Mysterious Missile Launch Over California - 11/8/2010

reply to post by timewstr
Nice original post there timewstr of the satellite observations, I haven't seen that posted in this thread yet. I think I see the contrail you are referring to though it's not real clear. But I also don't see anything that looks like a rocket launch.

how many Gov people do you think are reading this thread and laugh, phage this isn't a plane get real your "expertise" you shown here doesn't reach so far as you think.

why haven't we seen any similarly smoke from planes shooting out when they land/takes off?

I bet they'll show us tomorrow the planted findings of that "plane"

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by earthdude

 

Yes, the contrail became shorter. The plane also flew east, out of the sunlight, and became less visible.
Here is another video of the contrail. No long plume, no "flame".
www.necn.com...

edit on 11/10/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Is this a new release ?

If people had seen this video in the first place I doubt there would have been the same excitable response.

I'm presuming this video wasnt wisely available which raises the questions 'why did the news, governement and media want the conspiracy crowd to look foolish.........."

Originally posted by MrAnnunaki
why haven't we seen any similarly smoke from planes shooting out when they land/takes off?

Because contrails only happen at high altitude when conditions are right.

reply to post by MrAnnunaki


I was with you but now I am with Phage. Contrails are formed by the extreme cold at high altitude. The water vapor in the exhaust freezes, that is why you don't see contrails on the ground.

What would be the reason for 'showing off some muscle' to asia? I might be reading this the wrong way but would that be considered a threatening kind of warning as if to say ''don't cross us or you'll get this'' or show try and manipulate/control or have influence over foreign affairs?

If...and that's a big if...this was true, it wouldn't look good for america's image to the world, america's last image was a bit of a shambles thanks to bush so this wouldn't help improve from this...

...but if it's not, then i wonder what it could be and actually mean?

reply to post by Hellas

I bet they'll show us tomorrow the planted findings of that "plane"

Has already been shown, in THIS thread, and already TODAY. Scroll up a few pages, why don't ya???

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by earthdude

 

Yes, the contrail became shorter. The plane also flew east, out of the sunlight, and became less visible.
Here is another video of the contrail. No long plume, no "flame".
www.necn.com...

edit on 11/10/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Is this a new release ?

If people had seen this video in the first place I doubt there would have been the same excitable response.

I'm presuming this video wasnt wisely available which raises the questions 'why did the news, governement and media want the conspiracy crowd to look foolish.........."

Also, why are contrails getting so big? Don't give me the chemtrail story. There must be something new at 30,000 ft.

That’s a nice video linked by Phage.

If it were a rocket plum it would get brighter the higher it traveled into the sky. Not get darker as it did. That means it was heading east into the darkness just like a plane.

And to those who expect the pilot to come forward and admit he created the contrail:
When was the last time you saw rear view mirrors on the aircraft?

www.youtube.com...

look at the contrail...


www.youtube.com...


sigh. Take the time out to see how the contrail is formed. If you wanna different perspective.

now look at the mystery video footage, and explain to me once again that this is a airplane..

this is the best examples I can give you. If you still think its a airplane after watching these vids then I dunno, I wont say your dull but C'mon man.

I go away for 2 hours, come back and it looks like Im reading the same posts I did hours ago. So my own recap....its now a plane...But ive got eyes and a brain so i know its not, its a missile. So what progress has been made?...

I notice a couple of posters mentioning the 2 other craft that flit accross the screen. Every time they do there is a deathly silence, followed by " Its a plane"...so.

I propose that we are debating the wrong aspect of this incident. Forget the missile, its the magicians left hand. So lets have a look at his right hand, the 2 other craft? Anyone...or...is there to be a deathly silence again?

respects

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

No. I said I saw a right turn followed by a slight left turn.

But after checking the upper air data I think that could be an effect of the wind affecting the contrail. At 37,000 feet the wind over San Diego (the closest available sounding location) was 75kts. That would push the contrail around quite a bit.

Couldn't we say that with almost *anything*? I mean it took you forever to convince us that the Norway spiral was a missile. "nope the spiral is not a missile contrail, it was the wind that made it look like that".

This is a great cover the next time an ACTUAL missile goes off somewhere. "Oh God, we've been through this before idiots, it's just a plane!!"

Originally posted by SacrificeCertainty
I was looking at maps and well... LOL

These are the directions from Honolulu airport to Phoenix airport

edit on 10-11-2010 by SacrificeCertainty because: Forgot to add

LOL made my day!

Ahaha!

reply to post by timewstr


good find.

here is a link to the same time but a different day , the next day .

rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...

if you click on the thumbnail map u can see a line of contrails in the same place.

snoopyuk

good find.

here is a link to the same time but a different day , the next day .

rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov...

if you click on the thumbnail map u can see a line of contrails in the same place.

snoopyuk

reply to post by earthdude

Also, why are contrails getting so big?

The engines.

Modern HIGH bypass turbo-fan engines, starting to become more and more common around the mid 1990s. AND, the airplanes with the older, straight turbo-jet and LOW bypass turbo-fan engines gradually phased out, and grounded.

Several reasons:

Older airplanes get retired, anyway...eventually. (Your Old DC-9s, Boeing 727s, older Boeing 737-100 and -200s, etc)

Turbo-jets are noisier, dirtier and less fuel-efficient. LOW bypass fans were better, but still not as good as the modern ones.

HIGH bypass Turbo-fans, on the other hand, provide increasingly more power-to-weight ratios, are quieter (to comply with ever more strict EPA standards, in USA and similar foreign government noise restrictions elsewhere) and are more fuel efficient, more cost-effective to operate.

Turbo-jet engines derive the majority of their thrust force from the exhaust gases themselves, as they spew out the rear. LOW bypass Turbo-fan engines derive thrust from the exahust, as well as a bit more from the fan airflow bypass forces. Modern HIGH bypass engines have the big FAN, that big multi-bladed thing you can see from the airport terminal windows. It is basically a ducted (shrouded) multi-bladed propeller.

Thing is different, too, is at the back of the engine....the same hot exhaust gases that come out the end aren't much different than the ones from a turbo-jet, and LOW bypass, but with the large-diameter fans there is a cushion, a cocoon...a tubular shaped shroud of the cooler air that the big fan blades have used to pull forward, and all that cooler air encases the hotter central core of gases.

The result is BIGGER, and in most cases, longer lasting (persistent) contrails, compared to that which is produced by the straight turbo-jet engines.

Every large passenger jet being built, and put into service for the last many years is equipped with turbo-fan engines. Interestingly, the smaller "commuter-type" jets that are also very common (Embraers, like the 170 and 190, and the Canadair jets) have smaller somewhat "middle" bypass fans....and resulting exhaust gas combination, that's different, and thus, makes smaller and shorter-lasting contrails, just like in the old days. These smaller jets, because of their lighter weights, don't need engines as powerful as the bigger jets).

Here, websites can explain in detail, so I don't have to type it all out....

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Now, we may seem to be crossing a topical line, here...but, not really, because a lot of derisive comments about airplane contrails have been made, in-thread. I found a bit from a guy who USED to "believe" that commercial passenger jets were responsible for so-called "chemtrails"....he did his research, and concluded (as I and others keep saying) that this is not the case. AND, he investigated how HIGH bypass turbo-fan engine designs contribute to big, long-lasting fluffy contrails....:

The primary outcomes of the invention of High Bypass Turbofan was to increase the efficiency of the jet engine – which it did by a huge amount – and to produce persistent contrails, now called "chemtrails." First generation jet engines were less than 20% efficient, and the High Bypass Turbofan made them more than 90% efficient! This means it took significantly less fuel to fly an airliner equipped with the High Bypass Turbofan from point A to B, thus a huge increase in profit for the airlines. Plus the same plane could now fly farther on the same tank of fuel. This is a substantial improvement and boon to the airline industry – just by slapping a big ol’ fan on the front of the old jet engine. When this simple technique was discovered in the late 1970's all existing jet planes were quickly retrofited with a strap on modification to the front of the engines.


By the mid-1990s all old jets had been upgraded to the new engine configuration and all new planes coming off the assembly line were equipped with the most modern versions. But this new next generation of jet engines had one curious "side effect." They produced contrails that can persist for more than 24 to 36 hours! Condensation trails from first generation jet engines generally only lasted for about 10 or 20 minutes.....

Also:

....the likelihood is that commercial jet aircraft are not a part of these operations. Yes, commercial jet aircraft, flying on special fuel, were considered as a possible way to mitigate global warming. However, those same scientific studies, such as those conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, which proposed using commercial jets, later abandoned the idea as doing more harm than good as commercial jetliners fly too low to make the idea work.

I disagree with some of his other ideas about HAARP and such, but at least his is one voice that some "chemtrail" believers might want to listen to....

www.jerryesmith.com...

Enjoy!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, don't forget...the rise in observations of contrails is from the increase in the numbers of airplanes, not only the sheer numbers total, but total hours flown too......

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

I first posted it yesterday.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Shep Smith from Fox news is on again.
He said they are going to have 2 experts on.
One says it was a plane. Period.
One says it was a missile. Period.

Obviously they still aren't telling what they do know. Why haven't they figured it out yet? This is making them look more incompetent by the day.

Please excuse me if I sound stupid but why does almost everyone around here mean that the gov has to give some kind of answer to what is shown in that video?

Because it is being discussed on over a hundred pages on ATS?

It's not like it's world news is it? If this really was a missile launch that noone knows anything about would not world media be all over it?