Chemtrail Tanker Air Show For The Skeptics

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

Why should I care about the number of passengers? This is a chemtrail thread. We're concerned about planes in the air. If LAX is the busiest airport on the west coast and it lost over 100,000 landings/takeoffs between 2000 and 2010 - we're in trouble. We need a quorum - enough planes in the air at one time in tight formation like in WWII (a thousand or so) - to make grids in the sky. That's what we're looking for here. And I picked LAX because I know it's busy.

But wait, tsurfer2000h, from the statistics you supplied, I'm starting to wonder if you're not a closet chemtrailer. You said 603,912 landings/takeoffs in 2011 and 575,875 in 2010. I gave you 666,938 for 2010. So it's even worse then I thought. A loss of about 180,000 landings/takeoffs since 2000. Over 200,000 lost in 2010. What's up with that?

I know you're not the one who put up the looney graph from Boeing but let me just address that here too. Boeing generated what they call a 'Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents.' That's the link that graph came from (not the link Thorazine put up - slick, slim.) This means that they have a vested interest in a statistic high enough to make accidents with their planes look average. According to the last report to Congress that I could find, they're in trouble. No new orders to speak of and nothing on the horizon - and a backlog of existing planes which were in that statistical summary and because that's about it on their revenue in that sector, those planes had better be ok.

The Commercial Jet Aircraft Market

Boeing and Airbus entered the ongoing recessionary period with a considerable backlog of undelivered aircraft on their books (Airbus recorded a backlog of 3,715 and Boeing 3,714)

By one view, there is a growing supply of surplus aircraft in this market sector and it will take years for this surplus to be absorbed by a global airline industry currently operating at reduced capacity.

But all of this is easily solved without having to follow the money or even read one statistic. Simply look up and if you see a grid in the sky (like the many pictures posted on chemtrail sites) you should see about 1,000 jets in tight formation. If you see that, then chances are good it's not chemtrails.

Vested interests or not, raw statistics are raw statistics. Without any wiggle room for interpretation, there is no spin to be put on it. If you're saying someone lied about those statistics, prove it by doing the research yourself.

*facepalm*

You simply cannot accept the fact that at least parts of your argument are absolute fantasies and fabrications.

Originally posted by luxordelphi


We're concerned about planes in the air. Simply look up and if you see a grid in the sky (like the many pictures posted on chemtrail sites) you should see about 1,000 jets in tight formation. If you see that, then chances are good it's not chemtrails.

You said air traffic has "decreased"- you never said since when...the FACT is the number of planes in the sky globally has risen steadily for the past 30+ years...

Why do you need "1000 jets in tight formation" to make a grid??

The "many pictures on chemtrail sites" do not show that...they show 3 or 4 or 5 contrails and claim its a "grid".

With over 30,000 flight per day in the US and over 5000 planes in the sky at any moment....isn't it likely that many planes cross paths...and if they leave persistent contrails...?? what will it look like?

Can you show a picture of a suspicious grid pattern and show why it could not be simply several of the 1000s of commercial aircraft in the sky at any given moment- like this picture from 1972:




picasaweb.google.com...

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

I know you're not the one who put up the looney graph from Boeing but let me just address that here too. Boeing generated what they call a 'Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents.' That's the link that graph came from (not the link Thorazine put up - slick, slim.) This means that they have a vested interest in a statistic high enough to make accidents with their planes look average.

So what is the "Real" number then?

What evidence, other than paranoia, do you have that this number is actually wrong?

The number of aircraft flying and in service is monitored all over the world by many agencies and organisations - it is massive business - everyone from Flight magazine to aircraft leasing companies keeps track of this stuff, and orders are public knowledge.

So please - regale us with your information sources.

According to the last report to Congress that I could find, they're in trouble. No new orders to speak of and nothing on the horizon -

Oh dear - so wrong, so badly wrong, and so easily shown wrong!

From the report:

Both firms have continued to deliver significant numbers of new aircraft to their airline and/or
leasing firm customers, and both are profitable.

("both firms" being Boeing and Airbus)

and

The aerospace industry’s commercial side anticipates difficult business conditions for the near and medium term, but long-term projections by Boeing, for instance, are positive, with airlines expected to need 29,000 new planes valued at $3.2 trillion between 2009 and 2028.1

and a backlog of existing planes which were in that statistical summary and because that's about it on their revenue in that sector, those planes had better be ok.

The Commercial Jet Aircraft Market

Boeing and Airbus entered the ongoing recessionary period with a considerable backlog of undelivered aircraft on their books (Airbus recorded a backlog of 3,715 and Boeing 3,714)

no - this shows a total misunderstanding of the report.

These numbers are the number of ORDERS they have not delivered yet - not the number of aircraft they have sitting around built but not delivered.

The statistic is there to show that they are going into a recessionary period with a healthy backlog on order that will help them through it!!

By one view, there is a growing supply of surplus aircraft in this market sector and it will take years for this surplus to be absorbed by a global airline industry currently operating at reduced capacity.

Yes - by 1 view - by another view they have 6 and 7 years production on order right now even if another order was never received!

Boeing and Airbus both have substantial backlogs of orders on their books built up beginning in
2003. Industry analysts say that Boeing is working on a seven-year backlog and Airbus on a six year
backlog. Both have slowed production lines for 2009, and the trend may continue through
2010 or 2011, but many analysts expect this hiatus to be temporary.

I am glad I was able to deny your ignorance, and you are now better informed!

reply to post by flyswatter


I don't make wild claims. I don't have to. The truth itself is so wild that it's almost unbelievable. Let me borrow a format from the Air Force on their chemtrail debunk/stumble & fumble:

CLAIM: Grids of white lines in the sky are caused by one, two or three...maybe even five jets accidentally creating outrageously persistent contrails.
FACT: In WWII a thousand jets, flying in tight formation sometimes produced grids of white lines in the sky but in most cases of grids, there was already a front forming.

CLAIM: Grids of white lines in the sky are increasing because air traffic is increasing.
FACT: LAX, as one of the reporting airports to the Airport Council International, has lost 100,000 to 200,000 landings/takeoffs since 2000. And, as another poster quoted, this is the busiest airport on the west coast.

CLAIM: Grids of white lines in the sky are just an accident of altitude and humidity.
FACT: A number of technologies and methods exist (have existed) to insure that there is never a white line that persists in the sky.

CLAIM: Global dimming and lack of visibility for ground-based astronomy and the heat retentive properties of jet cirrus are things that we just can't do anything about.
FACT: See previous FACT.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I am glad I was able to deny your ignorance, and you are now better informed!

Dear Pollyanna: .

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

You've got some nerve talking about "pseudo-science". There isn't one shred of verifiable, repeatable scientific evidence to prove the made-up word "chemtrails" even exist.

First of all i do.

Right now, you've got jack nothing.

Ohh yes i do, it's called

H.R. 2977 (107th): Space Preservation Act of 2001

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) CHEMTRAILS;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons

LINK TO THE BILL
www.govtrack.us...

I feel kinda sorry for the person who made the video. He continues to make himself a laughing stock to those of us who had a proper education and can see that we're looking at contrails and wingtip vortices..

Go and read this bill

Because you need a little proper education on the subject.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Can you link to the 1000's of jets flying in WW II the reason I ask is I am not aware of any air force around the world having a 1000 jets then nevermind flying at once.

The reason for saying that is the jet engine wasn't fully developed until late 1930's into the 1940's and all the great air battles had aircraft with propellers

Over 70,000 flights per day world wide, in the UK where I live we have a vast increase in internal flights over the last 10-15 years.

Looking forward to your reply.

reply to post by knowneedtoknow

H.R. 2977 (107th): Space Preservation Act of 2001

Written by an "ET Disclosure" campaigner and Chemtrail advocate. Fortunately, the bill did not pass. Using it to prove the reality of the Chemtrail Conspiracy is like using an ordinance to "protect our historic haunted houses" to prove the existence of ghosts.

Originally posted by knowneedtoknow

Ohh yes i do, it's called

H.R. 2977 (107th): Space Preservation Act of 2001

yeah yeah yeah - never got passed, both it subsequent iterations failed to get passed, and when Kucinich found his drafters had included "chemtrails" he had the term pulled out 'cos he had no interest in it.

you can read all about it here

What exactly is it you think this 11 year old failed bill proves?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by flyswatter

 

CLAIM: Grids of white lines in the sky are caused by one, two or three...maybe even five jets accidentally creating outrageously persistent contrails.
FACT: In WWII a thousand jets, flying in tight formation sometimes produced grids of white lines in the sky but in most cases of grids, there was already a front forming.

Fact - there were not thousands if jets in WW2

Fact: Contrails often form in front of fonts (sic) - congratulations - well spotted.

CLAIM: Grids of white lines in the sky are increasing because air traffic is increasing.
FACT: LAX, as one of the reporting airports to the Airport Council International, has lost 100,000 to 200,000 landings/takeoffs since 2000. And, as another poster quoted, this is the busiest airport on the west coast.

Fact: The traffic at 1 airport, no matter how large, is not actually a measure of total air taffic

CLAIM: Grids of white lines in the sky are just an accident of altitude and humidity.
FACT: A number of technologies and methods exist (have existed) to insure that there is never a white line that persists in the sky.

Fact: it doesn't need "technology" to eliminate contrails - it just takes flying at a different altitude. It is trivially simple. But why would anyone bother? Jets fly as high as they can because it uses less fuel - if they fly lower it uses more fuel and creates more pollution.

Flying high is cheap and more environmentally friendly.

why would you want to increase pollution?

CLAIM: Global dimming and lack of visibility for ground-based astronomy and the heat retentive properties of jet cirrus are things that we just can't do anything about.
FACT: See previous FACT.

Who makes this claim??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


lol you all refer to that Contrail Science web site that has a big zero of credibility i can make a nicer web site then that in just 5 minutes and feed you with my Bull SH??

reply to post by knowneedtoknow


Do you think appearance is more important than content then?

I guess if you believe in chemtrails yes you probably do - it's kind of axiomatic!

I have seen a lot of people say Contrail Science is rubbish or whatever....none of them have ever managed to actually point out the supposed errors though.

Are you going to be any different?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Don't get sucked into this sophistry. It's not yours to prove air traffic is increasing, it's theirs to provide hard data that the number of persistent contrails is increasing. "I don't remember it being this bad" is not data.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by knowneedtoknow

What exactly is it you think this 11 year old failed bill proves?

The CHEMTRAIL WORD DO exist

reply to post by knowneedtoknow


Well golly gee- the chemtrail word do exist?

Really?? Well, thanks for that......I would never have realised otherwise.

(where do they get them from?? :@@

reply to post by knowneedtoknow


That 'Space Preservation Act' gets pulled out of the hat by chemtrail believers over and over again

I suppose my laptop is in on the cover-up because every time I type the word chemtrail a squiggly red line appears under it, hmm, I put it to sleep an hour ago, I'm using it now so it should be 'awake'.....apparently not, oh well.

reply to post by DJW001


attacking a avatar what a low move lol you definitely faild your mission on this one disinfo agent

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by knowneedtoknow

 

That 'Space Preservation Act' gets pulled out of the hat by chemtrail believers over and over again

I suppose my laptop is in on the cover-up because every time I type the word chemtrail a squiggly red line appears under it, hmm, I put it to sleep an hour ago, I'm using it now so it should be 'awake'.....apparently not, oh well.

You are a liar it doesn't i did try it on google and yahoo nice one agent keep on switching your accounts

reply to post by knowneedtoknow


Do you just see what you want to see?

The post you linked show no attack on you or your avatar..

Your post however, is indeed an ad hominen attack. Why call someone disinfo because they have a different opinion to you?

Very immature.

Originally posted by knowneedtoknow

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by knowneedtoknow

 

That 'Space Preservation Act' gets pulled out of the hat by chemtrail believers over and over again

I suppose my laptop is in on the cover-up because every time I type the word chemtrail a squiggly red line appears under it, hmm, I put it to sleep an hour ago, I'm using it now so it should be 'awake'.....apparently not, oh well.

You are a liar it doesn't i did try it on google and yahoo nice one agent keep on switching your accounts

So anyone who doesn't share your myopic view of reality is a 'disinfo agent', and a 'liar' who switches their accounts?

DJ wasn't attacking your avatar either, not too bright are you?

Run along.