According to this video, chemtrails are real, flightradar 24 busted!

reply to post by Rezlooper


S&F. Cirrus clouds, to cool the climate, in order to stop methane release is iffy. They actually have a net warming effect. During the day they cool but at night they hold heat in - so I've read anyway - and there is more heat than cool in the end.

Global warming, actually warming at the poles is one of the things that stops ozone depletion so cirri, to warm, could be a way to go.

Coming Climate Crisis? (184)

Most crucially, if stratospheric temperatures continue to decrease (while tropospheric temperatures increase), the stratospheric temperatures in the Arctic could get cold enough to form more of the polar stratospheric clouds that serve as breeding grounds for the chemical reactions leading to ozone depletion.

And that's what we had recently with the polar vortex here in the U.S.: a sudden stratospheric warming event which should translate to less ozone loss as the sun returns to the Arctic.

Your note on the timeline for methane release/chemtrail beginning is sooo interesting. Will have to look more into the UV rays/methane release connection.

reply to post by luxordelphi



The warming is also causing hydrogen sulfide gases to release and this is rapidly escalating right along with the methane. Hydrogen sulfide is heavier-than-air so it usually settles in low-lying areas but when it is released it can blow high into the atmosphere in plumes. When this happens it will react away ozone which of course, causes UV to increase to eventual lethal levels causing serious health problems for humans and animals. Hydrogen sulfide also reacts away the hydroxyl radicals that mitigate methane gases. The less the radicals eat away the methane, it allows the gas to increase in the atmosphere creating a blanket over the planet trapping the sun's heat. Hydrogen sulfide is a bad deal and as temperatures continue to increase, it's not only the methane releasing in plumes but hydrogen sulfide as well.

luxordelphi
...And that's what we had recently with the polar vortex here in the U.S.: a sudden stratospheric warming event which should translate to less ozone loss as the sun returns to the Arctic...

The Polar Votex was a short term weather event, not a climate event. Weather is not the same as climate.

There is no way to look at a snapshot of weather and deduce anything about the climate from it.

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

The only large UAV in use anywhere is the RQ-4 Global Hawk. They are limited in numbers, and can't fly over US airspace without an escort. Very few UAVs fly near commercial aircraft height.

They won't advertise military aircraft? Really? An E-3B in an active combat zone near Libya was tracked on FlightRadar24. E-6Bs, RC-135s, KC-135, and many more military aircraft show up on it.

As a ham and SWL I have used FlightRadar a lot and have to say you are incorrect. Military positions generally do not show up and are not made public, it is a service to monitor civilian flights NOT military. For example check out the MH370 current search area. For military movements check out www.fightercontrol.co.uk... The same thing goes for the live boat and ship trackers, all civil vessels are shown but NO military. Ship/vessel tracking here www.marinetraffic.com...

reply to post by lifttheveil


Both FR24 and LiveATC.net have tracked military aircraft, and some interesting ones. Not all military aircraft broadcast, but some surprising ones do.

Multiple C-32s, Air Force One a couple of times, EC-130H/Js, NATO E-3Ds, EP-3s, E-6Bs, even RC-135s have all been tracked using Mode S transponders.

theaviationist.com...

theaviationist.com...

theaviationist.com...

reply to post by abeverage


I don't require physical evidence in order to form an opinion/belief. I realize many people do. That's fine with me. I can look in the sky daily and see them spraying tic tac toes in the sky, watch them spread to form clouds and block out the sun. That doesn't have to be enough evidence for you, but for me I am convinced based upon what I have seen and what I have read about this that there is something they are not telling us. I'm not trying to convince you of that, I'm simply stating my view and engaging in the conversation.

luxordelphi
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

And that's what we had recently with the polar vortex here in the U.S.: a sudden stratospheric warming event which should translate to less ozone loss as the sun returns to the Arctic.

While we here in North America and other parts of Asia suffered series cold temperatures, two other Arctic regions were extremely warm which includes Alaska/Eastern Siberia and Greenland/Scandinavia. This polar vortex isn't any sort of ice age or global cooling event, it's simply an out of whack jet stream that is pulling very warm air from the oceans way up north, the North Pacific up to Alaska/Eastern Siberia and the North Atlantic up to Greenland/Scandinavia. As that jet stream dips back down it extends much further south than it should bringing cold air from the North Pole much further south than it should. So, the polar vortex doesn't mean that all over the Arctic Region is cold, it's definitely not and that's what surprises me is how so many people and media want to focus attention on how cold we were, yet ignoring how warm those other regions were. Alaska and Eastern Siberia had temperatures reaching the 90's weeks on end, while low 70's is normal in the middle of summer. This was early summer by the way. Right now, there are parts of Scandinavia that usually has a lot of snow that have no snow on the ground and have had rain.

You can see the contortions of the jet stream during January in this image from the Met Office report. The arrows show the direction of the winds in the upper troposphere, and the colors show their speeds in meters per second.

The red streak in the western Pacific is part of the Asian-Pacific jet stream. Follow it across the ocean and you’ll note a sharp upward buckling toward Alaska. This is a significant departure from the normal pattern. It contributed to exceptional warmth in Alaska in January.

Meanwhile, the downward buckling over the U.S. midsection allowed bitter cold to spill south.

Now, keep following the jet. It turns to the northeast, tracking up the U.S. East Coast, and then heads out over the North Atlantic. Here, it is known as the North Atlantic jet.

As it turns out, cold air from arctic outbreaks in the United States was able to enter this part of the jet stream — with dramatic effects. The temperature differential this introduced caused the jet to strengthen by as much as 30 percent, according to the Met Office report. And this, in turn, enhanced the formation of cyclonic storms, the very ones that have been pummeling the U.K.

Tale of Two Extreme Storms

The UK Met office explained their wild weather (high winds, waves, torrential rains) this winter as a result of this crazy jet stream and said they believe its been abnormal because of the area of increasing volcanoes in Indonesia. This part of the Western Pacific has warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures which is causing an increase in rainfall. The weather and volcanoes of that region are pulling in extreme weather from the Pacific which is throwing the jet stream out-of-whack. The warmer the waters, the more volcanic activity which in turn is causing more warming. This chain reaction will continue and we'll continue to see this wild weather here in North America and same as Europe.

Sorry for getting off topic, but all of it...the weather and the chemtrails...have the same thing in common...climate change.

raedar
reply to post by abeverage

 

I don't require physical evidence in order to form an opinion/belief. I realize many people do. That's fine with me. I can look in the sky daily and see them spraying tic tac toes in the sky, watch them spread to form clouds and block out the sun. That doesn't have to be enough evidence for you, but for me I am convinced based upon what I have seen and what I have read about this that there is something they are not telling us. I'm not trying to convince you of that, I'm simply stating my view and engaging in the conversation.

What would normal air traffic look like on days that the atmosphere is conducive to long-lasting contrails?

Rezlooper
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

The warming is also causing hydrogen sulfide gases to release and this is rapidly escalating right along with the methane. Hydrogen sulfide is heavier-than-air so it usually settles in low-lying areas but when it is released it can blow high into the atmosphere in plumes. When this happens it will react away ozone which of course, causes UV to increase to eventual lethal levels causing serious health problems for humans and animals. Hydrogen sulfide also reacts away the hydroxyl radicals that mitigate methane gases. The less the radicals eat away the methane, it allows the gas to increase in the atmosphere creating a blanket over the planet trapping the sun's heat. Hydrogen sulfide is a bad deal and as temperatures continue to increase, it's not only the methane releasing in plumes but hydrogen sulfide as well.

It's for sure a chain reaction! It keeps getting nudged and escalated. Every day brings a new peril. And every 'fix' has its' own problems.

Just wanted to clarify that I'm sure there are substances other than ozone which could be released into the stratosphere that would replenish ozone and have other temporary benefits. (Like whatever the plane in your OP, missing from flightradar/tracker, was delivering.) The side-effects: as we live, we will know them.

Coming Climate Crisis? (184)

One way to attempt to suppress the destruction of the ozone layer would be by replenishing the lost ozone through producing vast amounts of ozone and transporting them to the stratosphere, a suggestion made repeatedly according to the president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, who explicity opposes the idea. 80 Without a further scheme to limit the destructive chemical reactions, this scheme would require continual replenishment of the ozone, requiring continual funding as well.

So...maybe...where did all the trillions go?

Although adding a gas to the atmosphere to replenish losses of that gas, from the atmosphere seems substantially less objectionable than adding aerosols, the scheme to add ozone to the stratosphere would still be expensive and would still have the potential for unintended consequences, especially in view of all the chemical reactions that occur in the stratosphere, powered by the Sun's radiation.

Rather than injecting ozone itself into the stratosphere to replenish the Earth's protective ozone layer, in 1991 Ralph Cicerone of the University of California, Irvine, Scott Elliott of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), considered injecting ethane or propane to trigger a sequence of chemical reactions that would prevent the damaging ozone-destroying reactions.

Somehow that sounds kind of flammable...

Box of Rain

luxordelphi
...And that's what we had recently with the polar vortex here in the U.S.: a sudden stratospheric warming event which should translate to less ozone loss as the sun returns to the Arctic...

The Polar Votex was a short term weather event, not a climate event. Weather is not the same as climate.

There is no way to look at a snapshot of weather and deduce anything about the climate from it.

I believe you're wrong about the weather and that it's not a climate event. See my post above prior to this one. I think the polar vortex had everything to do with climate and no, we are not entering a mini Ice-age.

network dude
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

One thing I cannot understand is that everyone claims chemtrails are common in all NATO countries. Yet it's NATO that outlawed geo-engineering. Why would they do that, if .....they were doing that?

Plus you have to get around explaining the difference between regular contrails and what constitutes a chemtrail.
But that discussion will end in an infinite loop of stupidity, so don't bother.

They say that but I have friends who are in different parts of the world and they tell me they have not seen it. I have not seen it in the sky here. Is it because I am close to a military training base. Not sure. If they were attempting to stop something from happening it would have to be done everywhere, worldwide, and it is not.

Are we seeing the result of actual warming of the earth and the atmosphere, where before we just could not see these vapors before. I don't know about you but I remember perfectly blue skies growing up, no trails. This is definitely a new phenomenon as far as I am concerned.

It goes back to another point I made in another thread, can we trust any scientists anymore. I would say there are no more altruistic scientists just looking to help mankind. MSM, we Def can't trust them. Look out in new Mexico i think it is, several people working around the nuclear waste disposal site sick. Did you hear about the collapse of disposal tunnel there and actual containers leaking into the ground and above. Workers reporting the place is falling apart.

I certainly did not see that on cnn lol.

The Bot

reply to post by Rezlooper


That's some thread title you got there. What is in this video that shows "chemtrails" are real?

Also, looking at the coverage area displayed on the FlightRadar24 screen how in the world could anyone expect the flight she's looking at to show up?

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

That's some thread title you got there. What is in this video that shows "chemtrails" are real?

Also, looking at the coverage area displayed on the FlightRadar24 screen how in the world could anyone expect the flight she's looking at to show up?

You'll notice that i didn't use only the title of the video. I added "According to this video" so that one can make one's own assumption after viewing the video for oneself. Aaah, so you're saying that she is zoomed in on too little of an area for the flight to show up and that it may be just off her radar screen. How far would you say the flight is from where she is filming then since you can deduce that it is out of range from what you've viewed?

dlbott

They say that but I have friends who are in different parts of the world and they tell me they have not seen it.

That si a common comment - "I never saw them" or similar - but how much of the world do you and your friends really see?? Here's examples of "chemtrails" from a few places around the world - google chemtrails+[country].....

New zealand

Australia, South Africa and Mexico

India

Russia -

Tucket

abeverage
reply to post by raedar

 

Also contrails are worldwide so if there was spraying of chemicals the effects would impact (and do) on a global scale. They Elites would not escape to some remote corner of the earth to wait for the rest of us to die (of old age LOL).

And yet they've irradiated the planet for decades by detonating thousands of nuclear bombs. They dont appear to be too concerned about the health of the planet or any of the people on it.

The planet is far from irradiated otherwise we would not be having this conversation. However I can agree about the lack concern for the planet when it comes to power, but what would be the point of poisoning yourself? I suppose that is where the logic of this conspiracy fails to grasp me.

I am convinced if there are chemtrails it is weather modification or shielding as there is more evidence and more sense.

abeverage
The planet is far from irradiated otherwise we would not be having this conversation.

If this is truely so then why exactly have authorities either ceased updating the radiation trackers for the public altogether, increased the so-called safe exposure limits or in most cases both...and even going so far as to have one political personality tell everyone that radiation is actually good for them?

(And no...she wasn't talking about the Sun!)

I am convinced if there are chemtrails it is weather modification or shielding as there is more evidence and more sense.

I also tend to agree that it is indeed tied to weather modification but the single consistancy I've noticed repeatedly on this topic is that the main difference between the truth and fiction of the matter is that only fiction has to make perfect sence to work.

Most "normal" people can't fathom the concept of radical depopulation or even accept that it may be going on right under their own noses for decades. It's so monstrous it blows mental fuses and I understand where all the skepticism comes from.
Most would rather brand someone crazy than accept that greedy, inbred, self-entitled rich people want the earth for themselves and they don't care what they have to do to get it...they're in this for the "win".
They'd sooner watch the world burn than lose control it...even when that control is only an illusion in the minds of the tax livestock who dance like puppets on a string for fiat currency and fleeting adoration.
It's no wonder so many attack threads like this.
Tip my hat to the OP.

(S+F)

-Peace-

reply to post by raedar


(applause)

reply to post by Rezlooper

You'll notice that i didn't use only the title of the video. I added "According to this video" so that one can make one's own assumption after viewing the video for oneself.

Fair enough but personally I'd rather try to get past assumptions and try to get to the truth. Do YOU believe the claims in the uploader's title?

Aaah, so you're saying that she is zoomed in on too little of an area for the flight to show up and that it may be just off her radar screen.

Exactly. From what I can see on her screen the area shown appears to only be about 5 miles approx. top to bottom. The plane would have to be almost directly overhead to show up.

How far would you say the flight is from where she is filming then since you can deduce that it is out of range from what you've viewed?

Don't take this to the bank. If the plane is 6 to 8 miles high and using an estimate of 45 degrees altitude the plane would be roughly 6 to 8 miles away from directly overhead. If anyone can give a more accurate estimate that would be great. I would like to know more about that myself.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

That's an easy one. The tangent of 45º is 1.
With an elevation of 45º, the horizontal distance is equal to the altitude.

reply to post by RoScoLaz




Thanks!