Flooded with Chemtrails All Over Portland Oregon!! PIX

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


LOL!

And what kind of chemicals are used to protect
Air Force One?

For the same reasons the "stealth" bombers and fighters don't use chemicals, I would expect (since many details about the jets are classified) that the two B-747s used by the President do not either.

Or are you telling us it can be seen and shot down?

No.....from what has been publicly revealed, it has a suite of anti-missile detection and defense. Much as do other military aircraft. But, frankly, most of what's talked about regarding any defense capability is not from "official" sources. Just what's leaked.

Why not just Google it???


Add:

By the way....the designation and radio call sign "Air Force One" is only used when the President is actually onboard. There are other aircraft that can be used, for occasions when the 747 is too big. Since the airplanes are all flown by USAF pilots, then that's the call sign, regardless of the jet used.

For the helicopters, those are flown by Marines. So, call sign changes to "Marine One".

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Still waiting for contrail pics left by
Air Force One.
If Contrails are just created and unavoidable as you all describe,

Whoever said contrails are unavoidable??

Avoiding them is easy - fly lower. (well usually fly lower - most commercial jets fly as high as they can because it is a lot more economic, so to change the atmospheric conditions the easiest option will usually be to drop down a bit).

But if you are not going to fly at a different altitude, and you have contrail conditions at the altitude you ARE at, tehn you're stuck with contrails.

we have had many Presidents flying in the most powerful advanced planes,
that should kick out more water vapor then the average plane.
So why can't you show me a contrail or two left by Presidents?

Probably because no-one has photographed them.

But there are lots of photos of 3-engined a/c making contrails, just for those who need them....

www.skystef.be...

reply to post by ProudBird

So the Air support leaves contrails and they can be shot down?
Contrails affect national security, but you tell us its harmless?
Knowing the planes are leaving themselves open for attack,
and civilians are on them are too.
So we have to go through all that security, when we are in contrail gun site?
The more you explain contrails the less safe we feel.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by surfinguru
Do you see where I'm going with this yet?? EVERY single plane I've ever witnessed leaving a persistent trail like the ones shown in the OP are four engine based platforms, never twin engine planes.

I see a lot of SouthWest jets leaving contrails here. All two engine.

But the number of engines is not really a factor in contrail formation. They type of engine itself its a small factor. Most important is the temperatur and humidity.

Try FlightAware:

flightaware.com...

You can change the city in the lower left. Then expand the map, and hover over a plane to see the type. Pick the green planes as they are the flyover planes. The second code on the first line is the aircfraft type. If you can't figure it out (e.g. B733 is Boeing 737-300, a twin engine, pretty common for SouthWest) then click in the plane and it will give you the full details.

Thanks for the link - very useful!

So here is another stupid thought.
So if you wanted to test a secret aircraft without public input
you would lay down a cirrus cloud with contrail to cover to hide,
what you guys want to play with.
Contrails are a weapon or a weakness, don't give me that harmless talk.

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


Or, to test a secret aircraft, you find a spot in the remote desert.....Hey! I know!! Maybe somewhere in Nevada??

Or, do the flying at night. Over the ocean. On Wednesdays, at 0913.....everybody hates Wednesdays, they are so 'blah', they won't pay any attention.......

reply to post by Gmoneycricket


I dont' think anyone ever said contrails are harmless either - I sure as heck wouldn't want to breath one - all that exhaust gas pollution...

What they are not is anything except the normal product of combustion under certain atmospheric conditions.

where do you get all these mistakes from??

Contrails
they block the sunlight,
pervert our vision of nature,
and clouds and sky's that are blue.
So while you pretend to be birds,
and laugh at us on land.
We will look up call cirrus clouds from planes,
a poison,
and it needs to be banned.
Once it became uncomfortable for us to fly, with you at the helm.
Its time to take the flying machines and let them all die.
I don't want to be probed and scanned just to fly with you,
I call, we stop all grants, public funding too.
Until pilots and airlines stop thinking they are above me and you.

Great photos pavelivanov22.

Don't you love being sprayed by your own government with:
> Metallic salts (oxides)
> Nano Fibers
> Engineered Biologicals

Here is a photo I found on ChemtrailBug for November 15th, 2011 Oregon

wwc.instacam.com...

Standing at the window watching the Chemtrails go by... Do you find them attractive?

reply to post by dw31243


Silly, it's a perfectly ordinary contrail:

Here is a photo I found on ChemtrailBug for November 15th, 2011 Oregon

NO, there are no "salts", no "nanofibers", or any of the other ridiculous things claimed.

But, I notice you keep up these claims, yet have never risen to the challenge. Provide evidence, preferably photos of the airplanes close-up, to show the "spraying" apparatus. Also, photos of the airplanes being serviced with these "exotic" blends that are claimed so often.

So far? Nada. Zilch. Zip. Zero.

It's been over TEN years?!?

pavelivanov22 have you checked out the Alex Jones Chemtrail news report released this week?

Aluminium dioxide, new GMO seeds that are resistant to the Aluminium sprayed by the Chemtrail planes. What more can I say: Incredible information.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by surfinguru

 

Based on the number of flights over the US, how many are short-hop, commuter flights NOT-consisting of the 747 (four engine) based platform?

Do you realize how much effort is needed to provide such a break-down in statistics? The most easy option is for anyone who wishes to just Google every airline, on their websites, and look up their fleets, to see the types they operate. Or, this site (which covers every airline in the world) also has the actual numbers too:

AirFleets.net

I was speaking more figuratively and wasn't actually expecting someone to provide a hard number, just to think about it contextually. Good link by the way, got that one earlier in the thread, but still appreciate the effort.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by surfinguru

 

As for the longer haul, continental flights, how many of those are actually using the 747 type platform?

Again....in majority of cases, a 747 is best suited for the extreme long-haul...so, mostly overseas.

Great, you can see where I was going with that comment.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by surfinguru

 

Now, out those flights that might be using a 747 based configuration, how many are really going to be flying criss-cross patterns all over the US?

The routes will occasionally intersect. But, besides the 747, the other common four-engine airliners are the Airbus A340 and A380. However, even the many, many twin-jets can leave substantial contrails, when conditions are suitable.

Yes, the Airbus A340 and A380 are quite prominent in domestic fleets and yes, many twin engined jets can leave contrails. No dispute there.

EVERY single plane I've ever witnessed leaving a persistent trail like the ones shown in the OP are four engine based platforms, never twin engine planes.

I seriously doubt this.

Let's be clear, I said "Every plane I've ever witnessed...." You see what you see, I see what I see.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by surfinguru

 

Can anyone explain to me why these type of trails are not observed coming from any DC, MD or other 700 series type planes when they should be the predominant plane in the air?

OK...let me see if I can decode this...."DC"? Do you mean McDonnell Douglas? Like the DC-9 and DC-10?
"MD" is also a designation for the same company, assigned to the later models, the MD-80 series (a stretch re-design of the DC-9) and the MD-11 (also a re-design of the DC-10).

Well...first, few DC-9s and DC-10s are around anymore. Secondly, in the case of the MD-80 series, for instance (American and Delta still have a lot of them) the engines they have installed are a low-bypass fan design. These tend to not make prominent contrails as often as the more fuel-efficient engines that are high-bypass fan designs.

Third, the MD-11 is (like the 747) more suited for very long-haul. In the USA, FedEx and UPS are primary operators. (Delta used to, but parked or sold them).

I was referring specifically Boeing products when I said "DC" "MD" and "700 series" and only as a general example. Thanks for the background info on the DC-9 and 10's.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by surfinguru

 

Keep in mind that some International airlines are allowed to overfly the USA...in their MD-11s, 747s, A340s and A380s, etc. It is covered under the term "cabotage"...you can look that up. Essentially, they can sell a ticket from, say Sydney to New York. But, if they don't have the route authority granted to them to operate a non-stop to New York, they can use the route from SYD to LAX, and land there. Then, continue on with any passengers who wish to keep going...but, the International (foreign) airline cannot sell tickets for the domestic leg between LAX and New York. That is "cabotage" in a nutshell......

Yeah, I get how that works, hopefully this is educational for others. Again though, how many of those specific type of flights make up the total number of daily flights over continental USA?

Look, I'm not a chemtrail diehard, fanatic or whatever term one chooses to use. I'm just putting out what I see with my own eyes and my perception of what I see is out of place.

reply to post by dw31243


There is no such thing as Aluminium dioxide - it is aluminium oxide - Al2O3.

Aluminium resistent seed is also not new information, nor is it anything to do with chemtrails. Acidic soils causse Aluminium ions to form - which are poisonous to plants - but it is the soil being acidic that causes this - not eth aluminium!

And of course since all soils are full of aluminium anyway, what would be the point of "spraying" any more??

In fact the matter has been discussed on this board within the last day or 2 in a thread called "Alex Jones on Chemtrails"!

Here's some info for you to ponder:

Monsanto Aluminium resistent crops - because 30-40% of the earth's soil is acidic enough to be affected by aluminium poisoning so there's billions to be made supplying plants that can tolerate it better.

Much of the world's cropland contains aluminum that stunts crops. But a new study has found a way to make plants grow tall in spite of the metal's toxic effects. The discovery, by plant biologists at the University of California, Riverside, suggests that genetic engineering could boost yields from fields that today are not ideal for growing crops.

Aluminum is common in soils--it's a major component of clay--but only in acidic soils does the metal form an ion that can dissolve into liquids and that's toxic to plants. Acidic soils make up as much as half the world's croplands, however, and aluminum toxicity is the main factor holding back crop growth in nearly 20 percent of the world's arable soils, including large areas of the United States east of the Mississippi River and northwestern Europe.

www.technologyreview.com...

Scientists all over the world are looking to do this - not just Monsanto -

The objective of this study was to evaluate 36 genotypes of common bean under hydroponic conditions to identify root morphological traits that could be associated with Al resistance.

- Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology

The Chinese are keen on aluminium resistent rice (300k pdf download) -

There are many factors limiting plant growth in acidic soils. Aluminium toxicity and ammonium-nitrogen
often coexist in acidic soils due to low pH and poor nitrification. Understanding the mechanisms responsible
for aluminium-ammonium interaction can help improve agricultural production and maintain ecological
stability in acidic soils. The effects of ammonium and nitrate on Al resistance, of aluminium on ammonium
uptake, and the correlation between aluminium resistance and nitrogen utilization were investigated here.
The results indicated that ammonium enhances aluminium resistance of rice compared with nitrate.
Aluminium does not inhibit ammonium uptake of Al-resistant rice cultivar but does that of the Al-sensitive
rice cultivar, and Al-resistant rice cultivar exhibits higher ammonium uptake rate under Al stress compared
with the Al-sensitive cultivar. Al resistance in rice is positively correlated with ammonium utilization or
negatively correlated with nitrate utilization. Based on these results, it is possible to increase aluminium
resistance and nitrogen utilization at the same time in acidic soils through the development of Al-resistant
and ammonium-preferring rice cultivars and the application of suitable types of nitrogen fertilizers.

Tick Tock
No Contrail Pictures from Air Force One yet!
Contrails from Presidential Planes must be fantasy.

reply to post by surfinguru

Again though, how many of those specific type of flights make up the total number of daily flights over continental USA?

You are familiar already with FlightAware?

Some lazy day when you have nothing better to do, you could spend some time there and actually document the airplane types, to see for yourself.

This would not be a task for the faint of heart....but with determination, you could gather a lot of data. If you become familiar with how to navigate the site.

A short-cut I can think of is to narrow the searches by just using certain city-pairs. Ignore smaller airports where the 747 or A340 doesn't operate...and, the A380 has VERY limited airports it can operate into. (no U.S. domestic airlines have any of those, yet....as I write this today. There are a total of 101 of the things built, and many are still registered to the manufacturer).

Every time I look up and see a contrails
I see a bunch of people, that volunteered to give up their rights,
and wanted to be probed and prodded in a perverted way.
Programed to believe that planes are only as safe as their underwear.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Tick Tock
No Contrail Pictures from Air Force One yet!
Contrails from Presidential Planes must be fantasy.

No - just another straw man argument from a chemmie.

Sigh...I was assured that only debunkers make straw man arguments...

reply to post by dw31243


We had a lot of fog that night too.. it was really really foggy and cold might explain why it was more foggy then ever before. All those chemicals mix in the clouds then they settle down for us to breath them in

reply to post by PlausibleDeniability


Only thing is i don't live near a airpot. and there are rarely any planes. Just so happens we also get a lot fog that night too to inhale all the poisons

reply to post by pavelivanov22


Living near an airport (or not near an airport) is irrelevant.

Only thing is i don't live near a airpot. and there are rarely any planes.

Contrails form at high altitudes only. Airplanes are at low altitudes when departing or arriving.

And fog is only "poisonous" in bad Hollywood movies.