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: 22437
Comments: 715
.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 98.
#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?
You don't need to be a professional pilot to know that contrails are formed by hot exhaust gas from jet engines hitting cold moist air. You don't need to be a professional pilot to know they don't form out of the planes ailerons ... Do you think you need to be a professional meterologist to know when it's raining outside?
Good photo and valid point. Contrails form from the Jet's exhaust and from the water vapor in the exhaust, and ONLY under specific conditions. Under no conditions do they form from the ailerons.
Some people wouldn't believe it if you actually flew them close enough to the sprayer to see it first hand and up close, they'd still find a way to deny it. Anything that changes a person's world view is hard for them to accept, whether it be evidence of the impossibility of the official 9/11 legend, or chemtrails.
are we to assume that you have flown close enough to the sprayer to see it first hand? can you provide proof of the sprayer's existence, along with evidence of the infrastructure that would be needed to support this "chemtrail" project?
For one, I HAVE seen the effects of the sprayers, and for two, I HAVE viewed the aircraft myself with binoculars and seen that the trails were not being formed by the engines, but from somewhere towards the rear of the craft, and not inline with the exhaust of the engines. Perhaps you can ask someone you know to go sneak onto whatever classified airbase is launching these aircraft, take some pictures, and get back to us. Get real bud.
Perhaps our shill can explain why a little tiny crop dusting plane can lay down multiple rows of chemicals from that itty bitty plane which is much smaller than a "747"? Based on the reasoning he is trying to imply that's impossible. You need a 747 to dust crops. LOL!
One other aspect that is not being considered is the chemical properties of the mist or fog being delivered, and how it reacts to air and/or water vapor.
how much water vapor, from burning fuel, is a 747 producing per second? how much space, in the atmospheric pressure found at 40,000, does water vapor occupy, per gallon?
how much space, in the atmospheric pressure found at 40,000, does water vapor occupy, per gallon? The water is in the air the engine breathes, not in the kerosene that fuels the aircraft. So if a chemical reaction could heat up the air just like a running jet engine could, and perhaps even lace it with various other substances at the same time, it very well COULD take a relatively small amount of material to produce the effect, since the amount of available water vapor is the same.
how much water vapor, from burning fuel, is a 747 producing per second? how much space, in the atmospheric pressure found at 40,000, does water vapor occupy, per gallon? if this is such a crisis, why are you afraid to rent a jet, go up, and take samples directly from a "chemtrail"? if it's so important, dont you think someone would have done that by now?
ZERO, since the engines don't PRODUCE water, they simply exhaust whatever water vapor is in the air they are combusting. Trick question, eh? Apparently you didn't even know the answer to your own quetion since I already answered it, and you apparently didn't understand it. The AMOUNT of water vapor varies since the air itself contains varying amounts of water, depending on weather conditions.
at what rate does water vapor come out of the exhaust of a 747? the amount of water exhausted by a turbine engine is determined by the chemical reaction of combustion. it does not vary with anything other than fuel consumption.
How much water vapor is in the sky above your head right now, and at what density is the water vapor at any given altitude. OI is right, you ARE far beyond just getting ridiculous and playing dumb, you ARE posting idiotic questions trying to make yourself appear to have some understanding of what you are saying, but to MOST people with any degree of intelligence, you are asking questions such as "if a plane crashes on the US/Canadian border, where do you bury the survivors"...
You are the first person to bring that sort of stuff up. What happened to you? Can't reasonably stay on the thread track?
Ever hear of the term "analogy" buck?
It doesn't count. You are clearly losing momentum on this thread.
You are clearly bored and trolling...
#107. To: FormerLurker (#98)
At least you conceded an important issue based upon my urging of the same. Thank you kindly. I have known you on the Internet for five years. You create excellent views and I have never seen you lose your cool or lie or play some scoundrel as OI affectionately considers me. And I think another five years into the future, too. Damned good idea... but don't get defensive.
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?
#29. To: groundresonance, Original_Intent (#24)
are you a professional pilot operating aircraft at altitudes at which contrails can form?
#31. To: FormerLurker (#29)
#39. To: Original_Intent (#31)
Under no conditions do they form from the ailerons.
#43. To: FormerLurker (#39)
Some people wouldn't believe it if you actually flew them close enough to the sprayer
#49. To: groundresonance (#43)
are we to assume that you have flown close enough to the sprayer to see it first hand?
#52. To: FormerLurker, groundresonance, wudidiz, randge, all (#49)
#59. To: Original_Intent (#52)
#62. To: FormerLurker (#59)
(Edited)
how it reacts to air and/or water vapor.
#67. To: groundresonance (#62)
how much water vapor, from burning fuel, is a 747 producing per second?
#71. To: FormerLurker (#67)
#74. To: groundresonance (#71)
how much water vapor, from burning fuel, is a 747 producing per second?
#78. To: FormerLurker (#74)
(Edited)
#80. To: groundresonance (#78)
at what rate does water vapor come out of the exhaust of a 747?
#87. To: FormerLurker (#80)
.. but to MOST people with any degree of intelligence, you [groundresonance]are asking questions such as "if a plane crashes on the US/Canadian border, where do you bury the survivors"...
#89. To: buckeroo (#87)
You are the first person to bring that sort of stuff up. What happened to you? Can't reasonably stay on the thread track?
#92. To: FormerLurker (#89)
Ever hear of the term "analogy" buck?
#98. To: buckeroo (#92)
You are clearly losing momentum on this thread.
Replies to Comment # 98.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 98.
