Airline Mechanic Speaks Out - Chemtrails, page 3

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:38 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
In Feb. of 2003 this position paper was adopted and funding provided.
www.fas.org...

Chemtrails and ECM have NOTHING whatsoever to do with each other.
This is what chaff/flare deployment looks like:

Does that look anything at all like what supposed chemtrials look like?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
It's a clever idea, very clever...to fiddle with the waste disposal system because there is a pecking order and that's traditionally one of the jobs in our society that we don't want nor do we want to know anything about it.

There is no pecking order, its usually a rotated job, no one wants to do it on a daily basis. As its not a highly technical or specialized area of the aircraft, its maintained by whatever mechanic (ramp agent, Cabin Service agent) is assigned to it for the day.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 11/29/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

ProudBird

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:56 PM

link

reply to post by luxordelphi

But, you see....this is the rubbish part of that "letter" in the first place:

It's a clever idea, very clever...to fiddle with the waste disposal system because there is a pecking order ....

It just does NOT work that way, in the real world.....

Every airliner undergoes regular and various checks, and every few months must go into the hangar at a major maintenance base, for a variety of inspection procedures. These vary, and in the USA are either a "B', "C" or "D" check. In those situations, EVERY mechanic will have an opportunity to see anywhere he or she wishes to look...one exception I can think of is the rare occasions when someone has to go into the wing fuel bays areas. That requires special training, and is a unique specialty.

There is also an "A" check, and can be performed at the gate, by any mechanic, and is usually done on the overnights.

Here, let Wikipedia explain it for me:

Aircraft Maintenance Checks

And, at the top of your post?? The "date" of the "letter"? It has already been posted, if I recall, in this thread as to the original date it first appeared. When you "think" it's from 2005? You are only seeing one source of the same iteration of the same rubbish "letter".

I have a suspicion it was possibly originally the work of Cliff Carnicorn, or one of his associates......

luxordelphi

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:18 PM

link

reply to post by defcon5

I'd send you some pictures of tubes going nowhere and wires connecting to nothing but I'm all out, having passed them along to companeras and companeros. I also don't have a picture of what chaff without flares looks like even though the two are not married. I also don't have any pictures of aerosol aluminum nanos although there is no dispute about it. I'm also not going to draw schematics of dummy systems because that's already been done. So I guess we're through.

luxordelphi

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:23 PM

link

reply to post by ProudBird

So I guess in the end it's just your opinion that this e-mail is a hoax. There's no hoax list and no inside hoax information. It's just kind of a mob rule. Count me out but nice talking at ya.

defcon5

posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 12:16 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I'd send you some pictures of tubes going nowhere and wires connecting to nothing but I'm all out, having passed them along to companeras and companeros.

So your proof is that they don’t pull miles of old wiring and conduit out whenever they upgrade, remove, or change a system? That’s quite a leap to say that’s any type of proof of their spraying chemtrails.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I also don't have a picture of what chaff without flares looks like even though the two are not married.

Chaff and flares can be fired at the same time, and according to that video it was both. The chaff is so small that is only appears like a thin puff of smoke that disperses pretty rapidly, its certainly nothing like what folks claim to be chemtrails.

I realize that it doesn’t matter though, if its anything that comes out of an aircraft, then believers will use it as an excuse to validate their beliefs. Heck, if you want to be worried about something REAL that comes out of the planes, then worry about the exhaust. Eh, but then you’d have to worry even more about cars that generate even more exhaust, in far greater numbers, but then that is an inconvenient thing to live without.

No one, in this country, wants to hear about how cars are screwing up their health, or the environment, and doing FAR more damage then planes, because Americans LOVE their cars.

Let me tell you that I have personally witnessed aircraft that I supervised the ground handling on leave persistent contrails (aka chemtrails), and I know for a fact there was no chemicals pumped on that aircraft for that purpose. We then get down to the debate about it being in the fuel…

Well the problem with that theory is that the diesel ground service equipment on the airport ramp is fueled out of the same pits, with the same gas, as the aircraft are. As there are no chemtrails coming out from behind the ground service equipment, and ramp agents are not keeling over dead on the ramp with respitory failure, I guess that the gas is simply gas with no supposed chemtrail poison added to it.

The honest to God truth is that chemtrails are nothing more then what comes out of your engine when you start your car on a cold day. They are able to persist for longer periods in the sky because the atmospheric conditions at that altitude are favorable for them form clouds. This has been going on since man has been flying at high enough altitudes for them to form, and there are records of bomber formations causing cloud cover dating back to WWII.

The reason you see them more frequently today is two fold. First, its simply because there is more air traffic then ever before in human history, and its increasing on a yearly basis. Secondly, its because in the mid 90’s airlines started phasing out the old 727’s and their ilk, and started flying more efficient aircraft. These new aircraft have been PROVEN to produce contrails over a wider range of atmospheric conditions.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

ProudBird

posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 12:51 AM

link

reply to post by luxordelphi

Not really....

So I guess in the end it's just your opinion that this e-mail is a hoax.

Ummmm.....it certainly ain't up to me!! When a topic is deemed a 'Hoax!', it is by a consensus (as I understand it) of ATS staff....and, not just "any" staff, but the STAFF!

Admins and owners.

This decision is not taken lightly, and the topic of "why" threads move to 'Hoax!' is raised regularly, as seen by checking through the Board Business and Questions Forum history.

But, of course, after reading that email the first time, so many years ago, yes.....I (and many others) who know a little bit from having actually worked in the industry, could recognize horse dung when seeing it. Sadly, those who are so blinded by the strong desire to "believe" in "chemtrails" will latch onto this letter, regardless.

But, before you go, ponder this: WHY, out of all the thousands and thousands of airline mechanics that work in the industry, is there only this "one" letter??

Doesn't that seem a bit odd? And, just think about how many PO'd (**) former airline employees there are, from any company...those that got themselves fired for some reason, and may now have a grudge?? NONE of them have said a peep, even anonymously.

Chew on that.......

(**edit -- some may not know this, shorthand. I think it may be OK, since the word "pissed" is a valid British and Australian slang term for being drunk....but, 'PO'd' is the same as being "teed off", to use a golfing analogy. Angry, IOW...)

edit on Wed 30 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

ProudBird

posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 12:59 AM

link

reply to post by luxordelphi

I saw this addressed already, but have to ask:

I'd send you some pictures of tubes going nowhere and wires connecting to nothing but I'm all out...

Are none saved on the computer hard drive? Or, on a flash drive? CD-ROM? In the old email attachments, if you sent them by email previously....saved in your email "sent items" or outbox cache?

They would, in context, by worth a look, just to at least have a go at seeing what it is you're seeing. Many might even be explainable........

edit on Wed 30 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

defcon5

posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 08:43 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by ProudBird
They would, in context, by worth a look, just to at least have a go at seeing what it is you're seeing. Many might even be explainable........

Oh, its plenty explainable, I just don't see its relation to supposed chemtrails.
Mechanics, especially at a station do not have to pull out all the old crap, as long as it does not interfere with anything, they just flag it. Some of that stuff runs for hundreds, if not thousands of feet through the airframe and bulkheads. If its not hurting anything, and its not cost effective to remove it, they simply cap it, or cut it, and flag it.

I mean do folks actually think that if you have your house rewired that the electrician actually removes all the old wire that's running through the walls, same thing, you often just cut the old and install the new. Otherwise the time and costs can go through the roof.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

luxordelphi

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:27 PM

link

reply to post by defcon5

So your proof is that they don’t pull miles of old wiring and conduit out whenever they upgrade, remove, or change a system? That’s quite a leap to say that’s any type of proof of their spraying chemtrails.

No. That proof is not proof of anything anymore and not for the reasons you give. Its' not proof because military weather modification and communications networks in the atmosphere have moved on at light speed compared to what the technology was then. It's prefab and drop in now. It's nano so there's nothing to see because no matter how good looking your are, you won't see nano.

Let me tell you that I have personally witnessed aircraft that I supervised the ground handling on leave persistent contrails (aka chemtrails), and I know for a fact there was no chemicals pumped on that aircraft for that purpose. We then get down to the debate about it being in the fuel…

No one has ever argued that under freak conditions, contrails can persist. It's when the freak is touted as norm that poeple take umbrage. Countless observational evidence by Joe Blow is said to be the ravings of a maniac. That's not right. DOD is secretive. We're not in the loop. Technology today is so advanced that a person is hard pressed just to try to figure out how to use their android.

I mean do folks actually think that if you have your house rewired that the electrician actually removes all the old wire that's running through the walls, same thing, you often just cut the old and install the new. Otherwise the time and costs can go through the roof

Folks are not expected to be able to understand wiring. It's really not that hard though when you understand that the wires are different colors for a reason and that tubes at one time connected to something or they wouldn't be there. But everything has moved on and it's a brave new world.

defcon5

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:28 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
It's prefab and drop in now. It's nano so there's nothing to see because no matter how good looking your are, you won't see nano.

Do you have any idea the size of the storage tanks it would require to make these trails for miles in the sky, that’s certainly not “drop-in” technology, it require tanks with thousands of gallons of chemicals to do this.

I live near one of the tanker bases in the US, these things not only fly right over my house on approach, but they also circle my neighborhood for hours at a time. They do their training here. Yet I only see persistent contrails on days when its cold out.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
No one has ever argued that under freak conditions, contrails can persist.

Nothing freak about the condition that cause persistent contrails, the proper conditions exist any time there are clouds in the sky. Clouds and contrails are the exact same thing, and if a cloud can persist then a contrail can also persist. Here is a neat toy to go play with that shows the differing conditions, and their effects on contrail persistence:
What environmental conditions are favorable for the formation of contrails?
Here you can find the current contrail forecast:
Current US Contrail Forecast

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Countless observational evidence by Joe Blow is said to be the ravings of a maniac.

Try misidentification because of lack of knowledge.
The reason why Joe Blow sees more contrails now then in the past is twofold. First, its simply because there is more traffic now. Second, and more importantly, they have retired the B727 that used to comprise over 50% of the domestic US fleet, and have gone to newer aircraft that run at more efficient temperatures. This in turn causes them to create contrails over a wider range of atmospheric conditions then the old engines did:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bf065d2bfeb.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by luxordelphi
DOD is secretive. We're not in the loop.

DOD has to follow the same rules as all other aircraft in FAA controlled airspace. Even the HIGHLY secret Janet Flights, used to ferry employees into and out of Area 51, have to fly under 18K feet to remain in VFR to avoid filing an FAA flight plan. Only after they proceed into a MOA (Military Operations Area) can they fly at a higher altitude. Even Airforce One has to file a flight plan, and fly in accordance with FAA rules, which is why the FAA was involved in helping to hide the plane on 911. Spy planes for the CIA (specially designed to fly at high altitude such as the SR-71 and U2), have to fly over 60K feet, again in VFR territory, to avoid filing a flight plan.

There are no chemtrail planes out there, if there are, and they are operating in US airspace, then they have to file a flight plan, and anyone who knows how can track them.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 12/6/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

defcon5

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:18 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I just thought that I would add a bit more info about the engine changes that occurred in the mid 90’s. B727’s, B737 1/200, B707’s, DC-9’s, and MD-80’s all used to use various models of the JT8D low-bypass turbofan engine:

Eight models comprise the JT8D standard engine family, covering the thrust range from 12,250 to 17,400 pounds-force (62 to 77 kN) and power 727, 737-100/200, and DC-9 aircraft. More than 14,000 JT8D engines have been produced, totaling more than one-half billion hours of service with more than 350 operators making it the most popular of all low-bypass turbofan engines ever produced.

This comprised the majority of your domestic aircraft. Occasionally widebody aircraft were used for major routes such as arriving and departing hubs, or for long hauls across country, but the majority of your domestic flights were done by B727’s, with the occasional 737 1/200, DC-9, or MD-80. B707’s were pretty much already phased out by the 80’s, with most of the remaining aircraft flying airfreight or used in the military (C-137 Stratoliner, KC-135 tanker, E-3 Sentry, E-6 Mercury, ETC.), The military still flies these aircraft, but their old JT8D engines have now been replaced with CFM56 high-bypass turbofan engines:

The CFM56 first ran in 1974[1] and, despite initial political problems, is now one of the most common turbofan aircraft engines in the world, with more than 20,000 having been built[2] in four major variants. It is most widely used on the Boeing 737 airliner and, under military designation F108, replaced the Pratt & Whitney JT3D engines on many KC-135 Stratotankers in the 1980s, creating the KC-135R variant of this aircraft. It is also the only engine (CFM56-5C) used to power the Airbus A340-200 and 300 series. The engine (CFM56-5A and 5B) is also fitted to Airbus A320 series aircraft.

In the Mid-90’s, the same time this rumor about chemtrails began, the B727 fleet was reaching their airframes lifespan, and despite the fact they had been the workhorse for years, the airlines started retiring them for quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft with high-bypass turbofan engines such as the B-737 3/4/5/6/7/800’s, airbuses, B757’s, B767, etc.

Bypass Ratio
Higher bypass ratios generally give better Thrust specific fuel consumption as an increasing amount of thrust is being generated without burning more fuel. This is achieved since the engine propels a larger amount of air rearwards at slower speed, rather than a smaller amount of air at higher speed- because thrust is the momentum given to the air per second the thrust is the same. However energy is a square law on speed, and so it takes less energy to generate the same thrust; and hence less fuel is needed, the specific fuel consumption reduces.

Thus, with the example, for engines with the same thrust, the fuel efficiency would be improved by something less than 50%.

High bypass ratios are also correlated with lower noise, since the large flow of air surrounding the jet exhaust from the engine core helps to buffer the noise produced by the latter.

What this photo is showing, is an old B707 with JT8D low-bypass turbofan engines flying side by side with a newer Airbus A340 using the CFM56 high-bypass turbofan engines:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bf065d2bfeb.jpg[/atsimg]
Do you now see why the number of contrails increased in the mid to late 90’s, and continues to increase as the number of these aircraft in the sky increases each year?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 12/7/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

defcon5

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:50 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

An excellent, short video explaining pretty much the exact same thing I did above:

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

luxordelphi

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:39 PM

link

reply to post by defcon5

Do you have any idea the size of the storage tanks it would require to make these trails for miles in the sky, that’s certainly not “drop-in” technology, it require tanks with thousands of gallons of chemicals to do this.

Today's chemtrails do not require tanks. That is yesterday's technology. The flair and chaff pictures you presented do not require tanks. Today the ever evolving chemtrail is made of nano particles and is drop in or pre-packaged. Yesterdays' chemtrail delivery units hid themselves in tubes masquerading as the waste disposal system like the one the mechanic in the OP described. Current technology has its' own names to hide behind: nano chaff, obscuration, weather modification, climate mitigation, rainmaking, cirrus aviaticus etc. Nano technology has made tanks obsolete. Some of the nanos will even ignite themselves if need be. Some of them will glow in the dark or glow blue. It's really quite amazing. A teeny tiny amount of something you can't even see can make the whole sky look like a reflectant drive in movie screen. Some of it takes a year or more to settle out. There is no line in the sand that we can draw anymore and say, "this is what it is" because the technology evolves every second. With nanos, it seems, if you can think it, you can create it.

www.americanchronicle.com...

The Idaho Observer reported with considerable skepticism that the General Accounting office admitted that chemtrails exist but that they are ‘merely’ fiberglass particles coated with aluminum whose health effects are unknown but whose existence is now acknowledged after decades of official denial.

d1027732.mydomainwebhost.com...

According to a U.S. military flier called Military Progress, “The green light has been given” to disperse swarms of wirelessly-networked nano-bots into the troposphere by remotely-controlled UAV drones for "global warming mitigation."

www.scienceclarified.com...

Mists. Mists are liquid particles—less than about 10 microns in size—dispersed in a gas. The most common type of mist is that formed by tiny water droplets suspended in the air, as on a cool summer morning. If the concentration of liquid particles becomes high enough to affect visibility, it is then called a fog. A particular form of fog that has become significant in the last half century is smog. Smog forms when natural moisture in the air interacts with human-produced components, such as smoke and other combustion products, to form chemically active materials.

Aerosol technology has made possible vastly improved combustion systems, such as those used in fossil-fueled power generator plants and in rocket engines.

______beforeitsnews/story/51/410/Nano-Dispersant_Safe_and_Best_To_Use_on_BP_Gulf_Oil_Spill_Says_Green_Earth_Technologies_CEO.html

In a letter to shareholders responding to warnings concerning the use of nanotechnology in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Green Earth Technologies Chairman & CEO Jeff Marshall writes, “It has come to our attention that a group of scientists have written a letter to the EPA discouraging the use of Green Earth Technologies' G-Marine Fuel Spill Clean-Up as a dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico. The letter claims that a nano-dispersant will be harmful to the environment, a false claim that I would like to address with all of you."

www.nanotech-now.com...

October 21st, 2007 The U.S. government routinely conducts experiments on weather modification Abstract: But cloud seeding with silver iodide is an archaic technique compared with newer advances in nanotechnology and other methods for weather monitoring and control. Microelectric Mechanical Sensors (MEMS) and the newer Global Environmental MEMS Sensors (GEMS), are extremely tiny machines used to monitor weather patterns.

No larger than dust particles, the sensors are designed to be sent up inside hurricanes and other weather systems in large numbers, reporting back data as they literally become a part of those systems. This data can later be used to improve weather forecasting and potentially control the weather through a better understanding of the complex mathematics involved in such systems. One goal is to "steer" these systems, sending them to specific targets and increasing or decreasing their size.

vodpod.com...
(start at 5:25 in the 9 or so minute video)

(see next post for continuation)

luxordelphi

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:56 PM

link

reply to post by defcon5

(continuation of previous post)

www.military-training-technology.com...

One top area of interest is the use of carbon nanotubes to increase reliability and effectiveness of infrared obscuration by as much as a factor of 10 over current technologies.

Specifically, the company has explored the potential to aerosolize carbon nanotubes for obscurant purposes. He explained that while you wouldn’t want to use nanoparticles as a visual obscurant, the ability to take a cubic meter of carbon and stretch it so that it retains its strength in a thinner, more reflective form holds promise for scattering light in the ultraviolet frequencies.

Yet I only see persistent contrails on days when its cold out.

I spent most of the summer between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. Las Vegas had record heat and record chemtrails. Los Angeles had cooler than a normal summer temperatures and more moderated chemtrails than Las Vegas.

First, its simply because there is more traffic now.

Commercial traffic is down according to reporting airports. I just recently heard that American Airlines is going bankrupt. DOD traffic may be up - I don't know; not in the loop.

The reason why Joe Blow sees more contrails now then in the past is twofold. First, its simply because there is more traffic now. Second, and more importantly, they have retired the B727 that used to comprise over 50% of the domestic US fleet, and have gone to newer aircraft that run at more efficient temperatures. This in turn causes them to create contrails over a wider range of atmospheric conditions then the old engines did:

There is no reason why more efficient fuel use would create anything more than the occassional disappearing contrail. There is no reason for anything to crystallize out of the atmosphere and remain crystallized unless it is engineered to do that.

DOD has to follow the same rules as all other aircraft in FAA controlled airspace. Even the HIGHLY secret Janet Flights, used to ferry employees into and out of Area 51, have to fly under 18K feet to remain in VFR to avoid filing an FAA flight plan.

Anyone and I mean ANYONE can file to have their flight plan kept from the general public. If the good old boys want to file flight plans amongst themselves, as the Portuguese say, let them!; it does nothing for me as a chemtrail observer.

Do you now see why the number of contrails increased in the mid to late 90’s, and continues to increase as the number of these aircraft in the sky increases each year?

No. This is the same tired story which has no logic behind it. Chemtrails are the deliberate release of particles into the atmosphere to create a number of different scenarios. Particles are specifically designed for the various purposes. This claim is just the latest in a long line of screamingly inadequate explanations for chemical skies.

Amanda5

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:35 PM

link

Thank you for posting this thread - OP.

It may be an old story - I have not read it and I am sure there are others who have not read it.
It may be considered a hoax by some - I have my own mind and can apply it to the story.
Some posters are claiming it is definitely a hoax and can we move along - I am new to the article and actually believe chemtrails to be real - so I am interested to read this article for what it may offer.

Not every news article - even with a reference attached to it has credence. Just remember just because a reporter wrote it does not mean it is in its entirety correct and factual. Just because a newspaper published it does not mean it is a complete and factual representation. Just because a television company gave it to the newsreader to read does not mean it is totally correct.

People lie - everyday - some are everyday people and others are in a public position and lots in between. This fact alone means that the public should always do their own research. History is littered with lies and misrepresentations.

All I know is that the letter/information at the heart of this thread probably contains truths. Consider the climate we live in - there are lots of conspiracies and when a person stumbles on the truth and ensures it is made available to the public - the person can be victimised, ridiculed and in extreme circumstances - die suddenly! All I know is that when people in positions of authority that are attached to serious amounts of money - they will cover their tracks and ensure secrets remain just that - secrets.

I believe there is truth to this article - that is why it still has life in it and why posters are still pulling it apart to show it is false. These days - in some circumstances - an article that is exposing a cover up can need to be written with perhaps a couple of mistakes and they need only be spelling or grammatic in nature. The truth always fizzes to the surface - no matter how hard people try to keep it hidden and buried.

Chemtrails are real - the medical issues that come with them are real - the specimens collected and examined in laborotories are real. I watched a jet yesterday - very high in the sky - I watched the trail to see what it would do. It actually dissipated so I figure it was a contrail. I have seen chemtrails - many of them criss crossing the sky.

Thank you again OP for the thread. My instinct tells me - that if the author of the letter/information is telling the truth then the fact he is not working and has been sanctioned by his employers tells me something is afoot. If the letter/information has been written by a reporter who has been told this information is sensitive - then it would make sense to post it the way it has been - sometimes getting the truth to the public is very tricky!

Much Peace...

defcon5

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:22 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by luxordelphi

First off, “Nano” does not mean that the product itself is necessarily that small, in this instance it means that the weave of the material is constructed out of particles that were of that size. Its one of those words that Ct'ers cling too, but really have no idea what it means, like the “Titanium engines” that truthers go on about. Chaff is most certainly visible to the naked eye, and here is photo of a modern chaff pack:

You are REALLY going to have to make an effort to inhale that...

Chaff packs also don't hold that many cartridges, certainly not enough to cover the sky in particulate. In this photo, each of these tubes contains one of the cartridges above:

This is what it appears like when an aircraft fires all its cartridges:

www.defense.gov...

A U.S. Air Force AC-130 Gunship aircraft executes an evasive maneuver and drops chaff and flares during a firepower demonstration at the Nevada Test and Training Range in Nevada on Sept. 14, 2007. DoD photo by Lawrence Crespo, U.S. Air Force. (Released)

That is certainly not as thick, or as long as what chemtrailers post photos of. Also take note of where its being deployed at: "Nevada Test and Training Range in Nevada", in an MOA, just as I explained earlier.

And most importantly this is what it looks like on weather radar:

www.srh.noaa.gov...

Chaff
Sometimes mistaken as rain, chaff is actually small pieces of aluminum released by military aircraft during exercises. The chaff usually is detected by weather radars as bands that are oriented perpendicular to the wind flow.

THATS RIGHT! You can see for yourself that chaff is NOT being dispensed when you see contrails because you can go inside and look at your local weather radar. You can also see that no supposed aluminum is being dispensed either, as that would act in a similar fashion and cause a reflective blanket visible on the same local weather radar.

You also seem to be missing the point that in reality military aircraft cannot just play about the sky doing whatever they please, they have to follow the same rules as civilians when they are sharing the civilian controlled skies. This is for the protection of civilian air traffic, to keep mid-air collisions from occurring. As I stated above, even the MOST SECRET aircraft in the US arsenal HAVE to follow those rules, including spy planes, or the Janet flights.
If there is an emergency, or a war, where these aircraft have to be allowed to maneuver as they please, then that area of airspace is restricted to protect civilian traffic. Outside of that they can sort of do what they wish under VFR, as long as they follow the visibility rules, which is where most of your fighter pilots are when you see them screwing around. However, VRF is low altitude, 60,000msl. Under VFR they are not allowed to even approach within a certain distance to clouds, let alone be creating them.

I recommend sending less time reading about this topic on chemtrail conspiracy blogs, and more time researching real aviation publications and information from credible sources if you are really that concerned about this topic. Why not go over to a pilot forum and ask their opinion of chamtrails.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Destiny777

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:23 PM

link

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
Project camelot has been responsible for some of the most outlandish things out there.
No need for me to look any further.

They never verify anyones credentials and always make big claims with nothing to back it up.

From Burisch to Wilcock to O'Finnian etc etc...the list goes on.

Anyone who doesn't agree with them MUST be the illuminati.

Jim Marrs did an interview with them and that is one worth watching.
The rest of project camelot really disgusts me to be honest.

Out of curiosity, if you need look no further...why did you even bother to comment?

Destiny777

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:26 PM

link

reply to post by defcon5

Um...they've already admitted to using Aluminum as a sun reflector because of the solar radiation coming into earth...are you on something that makes one delusional?

www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org...

This is something that they ADMITTED...so, your entire effort at a debunk here is just...SILLY.

tsurfer2000h

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:47 PM

link

reply to post by luxordelphi

This 'old' article is from Aug. 31, 2011.

Funny but the picture in the story you linked is from 2009, so how does this make it new?

Here is the link that says what it is and where it's at. Read caption under picture..

abcnews.go.com...

defcon5

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:30 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Destiny777

Please don’t link me to a 900 page blog put up by god knows who, that misinterprets true stories to fit their agenda, then call that any type of proof. If you want to link me over to a true article from a reliable source, I’ll be happy to review it. The truth is though that you’re most likely misreading a story about something like Cloud Seeding, or your reading about conceptual geo engineering, that as of now is only conceptual and not done in practice.

No one has admitted any such thing as chemtrails in any articles I have seen. What I have seen is again misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentations. Sites desperate to prove the existence of chemtrails against vast data showing them to be a myth, have tried posting conceptual patent info, cloud seeding experiments, admissions of the use of chaff in MOA’s drifting over public airspace, Fire retardant dumps, proposed legislation about science fiction based possible future space weapons, and agricultural/pest control spraying. There has not been a single document admitting to any chemtrail activity out of the hundreds of ones that I have had to sit and read through that have been posted as supposed proof.

BTW, it appears that even you did not read your own, ridiculously long, linked article:

3) NASA research studies show that increasingly persistent jet contrails may turn into “man-made clouds” (or white haze), and are “…trapping warmth in the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming…Any change in global cloud cover may contribute to long-term changes in the Earth’s climate…” No current U.S. legislation addresses water vapor and aviation impacts on the global atmosphere. In addition, our scientists do not appear to be funding or working toward reducing or eliminating this problem. What happens when additional programs are put in place to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth when we already have man-made clouds dimming the sun and exacerbating global warming?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 12/9/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)