Title: Video Shot by Pilot Flying Along side several Chemtrail Planes Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Mar 13, 2010 Author:kevin604bc Post Date:2010-03-13 16:18:34 by wudidiz Keywords:None Views:23058 Comments:715
There is nothing in the volume or color of the visible gases that is unusual in these trails. I've seen them many times aloft and from the ground. At one point the trails flair out dramatically, but if you look closely, you can see that this is because the aircraft is descending.
If there a sinister forces involved in this at all, it may be to the extent that the chemtrail story is aimed at exciting fear at the most primitive level. It may be part of a psyop to keep the population off-balance.
My Dad was a fighter pilot. He went on to be an airline pilot. I went to many airshows and he told me a lot about airplanes. I had a habit of always watching the sky as airplanes went by and knew my planes quite well. That's not to say I'm an expert by any means. But I knew what a contrail was from an early age. They would follow the airliners across the sky only a few lengths behind. They are condensation from engine exhaust. Therefore the name 'con-trails'. They would always dissipate quickly as contrails do. There's simply not enough condensation from the exhaust for them to remain visible for long. Beginning in the mid to late 90s these chemtrails started appearing. They increased in number much after 9/11. There's not a chance in hell that those long trails we see left in the sky by some airliners now are condensation. Simply physically impossible.
I don't know how I can explain it any better really. If you honestly want to know about this with an open mind, I suggest you research it on the Internet. There's no shortage of information about chemtrails. Not all of it true of course.
My Dad was a fighter pilot. He went on to be an airline pilot. I went to many airshows and he told me a lot about airplanes. I had a habit of always watching the sky as airplanes went by and knew my planes quite well. That's not to say I'm an expert by any means. But I knew what a contrail was from an early age. They would follow the airliners across the sky only a few lengths behind. They are condensation from engine exhaust. Therefore the name 'con-trails'. They would always dissipate quickly as contrails do. There's simply not enough condensation from the exhaust for them to remain visible for long. Beginning in the mid to late 90s these chemtrails started appearing. They increased in number much after 9/11. There's not a chance in hell that those long trails we see left in the sky by some airliners now are condensation. Simply physically impossible.
I don't know how I can explain it any better really. If you honestly want to know about this with an open mind, I suggest you research it on the Internet. There's no shortage of information about chemtrails. Not all of it true of course.
I was interested in planes and aeronautics from the time I was in diapers, and as well my father was pilot. Because of that I used to look at the contrails when I was a kid 30-40 years ago and was always disappointed when they were not visible. You see the air conditions have to be just right and the plane at the right altitude for them to form.
A standard contrail forming from natural physical processes has only a short persistence - maybe 20 minutes - 30 tops.
The Chemtrails we see today, which first began in the late 80's to early 90's are qualitatively different from a standard contrail.
A standard contrail is formed from water vapor and temperature and as such quickly dissipates with temperature and time.
A Chemtrail by contrast has the characteristic of persistence i.e., they will persist well beyond the 20 to 30 minutes of a standard contrail and will spread to create a thin haze. When they are really busy at it I have seen them horizon to horizon counting a minimum of 13 Chemtrails. For an uncommon phenomenon, contrails, that is rather phenomenal.
Here is a website where the phenomena is thoroughly documented and explored: Clifford Carnicom
A standard contrail looks more vaporous to begin with and as you watch the plane move across the sky you will see the trail disappearing before it makes the full circuit horizon to horizon. Only very rarely will a contrail aid in the formation of a clouds of any kind - generally they just rapidly fade. I would suggest that the "Contrail Cirrus" is a term inserted into the debate as disinformation to attempt to discredit the observers who have been blowing the whistle on Chemtrails. You will find very little if anything about "Contrail Cirrus" prior to the advent of people noticing the existence of Chemtrails.
According to the U.S. Air Force, jet contrails form above 33,000 feet when hot engine exhaust momentarily condenses ice crystals into pencil-thin vapor trails that quickly vanish like the wake behind a boat.
Chemtrails (CTs) look like contrails initially, but are much thicker, extend across the sky and are often laid down in varying patterns of Xs, tick-tack-toe grids, cross-hatched and parallel lines. Instead of quickly dissipating, chemtrails expand and drip feathers and mare s tails. In 30 minutes or less, they open into wispy formations which join together, forming a thin white veil or a "fake cirrus-type cloud" that persists for hours.
In August 2000, chemtrail watchers began to report "more normal" appearing or nearly invisible jet sprays. However, these reports go on to include cloud formations dripping the feathers and mare s tails just as the chemtrails do. It s our belief that the operation has adjusted the chemtrail mix as word about the phenomenon is spreading and as more and more people are looking up. Observant chemtrail watchers continue to see the "fake cirrus-type clouds" on top of and surrounding real cumulus clouds.
Another point not mentioned in the quote is that Chemtrails are often laid at altitudes well below the altitude required to produce the freezing temperatures needed to form a standard contrail (temperature decreases with altitude as the atmosphere is thinner and does not hold heat). Chemtrails are often laid down at the 10,000 foot level which is well below the 33,000 foot level which the Airforce states as the minimum formation altititude.
#25. To: groundresonance, FormerLurker, wudidiz (#21)
I think it should be, at this point, apparent to a neutral observer that it is your intent to argue the disinformation line rather than to review the data and see what conclusion the actual observations lead to.
Whenever I see some attempt to argue by use of Loaded Words such as "loony-tunes" to characterize something without examining the evidence or providing any logical justification I immediatelly call Bullshit. BULLSHIT!
(From "The Logical Fallacies entry on Loaded Words): Exposition:
A word or phrase is "loaded" when it has a secondary, evaluative meaning in addition to its primary, descriptive meaning. When language is "loaded", it is loaded with its evaluative meaning. A loaded word is like a loaded gun, and its evaluative meaning is the bullet.
Examples: Unloaded Loaded Plant Weed Animal Beast
While few words have no evaluative overtones, "plant" is a primarily descriptive term. "Weed", in contrast, has essentially the same descriptive meaning as "plant", but a negative evaluative meaning, as well. A weed is a plant of which we disapprove.
Loaded language is not inherently fallacious, otherwise most poetry would commit this fallacy. However, it is often a logical boobytrap, which may cause one to leap to an unwarranted evaluative conclusion. The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in place of an argument, or when an arguee makes an evaluation based on the colorful language in which an argument is clothed, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
Loaded language is a subfallacy of Begging the Question, because to use loaded language fallaciously is to assume an evaluation that has not been proved, thereby failing to fulfill the burden of proof. For this reason, Jeremy Bentham dubbed this fallacy "Question-Begging Epithets". ...
#28. To: groundresonance, wudidiz, randge, FormerLurker (#27)
No, it is called L-O-G-I-C or otherwise known as sound reasoning.
If one applies the Scientific Method then one forms a conclusion based upon evidence.
Photographs are evidence.
Known physical properties of contrails is evidence.
Characterizations i.e., "loaded words" is NOT evidence.
Therefore your argument founders on the unsoundness of the attempts to divert from the issues, avoidance of the evidence, and the use of negative language as a tool to persuade by applying a negative label.
All of the foregoing methods you have used are known, and categorized, under a term in use for well over 100 years i.e., Logical Fallacies and the newer term invented to describe government, and PR Agency, tactics of seeding knowingly false data and false arguments i.e., disinformation.
you've been unable to explain how a 747 loaded to the gills is unable to produce a "chemtrail" of retardant that's longer than five miles.
First off, you provide no link that backs your assertion. However, it doesn't take a lot of brains to understand the difference between dumping loads of dry flame retardant powder and an aerosol or fog sprayed out at a MUCH MUCH lower flow rate.
Ok, but we're not talking about powder being dumped out of the plane to put out fires, we're talking about an aerosol or fog being released at a MUCH lower flow rate. Do you understand the difference between dumping huge amounts of powder and spraying a fine mist or fog that consists of minute liquid particles?
please tell us how much water vapor is produced in one hour from the fuel burned by a 747.
Please go read up on the subject, and learn that various chemicals such as barium have been found in dust found on vehicles shortly after a day of chemtrail activity.
Look up the various KNOWN and ACCEPTED info on weather modification, especially in reference to barium. Then give me some calcuations as to why you think this is impossible.
I want some calculus and actual physics, not some BS about fire fighting craft dumping dry chemicals on fires.
I want some calculus and actual physics, not some BS about fire fighting craft dumping dry chemicals on fires.
Now, now. You're asking a shill to actually produce evidence? And calculations requiring higher math? From someone who probably can't do much more than simple Algebra?
you're unable to post the combustion products of jet fuel or kerosene.
you're unable to explain why, if this were such a crisis, no one has gone up to sample "chemtrails" directly.
it only costs a couple thousand dollars an hour to rent a lear, their climb rate is something like !0,000 feet per minute, you could be up and back in half an hour.
Ok, I'll concede the fact that kerosene combustion products DO include water, but the fact is, the ACTUAL water content of the exhaust is DEPENDENT on the amount of water vapor in the air, the density of the air, and various other factors.
That the combustion DOES produce water does not relate to the ACTUAL amount of water in jet exhaust. AND, water could just as easily be carried in tanks and heated, resulting in a similar amount of water concentration. Have you ever seen fog machines at concerts?
if you dont know how much water is produced by burning jet fuel, you're not qualified to discuss contrails or "chemtrails".
Do you need to be a nuclear physicist to know that the Sun produces light, or a planetary scientist to know that the reason why it's dark at night is because the Earth is rotating on it's axis?
Do you need to be a nuclear physicist to know that the Sun produces light
how can you expect to make a valid judgment of what causes contrails if you are unable to understand one of the most basic chemical laws involved in producing contrails?
how can you expect to make a valid judgment of what causes contrails
Are you trying to say that for one, you need to understand the chemical formula and byproducts of combustion in order to see contrails, and for two, are you trying to say that water content in the air, air temperature, and air density, are all unimportant and unrelated factors in regards to contrail formation?
i am saying that contrails have existed since the time aircraft have flown high enough to reach conditions that produce contrails.
i am saying, if "chemtrails" were such a big deal, you'd be able to organize a sample collection effort to take samples from contrails that you think are "chemtrails".
i am saying that you've demonstrated such an overwhelming ignorance of atmospheric science, chemistry and physics that you have no business posting on a thread about contrails.
i am saying that contrails have existed since the time aircraft have flown high enough to reach conditions that produce contrails.
And I am saying that I have observed CONTRAILS since I was a young child, and was stationed on an airbase where I viewed CONTRAILS virtually every day of the year.
What I am saying is that what I am calling CHEMTRAILS are NOT CONTRAILS, and I don't need to be a chemist to notice the difference in their appearance or behavior.
and we're still using the same old engines on the same old airplanes that were being used when you were a child.
air traffic has not increased, airplanes do not fly higher and faster, and do not burn more fuel than they did when you were a child
Turbofan engines are pretty much the same today as they were then in terms of overall design and concept, and airliners fly at pretty much the same altitude today as they did then.
CHEMTRAILS were first seen around the mid 1990's or so, not back in the 70's, 60's or earlier.
There has not been any revolutionary engine design change for commercial airliners during the 80's or 90's, nor even in the 21st century.
Hence, that phenomenon which is being observed and named a CHEMTRAIL is NOT produced from those engines.