Chemtrail Inactivity - Personnel on Holiday Vacation?

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I CANNOT BELIEVE there are people here who think chemtrails are contrails!

Yeah let me tell you the KIND of people who believe that “Chemtrails” are in fact contrails:

Me, an ex-airline supervisor.
Weedwhaker, an airline pilot (worked for the same Airlines as myself & flew into our station).
OztheWeatherman, a professional meteorologist (has his credentials posted if you look around for them).
Essan, a meteorologist.
OffTheStreet, a Boeing aircraft engineer.
Firepilot, a professional pilot.
Zaphod, a ex-military aircraft mechanic (and he worked for one of the companies I worked for, but at a different station).

Just to name a few, from over the years, who's background I know, and have spoken with either in chat or through U2U's. (I am not trying to exclude anyone else, just those are the ones I know worked in the industry).

reply to post by leisuredrummer

Nice post, I think that you will find several of us in complete agreement with your father, though I can limit what he says even further by stating for a fact, that there are no chemicals loaded on aircraft beyond: Skydrol, Oil, Fuel, Potable Water, and Water mixed with LavFluid. I am sure that I speak for WW, as well as myself, when I say that CO rocks.

Welcome to ATS!

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I CANNOT BELIEVE there are people here who think chemtrails are contrails!

Yeah let me tell you the KIND of people who believe that “Chemtrails” are in fact contrails:

Me, an ex-airline supervisor.
Weedwhaker, an airline pilot (worked for the same Airlines as myself & flew into our station).
OztheWeatherman, a professional meteorologist (has his credentials posted if you look around for them).
Essan, a meteorologist.
OffTheStreet, a Boeing aircraft engineer.
Firepilot, a professional pilot.
Welcome to ATS!

And what aircraft have your and your cadre flown in over 45,000 feet? None it's reserved for military except for special exceptions.

What ATC's told regarding flights above that ceiling? Ignore it.

Also, if you read my post you would see that I indicated commercial flights CANNOT be involved in any way other than the REMOTE (I doubt it) possibility that some minuscule percentage of their fuel has some additive acting as a catalyst for the huge amounts of materials sprayed by the actual tanker/sprayers at higher altitudes.

I have absolutely no doubt that you people know your business and your machines and I respect you for it. I rely upon it with my life every time I fly. But even at 43,999 feet, you like us.. have to look "up" to see what we're discussing.

I noticed you had no comment on the presence of barium (which does not occur in nature naturally) in the fallout nor the fact that the only aircraft to leave contrails persisting beyond mere minutes prior to the late 80's were B-52's (due to their huge quad engines).

****************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates

reply to post by SuperSpark


Also, just so you know, I worked for LM and USAF a decade ago myself. I'm not a new kid on the block. I know what the sky looked like in the 70's and 80's buddy.

You probably do too if you thought about it. 60 second contrails and white puffy clouds unless it rained. Think about it. No perpetual growing trails merging into a shimmering, incandescent haze.


**************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates

[edit on 11-1-2009 by SuperSpark]

Originally posted by SuperSpark
And what aircraft have your and your cadre flown in over 45,000 feet? None it's reserved for military except for special exceptions.

Persistent contrails don't only form over 45K feet, I have seen contrails persist on the approach path into the airport I used to work at. I lived right under the path to Runways 36L&R, so the aircraft at that point are nowhere near that altitude while on approach or departure, and these were the same commercial aircraft that I used to service.

Back then I used to know the flight schedule so well that I could look up and see an aircraft, look at the time, then tell the person I was with what type of plane should be coming right after it. As long as the flights were running on time I was almost always correct. I amazed quite a few new ramps agents doing that, but the truth is that after awhile you just know the schedules by heart (18:00, there is the second AA727, there should be a US737, then my flight should be landing next, kind of thing).

Flights call into flight ops at the 20 minute out mark, to let the PSA's and Ramp know their “deals & wheels” (any special instructions and how many wheelchairs they require), as well as get their gate assignment. However as the Ramp has the longest unobstructed view of the airfield, it was always the Ramp supervisor or Lead Agents job to call the flights “on the ground” across the radio network, letting others know to head to the gate for arrival. As such we were always watching the sky & runways almost as much as anything else that we did.

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I have absolutely no doubt that you people know your business and your machines and I respect you for it. I rely upon it with my life every time I fly.

Thank you!

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I noticed you had no comment on the presence of barium (which does not occur in nature naturally) in the fallout.

Sorry, I am skimming tonight. I have a lot going on, and it was not my intention to not answer your question.

Barium is used in a lot of stuff: mining, rat poison, bricks, glass, etc. It should really not be surprising that it is in the soil or the water, especially in areas where there is a lot of these types of production operations going on. Aluminum, which is the other thing people always claim is in chemtrails, is even more common, as aluminum sheds powder when it corrodes. Aluminum is used in everything from cars, trucks, boats, and RV's, to mobile homes and house siding.

Originally posted by SuperSpark
nor the fact that the only aircraft to leave contrails persisting beyond mere minutes prior to the late 80's were B-52's (due to their huge quad engines).

Actually, B-52's used to leave black smoke behind their engines, they were some nasty polluters. Same with a lot of the old 707 variants, and old DC-8's. As to Aircraft not leaving persistent contrails back before the 80's, this is not true, and we have evidence of it dating back to the 1940's in WWII.

Contrail Testimony by WWII Veterans Smashes 'Chemtrail' Hypothesis
Jay,
Yes, we certainly did. Contrails were so thick that they became clouds. We often said that we created weather over Europe. They would persist for many hours, maybe days. We flew a different route coming back than going in partly to avoid the contrail clouds that we created. There are some pictures of contrails on my web site - none of these are shown to be very heavy but there were time when we were near the end of the bomber stream and the contrails were so dense that it was no dfferent than flying in clouds. A thousand or more planes (4000 internal combustion engines) can make a lot of contrail at 25000 feet or more.

Hope this helps.
Willard Reese- 457th Bomb Group

I Hope you find this helpful in dispelling some of these internet myths.

Originally posted by SuperSpark

I noticed you had no comment on the presence of barium (which does not occur in nature naturally) in the fallout nor the fact that the only aircraft to leave contrails persisting beyond mere minutes prior to the late 80's were B-52's (due to their huge quad engines).

I shall refer you to this thread regarding barium:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers.

reply to post by defcon5


I note that you are obviously the real deal, not a psycho-debunker. I know as a fact that ground crews and ATC's are the hardest burn out jobs on the planet. Especially when there is weather!

And.. If someone told me that in-flight icing was not the number one cause of aircraft fatalities, I would be equally passionate in my response. That is my turf.

Please note, I don't contradict any of the observations you mention.

I did not mean to imply persistent contrails (chemtrails) only happen over 45k feet. I meant that commercial aircraft at ATC's are not allowed there. Its a mystery above 45k feet to you, and appropriately so. That is defense turf.

What happens up there is as much a mystery to you all as to us ground folk. What falls from there is too. Barium levels 100x CDC stated levels of toxicity have no rights being in pristine unsheltered waters on mountains up-hill and up-river of any factories.

Persistent trails were not visible before the late 80's. (they re so visible now, they are accepted as fact in the training of students, climatologists, aviators and ground crews.

That everyone sees trails in the last 10 years is not in dispute. Why is. Sure you can learn the trail of various engine types in practice over the last 10 years. What causes them that did not exist 20 years ago is the question.

Just suppose something is being sprayed at 45+k feet and the fallout is what we all deal with. Just suppose instead of intaking and expelling normal air, there is a particulate in the mix that was dropped from 1000's of feet above the aircraft.

That's all I'm doing here. I don't have the answers. But to not ask questions is not responsible for any of us.

Cheers!

reply to post by SuperSpark

Very cool...

As to the sky in the 70's and 80's though, I have something to add. There was something that did change in the 90's, the aircraft types (thus the engine types) and the number to flights. If you recall, back in the 80's, if you were making a flight under 3 hours, you almost always were on a DC-9 (or variant) or a B727. There was a rare 737-100 to 300 aircraft as well, but by majority NW, UA, TWA, PanAM, AA, CO, Delta, Mexicanna, Air Canada, Eastern, all flew 727's as their mainline fleet. US flew a lot more 737-100 & 200's, Midway & Spirit flew DC-9's and MD-80's.

In the mid to late 90's We got SW with their fast turns, cheap tickets, and all 737-300's or higher. They were slaughtering everyone for awhile, and the other airlines were looking to further cut costs. The 727 workhorses airframes were getting old, and their fuel efficiency was not the greatest, so they started going on the chopping block. Sooooo....
We went from this:
(sorry, I mislabeled the 737, it should be a 737-100, too much work to fix it!)

To This:


“So what!", you say, right?
Well check out the difference in the engines:

Contrail Science

See what I Mean?

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I note that you are obviously the real deal, not a psycho-debunker. I know as a fact that ground crews and ATC's are the hardest burn out jobs on the planet. Especially when there is weather!

Again, thank you!
Yes, Foul Weather Gear Suxs, big time. Here, in the heat, its really a matter of whether you want to walk around in soaked clothing all day from the rain, or from sweating in your rain gear...

I was out there in the late 80's to mid 90's, then again in the early 2000's. I found that doing a desk job in between made it very difficult to deal with the heat and exhaust smell, the second time around. Plus, to make matters worse, as I was the “new guy” again, they gave me the hardest flight lines to run. Needless to say I did not stick around as long the second time out. I loved the work, but its definitely a difficult one at times.

Originally posted by SuperSpark
I did not mean to imply persistent contrails (chemtrails) only happen over 45k feet. I meant that commercial aircraft at ATC's are not allowed there. Its a mystery above 45k feet to you, and appropriately so. That is defense turf.

I am sorry to point this out, but its just not true:

Class A Airspace
Class A
Class A airspace extends from 18,000feet (5,500m) mean sea level (MSL) to FL600 (approximately 60,000feet (18,000m) MSL) throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, all flight operations in Class A airspace must be under ATC control, and must be operating IFR, under a clearance received prior to entry.
Since Class A airspace is normally restricted to instrument flight only, there are no minimum visibility requirements.

Though I do believe that most military flights and freight haulers tend to fly higher then commercial traffic, Military flights only are allowed to preform operations in MOA's, TFR's, & Restricted airspace:

A military operations area (MOA)
A military operations area (MOA) is "airspace established outside Class A airspace to separate or segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR Traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted." (14 CFR §1.1, U.S.A.) Similar structures exist under international flight standards. These are designed for routine training or testing maneuvers. Areas near actual combat or other military emergencies are generally designated as restricted airspace. See Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR).

Restricted airspace
Restricted airspace is an area (volume) of airspace in which the local controlling authorities have determined that air traffic must be restricted (if not continually prohibited) for safety or security concerns. It is one of many types of special use airspace designations and is depicted on aeronautical charts with the letter "R" followed by a serial number.

Temporarily restricted airspace (TFR)
Temporarily restricted airspace is designated by NOTAM and used to provide a safe airspace environment for emergency aircraft operations in situations such as forest fires, disasters, or during Presidential movement.

Originally posted by SuperSpark
Persistent trails were not visible before the late 80's.

Actually, I have some nice shots of them from some of the first space shuttle launches. That was in the early 80's:

STS-9,
November 28, 1983:

Originally posted by SuperSpark
That everyone sees trails in the last 10 years is not in dispute. Why is. Sure you can learn the trail of various engine types in practice over the last 10 years. What causes them that did not exist 20 years ago is the question.

Hopefully, my other post answered this question for you.

Anyway, I am out'ta here for the night.
Cheers to you as well.


[edit on 1/11/2009 by defcon5]

reply to post by SuperSpark


Ever heard of Evergreen Aviation?

Evergreen Aviation says they can help with "sensitive environmental" missions, can carry 24,000 gallons of what ever you want dumped or sprayed, they can help "homeland security" operations too.

Their planes are white with 2 green stripes. Evergreen's planes ARE white when seen from below and millions of posts on the internet report white planes laying down trails.

www.evergreenaviation.com...

Their planes use joint military airports too. They can do long haul and international flights also. Some have even been equipped with fire-fighting capabilities.

Yes, I speculate...wanna know why, because Chemtrails are Above Top Secret.

Don't worry though. They don't exist.

*Mod Edit: Lets keep personal comments out of it - cheers.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Exuberant1]

[edit on 11-1-2009 by alien]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Evergreen is a Freight hauling Company, and I have worked on their aircraft.
The aircraft that you are referring to is intended for Fire Suppression duty, and its not even fully completed yet.

However, I am pretty sure I have already pointed this fact out to you in another thread, haven't I?
I guess I can bother to do it again here quickly before I Log off:

From another page of your own linked site:

FAQ
How much will the Supertanker cost?
The Evergreen Supertanker is currently in the development phase. As a result, the engineering and fabrication efforts continue to incur costs, which ultimately influence the price. Pricing will be available in the near future when the development efforts near completion and the majority of costs have been realized.

Mod Edit: Lets keep the personal comments out of it - cheers

[edit on 11-1-2009 by alien]

reply to post by SuperSpark


"How much will the Supertanker cost?
The Evergreen Supertanker is currently in the development phase."

That is just the 'supertanker' he is referring to and he is correct.

Evergreen still has a whole fleet at their disposal, the 'supertanker' is just a plane they are working on.

*Example: when the US Airforce is developing a new plane, it doesn't mean they still don't utilize the ones they have - To say they weren't using their current aircraft would be false and misleading, wouldn't it?

reply to post by Exuberant1


Other then the short time that Evergreen tried to go into the Passenger market, and failed. The rest of their aircraft are all Freight haulers. As I have already stated we used to get them at the freight house, and they are nothing more then normal aircraft with the interiors stripped to haul LD's and pallets. They certainly are not designed for hauling huge volumes of liquid, and freight houses are not designed for the storage or pumping of any chemicals into the aircraft other then fuel.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Since you and I are obviously going to verbally joust on here a lot, I might as well explain to you how “quoting" works. Its pretty simple really.

[quote]what I said[/quote]

Now just replace the ['s with ['s and you're good to go.
Use Cut & paste to put the quote in the brackets. If you really want to be fancy then use the quote feature, and Cut & paste to make even nicer posts. It looks like this:

[quote][i]Originally posted by Exuberant1[/i]
What you said[/quote]

Again replace the ['s with ['s....

For External Quotes, like Wiki, use:
[ex] whatever you are quoting [/ex]

or to be really fancy and add a url to the ex do....

[ex] the title
the quote goes here[/ex]

Again all ['s are ['s...

[edit on 1/11/2009 by defcon5]

Listing supposed qualifications behind an anonymous nickname is meaningless, if you guys insist on using the argument of authority then I suggest you identify yourselves, with a first and last name and some form of contact address, otherwise there is no garantee the qualifications are valid.

People, as a rule, lie. People regarding chemtrails seem to lie more than average. So, if debunking the chemtrails means enough for you guys, please identify yourselves. The only reason I have not is because I simply don't have anything but a eyewitness accounts and don't feel the need to add that much data and give up my privacy, at least untill I can provide something with enough substance to justify the obvious disconfort such a situation would cause.

And do realise that most people are not naive enough to fail to realise that qualfied people also lie.

I do not believe asking for confirmation of identity is an off topic post.

reply to post by Zepherian


"I do not believe asking for confirmation of identity is an off topic post. "

I do not believe they will honour your request.

Instead, you will likely just receive a list of their alleged accreditation and a fabricated employment record.

You may actually be attacked for having the gall to dare ask our resident chemtrail debunkers such a question.

How dare you question their credentials after they have already 'vouched' for each other.

*Get ready for a dose of scorn and disdain. One of them constantly refers to me as a 'troll' when I reply to him or dare to ask him a question. That will teach me to research and discuss chemtrails....

Zepherian,, I predict it won't be long before there are three or four of them on this thread all vouching for each others credentials and attacking us for inquiring and for putting them in such a ridiculous situation - like a circle of dogs chasing their tails in circles.


[edit on 11-1-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Oh, I know they will do that, they follow a set pattern, it's like watching the thunderbirds lay down a wall of smoke so people can't see the chemtrails...

Still, they constantly push the "we have authority" button, it's time they step up to the plate for it.

reply to post by Zepherian


The arrogance and disregard to be seen among the chemtrail debunkers is that to be found in those incapable of the truth, or of any display of honor or decency. Their very malignance proclaims their assertions utterly untrustworthy and specious.

There is every reason to believe, indeed, that those who call themselves debunkers are, in fact, shills for government, trying to keep the truth from the people. They willingly admit to being considered that by many conspiracy theory examiners, and just as quickly - and without proof - dismiss the accusation, but it seems very near the truth, if not the truth itself.

And this demonstrated malevolence of character, more so than much else, pronounces that conspiracy theories far from unreliable; indeed, anything but unproved, or disproved.

And that includes chemtrails.

*The evidence is that, not only are chemtrails real, there seems to be a dedicated movement to try to dissuade those who acknowledge the existence of chemtrails from following up on the subject.

Someone in government, it appears, doesn't want the people to think for themselves about what they see going on around them.

How come the chemtrail debunkers never try to explain what chemtrails 'are'.

Instead they just use insults, buzz words and tell you what chemtrails are 'not'.

The resident chemtrail Debunkers on ATS will usually offer themselves as 'experts' or 'authorities' on chemtrails and will always give you a 80-90% dose of real info layered in with their hidden propaganda message.

Another trait I’ve noticed from our debunkers is the the sheer volume of their presentation coupled with a lot of technical jargon, scientific looking graphs and pictures to bolster the image of scientific validity and depth of investigation. When you read their posts, you can spot the party line-loud and clear and will notice the data they supply is just another red herring and if only ever partially relevant.

This Newly Leaked Air-force “counter-blog” response plan explains alot:

Their first options are to either 1)Call you a Troll or 2)Pretend to agree with you whilst inserting their talking points into the rest of the post. *And most importantly Always proclaim yourself to be an Authority on the Matter (ie. Pilot, Meteorologist etc.)

Examples 1 (Attack): -"I really should not feed ATS’s latest troll… "
-"Another ignorant Chemtrail Thread, just what I wanted for Christmas."
-"Or maybe they were trying to hide you from the nasty Ruskies? "

Examples 2 (Authority): -"I worked for years in this area in aviation and I have yet to see a single chemtrail"

This one is the best case yet:
"Me, an ex-airline supervisor.
Weedwhaker, an airline pilot (worked for the same Airlines as myself & flew into our station).
OztheWeatherman, a professional meteorologist (has his credentials posted if you look around for them).
Essan, a meteorologist.
OffTheStreet, a Boeing aircraft engineer.
Firepilot, a professional pilot.
Zaphod, a ex-military aircraft mechanic (and he worked for one of the companies I worked for, but at a different station). "


*These operations equate to a formal declaration of psychological warfare on the American people. The military is engaging in direct propaganda and indoctrination.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


It does seem rather odd that a good ol' ground crew guy/gal would expand their knowledge to encompass all the classic chem-trail counter-points (including doctored photos of engine exhaust and persistent contrails in the 80's). What would be the passion in it unless they were being paid?

I for one expect that readers will discern the debunkers for what they are... a staunch hit squad with the mission of overwhelming honest discussion on the subject with half-truths, photo-shopped photos and line-item responses given to them by their superiors.

If we give one example, they give two. If we post one photo, they post two. Our passion is to shed light on the conspiracy. What is theirs? None, its their job.

What a crappy assignment though! My Gosh! That's like one step away from being assigned to an Alaska radar station in the Winter! Let's show our resolve, build our base and overwhelm them back. If I were their boss and I saw how many people were unemployed out there, I might make an executive decision as a result.

**************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates



[edit on 11-1-2009 by SuperSpark]

reply to post by defcon5


In practice however, pilots AND passengers are required to don regulated oxygen masks over 41,000 feet.

Also, passenger jets are not FAA certified for flight ops over 45k feet.

For example, the max certified altitudes for various Boeing
aircraft:

The 707 max altitude is 42,000 ft.
The 720 max altitude is 42,000 ft.
The 727 max altitude is 42,000 ft.
The 737-100, -200 max altitude is 35,000 or 37,000 ft.
The 737-300, -400, -500 max altitude is 37,000 ft.
The 737-600, -700, -800, -900 max altitude is 41,000 ft.
The 747 max altitude is 45,100 ft.
The 757 max altitude is 42,000 ft.
The 767 max altitude is 43,100 ft.
The 777 max altitude is 43,100 ft.

Here is a link to the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet web site that has all the certification information:
www.airweb.faa.gov...

With that out of the way, I think you'll agree that unless special exceptions are made, no commercial airlines traverse altitudes exceeding 45k feet.

*************************
All that I know is that I know nothing -Socrates

POLITE MOD REMINDER

Hi People,

Just a gentle reminder to please focus on debating the topic itself - rather that those involved in any debate, their intentions/motivations or likewise.

Cheers guys.