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

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
And why would a "contrail" be generated by the entire wing?

Read the thread maybe?

The wing is passing through saturated air. The airflow moving over the top of the wing moves slower than the air passing under it (thats how lift works, and how the plane stays in the air). The slowing of the air causes a change in pressure which is enough to make the saturated air condensate, and thats what you see in the video.

reply to post by SmokeyDawn


This comes up over and over and over and over....it isn't difficult to figure out, really....

I spent a good 30 years watching the sky and yes...

Air traffic has been increasing, very greatly, over the last 30+ years....

... but only recently have seen the extended grid patterns occurring even at night!!

Because of this "chemtrail" HOAX, and hysteria...and the age of the internet, you are PAYING MORE ATTENTION than before!!!

All I ask is why did I not see this in my youth if it's JUST normal CONtrails???

Because you were younger, more busy, and...see above.

Not meant to be flip, since I don't know you...but a lot of that is the truth --- your "awareness" has been "heightened"....and it's due to this craze....this FAD, this HOAX. This disinformation spouted by snake oil salesmen who know there's a sucker born every minute, ripe for the plucking....

ONE other conventional aspect involves, also....besides the increased NUMBERS of airplanes over the years, ENGINE TECHNOLOGY has changed as well.

Read up in most contrail discussion sites and you'll see that mentioned --- there is a corelation.

In the 1980s and onward the introduction of the HIGH BYPASS TURBOFAN engine began to change the dynamics of how contrails form, and how BIG they get, and how long they can endure.

TurboFAN engines are quieter, clean, and more fuel-efficient...and more powerful, as tech improves...the MORE POWERFUL (more thrust output) they become, the bigger the contrails! (In general).

Take a look at the preponderence of the smaller commuter-type jets...the "CRJ" type, or Embraer models...or even the MD-80s still flying around. THOSE don't have the very, very large turbofan engines like a B-777 or 747 or Airbus 330, etc.

AND, the contrails they make are smaller, and less persistent.

This isn't rocket science ( )...it's aerospace science and engineering, and meteorology (another science).








[edit on 20 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by cavehomme
I think we are seeing condensation trails and specifically when an aircraft cuts through very moist air in the upper atmosphere.

The whole wing area is condensing the saturated air and it can be seen on the leading edge (front) of the wing as a slight flaring of vapour which then extends more widely behind the a/c and then seperated out into streams according to the disturbance to airflow caused by the wing details.

We have a problem, cave. There is almost no moist air in the upper atmosphere. Saturated air at 30 deg C (common at sea level) contains 3%, give or take a little, water vapor (OK Brits, vapour). As temperature decreases, the moisture carrying ability of air decreases (a reflection of the kinetic energy of the
molecules and atoms in the air. A common temperature at the tropopause is -55 deg C. At that temperature, the vapor pressure of H2O (g) is so low, water vapor is virtually non-existent. If you're going to make a cloud, yoy've got to take the cloud making stuff with you. Aircraft do, in the form of hydrocarbon fuels. If you combust a hydrocarbon in oxygen, yhe products are carbon dioxide and water. Jet fuel is primarily Dudocane, a long chain hydrocarbon. That means it has the hydrogen to mix with the diatomic oxygen in the atmosphere. Let's review - hydrogen plus oxygen makes, yup, water. Aviation gasoline also produces water when burned. So you get vapor trails from the exhausts of the engines on the planes in the thousand plane raids of WWII. You can get aerodynamically produced condensation on warm days in humid air. But at stratospheric altitudes, it's simply too cold and dry.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]

I think that it could be the air vapour idea because
as already stated, if this is such a secret subject, what
the heck is happening by allowing a couple of 'dudes'
following and filming?!!

I know I may get classed as a 'disinfo' person, but
that's what I believe.

Great thread.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


So....let me get this straight.

When I SEE cirrus at 35,000 feet, and when I FLY THROUGH cirrus at 35,000 feet, and when others REPORT cirrus at 35,000 feet, it is all imaginary??

I mean, cirrus clouds don't form naturally, because (you say) there's no moisture? That's big news topilots and meteorologists, let me tell ya...

Really? Your explanation seems to fall short of observation and experience...it is either just wrong, or you aren't expressing it properly.

It might leave the WRONG impression in some people's minds, though...care to clarify?

(Chin in hand, eagerly pulling up chair...)

Sorry I have not had time to read all 25 pages of comments (I stopped at page 5) but why do many people think chemtrails are a hoax? With everything else the government does is it hard to believe they may be spraying chemicals into the atmosphere for a desired purpose? Especially with empirical evidence of grid patterns, which means they want specific saturations in specific areas. I would definatly want to know more about this. Contradictory information and mis information from what I currently believe only allows me to narrow down plausable truths when contrasted with other information.

PS Hello all I am new here. Love the site! Great information, so much to explore!

reply to post by TheKnave


Welcome....

...but why do many people think chemtrails are a hoax?

Take some more time in this thread, the answers are there.

Google "contrail science" as well.

With everything else the government does is it hard to believe they may be spraying chemicals into the atmosphere for a desired purpose?

Because:

A) There is ZERO evidence of it happening, and:

B) The so-called "chemtrails" that people get looped up about are just normal, everyday contrails. The "HOAX" bit applies to the hucksters that prey on the average person's lack of science, aerospace, aviation and meteorological disciplines.

BUT, this is what proves my point:

Especially with empirical evidence of grid patterns, which means they want specific saturations in specific areas.

NO!

Look at a map, look at the cities' locations, then draw lines between them. THINK about the fact that airplanes are travelling all over, between various cities, and CROSSING PATHS with other airplanes....

This simple fact is ignored by the "chemtrail" hucksters, and they USE it as their wedge of "proof"...hoping people won't catch on to their deceptive tactics.

reply to post by TheKnave


Welcome to ATS, I also am fairly new, but you will find "both sides of the coin" for about every conspirocy you could think of. This is a great place, especially if you like to debate.

You should really read all of the posts for this topic (yes all 25 pages), they will answer most if not all of the questions that you allready have, and will probabilly generate a lot more.

Again, Welcome to ATS.

my friend. yesterday 19/07/2010 i was up north. i couldnt beleive my eyes when i looked up and saw one of these planes.
when i drove back down south (2 and a half hours) the same thing was happening above my house..
they are blocking out the sun. and posioning us at the same time..
WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT? WHO DO WE CONFRONT?!
like im so bad about this, ive been picture logging chemtrails for months and ive gatherd some good proof that planes are being used to spray something. not sure what it is or why but i know this cant be good
ill upload the pictures asap

Passenger jets routinely discharge human waste, and excess fuel. What is it with you chem-trail types?

I think there's nothing being sprayed but dumped: fuel.

A couple of years ago I was mentally caught in the "chemtrail" trap but got to get rid of it by studying cloud formation and some other issues. I do believe terraformation and geo-engeneering are plausible projects or might have even been tried somewhere but that does not mean we're being sprayed.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

So....let me get this straight.

When I SEE cirrus at 35,000 feet, and when I FLY THROUGH cirrus at 35,000 feet, and when others REPORT cirrus at 35,000 feet, it is all imaginary??

I mean, cirrus clouds don't form naturally, because (you say) there's no moisture? That's big news topilots and meteorologists, let me tell ya...

Really? Your explanation seems to fall short of observation and experience...it is either just wrong, or you aren't expressing it properly.

It might leave the WRONG impression in some people's minds, though...care to clarify?

(Chin in hand, eagerly pulling up chair...)

No, cirrus are there. 35,000MSL is still, under a lot of weather conditions, well within the troposphere. And cirrus are ice crystals. I said water vapor. At 35,000 feet, the vapor pressure of water vapor is so low that the vapor/liquid phase equilibrium is tilted almost entirely to liquid, or at that temp, solid. To get condensation, you have to have something to condense, namely vapor. You can't condense ice. That train already left the station. To confirm that, find a NASA Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) map indicating reflections at the 1.38 micron frequency. Water vapor is strongly absorbing at that level, so the cirrus reflect, showing on that map. For example, look at www.nrlmry.navy.mil... As I'm sure you know, cirrus clouds are predictive of an approaching cold front. A cold frontal airmass underruns the air in front of it, lifting that air. So tropospheric vapor is lifted and cooled into ice crystals at or near the tropopause. As the lifted vapor condenses because of cooling, it releases the heat of condensation, causing more lifting (or convection.)
The bottom line is, there is moisture at high altitude, just not in the vapor or gas phase. You get ice crystals in the form of cirrus clouds, or even some liquid supercooled water (think severe clear airframe icing or hail formation, but virtually nothing there to condense except for what you bring with you and create as hydrocarbon fuel combustion products.

reply to post by JayXBraun

Naaaaa! your imagining things there not Chemical trails there normal Passenger Planes Contrails just crossing the sky! dont worry its the Summer there all off to Sunny Spain ect, ect, the Government's of the World are not bad People there only doing there job same as everyone else they woulden hurt there own People they love there People! just keep getting up in the Morning an do your Job pay your taxes an dont ask awkward questions what ever yea do! dont rock the Boat an everything will be OK ! now theres a good lad move on, NEXT!
Take a good long hard look at this,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 20-7-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

reply to post by 4nsicphd

This is a portion of the upper air sounding from Dodge City. Obtained by sending a balloon up there with instruments and a radio transmitter, a radiosonde. They do it twice a day.
39,000 feet is a good level for air travel. It's a good level for contrail formation. -49.9º and 39% humidity.

The first column is pressure, followed by altitude (meters), temperature, dew point and relative humidity.
Can you define relative humidity?

326.7 9144 -28.2 -30.6 79 0.92 260 32 337.3 340.8 337.4
324.0 9204 -28.7 -31.8 75 0.83 262 32 337.3 340.5 337.5
320.0 9292 -29.3 -37.3 46 0.49 266 32 337.7 339.6 337.8
313.0 9450 -30.7 -37.7 50 0.48 273 32 337.9 339.8 338.0
302.0 9703 -32.9 -40.9 45 0.36 283 31 338.2 339.7 338.3
300.0 9750 -33.1 -41.1 45 0.35 285 31 338.6 340.0 338.7
299.0 9773 -33.3 -40.3 49 0.38 285 31 338.6 340.2 338.7
296.0 9844 -33.3 -36.3 74 0.58 287 30 339.6 341.9 339.7
291.0 9964 -33.5 -36.2 77 0.60 288 30 341.0 343.4 341.1
287.1 10058 -34.3 -37.2 75 0.55 290 29 341.2 343.4 341.3
250.0 11010 -42.1 -47.1 58 0.22 290 33 343.3 344.3 343.4
249.0 11037 -42.3 -47.3 58 0.22 290 33 343.4 344.4 343.5
229.5 11582 -45.7 -52.8 44 0.12 295 33 346.3 346.9 346.4
222.0 11805 -47.1 -55.1 39 0.10 296 30 347.5 347.9 347.5
214.0 12048 -47.9 -55.9 39 0.09 298 26 349.9 350.3 349.9
200.0 12490 -51.9 -60.9 33 0.05 300 20 350.4 350.7 350.4

source

[edit on 7/20/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by B767300CA
Dude, the airplane is white. It is a DC10. There are no white KC10 tankers. They are all gray. In fact There is only 1 american company left flying white DC10's. Simple research will even tell you what company this is a video of if it is indeed a recent one.

These days airplanes are only separated by 1000 feet vertically. It s a VERY regular occurence to see exactly this......

Here is a picture of a white KC-10 Extender.




See the boom sticking out the back end?

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


Let's make at least ONE thing perfectly clear...before it too is added into this nonsense of "chemtrails" (Because, give 'em time, and someone somewhere will...you betcha!):

Passenger jets routinely discharge human waste, and excess fuel.

NO! NO, NO, NO, NO!

And....NO!

Human waste is all collected into the waste holding tanks, onboard, and emptied on the GROUND...go to the airport, and watch, please!! It's right under your nose, for all to see...

As to "routinely" discharging "excess" fuel?? Do you know how expensive that crap is?? (rhetorical).

BTW...an age-old pilot's adage: "You can never have too much fuel...unless you're on fire!" (Aviation humor...some laypeople never get it....)

FWIW, in terms of flight planning requirements, the regulations (speaking USA here, but they are common in other jurisdictions as well, by International decree and agreement) are quite clear:

An airplane involved in air transport operations may NOT depart for its intended destination at such a weight that, accounting for expected fuel burn-off enroute, it would ARRIVE at destination over its maximum landing weight.

IOW...for example: You wish to plan a fligh tfrom Houston to New Orleans. That is less than one hour's time, enroute...so you estimate the amount of fuel burn, and its weight.

You look at your MAX landing weight, and you add that fuel burn weight to it...THAT becomes your 'maximum' takeoff weight for that particular flight segment. EVEN IF it is below the "book" figure, it is the "max" for that flight.

If you travel often enough, you may have encountered the term "weight restricted". That's one example of what that term means.

Sometimes, it means that there must be empty seats, and lost revenue, as a result!. It's rare, especially with the more modern jets...but it's another reason bigger airlines have a variety of fleet sizes, and seating capacitites --- to manage their markets, and demands.

Sorry, but that had to be cleared up --- lest it fester and become yet another kernel of MORE disinformation on the "chemtrail" topic --- there's far enough already, thanks very much....

reply to post by Come Clean


Come Clean....please read the thread!!!!

Phage covered that, a few pages back....THEY HAVE ALL BEEN PAINTED!! What you found is an OLD photo...Phage brought the proof in sources, they were all repainted solid gray by 1993!!!

~~~~~

AND, as I pointed out when it (similar old paint scheme) was brought up before, LOOK at the stripe on top of the fuselage!!

Observation skills are important in this topic, especially. THAT is why the HOAX continues so easily, and the hucksters win usually --- because people fail to see the obvious, and misidentify what they DO see, very very often....



[edit on 20 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Come Clean

Any idea when that photograph was taken?

0433, 0434 and 1950 were the only KC-10's to retain the original blue & white over gray paint scheme when the USAF began painting the fleet in the low-visibility scheme. 1950 received her low-vis gray paint in 1997, as did 0434. In March of 1998, 0433 was also repainted, bringing the era of the white-top KC-10 to an end.

www.kc-10.net...

Originally posted by Genesis322
reply to post by B767300CA

 

Omega Air flies a white KDC-10 refueler

I also believe the maker of the KC-10 (Boeing) flies the white KC-10. These guys sound civillian to me anyways. Or canadian.

PS...gray is the wrong color anyways. It's olive drab.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Come Clean

 

Any idea when that photograph was taken?

0433, 0434 and 1950 were the only KC-10's to retain the original blue & white over gray paint scheme when the USAF began painting the fleet in the low-visibility scheme. 1950 received her low-vis gray paint in 1997, as did 0434. In March of 1998, 0433 was also repainted, bringing the era of the white-top KC-10 to an end.

www.kc-10.net...

When was the video made then phage?