches from alleged chemtrail victims. Anyone else find this suspicious

Myth- But Art Bell always tells the truth
Fact- Ummm....no he doesnt


Here is the thread

But you see, Art Bell was not the only culprit complicit in this scam ---

( See.....understand..... It is a scam, through and through, from the outset. Hence, "charlatan" is an apt description of these rascals. Or, is "rascal" also a form of "namecalling"??
).

--- There is also a man named Will Thomas, a "charlatan-in-arms" with Art Bell, if you will.

'The End of a Chemtrail Promoter'


"late summer chemtrails will be disclosed and common knowledge"
William Thomas (2/28/02) the Art Bell Show


And -


William Thomas Investigative Journalist, Author, Videographer has been the main catalyst behind "chemtrails" for three years now...His many appearances on Art bell have garnered him status among chemtrail activists as a "guru" all around the net...For some reference on his many allegations of what chemtrails are, here are some quotes from over the years...


(The "three years now" reference? This was written about Thomas in 1999):


Thomas has claimed the chemtrails cause sickness, rashes, abnormal weather, are a aluminum/barium sunscreen, and cause drought, but has put forth as of this date 9/23/02 not one shred of evidence to support these accusations in any way shape or form...




For the very few who actually believe that chemtrails exist, having a spokesman who has lied time and time again about the existence of chemtrails can only present a hindrance in the plausibility of the existence of chemtrails and for the more studied individual, it shows dramatic evidence of a man promoting a scam...for profit...and not a concerned individual interested in the welfare of the average citizen.


Some examples of Will Thomas' lies:



* Thomas was quoted in the Santa Fe New Mexican, a newspaper in Santa Fe, NM, on 6/20/99 as saying, "My colleague and I will release the name of our lab and detailed lab results as soon as we find a publisher willing to pay us for many months of research - and reimburse those lab tests."



* "700 tankers 'kc-135s' doing the spraying, md-80 involved, "it" is in commercial airplane fuel" 3/14/01



* Thomas admits "no insitu samples have ever been taken"...2/28/02



* "Asks for $20,000 to do the sampling"...on 2/28/02



* "the impending ATC crossover in wanting to know why they are not told about chemtrails" ...2/28/02


(I have no idea what ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ last one is supposed to mean, perhaps I will find its context and let you know).



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Excellent points you've made and I encourage you to continue your investigations. These contrail cult members will never acknowledge any truth that contradicts their belief or should I say their agenda.

Your efforts are not going unnoticed by those who seek the truth and are also greatly appreciated by those of us who are tired of the circular arguments and denial of facts by the contrail con-artists.

Many of the opinions by the contrail cult members, which they always like to claim as facts, have been debunked many times yet they still repeat the same mantra over and over. Spreading their claims that this is a hoax and that anyone who doesn't agree is a charlatan or a fool.

More and more people are looking up and realizing that something is wrong with these persistent spreading contrails. They are not being fooled by the explanations and excuses given by the those who have a vested interest in the aviation industry and who are possibly involved in the cover-up of this assualt on our skies.

Keep up the good work and keep looking up.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Many of the opinions by the contrail cult members, which they always like to claim as facts, have been debunked many times yet they still repeat the same mantra over and over.


Like what, for example?

Is there anything incorrect on contrailscience.com? Let me know, and I'll correct it.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


How condescending! Especially when directed towards someone with four decades' worth of flying experience, of which 31 years is in airline operations!:


...(what that means in case you didn't know is that there are only 1/2 the total movements that represent actual planes)...


Again, this is like comparing apples and oranges, and drawing incorrect conclusions. This is using incomplete and specious data to draw an inference that is designed only to skew the supposed "results" in the direction of a pre-determined bias. It plays well with those who willingly lap it up, as seen above...because their sort will jump at anything that will superficially lean to supporting their same bias, as displayed here.

Actual facts be damned, they never get in the way of a good imaginative fantasy, do they?

In an article that seems to be from 2006 or 2007:


Today, the global airline industry consists of over 2000 airlines operating more than 23,000 aircraft, providing service to over 3700 airports. In 2006, the world’s airlines flew almost 28 million scheduled flight departures and carried over 2 billion passengers. The growth of world air travel has averaged approximately 5% per year over the past 30 years, with substantial yearly variations due both to changing economic conditions and differences in economic growth in different regions of the world. Historically, the annual growth in air travel has been about twice the annual growth in GDP. Even with relatively conservative expectations of economic growth over the next 10-15 years, a continued 4-5% annual growth in global air travel will lead to a doubling of total air travel during this period.


You could put your diligence to use in ferreting out more such reports, of overall air traffic, rather then cherry-picking only those *statistics* that are then used in order to skew your biases.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 






Now yes, you could be complaining about there being too many persistent contrails. Or you could complain that the air force uses too much chaff in training, or that local water authorities do too much cloud seeding. Or that there's a lot of pollution.


So we've reached half-time and we're entertaining the fact that things don't look right; just not in agreement on what to call them or what they may or may not contain. I've been to the 'Chaplain' and come away not satisfied. 'The monolith cranks slowly' but I wouldn't say that it's just trudging around. (Meaning that the truth comes out eventually.)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Your problem with Art Bell and Will Thomas is not mine. I have heard the names here on ATS but beyond that I don't know anything about these people and I'm certainly not going to enter into a debate about them.

Just to be clear on your statement regarding my condescension: It's not true. I could call myself 'weownthenight' and put up an avatar of a Raptor and what would that really mean in this environment?

I'm not sure if you're objecting to statistics gathered by the Airport Council International or if you're objecting to me taking the top 5 from an earlier year category and comparing that to the top 5 from the last available data in 2010. I know data can be skewed - governments, corporations, even individuals do it all the time to explain weather and cloud formations and chaff and chemtrails etc. etc.

From the journal or article you quoted written by unknown from the year unknown what does 'The growth of world air travel has averaged approximately 5% per year over the past 30 years.' mean? Did it fall and then pick up again? Did it fall far one year and from that time on did 5% become peanuts compared to an original starting point? 5% of what?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





Turbo-props rarely leave contrails because they usually fly too low.


So if turbo-props were to rarely fly too low, would they usually leave contrails?



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


I found a bit of interesting statistics that reported on the over-all trending of air traffic to increase, on an averaged basis. It took some searching, but I wasn't going to waste many hours of my effort to prove what I know already.

Instead, I'd encourage those who truly wish to delve into it to comprehend the realities of the airline industry in general (realizing it is difficult if one has no experience other than as an occasional passenger) and in the methods of documenting statistics within the industry (they come in many forms of data compilations....) in order to get a better picture.

This is really about an attempt (apparently) to discredit any claims made by knowledgeable ATS members who have worked in the airline industry regarding the ever-increasing trend for observed contrails. However, when accurate, but misleading statistics are used to support an assertion or claim, it is important to present and challenge, for a clearer idea of reality, and the complexities, of the industry.

Problem for me is....as a mere pilot, I was just one cog in that complex machinery. I don't have the "Airline Management" Bachelors of Science degree, because that is not my area of expertise, nor did I want to be a "manager" in a corporation, in that sense. I can manage an airplane quite well, thank-you-very-much.....but I never wished to be a part of the corporate grind. I enjoyed high pay for rather very little work, and that suited me just fine.

But, I'm no dummy, and can read a profit/loss statement or Annual Report (as an employee and Union member, those were important considerations when approaching each contract negotiation cycle).

Point is, we knew and continue to know how the industry grew, even if we weren't sitting at headquarters in a corner office on the 30th floor. It was apparent as it became more busy, airspace was more crowded, delays increased....to the point that technology had to be developed to reduce the vertical separation minimums for flights above 29,000 feet (FL290), applying the usual 1,000 feet in lieu of the previous 2,000 feet that had been in place for decades.

(It is technical, but the extra *buffer* above FL290 was due to possible inherent inaccuracies at those altitudes, because of the lesser pressures. The advancement in computers, and better tolerances in the instrumentation eventually convinced aviation governing bodies that the safety margin was sufficient...yet, we all still had to undergo special certification training, in order to operate in RVSM conditions. Even today: RVSM Training Online).

I bring up RVSM because this has been implemented nearly everywhere world-wide, in just the last ten years. It amounts to the ability to accommodate about double the air traffic in any particular parcel (sector is the term used) of airspace.

There is another aspect of air traffic management (as it's started to be called) in the USA...."free flight" is one term, and easy to remember....and is acronym-free!
Aviation is over-loaded with acronyms. It is in early stages of implementation, but one of the initial steps has been to offer an alternative to the traditional Jet Airway route structure currently in place. AFAIK so far, Southwest Airlines and American Airlines use it sometimes (maybe more are by now).

What has been developed is a "grid" based on Latitude/Longitude coordinates called the 'NRS' (heh-heh, acronyms, remember? The "Navigation Reference System"), part of the the 'HAR' (
"High Altitude Redesign") which can be easily input into the on-board Flight Management computers, which interface with the autopilots, and display on the video screes all sorts of information, like course, waypoints, other navigational fixes, etc, etc. In fact, the private sector uses such technology long before it is trickled down by FAA approval to the airlines.

Here, for the non-airline sector of corporate aviation, an explanatory cirular:

High Altitude Redesign

(Look at the chart showing the contiguous USA, it's near the bottom of that PDF).


I could go on, there is so much to explain.

On the other hand, perhaps some of the "chem"trail doubters....believers, whatever....would make the effort to go out and learn to fly...or at least (because I know it's expensive) take a few lessons, and talk to real pilots face-to-face. I mean, that way what I write isn't just coming from some anonymous "keyboard warrior".

You need some veracity. Feel free to do some fact-checking.

It's up to you.





top topics
 
86
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum