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: 23272
Comments: 715
.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-544) not displayed.
.
.
.
#545. To: PSUSA (#541)
Sorry but you have agreed that there is such thing as seeding clouds and those are chemicals put into the air. So the question is while cloud seeding with a sprayer from an airplane does it leave a trail. I am certain we could easily look up pictures even from old newspaper articles and reliable sources to get our answer. The farmers have known about cloud seeding for years or so I have heard.
Except that you can't - you can only do so by denying the obvious differences in how a contrail is formed and for how long they normally persist, AND by denying the thousands to hundreds of thousands of photographs showing the different persisting characteristics of Chemtrails. As well you must deny the eyewitness testimony of intelligent, responsible, people who have seen them with their own two eyes. The entire anti-chemtrail/debunker argument relies solely and only upon on the denial of evidence.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I thought that was hilarious! There have been only a few that have posted evidence on this thread. You aren't one of them. Even though you were invited to present your evidence, as have others, but you people have consistently and explicitly refused to do so.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or I have pictures taken from my yard of Chemtrails in their various stages throughout a four hour period. Whether it was cloud seeding which some people feel is not the same as chemtrails (I believe it is the same) and what substance was used to make the impact on sky above I do not know. Earlier, I asked you to read this thread from top to bottom. I already dispelled your opinion two days ago. See below: Thank you. Your picture and YouTube presentation use a similar theme: a very high altitude jet aircraft is emitting water vapor and a relatively low flying jet aircraft has emitted water vapor. In the case of the "contrail" the water vapor quickly freezes changing the reflectivity index, so you don't see the apparent trail for very long based on the angle of the pictures to the craft and the angle of the Sun at that time. And for the lower flying jet aircraft wherein the "Chemtrail" appears to linger forever.... at the altitude flown, freezing did not occur. And there are other factors as well, air temperature, air velocity, time of day and actual chemical composition of the exhaust since air and jet fuel components need to be factored into the water vapor mixture that has been expelled. The trigger mechanism or ignition of 9/11 about the twin towers collapse was about jet aircraft pounding into the twin towers. Jet aircraft fuel is very flammable which leads us back into Chemtrails. That same combustion mixture (depending on the aircraft) gets transferred (although, very small trace amounts) into the exhausted water vapor. This leads to the variations you see in the sky. "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1977 buckeroo posted on 2010-03-14 20:16:45 ET See post just above.
Cloud seeding and/or crop dusting and/or fuel ejection (for landing purposes) have all been dispelled to the central theme or suggestion of the thread. Please read my new banner below to describe the core issue(s). You can click on it to zoom into the details.
Some people think those who believe there was government involvement in the 9/11 attacks aren't only foolish, but are domestic terrorists. So do you agree with them and believe that 9/11 truthers are all misinformed, blind, and misled, and are all terrorists at heart?
Being the fact there is official denial that they even exist makes it sort of difficult to know exactly WHY they are doing, or even exactly WHAT they are doing.
They'll just turn around and claim that it's either perfectly normal, or that it doesn't really happen, roll the dice and see which answer you get.
Oh, I am not going to bother much with people who won't believe their own eyes. Life is too short.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Apples and oranges. Stick to the topic. Edit to add: Do it, but I wont see it. This is just too stupid to continue and the thread is going on ignore.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or Lets see your critical analysis interpret the difference.
You have a severe comprehension problem don't you? I just said--you even copied and pasted it--that LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO BOTHER WITH PEOPLE WHO WON'T BELIEVE THEIR OWN EYES. That certainly includes you. Be off with you.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. No, I don't ... I am holding your feet to fire as you casually make posts not addressing the specific technical details beyond just some silly assumption. Earlier you suggested ... just a few posts ago: Notice the way you are abusive. Notice the way and manner you are condescending in attitude. But, there are no facts to back up your self-opinionated posts; none, zero, zilch, nada. You are defensive. You don't know what you are talking about.
No, I am not defensive at all. I don't doubt my own eyes. Apparently you have some kind of vision problem and think your eyes are playing tricks on you or you just stay close to blind drunk. I don't know what other major malfunction you might have and don't have time to keep talking about it. This will be my last post to you on this thread so go ahead and have the last word. I think I can safely rest knowing that it will be as ignorant as the first one.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. No facts, no data, no research .... just yammering.
As well you must deny the eyewitness testimony of intelligent, responsible, people who have seen them with their own two eyes. can you look at a picture of an airplane and tell what altitude it's flying at, what the temperature is at that altitude, and what the relative humidity is at that altitude? can you look at an airplane passing over and tell, with your "own two eyes", what altitude the airplane is flying at, what the temperature is at that altitude, and what the relative humidity is at that altitude?
The humidity and temperature would be impossible (unless it's raining), but the altitude isn't that hard to approximate given the size of the aircraft in the sky, especially when viewed with binoculars. The exact altitude no, but a rough approximation is in fact possible. It's not difficult to see how high an aircraft is in relation to cloud cover, where if a certain type a cloud forms at X number of feet, and the plane is below those clouds, then it is flying at an altitude less than X. The inverse can also be said about aircraft flying above certain types of clouds, yet are visible when passing over breaks in the clouds. I've never seen chemtrails form BELOW cloud cover of ANY type, but HAVE seen contrails form from aircraft flying ABOVE or BETWEEN clouds.
The humidity and temperature would be impossible (unless it's raining), but the altitude isn't that hard to approximate given the size of the aircraft in the sky ...but you think you can tell the type of aircraft (note here that "type" refers to the technical designation of the aircraft model... as in "boeing 747") and you have the dimensions of all aircraft types memorized, so you can "tell" what altitude they flying at. you're a really talented fella. i notice you dont want to talk about photographic evidence of "chemtrails"... why is that? anyhow, you freely admit that you would have no idea of two of the most important conditions that cause contrails ---temperature and humidity--- and pardon me for being skeptical of your ability to judge altitude. so, in other words, your "eyewitness" evidence is balderdash, and photographic "evidence" is so preposterous that you dont even want to talk about it. good enough
Does this look like 'pancaking'? Does this look like 'condensation'? what altitude are those aiplanes flying at? what is the temperature and humidity of the air they're flying in? where does that altitude, temperature and humidity fall on an appleman chart?
once you give us the altitude, temperature and humidity, we can figure out from the appleman chart if contrails are possible, and whether or not those contrails will be persistent. if the altitude, temp and humidity fall outside the appleman chart, then we can start wondering about spraying operations. or, we can try to figure out if the picture has been photoshopped or not... then, after we decide whether or not the pictures are for real, we can start talking about the finer points: type of aircraft, normal fuel consumption, power settings at the time the picture was taken, how much the contrails were compressed and foreshortened by the telephoto lens... stuff like that.
what i mean is... it isnt as if you havent already posted a couple bogus pictures on this thread...
just to cheer you up... here's a picture of a building in fairbanks being used to spray chemtrails.
What cause have you to believe that the exhaust plume coming from the turbines is something other than H20, CO, CO2 and unspent hydrocarbons? What chemical would cause those fluffy trails? Barium? I'm sure that there are a lot of nasty things that could be spread if someone had access to and control of aircraft, and with the appropriate hardware, no one on the ground would notice a thing because a lot of damage could be done quite invisibly.
I took this thread off of ignore. I just couldn't stay away. Like a dog to its vomit... Does this look like 'pancaking'? Apples and oranges. Stay on topic. THIS looks like pancaking. Let's go pancaking! I love pancakes! Does this look like 'condensation'? Yes.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or These people are forgetting something important about persistent contrails. It's the speed of the aircraft. The cruising speed of a B17 is 150 mph. www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html I use the B17 example because of the pics I posted earlier that showed persistent contrails. The cruising speed of a 767 is mach .8, which at 30,000' comes out to about 550 mph, according to the calculator presented here: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html In any given time, a contrail will be 3X+ longer in todays jets, because, for the dense out there, the cruising speed is 3X+ greater. That will give the illusion of persistence. Now combine that with greater numbers of aircraft flying at any given time. Taking into account the increase of air traffic over the years and it is hardly surprising that there are so-called whiteouts in appropriate conditions.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or good point... and then there's fuel consumption, which is higher in a jet than a recip, so they're producing more water.
This is *ONE* of the finest threads under the Sun.
Agreed. But it would be interesting to know how much more water is produced at cruise settings in real terms, and not just guessing. I know there are a lot of variables.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or I don't know about that, but it does show some peoples thought processes.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or I use the B17 example because of the pics I posted earlier that showed persistent contrails. The cruising speed of a 767 is mach .8, which at 30,000' comes out to about 550 mph, according to the calculator presented here: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html In any given time, a contrail will be 3X+ longer in todays jets apparently a 767 burns about 1,722 gallons per hour, and a B17 burned 200 gallons per hour.
Yeah, but it's a completely different kind of fuel. How much water is released? How about other chemicals that are released due to combustion? I barely passed high school chemistry. There is a way to answer this "chemtrail" nonsense scientifically, in one neat tidy package, and not in a topic approaching 600 posts, a good portion of which is nothing but idiotic nonsense. But I can't do it because I don't know what these variables are exactly. We can only address some of them. That is enough to disprove it, but I know there is more. This whole thing is based on deception, that you found, regarding photoshopped pics, and a whole bunch of crap spread on the internet. It's unfortunate, but a big part of the programming we all get from our days in school is that if it is in print, then it's true. Especially if it goes along with what we think our government is capable of doing to us. And if a person sounds authoritative, then that makes it true too. People lie. All the time. And they spread lies. All the time. You can see it here. Chemtrails are a hoax that took on a life of its own.
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or Did you see post #565 from groundresonance? He introduces the Appleman Chart. You can follow one link here ....
apparently gasoline produces about a gallon of water for each gallon of gas burned... jet fuel produces a little more than a gallon of water for each gallon burned.
I didn't know how to answer FL's point of view on that post. I had previously brought up the point and he seems to dismiss it and then refine the idea in terms of a cylindrical volume of gaseous space. In any event we are not looking at one gallon of water.
A plane of any sort doesn't burn enough fuel to put that much water vapor or condensation into the air. Even if it did (though it can't) it would disappear quickly.
Incorrect. You haven't introduced the various physical parameters of altitude, air speed, temperature and other important technical details into your reasoning.
Yes, I do. By that token even ordinary jet aircraft burning ordinary jet fuel could not produce ordinary contrails without falling from the sky because they would soon run out of fuel. Wonder what keeps them up there??
These spaces where the chemtrails stop and start: Is that where the engine stops and starts running again. To save fuel maybe?
Comments (586 - 715) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#546. To: PSUSA, Miraclerose7, James Deffenbach, wudidiz, FormerLurker, all (#541)
simply because we call a spade a spade, and can show that chemtrails are bullshit.
#547. To: Original_Intent (#546)
The entire anti-chemtrail/debunker argument relies solely and only upon on the denial of evidence.
die kill ~~ Me
#548. To: MiracleRose7 (#543)
Chemtrails are spraying chemicals into the air. Contrails are a natural condensation that occurs from planes. They are not the same.
#350. To: wudidiz (#344)
If I showed pictures or videos of the twin towers disintegrating on 9/11 to someone who believes they 'pancaked' due to airplanes hitting them would it make a difference?
#549. To: James Deffenbach (#544)
t seems that the naysayers can't tell us why the chemtrails hang on and on while contrails dissipate rather quickly and don't make a hazy mess of the sky. They deny the evidence seen by their own eyes. Willfully blind and you can't help them.
#550. To: MiracleRose7, PSUSA (#545)
The farmers have known about cloud seeding for years or so I have heard.
#551. To: PSUSA (#515)
(Edited)
Appear foolish? It is foolish. How twisted does this have to get?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#552. To: PSUSA (#541)
The silly geese cant even agree what "chemtrails" are for. They are trying to assign a purpose for something that doesn't even exist! How funny is that?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#553. To: James Deffenbach, MiracleRose7 (#544)
It seems that the naysayers can't tell us why the chemtrails hang on and on while contrails dissipate rather quickly and don't make a hazy mess of the sky.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#554. To: FormerLurker (#553)
They'll just turn around and claim that it's either perfectly normal, or that it doesn't really happen, roll the dice and see which answer you get.
Lord Acton
#555. To: FormerLurker (#551)
(Edited)
So do you agree with them and believe that 9/11 truthers are all misinformed, blind, and misled, and are all terrorists at heart?
die kill ~~ Me
#556. To: James Deffenbach (#554)
Oh, I am not going to bother much with people who won't believe their own eyes. Life is too short.
Chemtrails and contrails are not the same things. To say otherwise is to deny what is very obvious.
#557. To: buckeroo (#556)
Lord Acton
#558. To: James Deffenbach (#557)
You have a severe comprehension problem don't you?
I just said--you even copied and pasted it--that LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO BOTHER WITH PEOPLE WHO WON'T BELIEVE THEIR OWN EYES. That certainly includes you. Be off with you.
I may get back to you on it someday but if I were you I would not hold my breath and stand on one foot.
#559. To: buckeroo (#558)
Lord Acton
#560. To: James Deffenbach (#559)
No, I am not defensive at all. I don't doubt my own eyes.
#561. To: Original_Intent (#546)
hundreds of thousands of photographs showing the different persisting characteristics of Chemtrails.
#562. To: groundresonance, Original_Intent (#561)
can you look at an airplane passing over and tell, with your "own two eyes", what altitude the airplane is flying at, what the temperature is at that altitude, and what the relative humidity is at that altitude?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#563. To: FormerLurker (#562)
(Edited)
can you look at an airplane passing over and tell, with your "own two eyes", what altitude the airplane is flying at, what the temperature is at that altitude, and what the relative humidity is at that altitude?
#564. To: Original_Intent, PSUSA, Miraclerose7, James Deffenbach, FormerLurker, randge, GreyLmist, christine, all (#546)
evidence
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#565. To: wudidiz (#564)
Does this look like 'condensation'?
#566. To: wudidiz (#564)
(Edited)
#567. To: wudidiz (#564)
#568. To: wudidiz (#564)
#569. To: wudidiz (#564)
Does this look like 'condensation'?
#570. To: wudidiz (#564)
die kill ~~ Me
#571. To: groundresonance, all, chemtrail believers (#568)
die kill ~~ Me
#572. To: PSUSA (#571)
It's the speed of the aircraft.
#573. To: PSUSA, wudidiz (#570)
I took this thread off of ignore. I just couldn't stay away. Like a dog to its vomit...
#574. To: groundresonance (#572)
die kill ~~ Me
#575. To: buckeroo (#573)
This is *ONE* of the finest threads under the Sun.
die kill ~~ Me
#576. To: PSUSA (#571)
The cruising speed of a B17 is 150 mph. www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html
#577. To: groundresonance, buckeroo, all (#576)
die kill ~~ Me
#578. To: PSUSA, groundresonance (#577)
#579. To: PSUSA, FormerLurker, Original_Intent, buckeroo, ground resonance, all (#577)
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#580. To: PSUSA (#577)
(Edited)
How much water is released?
#581. To: wudidiz, Formerlurker (#579)
#582. To: buckeroo, Formerlurker (#581)
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#583. To: wudidiz (#582)
A plane of any sort doesn't burn enough fuel to put that much water vapor or condensation into the air. Even if it did (though it can't) it would disappear quickly.
#584. To: wudidiz (#579)
See where this is going?
#585. To: randge (#584)
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
.
.
.