CLOSE-UP VIDEO: Pilot filming plane spraying into the air

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Interesting MMN.

I too started off believing in chemtrails. But it was at the persistence of those standing by ignorant claims that I started to wander off the belief. Soon I found myself reviewing evidence against it, not so much because it denied it, but proved the opposite - there is a difference.

You can have 2 sides to a coin, but if both sides tend to indicate something plausible, 1 side loses credibility. That's when I found myself espousing more and more the belief that chemtrails are both a misguided observation of common things mixed with innuendo and doubt, AND, a mix of obvious and well known practices.

But, what can ya do.. for some people the boogey man will exist no matter if he looks like tom cruise or freddy kruger..

Originally posted by Mythkiller
THESE ARE CHEMTRAILS...Wakeup you idiots, agents, trolls, use your brains or what you have left of them. If these were anything but beneficial we would be being told openly about them, obviously they have a nefarious purpose.

Maybe, just maybe you aren't being "told openly about them" because there is nothing to tell you about? Have you actually done any research into atmospheric sciences? Do you understand the concept of condensation?

They are a fairly recent phenomena, even if my memory is clouded you can go back and look at pictures from bygone era's and never see these lingering CHEMTRAILS in older photos or films...Why is that????

WAKE UP Morons

I'd be careful how you address people on ATS, especially when you are coming from a position of ignorance on the subject matter your purport to be discussing.

I think you need to look at these images from WW2

Fighter and bomber contrails, 1940's

Memphis Belle WW2 Bomber Contrails

And this one, from the sixties

Thirty contrails, forty years ago

Maybe you could withdraw your insults?



[edit on 19/7/10 by neformore]

reply to post by badw0lf


Badw0lf.....

Unlike the chemtrailers, you & I decided to "Deny Ignorance!"

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 19-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Reason #1 for CIA Chemtrails: Environmental Modification & Control, including Weather Control.
Reason #2 for CIA Chemtrails: to widely disseminate Morgellons (MKNaomi) as hybrid bio-nano-machine terror weapon http://(link tracking not allowed)/bXx1fo
Reason #3 for CIA Chemtrails: Enhance electromagnetic operations, including GWEN, HAARP & Cell Tower antannas http://(link tracking not allowed)/ap8Kp5
Reason #4 for CIA Chemtrails: Military Weapons http://(link tracking not allowed)/9koqH1 and http://(link tracking not allowed)/bj2ezk Google United States Patent US 4686605
Reason #5 for CIA Chemtrails: Planetary & geophysical modification and terraforming www.bariumblues.com... and http://(link tracking not allowed)/9RYEPy
Reason #6 for CIA Chemtrails: Global Surveillance System http://(link tracking not allowed)/8YxoIF ~ http://(link tracking not allowed)/aXZt7h ~ www.surveillanceissues.com...
Reason #7 for CIA Chemtrails: Detection of Ionic Disturbances from Propulsion Systems UFO http://(link tracking not allowed)/3ItSIv and http://(link tracking not allowed)/ckWutT

Also,really weirded out by this - www.youtube.com...

All links are bitDOTly
Garrr

[edit on 19-7-2010 by FifiLamoreaux]

Originally posted by malachi777
In the video above, you will notice a major contrail. Do you really believe a plane can release that much chemical or fuel and not crash to the earth. Here's your foil hat..

A KC-10 can carry 365,000 plus pounds of fuel. That is about 55,000 gallonsof kerosene.Or 61,000 gallons of naptha. Or 50,700 gallons of crude oil. And as far as crashing "to earth", where else would it crash? To the moon? Mars?? the Hale-Bopp comet??

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth


Preferring to believe these trails are "normal" is not something i can comprehend, there are NO examples of these "contrails" in photos taken before the mid 1990's, and noone i know recalls seeing them either.

Your flat statement that there are no examples is just wrong. How about the early 1940s.
Look at goodsky.homestead.com...
Or mid 60s books
If you had ead the entire thread you would have seen the Memphis Belle contrail photo from 1943 posted earlier.

 

Mod Edit: fixed page skewing link

[edit on 7/19/2010 by JacKatMtn]

Originally posted by Wiregrab
It looks to me like the tanker aircraft could be venting off excess fuel or even deliberately emptying its tanks for the purpose of lightning itself. There are all kinds of possiblities here, why jump to the chem spray band wagon?

The DC-10s (civilian version of the KC-10) that I flew all had the fuel dump vent at the wingip. There was one Navy Command and Control C-135 variant that was modified with underwing dump valves and vents.

reply to post by dplum517


No one is PAID to try to convince anyone anything. The combined knowledge about aviation and the atmosphere possessed by the "chemtrailer" comunity would fill a page. It makes it easy to debunk, outside of the frustration of "chemtrailers" denying science principles because they negate their theory.

Just one page. One side, although I'll give that it is single spaced.

The combined knowledge about contrails (and this is not including things like clouds, so often misidentified by "chemtrailers") fills LIBRARIES. Google "contrails -(minus)chemtrails" and you will find almost 2 million hits. Contrails are well understood and well-studied and have been for decades. The oldest publication available online is from 1927.
So planes were making contrails, people were seeing contrails, and science has studied and explained contrails for almost 90 years.

Originally posted by highlyoriginal

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
There is no such thing as a "chemtrail".

I am not willing to trust anything I hear without cold hard facts to back up any claims.

Highlyoriginal.....

In that case, you will benefit from reading the myriad "cold hard facts" that form the basis of the info I linked to in my post.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by FifiLamoreaux


And the reasons to NOT believe in "chemtrails":

* Science facts are ignored
* Pilots, experts, and scientists around the world say they are contrails and "chemtrails" don't exist
* Misidentification of weather and clouds by "chemtrailers" gives them zero credibility they could identify pretty much anything in the atmosphere
* Overwhelming lack of credible evidence
* Evidence claimed is never produced
* Lack of cohesion between all parts of "chemtrail" theory. Face it, any 10 "chemtrailers" will have 10 different ideas of who, what, when, and why.
* Paranoia and hallucinations (ie. the claimed ability to tell chemical composition by sight at 30,000 ft+) are two signs of a possible psychosis.

I've seen contrails my entire life. I am also a storm/cloud/weather watcher. I know science method and am a critical thinker.

Anything I read about "chemtrails" does not stand up to critical thinking.

reply to post by Ouroborus2012

I can't help but notice as of late that so many on here beg for people to think for them.. They can't wait for certain people to fly in to a thread with a WHOOOSH, cape flapping in the wind and start regurgitating the same canned answers that you can get off of any google search.

I seriously don't think I've ever read anything so funny on ATS...

On to the topic at hand...reading though the first few pages of this thread, it's clear the "chemtrail" conspiracy is the most diluted and tangled conspiracy I've ever seen...it's harder to make left or right of anything in this field than it is of even the UFO field. I'm outta here...

Originally posted by stars15k

Originally posted by Come Clean
The sheer amount of vapor can not be coming from inside the plane. It almost looks like a steady stream of liquid. I'm calling this one almost debunked.

You are correct! A single gallon of jet fuel will produce a gallon of water and soot. This will then trigger an additional 10,000 gallons of water from the atmosphere itself. So anything that does come out of a plane's exhaust is dilutted to 0.0001%. Which is then further diluted by the entire atmosphere.

Thanks for a little critical thiking.

Whoa!!! Lets do a little ciphering here. Jet fuel is primarily kerosene, a mixture of hydrocarbons tending toward the lighter fractions like Dodecane (C12H26). It's going to take an approximate 8:1 (by weight - sorry, mass) air to fuel mixture for combustion at combustion chamber pressures. Dodecane has an atomic mass of 170. while an O2 molecule is 32 so for each molecule of kerosene, you need about 40 oxygens. So the formula would be
C12H26 + 40O2 --->CO2 +H2O + C. But that isn't balanced yet. What it says, tho, is that if you burn kerosene in oxygen, you get carbon dioxide gas and water vapor and a little carbon left over as carbon black or pure carbon. Water weighs more than kerosene, about 8 pounds per gallon as opposed to about 6.67 pounds/gallon for jet A.And some of the oxygen going in comes out as carbon dioxide, which reduces the amount of oxygen available for water vapor. There isn't enough left for a gallon of water. And what are you claiming is the chemical mechanism for "triggering another 10000 gallons of water in the atmosphere?? At -40 degrees Centigrade, a common temperature at flight levels, there is almost no water vapor - essentially zero. So there isn't 10,000 gallons to be "triggered anywhere near. Even at 30 deg. C ( or 86 deg F) at 100 % humidity the saturation fraction of water vapor is only 3%. So even then it would take an enormous amount of air from which to wring out 10000 gallon of water. 10,00 gallons weighs 80,000 pounds, so you would need 1,760,000 pounds of air. At an average density at that temp of 1.1644 kg/m^3, that's over a million cubic feet of air, or a thousand cubic kilometers. That's more than all the air over Texas, even if the atmosphere extended up 600 miles, which it doesn't.
Don't you hate it when facts collide with "critical thinking?"


[edit on 19-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]

reply to post by neformore

Maybe you do understand the dynamics, but then again, maybe the people who might be spraying chemicals in the air do too and maybe they're using that to their advantage in hiding in plain sight. You never know.

I haven't caught up on all the posts here yet...anyone debunking" chemtrails have have any video of weather modification in action and the contrails or exhaust these operations produce as opposed to normal contrails and an analysis thereof? Just so we can compare.

In addition, there are some mighty big assumptions being made that no experimentation with different combinations of chemicals are not being done by the weather modification people and that if they were you all would actually know about them.

Dumping valves and vents are mainly there for emergency situations, aren't they? Do planes really routinely dump or vent or whatever fuel? With the price of fuel these days, you'd think this would be a pretty rare occurrence.

I just don't see how anyone can know for sure. Too many variables.


[edit on 7/19/2010 by ~Lucidity]

I found other 'behind plane' video here...



I'm not usre what the guys on the camera is talking about thou!

Originally posted by Come Clean
Why are the nozzles bigger near the fuselage than out on the wings?

The hinge boxes are larger on the inboard flaps, than the outboard flaps, since the inbd flaps have a larger surface area.

This answer is not for this poster but for anyone who still thinks these are nozzles.

Look at the bottom of the wings on ANY Bombardier CRJ (Regonal Jet) or most Boeing Comercial Jets. They all have these "Nozzles", because they all use Fowler style Trailing edge flaps. These are just the hinge covers.

It amazing how people can see evil in the most mundane of occurences.

And as to the poster that flies for a living, good luck getting many non-aviation people to belive in RVSM. In fact you probabily shouldn't try, you might just scare them into taking Amtrak, and you would be out of a job.

Could it not be excess fuel being vented off thru the wings?

I seem to remember that they can do that sometimes if they are at a certain height?

But I'm no expert.

You cannot say that chemtrails DO NOT EXIST!, because they are being made by a small number of groups, ie..

Weather Modification, Inc.

This is a picture of their cloud seeding rig mounted on a Beachcraft C-90 KingAir




BUT, thest spraying rigs are all on smaller aircraft like KingAirs, Hawkers, etc... NOT on comercial aircraft like DC-10's, 707's, or anything else.

I am sure the NOAA may have spraying rigs mounted to larger aircraft like old P-2 Neptunes, or the like, for atmospheric reaserch on huricanes, but this clearly is not one.

reply to post by crichton13

Could it not be excess fuel being vented off thru the wings?

NO. There are no means of "venting" that exist in the design.
~~~

Adding...except, of course, there IS a means to vent air IN , as fuel is consumed. There has to be, naturally...these generally have one-way check valves --- air enters, but fuel does not exit. There also exist "surge" tanks in the wingtips...smallish reservoirs in case of over-fueling on the ground, or when wing tanks are full and the fuel expands with increasing temps...sitting in the hot sun, for example. In that case, the fuel is routed (drained) back to the Center tank (on the B-757/767). In extreme cases, it MAY overflow, but these sorts of fuel spills happen on the ground, DURING refueling OPS.
~~~

I seem to remember that they can do that sometimes if they are at a certain height?

Altitude has nothing to do with it.

Upthread I've explained, perhaps you missed it? You can scroll and review for clarity.

On the civilian DC-10 (and its variant, the newer model MD-11) there are a total of TWO nozzles, one on each wing trailing edge, NEAR the tips...photo upthread.

The only way for a fuel jettison to happen is by activating switches in the cockpit. AND, it is ONLY done as a means to lessen the total gross weight -- as in an emergency, for instance, after a poser loss...and when an immediate landing is required, and the current weight is above the "maximum" landing weight.

Further, the RATE of fuel jettison is quite rapid, and produces a pronounced effect, and is very obvious.

Here is what it looks like from the ground....a B-777 had a dire emergency forcing them to dump even as they were on final approach (the dumping is terminated just prior to landing, obviously). Ideally, TIME PERMITTING, such dumping is done higher, and over less populated areas...IF POSSIBLE and practical.



~~~
Here, this is an example of a more practical dump (read the YT notes...it was a flap/slat problem). Looks like a B-747-400 to me. Perspective from INSIDE the cabin, and clarity of nozzle position:




I am not rated on the B747 nor the B-777...but I AM on the B-757/767.

When we dump on the B-767 (the B-757 has no dump provisions) the rate is ~4,400 pounds of fuel per minute. It can ONLY dump from the Center fuel tank, which holds max ~80,000 pounds (depending on temperature).

And, finally...obviously, dumping fuel is NOT done, unless absolutely necessary for safety reasons --- safety of the airplane, crew and passengers (cargo). "Self Loading Cargo" is the joking way to refer to pax, sometimes...






[edit on 19 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by crichton13
Could it not be excess fuel being vented off thru the wings?

I seem to remember that they can do that sometimes if they are at a certain height?

But I'm no expert.

No, any aircraft that has a fuel dump will only have the exit for that dump valve in one location, and you would see one defined spray comming out of one location, not across the entire length of the wings.

And yes, some aircraft can dump under certain circumstances.

The "spray" you are seeing is just condensation caused bu the temp drop that occures on the top of the wing, due to the low pressure created there by Bernoulli's Principal, which is why the wing works in the first place. That is why the contrail is being generated by the entire wing, not just the engines.

Not harping on you, just trying to help defeat ignorance!

Hope this helped my friend. -GoC