See other Miscellaneous Articles
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: 22396
Comments: 715
.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
#2. To: wudidiz (#0)
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. Have a Camel. Relax.
I really don't know how to argue with that, except that it's not condensation. I've seen them many times too in the last 10+ years.
How do you know that?
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 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
how do you tell a persistent contrail or contrail cirrus clouds from "chemtrails"?
Do you think we are just stupid or crazy, and don't know basic science? Many of us have lived long enough to remember a time when jets used to leave standard contrails, in fact, MOST jets still do form standard contrails under the right conditions. What people call CHEMTRAILS for the most part are NOT contrails, especially when you see several jets flying at opposing angles, criss-crossing each other's paths, turning around 180 degrees and leaving another patch, and going back and forth for 30 minutes or more.
here's a high altitude IFR enroute chart of federal airways. these are the "highways in the sky" designated by the government, but airplanes do not necessarily fly on them, especially now that GPS and other nav systems are aboard most commercial aircraft. you can tell the controllers where you want to go, and, depending on the traffic, you might be able to go direct, and ignore the airways... which accounts for the criss-crossing.
You think I don't know the difference between normal air traffic and something that isn't normal? I don't live in Kansas where air lanes might criss cross, if that's what you're thinking. Try to accept the fact that some people ARE perhaps a bit more observant than yourself and do notice things that aren't normal.
are you a professional pilot operating aircraft at altitudes at which contrails can form? are airplanes required to stop at every major airport they pass? or might they overfly them?
Perhaps to you this is normal air traffic...
perhaps you've never been in a holding pattern at altitude to conserve fuel before you commenced your approach. perhaps you've never been instructed by ATC to "do a left 360 for spacing"
Planes don't fly high enough in a holding pattern to leave contrails, for one. For two, it's apparent from the image that the plane that left that trail was in a fairly tight 360 degree turn, whereas an actual holding pattern would result in a much shallower turn spread out over many miles around a metropolitan area.
how do you know that? are you a professional pilot?
You don't need to be a pilot to understand science.
You don't need to be a pilot to understand science. At this point all the poor shill can do is just keep repeating the same disinformation tactics. Being a shill he/she cannot engage in a substantive analysis but can only divert and use standard disinformation ploys which we have both seen a thousand times. That a disinformation shill would be assigned to try to do that is a prima facie case that the Chemtrail data is valid, and that the lid is still on to keep it suppressed and out of general public knowledge.
There are no replies to Comment # 45. End Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: randge (#2)
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.
#5. To: wudidiz (#4)
#6. To: randge (#5)
#13. To: wudidiz, randge (#6)
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.
#14. To: Original_Intent (#13)
The Chemtrails we see today, which first began in the late 80's to early 90's are qualitatively different from a standard contrail.
#15. To: groundresonance (#14)
how do you tell a persistent contrail or contrail cirrus clouds from "chemtrails"?
#18. To: FormerLurker (#15)
criss-crossing each other's paths
#22. To: groundresonance (#18)
here's a high altitude IFR enroute chart of federal airways.
#24. To: FormerLurker (#22)
(Edited)
You think I don't know the difference between normal air traffic and something that isn't normal?
#30. To: groundresonance (#24)
#33. To: FormerLurker (#30)
Perhaps to you this is normal air traffic...
#36. To: groundresonance (#33)
perhaps you've never been in a holding pattern at altitude to conserve fuel before you commenced your approach.
#38. To: FormerLurker (#36)
Planes don't fly high enough in a holding pattern to leave contrails, for one.
#40. To: groundresonance (#38)
are you a professional pilot?
#45. To: FormerLurker, groundresonance, wudidiz, randge, all (#40)
are you a professional pilot?
Replies to Comment # 45.
