chemtrails over Florida 01-01-2012

Originally posted by dogstar23
/sigh...maybe its not sinister, but why did contrails only start behaving like that in the mid-90's? What changed, if they're just contrails?

Read back on my posts in this thread. What changed is that the airlines started to retire the old aircraft with the Low-Bypass engines, and buy new High-Bypass engine aircraft. The airframes on the whole fleet of 727's all started to reach retirement age in the mid 90's.

reply to post by Human_Alien


You used the wrong flight tracker website!! I linked to the proper one, in a post.

As a matter of fact, I do and DID check the flight tracker.
www.flightradar24.com.

But, you have been notified of this many times, no doubt. FlightRadar24 works best for Europe. Go there, you will see it does a better job of tracking flights over there, but is poor here. That's because FlightRadar24 isn't based here in the United States, it uses a different method of tracking ....[***] See below ---

.

It failed.

No, this attempt at deception has failed.

The website we want, when researching flights in the USA (and/or in Florida) is FLIGHT AWARE!

FlightAware Main Page

LINK to live data for the region of Florida centered on West Palm Beach

Right now, looking at it, it is about 0120 EST. That's 1 AM and 20 minutes. And even this late at night, on the 30-mile scale (lower left corner) there are about eight airplanes, at cruise altitude, in the radius between Palm Beach and Miami.

When I linked to it, at that time earlier today, there were dozens. IT IS in the post above. In the one you quoted, as a matter of fact.

[***]----Oh, and here is the reason that FlightRadar24's coverage is more sparse, and incomplete in North America. It states it, right on the website:

Flightradar24 shows live airplane traffic from different parts around the world. The technique to receive flight information from aircraft is called ADS-B. That means the Flightradar24 can only show information about aircraft equipped with an ADS-B transponder. Today about 60% (about 30% in USA and about 70% in Europe) of the passenger aircraft and only a small amount of military and private aircraft have an ADS-B transponder.

See, that's a bit of technical information that is crucial to show how those who use FlightRadar24 exclusively to "claim" that the flights aren't "there" and therefore must be "top secret" (or whatever hogwash attempt is made) is a deception....whether intentional or not.

FLIGHT AWARE shows all that are on an FAA IFR flight plan. Period. SO, using FlightRadar24 is incomplete, and anyone who says otherwise isn't telling the whole truth.

reply to post by ProudBird


What a crock, this is your attempt to say that every plane in the sky is traced/tracked. Only the aircraft that are ment to be traced/tracked are on radar for public viewing. As if you would know the flight plan for government projects, secret military missions and so on. You’ll have to do better than that.

Im a proud Chemmy to, i see them alot here, and it annoys me alot that people can just write them off as nothing. It is what you see....piles of stuff coming out of a planes/planes in lines that nicely cover the whole area, and over the day they spread like wildfire. No it isnt just a contrail that is freezing in the atmosphere, at the low altitude that these planes are flying theres no way the "water" coming out is just freezing into clouds...get real. I seen a video not long ago on youtube somewhere and it had a part in it of the New zealand parliament Discussing the trails because the public was concerned, All the mp's (Nick Smith) did was literally crack up laughing at the subject calling us dumb........they will NEVER admit or release the truth. ITS TIME FOR REVOLUTION!

I've noticed these a few times in Australia. What bothers me the most about them is they ruin a perfect blue sky. It turns into this murky overcast blah

Originally posted by killemall
What a crock, this is your attempt to say that every plane in the sky is traced/tracked. Only the aircraft that are ment to be traced/tracked are on radar for public viewing. As if you would know the flight plan for government projects, secret military missions and so on. You’ll have to do better than that.

Yes, all aircraft in Class A Airspace have to file a flight plan, even the Janet flights into and out of Area 51 fly VFR until they enter an MOA to avoid tracking. That means that these supposed “Chemtrail” aircraft would have to file a flight plan, be under 18K feet VFR, over 60K feet VFR, or in a closed Special Use Airspace with a NOTAM filed under the FAA so civilian traffic can avoid them.

reply to post by killemall

What a crock, this is your attempt to say that every plane in the sky is traced/tracked. Only the aircraft that are ment to be traced/tracked are on radar for public viewing.

My point is, and just referring to the USA for a moment ----

---- using the FlightAware website you will see just about every flight that is on an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) Flight Plan, and in the FAA computers. There can be some "biased" out, is true. Go to the FlightAware site and you will see that any operator who requests it will not be displayed. This is rarely the case, though.

Using FlightAware does, however, provide a useful tool for many who wish to "observe" every time they see a contrail (that they mistakenly call a "chemtrail") and be able to identify the flight....with some reasonable success.

Problem is of course, some experience helps in this task. Aviation experience, if you have it.

Point is, even an amateur layperson will eventually realize the relationship between the contrails they observe, just by "looking up", to the identified commercial flights that are tracked on FlightAware, and yes indeed, are in the public arena. The flights' information is stored on the website for several months --- if you are not "registered" (which is free to do) you see about twoweeks' worth easily, at the site. After "registering" (free to do) you gain additional features, and access to their FOUR months' history of any particular flight..

Here, just pick a flight number....one of my favorite trips (from past experience) is Continental (now "United") Flight 15, Newark (NYC area) to Honolulu:

COA5/UAL15

^ ^ ^ (Just as example) ^ ^ ^

You can see, there, a wealth of information......especially if you bother to take the time to learn the website, and understand it. (Helps if you know a bit about aviation, too).

So, in some rarer cases, certain military flights might not show up on FlightAware (when the President travels, would be a most obvious instance), the VAST majority of air traffic is commercial scheduled passenger and cargo airliners.....with the occasional private flight as well....those private flights also appear on FlightAware.


I have an interesting personal story from just a few weeks ago.....here in SoCal I heard, out the window (a "form" of "observation") what sounded to my ear quite odd.....almost the familiar sound of jet turbine engines in what is known as "Flight Idle" power settings, as you hear when the jet is descending, at minimum power.

I could also hear the direction of travel (since I have two ears ) and so I hopped onto FlightAware right away. Knowing my physical geographic location, and the direction of the sound......I figured out what had drawn my attention.

It was a private airplane called a "Piaggio"....here, it was one of these:

en.wikipedia.org...

Having known (and yes, "Piaggio" make other products too, like motorscooters for instance) the particularly LOUD sounds that a "pusher" propeller arrangement makes.....because of the propeller blades "cutting through" the exhaust, I realized that that is what I heard.

The one I heard had left from Northern California, near Oakland (I didn't write down its particulars) and was en-route to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. I did see that it (the particular airplane, as I learned from the FlightAware website, since the regisration number was listed) was owned by this company, a "fractional ownership" concern:

Avantair

(As you see, research can be extensive, but can also pay off).

Sorry, since I didn't write down the N-Number, or whatever call-sign they used that day (as I recall, they had an ATC call-sign similar to what airlines use) I can't find it again....and don't remember the exact airport code it departed from, in the Bay Area. Just its destination in Cabo (or "Los Cabos") which is MMSD....(I had to look it up...although the first 'M' told me it was somewhere in Mexico...hint).

Every airport has TWO codes.....the IATA and the ICAO.

IATA codes are three letters, and used by the airline for baggage and other identification reasons.....the ICAO codes are four-digit, and are more specific, and used for Air Traffic Control and navigation systems (and pilots) onboard the airplanes. (Cabo San Lucas, or "Los Cabos" has an IATA code of "SJD").

(No wonder that those not familiar with aviation and airlines and flying in general can get confused, eh??)

SO....(again)...."POINT" is, I was able to use Flight Aware to answer my own personal curiosity about something that I heard and wondered about. Anyone can too.

reply to post by defcon5


To simply and amplify a point:

.....supposed “Chemtrail” aircraft.....

It bears repeating that any supposed "Chemtrail" aircraft operating at the same altitudes as commercial airliners (as noticed by the many who claim and shout "chemtrails" so often lately would, of course, be immediately recognizable once they landed at an airport....and subject to photography, and "snooping eyes" of many kinds.

AND YET?

Not one single solitary photograph exists of any such instance.

Or, should I say, not one verifiable (meaning, not mistaken or deliberately mis-represented) photograph exists.


There are many, many avid aviation enthusiasts and hobbyists out there with "prying eyes" and cameras ready to catch a glimpse of anything unusual....even on U.S. military bases, yes...YES indeed. The airplanes have to land, end even if a military base ("Area 51" being the only exception, because of the huge square miles that surround it) sharp-eyed and keen observers will wish to capture anything out of the ordinary.

AND immediately POST it on the Web!!

Further, to consider how to get any so-called "chemicals" into any "secret" facilities (where "facilities" means "airport", let's face reality) .....Air Bases aren't all that "secret" (exception "Area 51"....which for purely physical limitation and operational reasons could NEVER act as a sole base for so-called "chemtrails" anyways) .....to get these "chemicals" to an airport for the purported "uploading" to occur would entail a great deal of ground transport vehicles.....which are usually scrutinized by other hobbyists who delight in such things....all "armed" with cameras too.

AND then, the other tiresome problem about the "manufacture" of the so-called "chemicals".....and just HOW does any agency or group manage to keep all of the workforce involved in these (non-existent) activities silent??

The logic, once you start to reason it out, just isn't there.

reply to post by ProudBird


Yes...
It does beg the question, “Where are all the chemtrail aircraft photos on sites such as airliners.net?”

Go here:
www.airliners.net...
Type in "chemtrails", and all you'll find is people making sarcastic remarks about the subject.

reply to post by defcon5


Yes, but, to be fair, it's only because they know what they're talking about.

Originally posted by killemall
reply to post by ProudBird

 

What a crock, this is your attempt to say that every plane in the sky is traced/tracked. Only the aircraft that are ment to be traced/tracked are on radar for public viewing. As if you would know the flight plan for government projects, secret military missions and so on. You’ll have to do better than that.

So are you now saying that chemtrails are only made by secret military missions?

Because all over the world it seems to be that "normal" commercial airline flights are actually what is being identified.

In hte USA you do have the advantage of having Flight Aware which is more comprehensive than FlightRadar - it takes actual FAA data in near real time, and if there isn't any data it plots a presumed location based upon the flight plan.

This is for all IFR flights that file a flight plan - AFAIK that includes military flights sharing airspace with civilian flights, but UIS based pilots would know whether that is hte case or not for sure.

One of the reasons the reason the USA has a FEDERAL aviation Administration was a series of incidents in hte 1940's and 50's, and a series of particularly nasty air-air collisions in 1957-58, 2 of them involving military and civilian aircraft colliding.

As a result the FAA Act of 1958 specifically delegates the FAA to regulate the safety of both military and civilian aircraft in US airspace.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by dogstar23
/sigh...maybe its not sinister, but why did contrails only start behaving like that in the mid-90's? What changed, if they're just contrails?

Read back on my posts in this thread. What changed is that the airlines started to retire the old aircraft with the Low-Bypass engines, and buy new High-Bypass engine aircraft. The airframes on the whole fleet of 727's all started to reach retirement age in the mid 90's.

edit on 1/3/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

Another big change in engine technology, and one that predated the high bypass fan, was the change from turboJET to turboFAN engines. A good example is the Douglas DC-8 which I flew for some time. Originally, it had four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-6 tubojets (with water injection), which were real fuel hogs. The Series 20 DC-8 went with the JT-4A, which was still a turbojet. The first 8s with turbofans that we got were some Series 40s with Rolls-Royce Conway 509 turbofans. All of the newer 8s , and some of the re-engined older ones, went with the General Electric CFM-56 fans, a high-bypass engine. For a discussion of the differences between turbojets and turbofans, take a look at www.grc.nasa.gov...
One other change in technology that affected high altitude operations were advances in pressurization capabilites, which moved effective cruising altitudes much higher, from the low thirties to the low 40s, where it is really, really cold, like -156F today at 39,000 feet over Miami. Because of that ambient temperature and the water vapor content (or dew point depression, which is what the radiosonde reports) at the 150 millibar level, I would expect contrails to be quite persistent today in south Florida.

I realize there are some well meaning aviators here. I understand that aviation is your area of expertise. I understand that you know how to track airplanes and identify them using website data. I know you understand how jet engines work. I applaud your input and knowledge.

Now step back and look at the big picture. The skies are clouded by airplanes. This effects solar industry by reducing their power output by 50%. That alone is enough reason for the solar industry to fight for clear skies.

Forget about identifying flights or arguing about the content of the exhaust because you are missing the big picture.

Even if the exhaust is 100% water it is still causing problems and needs to be gone.

Understand the problem first, then find ways to solve it.

reply to post by onecraftydude


Well, it is affecting the amount of sunlight that reaches the earths surface, and it is altering the planets temperature. This is why it is being investigated by the government. Unfortunately its not like you can tell the airlines to go back to the more inefficient, louder, and expensive to run engines.

Humorously enough, I hear that the military does have a way to suppress contrail formation that it invented for its bombers, considering that contrails work like a big arrow pointing them out to our enemies. What makes it funny is that you have add a chemical to the exhaust to suppress them.
So to stop persistent contrails, you would actually have to make real chemtrails.

reply to post by onecraftydude


Appreciating your first acknowledgments, ....but you mus realize, this is NOT a "true" statement, for every day of evefy year..."Year over Year":

The skies are clouded by airplanes. This effects solar industry by reducing their power output by 50%. .....[/quote]

Please provide some sort of "evidence" to such a claim. I kow that someone in the "Solar Industry" may have misconceptions, as to the literatre on the topic....I have read it a bit;;;;;;and caustion (again) about that "evil' thzt still known as "cobfirmation bias"....(LOOK it up;;;;can't be bothered to link everything for you all, anymore.

Some persona; research is a good idea.....

edit on Tue 3 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Not sure if anyone else has brought this up, but maybe the government/HAARP or whoever are behind the chemtrails. All i really did was bring popular ATS theories together.. Like you said, its blocking uv rays that power your solar pannel so maybe there is a chemical in the trails that suppresses the weather and natural disasters coming our way. so maybe the chemtrails are almost like an artificial ozone layer, most likely invented because our pollution has been depleting it for years, and somehow the semi-depletion of the ozone layer are causing dangerous amounts of "un-ozoned" UV rays hitting the Earths ground somehow causes more of these terrifying natural disasters that have been happening recently. These dangerous UV rays are bad for us, ever thought it could be bad for our environment too? Anyways, the weather has been REALLY odd this Winter, and makes me shake my head every morning. My personal opinion if this has a small chance of being true is that mother nature IS indeed in control.. not us, and the longer we prevent her from doing what she has to do, the more horrifying these Natural Disasters will get! Alright, so this may seem far fetched but hey, isnt that what ATS is about? Be nice, just joined today to start a thread about this idea, and cant even post one! need 20 replies first!! duhfaq?!
-Peace ATS, leave me some replies!

New evidence has arrived proving contrails are just a hoax and chemtrails really have been around from the beginning of fuel powered flight.
I put it to anyone to prove a contrail from a plane ever really did exist and is not a chemical trail.
Hoax contrails are created and consist of hot exhaust fuel vapours mixed with cool air.
So there we have the evidence finally to put these silly contrail myths away for good and refer to the correct term chemical trail, contrails debunked

Originally posted by onecraftydude
e.

Even if the exhaust is 100% water it is still causing problems and needs to be gone.

Understand the problem first, then find ways to solve it.

I assume that you want to help in solving what you perceive to be the problem of jet engine exhaust, which you want to eliminate, for your convenience. Well, let me give you some facts and ask you you to help design an aircraft which will meet the required factual parameters. The General Electric CFM56-7b turbofan engine, which powers the Boeing 737 produces 27,300 pounds of static thrust per engine, and it has two of them. Since at jet airliner speeds, a pound of thrust (which is a measure of power) equates closely to one horsepower (which is a measure of work), that means that the aircraft is powered by two 20.3 million watt engines. A 737 uses 24 volt, 36 amp hour batteries, which gives you 864 watt hours per battery. So to provide the same power as the turbofan engines, you would need 48,000 batteries for each hour of flight. That would be almost 300,000 batteries needed to go from Miami to LA. They weigh about 12 pounds each (without associated hardware, so your aircraft weight would be 3 million pounds in batteries alone. The heaviest aircraft to have ever flown is the Russion Antonov An-225, at a max gross weight of 1,410,000 pounds. And I don't even want to think about the pollution generated by coal burning power plants that would be needed to recharge 300,000 864 wh batteries for each of your aircraft.
So, you say, "Let's go solar." You would need 268,000 6 square foot 10 watt panels to do the job. That is 4 acres of solar panels. Talk about blotting out the sun! As a point of reference, the aforementioned An-225 has a wing area of 9,742 square feet, less than 1/16th of what would be needed for your "sunny sky" special aircraft.
Once you've designed the 3 million pound 4 acre "sunny skies special", you might give some thought to the design of the 500 or so new airports and thousands of new runways that would be needed. Runways, even concrete runways, have weight bearing limits. Orlando's, for example, is 75,000 pounds single wheel.
"What about hydrogen fuel cell?", you might ask. Well, guess what. When the hydrogen oxidizes in our atmosphere, you get water. Problem not solved.
So, if it's so very important to you, are you going to spend the time and effort to learn how to design such an aircraft?
I'm not even going to mention that airliners are pressurized and heated and protected from dangerous ice formation by air from the jet engines you hate so much.
And as final thoughts, care must be given to the design of a system to keep the whole airplane from exploding from the off-gassing of hydrogen from the nickel-cadmium batteries under a heavy load and to the elimination of the Potassium Carbonate and Potassium Hydroxide emitted from the batteries. And you have to keep the batteries pressurized and warm (and sometimes cooled, since thermal runaways are possible - a really bad melt-down at 10 thousand meters or so), so your pressure vessel is going to have to be big - really, really big.
Good luck, now. And don't forget to patent it.

reply to post by killemall


The attempt at sarcasm falls flat.

NEXT!!

reply to post by cml267

-Peace ATS, leave me some replies!

Welcome to ATS!! and a star (perhaps your first?) for you!!

Yes indeed, "Mother Nature" is in control.....as has been the case for (in terms of planet Earth) about 4 1/2 to 5 BILLION years......(give or take a few hundred million)....