Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Chemtrail vids: Close-ups of full wing spraying

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by flyswatter

The problem is that your time spent on this Earth still doesnt trump explained and verified science.

But hey, I'll give you an A- for effort. At least you're sticking to what you believe, even if it is wrong.


Thanks for your evaluation your opinion means so much to me. And this "explained and verified science" is the same one that took 30 years to tell us smoking was bad? Not to mention a thousand other "fails"? So I guess the hundreds of accredited scientists that go to chemtrail conferences have nothing better to do with their time? Thanks, but I'll stick with personal obsevation and experience.
edit on 30-7-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition


I'm not going to knock the chemtrail believers themselves, because I dont know them as people. I'm just saying that they (re: you included) are wrong.

The videos that you posted are of scientifically verified phenomena. We know what it is, we know what it is not, and we know what causes it. I have yet to see you post anything that cannot be explained and proven by either scientists or aviation experts.




posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
I've seen dozens of articles which document the substances found in chemtrail sprayed areas, and there are hundreds of scientists studying the phenonomen worldwide writing papers, attending seminars which focus on chemtrails and/or geoengineering - why are you ignoring all of that?


Dr. Leonard Horowitz received his D.M.D. from Tufts University and his Master of Public Health in Behavioral Science from Harvard University.



Since 1998 chemtrails from military aircraft have been causing flu-like, fungal-type symptoms, pneumonia, heart problems and even death.


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE - Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies


Warning, almost 20MB:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

I mean geez, hasn't atmospheric seeding been going on since the 1940's?

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Here are some great shots of a typical chemtrail set-up, this has only one purpose, and is not used for fighting fires or aerial refueling or anything else:





Legend:

A - Propeller on the front of the pod drives an internal generator or pump. Based on the shadows under the plane, we can determine this image was made sometime around mid-day.

B - Funnel-cone with an exit port mounted on center of engine exhaust for additional spraying capability. Exhaust that exits here may not necessarily be superheated air, as most of today's engines are high-bypass designs for maximum thrust and efficiency. The engine could have been designed to have a fresh-air channel running straight down the center. This would be important when spraying biological agents in order not to destroy them.

C - Semi-circle black lines along the bottom are probably air intake screens. Being on the underside of the pod, they would be exposed to the high pressure flow of air under the wing.

D ­ Afterbirth: Curve of pod mounting strut almost matches that of the plane's wing, but is not quite perfect. No aircraft manufacturer would ever release a plane with the large gap in the mount that we see here. This pod was clearly manufactured by a third party.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Hi, that picture I have seen before, it is from a refueling system on a KC-135 Stratotanker.




Hope the link works



edit on 31-7-2012 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)


Here is a schematic of it here


And another angle, this time on a Boeing 707 used by the RAAF
edit on 31-7-2012 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Hi, that picture I have seen before, it is from a refueling system on a KC-135 Stratotanker.




Hope the link works

edit on 31-7-2012 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)


The plane in the picture I posted above may be a KC-135 Stratotanker, but how do you explain the pods on the wings? Also, the nozzle coming from the jet engine nacelle is something unique. Also, the picture was taken on a small of course non-military field in Quebec, where military airfields are nearby in Quebec as well as upstate New York, and according to the research on the markings the plane belongs to a small regional government in France - not any military.

The KC - 135 has a refueling arm extending from the rear, not small jets from the wings, how would those fuel planes mid-air?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


The pods are just one type of refueling system available, as you say there is a central drogue system as well.

The diagram of the pod supplied in my first reply should answer your question sufficiently



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
The plane in the picture I posted above may be a KC-135 Stratotanker, but how do you explain the pods on the wings?

Did you even look at the image in the quote you linked? I'm guessing you didn't, as the image clearly shows a refuelling pod on the wings. I thought that was as good an explanation as any.


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Also, the nozzle coming from the jet engine nacelle is something unique.

Obviously you don't like checking facts before you make claims, but that seems to be common in the geo-engineering forum. Here are a couple of pictures of a stratotanker from the French Armée de l'Air.



This plane looks almost identical to the picture you posted. It may even be the same plane. The fuzzy thing you see at the back is the drogue which is deployed from the pod. There are indeed other methods of air to air refuelling, one of which involve a rigid pipe which extends from the rear of the fuselage. But this is without doubt, an air to air refuelling system which has nothing to do with chemtrails.

But hey, what do you expect from a copy and paste job from Rense (or whoever else they plagiarised)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


The pods are just one type of refueling system available, as you say there is a central drogue system as well.

The diagram of the pod supplied in my first reply should answer your question sufficiently


I think someone is lying to you.

I just looked at over 100 images of "KC-135 inflight refueling", and not a single one showed any kind of drogue extending from the wing type of refueling, they were all the traditional center rear boom extension type.

I don't think I have to remind anyone with a shred of knoweledge of aerodynamics how unstable refueling using this type of apparatus from one wing would be from flight - okay so you say use both on each wing at the same time - ya, and how far apart would the wingtips be of the two aircraft simultaneously refueling be? Do you think the airforce is going to risk two multimillion dollar aircraft just to speed up the refueling process a bit?

And if the refueling jet was using the "so called wing drogue" wouldn't it be way more exposed to "jet engine wake/wash" as opposed to the regular center/down/back position?

Trust me buddy, these may look like refueling drogues, but they are not. Not to mention even the short length of the hose. Show me one picture of a "wing drogue" inflight refueling and I will rethink this, otherwise I will go with this is not a logical scenario.

Just Google KC-135 inflight refueling images and see what I mean.
edit on 31-7-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: correction



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by liejunkie01

So does that put you in the same category as the sailors of years ago that thought the earth was flat?

After all they sailed the seas every day and night and they thought that you could just sail right off of the ends of the earth.

That was their personal observation and experience.



No, they hadn't seen the end of the earth, whereas I have seen contrails and chemtrails.

It is the difference between observation, experience and reasoning; versus belief in superstitions to explain unobserved but rumored phenomenon. Next.


I cant believe you just wrote that. How are your observations not a belief in superstitions created to instill fear into the ignorant to make profit?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
Then your gonna love this pic...


I love that pic

I've got that one in my ATS uploads somewhere. I've got a few others I uploaded a while back when discussing the iridescence that can be seen in contrails (especially aerodynamic contrails).





Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Anyone who says these are just regular "contrails" either has trouble with reality or has some kind of agenda.

I guess I have an agenda then
My agenda is to deny ignorance


And there is a lot of that ignorance in your OP. You have shown that you do not understand the basic physics behind contrail formation. If you did, you would know what an aerodynamic contrail is and how it forms.

Do you think this is a chemtrail as well?

Hint: It's not a "typical" contrail, as it does not consist of ice crystals, as the aircraft is flying at a relatively low altitude.

What you see is water droplets that have condensed in areas of low pressure. The main areas of low pressure are found in the wing tip vortices, flap vortices, and directly above the wings. As the air pressure drops, the air can no longer hold the water vapour present in the air (the local relative humidity exceeds 100%), and visible water droplets are formed. These do not form long lasting, persistent trails like some contrails made from ice crystals at high altitudes, but they do demonstrate the well known and documented properties of water in our atmosphere. The same properties which explain exactly what you have shown in your OP. Aerodynamic contrails.


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
The fact of the matter is hundreds of scientists around the world are conducting seminars and doing research papers on chemtrails - this is easily determined with a simple Google search - they wouldn't be doing this on "contrails"

Your claim of "fact" is more than a little dubious, but I'll keep an open mind. Most scientists will write a paper or an article on their theories to show their hypothesis, their methods, and to discuss their conclusions. Google scholar is a fairly good resource for locating such papers, and you seem to approve of google so lets have a look.

If you go into google scholar and search "chemtrails", you come up with approximately 182 results. Not bad, even if all the top hits are horrible attempts at "science", but that's a whole different thread. Now try searching for "contrail". 10,600 results! These articles are written by many different scientists from many different institutions from all over the world over a wide time frame. Yet again, your claims that you present as fact are woefully lacking in factual substance and easily disproven.


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
So of course anyone is welcome on this thread, but don't expect a response from me if you are going to attempt to argue these are just normal "contrails"

A non-response would probably be wise after your attempts at posting a picture of a fuel tanker and claiming it is a "typical chemtrail set up". At least you won't display such ignorance if you don't respond.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 




Oh you mean a pic like this? there are tons more if you need them....



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 




Oh you mean a pic like this? there are tons more if you need them....


Umm, I don't believe that's a KC-135, you should do a little research Vkey before getting all excited, one characteristic of KC-135's is FOUR engines..........


edit on 31-7-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Actually it's taken from inside the cockpit of an F18 that's attached.. but like i said there's tons more, the USAF just doesn't use the Drouge system much anymore because of the low fuel rate transfer, but most tankers (modified C130's or the KC's) have them attached.

Before you call photo-shopping why don't' you do some research, I had that form a project I was working on as a ref photo, like I said there are tons more where that came form..

And i never said it was a KC, i said it was a drogue refueling system.. like the one in your pictures, they attach them to all sorts of planes..
edit on 31-7-2012 by vkey08 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Actually it's taken from inside the cockpit of an F18 that's attached.. but like i said there's tons more, the USAF just doesn't use the Drouge system much anymore because of the low fuel rate transfer, but most tankers (modified C130's or the KC's) have them attached.

Before you call photo-shopping why don't' you do some research, I had that form a project I was working on as a ref photo, like I said there are tons more where that came form..

And i never said it was a KC, i said it was a drogue refueling system.. like the one in your pictures, they attach them to all sorts of planes..
edit on 31-7-2012 by vkey08 because: (no reason given)


Who cares if it's photoshopped or not, it's not a KC-135. It is an interesting little tanker though.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I am fairly certain that in this case, I'm not being lied to.

I am actually on the fence in regards to geoengineering and the like but I won't just cling onto every theory out there because it agrees with my belief.

My apologies if you approach things with less appraisal .


edit on 31-7-2012 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


You claimed it was before your edit...

Anyhow if you need a KC with the Drogue system attached, here you go..




posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


You claimed it was before your edit...

Anyhow if you need a KC with the Drogue system attached, here you go..



Geez Vkey, use your head! Those are photoshopped or just staged pictures, those lightweight, tiny lines would never connect with the refueling nozzle of jets, the nozzle would just push them around.

Look at the rigidity of the hose of a normal KC-135 refeuling apparatus:

www.airforce-technology.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I hate to insult but in your source, there are thumbnails of other images, including one showing a KC135 refueling two jets using the same dual pod drogue system that you just called photoshop.

www.airforce-technology.com...

edit on 31-7-2012 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


You claimed it was before your edit...

Anyhow if you need a KC with the Drogue system attached, here you go..



Geez Vkey, use your head! Those are photoshopped or just staged pictures, those lightweight, tiny lines would never connect with the refueling nozzle of jets, the nozzle would just push them around.

Look at the rigidity of the hose of a normal KC-135 refeuling apparatus:

www.airforce-technology.com...



uh in the center of the KC135 is that boom, they use both systems, or do you not read... They do not use the Drogue systems much because of the low fuel rate transfer rate, they tend to use the long central boom more, it does not in any way make the drogues any less a viable option, in fact most countries that don't have the high requirements of our fighter aircraft or our bombers still use the older drogue systems. Hell I live about 5 minutes form an Air Force base I can go and watch them fixing the drouges any day of the week, and setting them up for inflight use..

it's just the way it is, just because you don't wish to understand how they work, doesn't make them not real.

Pratt and Whitney even had a display (that was witnessed by no less than half a million people) showing off a newer drogue system last year, it was quite spectacular to see three aircraft being refueled at once.. and then break off. (two A10's and an F16)






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join