Chemtrailers are People, Too.

reply to post by weedwhacker


As you pointed out, fuel is jetisoned from the wing tips, in the vid, the ones you said were fuel dumps, were not coming from the wing tips.

There are a lot more examples, for instance a plane leaving trails from below the wing, but not from the engines.

I'm leaving this vid for what it is, as I'm not going to discuss every single example in that video.

All I can say is that I find it suspicious, and your explanations don't cut it.

reply to post by Point of No Return


???? You read, but you don't understand.....

We ARE discussing the same video, posted by spacevisitor, made by "TankerEnemy" at Youtube, upthread a bit...correct?

As you pointed out, fuel is jetisoned from the wing tips, in the vid, the ones you said were fuel dumps, were not coming from the wing tips.

NO, I did not 'point out' fuel jettison from the wingtips!! Read it again. LOOK at the video examples...the nozzles are in different locations, OUTBOARD of the outmost engines, but not necessarily AT the tips...

In that video, it's at the 9:55 mark, clearly a fuel jettison there.

There are a lot more examples, for instance a plane leaving trails from below the wing, but not from the engines.

NOW, you seem to be making it up, from a (distorted) memory of some other video, colored by your pre-conceived biases...anything trailing not form the engines would be fuel jettison (or, very rarely, but possible, a fuel leak...however, that IS rare).

I'm leaving this vid for what it is, as I'm not going to discuss every single example in that video.

"deny ignorance" by hand-waving away a rational explanation, demonstrated with facts, for why that video is WRONG?

.... and your explanations don't cut it.

Well, maybe not to YOU...but, like I said, there is a wider audience out there.

It IS a shame, though...difference in worldliness, and experience levels result in a continued misinterpretation of very easily explained events.

Bias, at work. And, stubborness, refusal to learn.......

Originally posted by ziggystar60
@spacevisitor: I admit I didn't watch the whole video you posted, the combination of the awful music and the paranoia was a bit too much for me, but I noticed that in the beginning it showed "broken" contrails. And there is nothing sinister going on there, no aerosol mode off or on, no valves fully open or shut...

These broken contrails are simply caused by different layers in the air with different humidity and temperature.
You can get the same effect with temperature. A warm layer of air can actually lay on top of a colder layer in what is called an “inversion” (you’ll hear this on the weather sometimes, referred to as an “inversion layer”). When a plane flies through this inversion layer, the trail can be “broken”.
Learn more here (and please click the link!):

contrailscience.com...

Hi ziggystar60, thanks for your reply.
Sorry to hear that the music and the paranoia in that video was a bit too much for you.
I must admit that I turned the sound intensity of that music down also.

In did read in that link you provided the following.

But it’s actually very simply. The amount of water in the exhaust is pretty constant, but the amount of moisture in the air is not. The humidity varies with altitude, and a layer of low humidity can be sandwiched between two layers of high humidity. As a plane climbs or descends through this layer, then the trail will only form in the areas of high humidity, and so look like it was “switched off” in the area of low humidity.

And because of that I have a question for you.

In the video I posted, one sees for instance at 00:43 a plane, one sees the big exhaust trails of the two engines in the wings, and one sees that exhaust trails of what could be the third engine in the tail [if that is the case of course] .

If the cause of the "broken" contrail in the middle was caused because of the humidity that varies with altitude and as a plane climbs or descends through this layer, how then can it be that the two big exhaust trails of the two engines in the wings are very constant and not “switched off” at all while at the same time the “contrail “in the middle is clearly showing a so called "broken" contrail?

I assume that they all where going through the same layers at the same time.

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Hope this helps explain at least a few things so you don't get caught up in the "chemtrail" scam.

Thanks for your concern, but I really can make up my own mind about that.


[edit on 17/6/10 by spacevisitor]

It looks like we may have hit an impasse with Mr. Whacker
and Mr. No Return... it may be a matter of semantics.

Couldn't we just say 'the aliens made them do it?'
It works in other boards.
I used to fly to the States a lot and I must say, I never
saw any 'massive' amount of contrails or chemtrails...
unless I was aboard the plane doing the spraying!

Oh Lawks! now I have a new neurosis to worry about.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I admit you were probably right about the plane dumping fuel at 10.15, I had mistakenly thought you were referring to other footage.

I really don't want to but I'll discuss every single example with you, or at least the ones you didn't mention.

But not right now.

reply to post by spacevisitor


I can answer this bit for you...(already did, in my longer post, earlier):

In the video I posted, one sees for instance at 00:43 a plane, one sees the big exhaust trails of the two engines in the wings, and one sees that exhaust trails of what could be the third engine in the tail (if that is the case of course) .

The only "engine" in the tail would be the APU. That is not what we're seeing, no APU exhaust normally makes a contrail.

What you are seeing is liquid being dumped in the drains...due to the volume seen (and it is exagerrated, as the liquids "mist" up when they hit theairflow) I'm guessing that is liquid (coffee, water from the ice buckets, whatever) being dumped through the galley drains, and thus overboard.

Happens all the time, Flight Attendants tidy up in the last 30 minutes, or so before landing, they often dump out a lot of liquids.

Notice how the liquids hit the air, and then almost immediately they disappear...evaporate, sublimate...compared to the contrails. Big difference is the HEAT energy fromthe hot engine exhaust. That's it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here, to address the nature (and usual case of Internet forums) my anonymity, I have found two pictures taken, and posted, by other airline pilots...with their accompanying descriptions.

Thes on the airliners.net website are copyrighted, so I can't embed them:



AND:




These are obviously taken, by pilots, form inside the cockpit...out through one of the windows (we have some pretty good views outside, compared to what can be seen from the cabin alone).

BOTH of these photos, BTW, lay bare the specious claims by some "chemtrailers" about the so-called 'all-white-airplane'. As you can see, MANY airliner paint schemes show very little color, when viewed from directly below.

So THAT lie and misperception can finally be put to rest......



[edit on 17 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

I can answer this bit for you...(already did, in my longer post, earlier):

In the video I posted, one sees for instance at 00:43 a plane, one sees the big exhaust trails of the two engines in the wings, and one sees that exhaust trails of what could be the third engine in the tail (if that is the case of course) .

The only "engine" in the tail would be the APU. That is not what we're seeing, no APU exhaust normally makes a contrail.

What you are seeing is liquid being dumped in the drains...due to the volume seen (and it is exagerrated, as the liquids "mist" up when they hit theairflow) I'm guessing that is liquid (coffee, water from the ice buckets, whatever) being dumped through the galley drains, and thus overboard.

Happens all the time, Flight Attendants tidy up in the last 30 minutes, or so before landing, they often dump out a lot of liquids.

Notice how the liquids hit the air, and then almost immediately they disappear...evaporate, sublimate...compared to the contrails. Big difference is the HEAT energy fromthe hot engine exhaust. That's it.

Hi weedwhacker, thanks for your reply, perhaps a bit naive question from me, but what is the meaning of APU?

reply to post by spacevisitor


Sorry....I try to speak without using too much technical jargon, but it's sometimes impossible, or I forget when it's just easier to use shorthand...

An APU is an 'Auxiliary Power Unit'. (you may hear the term used in reference to the Space Shuttle, too...same principle and function, mostly...but different designs...)

Passenger jet airliners all have the APU, universally designed to mount in the tail, aft of the aftmost pressure bulkhead (so it exists outside the pressurized portion of the airplane fuselage).

It is, basically, a turbine engine. (The Shuttle uses a chemical generator type system, for electrical power generation only).

The turbine burns the same Jet-A fuel as the airplane's powerplant engines, and it has attached a generator that is a twin of the same generators that provide the normal electrical power --- they are attached to and driven by the powerplants (jet engines, used for your thrust).

In addition, the APU (and the engines too) supply hot "bleed" air...this is a small amount of pressure tapped off of, or "bled" from the compressor section, and prior to the combustion cycle, of the turbines. It is hot from the compression, of course...and under high pressure. 'Bleed' air is used to engine starting (air-driven starters) and also supplies the air conditioning systems ("packs"), which in turn, besides cooling/heating the cabin and cargo areas, provides the air for pressurization.

'Bleed' air is also routed to the fronts of the engine cowlings, and the leading edges of the wings, for inflight anti-icing purposes.

There's a lot to learn about jet airplanes...they are a wee bit more complicated than your average automobile, and specialized training and education contribute to increasing understanding of their various operating systems.




[edit on 17 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Stewie


I do not call you "boy", please do not refer to me as "girl".

Popularity is not a good method of determining "truth", in anything, especially open forums.

We come with facts found out while researching in science publications and from experts in the fields in question: meteorology, aviation, ATC, astrologers (for those who are convinced Nibiru is being hid by "chemtrails"), aviation engineers, etc. Forgive us if facts with provenance are preferred by some over speculation.

There are professionals here, but they are professionals in the fields being discussed. No one is being paid by anyone to debate "chemtrail" theory. No one really cares what you think. I debate to provide an explanation from science for those who aren't posting, and are looking to come to their own understanding.

Believing in science, and needing testing and analysis done by good method from valid samples using qualified people does not make us "sheeple". We've all come to our conclusion on our own after research and experience. I follow the science, look for facts verifiable by repeatability and am not herded by anyone. One could say the reversed easily, as there are no books, videos, or personal appearances by contrail advocates. The websites provide information but don't sell a darn thing. A leading "expert" in "chemtrails" is requesting donations for an upgrade of his computer.............

People come to debate, to see many different opinions of the topic. We don't have a set method, and claiming and dismissing us shows bias against our person, not what we bring to the debate. In other words, you are doing what you said I would do.

I'm 49, married for 30 years with 2 7/9 grandchildren. Hardly a girl.

reply to post by stars15k

Take it up with the mods BECAUSE,

I wasn't addressing YOU. In fact, I had no idea you were female, until now.



Oh, and something is being sprayed. Neither of us knows what, unless you do.

Edit to add: I think it is hilarious that you presently have three stars for a mistake. There is a lesson there, I think...


[edit on 17-6-2010 by Stewie]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

There's a lot to learn about jet airplanes...they are a wee bit more complicated than your average automobile, and specialized training and education contribute to increasing understanding of their various operating systems.

Thanks for your interesting explanation. I really did not know that.

So you are right that there's a lot to learn about jet airplanes, and that counts sorely for me as well for the English language.

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by Stewie

 

Popularity is not a good method of determining "truth", in anything, especially open forums.

Yep truest words on here. Even if you are a lone voice, the truth is still the truth.

I keep getting banned on net in forums for telling the truth. Shows you how messed up the net is.

reply to post by Stewie


Yes...something IS being sprayed...hydrocarbons in the jet's engine exhaust...

Oh, and something is being sprayed. Neither of us knows what, unless you do.

I'm so glad you brought that up, because I'd like (again) to invite people to do some math....

I've talked about fuel jettisoning, and shown the videos that have flimed it in action.

I hope people were paying attention in my description of ONE airplane, the Boeing 767, and its ability to "dump" fuel, and at what rate. I've never flown the B-777, but I will presume the fuel "dump" rate is similar, if not precisely the same, it doesn't matter....the visual effects, and the time of possible "spraying" activity are what I'm going for, here.

Back to the B-767...to recap, ONLY the Center fuel tank is plumbed to the fuel jettison system, and on that airplane, with BOTH nozzles open, the rate of 'dump' is about 4,500 pounds per minute. The MAX capacity of hte Center fuel tank is 80,000 pounds (we calculate fuel flows in pounds, rather than in gallons...European, British, Canadian and Asian operators use kilograms, instead of liters...but they are merely conversion equivalents).

Jet-A (basically kerosene, for all intents and purposes) weighs, on average (around 70 degrees F...density of the fuel, and thus weight per gallon/liter, vary with temperature)...weight on average is 6.7 pounds/gallon, US measure.

Now...just about every conceivable space within the airframe is already accounted for, and is taken up by, the various systems, accomodations, etc, so there is really NO available additonal space, not in the wings, nor the fuselage, for any sort of containers to contain something to be "sprayed" out.

The entire wings, internally, are fthe fuel tanks...the term is "wet" wings, as the sturcture itself is the 'tnak'...ther is no rubber bladder, fo rinstance, as on older designs, or other designs today.

Center tank is metal, too...part of the structure.

OK...basics done, the math: The ~80,000 pound capacity Center fuel tank can be fully drained and jettisoned in roughly 20 minutes' time. Now, we've SEEN what that looks like, as the fuel is ejected into the airstream.

These folks who are so convinced of some OTHER capacity, and carriage, of some OTHER material...simply aren't looking at this logically, nor are they doing the math.

People....weight is an "enemy" to an airplane...excess weight, that is. SO, there isn't going to be any "extra" something-or-other being carried...no room for it anyway.

Smaller the airplane, the TIGHTER is the weight allowances...so all of those videos of narrow body jets, like a B-737 or Airbus A320, for instance? Just is NO WAY those are carrying excess weight.

Example...a typical B-737NG, fueled for a six-hour transcontinental flight, that is fully loaded (every seat), with the average checked baggage that people bring along....PLUS, there's always around another HOUR's worth of fuel onboard, as 'reserves'....typically, at takeoff from departure airport, is at or just under its MAXIMUM TAKEOFF WEIGHT!

Airplane's ranges are dictated by its fuel capacity, which is a function of the design, and available space within the structure. The range (distance it can go without stopping to refuel) also depends on that, the restriction of amount of fuel, and the rate of 'burn', or fuel consumption...which, BTW, goes up as weight increases.

SO, a jet intially after takeoff is getting a lot less "mileage" from each gallon of fuel....later, as it burns off, and gets lighter, the consumption rate goes down...there are other factors, of course...the way its flown; the altitude (higher is cheaper), the airspeed (faster burns fuel more rapidly), etc.

There just ain't no way your passenger jets are doing anything other than 'polluting', as they exhaust the burned Jet fuel...your average diesel truck on the highway is "dirtier", in comparison...

It is my understanding that in 2010, David Keith-Geo-engineer partially and publicly funded by bill gates and owner of Carbon engineering Ltd, had officially proposed atmospheric geoengineering to control the climate by spraying 100-200 million metric tons of nano-sized ALUMINUM in the stratosphere each year to deflect sunlight and reduce global warming. During his speech he even made the disingenuous statement, and I quote "We havent done anything serious on aluminum (research). So there could be something terrible that we will find tomorrow that we havent looked at. (Today)" As in, they are spraying today.

The aluminum is to be delivered in several ways, including jet aircraft fuel that transports the aluminum to the exhaust which forms the contrail. The trail then expands into a cloud, deflecting sunlight. The aluminum eventually falls to the ground.

People have been saying for as long as 20 years, that what amounts to an IDENTICAL program, is already ongoing.

The video below illustrates the pH levels where citizens have discovered alarming levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium, and how Aluminum Oxide has positively contaminated entire regions of heavily sprayed areas.

You can point to the water, air, and soil tests, several smoking gun patents by US military contractors and the OBVIOUS increase and longevity of expanding aerosol jet trails.

One area alone, from the first tests that recorded precipitation in the spring of 06'tested 7 parts per billion, of aluminum. There have since been tests that have escalated as high as 3,450 parts per billion. That is a 50,000% increase in aluminum.

Before we go on about how many tons of the heavy metals are released into our environment by industry, it needs to be understood, that these metals are hard enough to dissolve, let alone evaporate into the atmosphere. Its understandable how we may find high concentrations of the metals in rivers and various "dump sites" but not evenly distributed along the country side. It is also "perhaps" understandable how we can find high concentrations in our local watershed, but not in fresh 'Rain water"

The fact that they are spraying is irrefutable, as it has been publicly announced under the guise of global warming. What they are doing now, is taking a covert operation that has been going on for the last 20 years "the tropospheric aerosol program" and other names, and making it overt.

See www.youtube.com...

reply to post by MojosGhost


Only need to select this bit, to show how incredibly wrong this entire "theory" is...notwithstanding the video (which I'm sure will be taken apart by many others, time permitting)...

The aluminum is to be delivered in several ways, including jet aircraft fuel that transports the aluminum to the exhaust which forms the contrail.

I posted, up above the MATHS...and, although this "theory" sounds "good" to the uneducated, it fals apart because A) Of weight and B) The combustion of the fuel, the various systems in the fuel distribution cycle from tank, through the pumps, multiple filters, MORE pumps, more filters, then to the injctor nozzles.....

A) First....adding the "aluminum", in any form to the fuel, would (besides horribly contaminating it, and making it unseable) ADD WEIGHT, and alter its density as well. THIS would be NOTICED!! It would screw up the quantity indication systems, for one....but, in a ny event NO ONE who supposedly is involved in this fuel "spiking" with contaminents has ever come forward...why? Because it isn't happening, NOR could it be happening, and be secret.

B) Mentioned al lthe various 'gates' that the fuel goes through, so as not to CLOG fuel injectors, and provide the best, most reliable fuel to be burned most efficiently in combustion....

....does anyone wish to take a stab at the temperatures involved inside the combustion chambers?? The aluminum "particles" wouldn't get there, they'd be clogging up the system pretty soon...but even the ones that DO get through, at first, wouldn't survive the process of combustion.

People simply have no concept of the compexities in a modern jet engine, so they'll innocently believe jsut about any "chemtrail" claptrap that comes out...especially in a "razzle-dazzle" neato ten-minute video, that pulls together unrelated concepts, and tries to mash them into some "conspiracy"...

I've avoided this topic for days, and now that I've peeked in, all I can say is wow...this topic is just teeming with derision and ridicule. Not at all of the caliber I've come to expect from ATS at all. Very disappointing, but it also makes me wonder why some people re[eatedly go to such lengths to do this.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
I've avoided this topic for days, and now that I've peeked in, all I can say is wow...this topic is just teeming with derision and ridicule. Not at all of the caliber I've come to expect from ATS at all. Very disappointing, but it also makes me wonder why some people re[eatedly go to such lengths to do this.

I agree, we'll never meet in the middle at this rate.
Maybe the questions should be:

Do you think something sinister is going on above our heads
in regards of chemicals being deposited into the air?

Do you KNOW that your Government are going behind your
back... (been there, done that.. *shudder*) ... and attempting
to 'fix' the weather problems with chemicals?

Do you think I'm correct, Lucidity?
(the last one isn't a question connected with the first two)

reply to post by MojosGhost


To follow up:

It is my understanding that in 2010, David Keith-Geo-engineer partially and publicly funded by bill gates and owner of Carbon engineering Ltd, had officially proposed atmospheric geoengineering to control the climate by spraying 100-200 million metric tons of nano-sized ALUMINUM in the stratosphere each year to deflect sunlight and reduce global warming.

Well, google is a friend, and by typing in "david keith geoengineering" some pages came up, some good information about the man, and the University of Calgary...and some of his papers, and areas of interest.

Didn't yet find the reference to "nano-aluminum"...perhaps someone else would care to look around?

Whilst on about that project, take a moment to do the calculations regarding the "100-200 million metric tons per year" figure...just try to figure how that would be possible, using current aviation technology.

AND, here's a good one...research into how much aluminum actually exists, on this planet. 100-200 million metric tons...each year??


Now, the following is fear-mongering, and pure (unwarranted) speculaton:

During his speech he even made the disingenuous statement, and I quote "We havent done anything serious on aluminum (research). So there could be something terrible that we will find tomorrow that we havent looked at. (Today)" As in, they are spraying today.

Underlined and bolded the writer's unsubstantiated...opinion.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Additionally, I will add some links that shown how & when the whole sad chemtrail myth was started.....you might be surprised about that!

Hi Maybe...maybe not, I'd be interested in reading about this, I hope you're still planning on adding these links.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Didn't yet find the reference to "nano-aluminum"...perhaps someone else would care to look around?

Hi weedwhacker, I just happened to read an article about that last week, they're not spraying "nano-aluminum", they're spraying sea water that's converted into microscopic particles.

www.guardian.co.uk...