If this is commercial air traffic then we should start walking!

reply to post by lastword


And you think that the turbofan hasn't changed one iota since it's introduction? The original turbofan was inefficient and left behind horrible smoke trails. If they haven't changed one bit then how are airlines flying from Hong Kong to London, without stopping? You always spout off about how we don't live in the real world, yet you think that technology with regards to air travel is locked in stone.

Originally posted by lastword
reguarding the high bypass jet engines, i took a quick look on wikipedia. also known as the turbofan or fanjet, they were developed in the 1960's and entered production in the 1970's except for the U.S.S.R. [which is now called Russia] who lagged untill 1980. Chemtrail activity started well after this time period so a supposed 'newer' type of engine has no bearing in this reguard. consider yourself OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED, retard!

You should exercise some caution when calling people names.

Your "quick look on wikipedia" is indicative of your level of knowledge and insight into this subject.

Again you show the world your ignorance, your lack of comprehension and your reversion to childish name calling.

You are a typical example of a fool who doesn't know a lot but thinks he does.

Originally posted by GoKill
Yet Another Irrefutable Chemtrail / Geo-Engineering Image

If you can not or will not accept that this is not 'normal' then it is my opinion that you should seriously look into getting your head checked. No other evidence needed, Just walk outside and open your freakin eyes...

If this is normal commercial air traffic (it's not) then we should start walking! We must Ban Air Travel at once!

This is not what the Wright brothers had in mind.

Here's the question i pose......IF these are "commercial airplanes".....where is everybody going? People are BROKE! How can they afford to travel???

Zaphrod 58 ... 'they' have been flying from hong kong to london for almost a century now. how much longer will it take you to see the real world?

Originally posted by SpittinTruth

Originally posted by GoKill
Yet Another Irrefutable Chemtrail / Geo-Engineering Image

If you can not or will not accept that this is not 'normal' then it is my opinion that you should seriously look into getting your head checked. No other evidence needed, Just walk outside and open your freakin eyes...

If this is normal commercial air traffic (it's not) then we should start walking! We must Ban Air Travel at once!

This is not what the Wright brothers had in mind.

Here's the question i pose......IF these are "commercial airplanes".....where is everybody going? People are BROKE! How can they afford to travel???

Air travel is cheaper than its ever been.

You want to know the answer to your question? Go to an airport and see for yourself. If the place is empty then you're onto something!! I don't think it will be empty though, of course, all the people you see there could be 'government shills.'

Originally posted by lastword
Zaphrod 58 ... 'they' have been flying from hong kong to london for almost a century now. how much longer will it take you to see the real world?

You're such an aviation expert, then tell me what type of planes have been flying from Hong Kong to London WITHOUT STOPPING for almost a century.

flying with or without chemtrails?

reply to post by lastword


Name one plane that you claim has been making that flight non stop for almost a century.

And not a one off around the world flight our anything like that. Routine flights.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by lastword


You are the one that claimed they have been making that flight for almost a century. Why should I do your work for you? I already know what planes are capable of making it, and when they first flew that route. You accuse us of not living in the real world, then you make claims like that and can't back them up, so you resort to name calling. Great tactics.

Originally posted by lastword
you are just killin' thread, aren't you! ...find that out for yerself, let me know, we'll do battle. tard!

Great we have another 16 year old to babysit and educate, however it seems their attitude will keep them in the dark for some time.

If anyone is killing this thread its you with your childish name calling and display of ignorance.

Originally posted by goou111
ive asked this in other chemtrail threads and never get an answer

but just what the hell are the chemtrails suppose to be doin to us?

and shouldnt all the old people be dead by now?

you guys are sure there sprayin us lol but none of you have any idea why lololololololol

That's the game isn't it?

So long as the plot can't be traced back to a defining series of objectives and completed stages, none of us should really say anything about these jet trails. I'll build a case for something to whine about then.

Specific fuel consumption
www.grc.nasa.gov...

According to the DOT's research, U.S. major airline carriers averaged 64 mpg in 2009 (miles per gallon for airplanes is calculated by how far one seat, regardless of whether it is occupied or not, can travel on one gallon of fuel).

www.energyboom.com...

A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).

This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!

science.howstuffworks.com...

So, a car travelling 100 mph will burn (approx.) 4 gallons an hour at the given 25 miles per gallon, or 40 gallons over the ten hour period.

For the sake of a similar scale, the car needs 5 1/2 hours of travel to match the distance covered by the 747 travelling at 550 mph. (It would need to burn 220 gallons to cover the same distance ... anyway ... ).

36,000 / 40 = The same fuel used as 900 cars. Using the earlier figure of 28,000 commercial flights per day in the US (mentioned earlier this thread), that's the same fuel as 25,200,000 cars @ 25 Mpg. How many are cars in the US?

Total number of vehicles

According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2009 there are 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles. Of these, 193,979,654 were classified as "Light duty vehicle, short wheel base, while another 40,488,025 were listed as "Light duty vehicle, long wheel base." Yet another 8,356,097 were classified as vehicles with 2 axles and 6 tires and 2,617,118 were classified as "Truck, combination." There were approximately 7,929,724 motorcycles in the US in 2009.

en.wikipedia.org...

I conclude through these rough statistics that commercial air flight in the US accounts for approximately the same amount of exhaust pollution as ten percent of passenger vehicles.

That's a lot of air pollution! What kind of fuel are they using now, and how much of what chemicals are entering our atmosphere? Heavy metals concern me the most. Chronic foot problems from metals sinking in our bodies, aluminum on the brain, lead toxins, sulphur pollution, and who knows what else are coating the lands with wide-range dissipation.

Originally posted by GoKill
Yet Another Irrefutable Chemtrail / Geo-Engineering Image

If you can not or will not accept that this is not 'normal' then it is my opinion that you should seriously look into getting your head checked. No other evidence needed, Just walk outside and open your freakin eyes...

If this is normal commercial air traffic (it's not) then we should start walking! We must Ban Air Travel at once!

This is not what the Wright brothers had in mind.

Friend, last week I travelled to Northern Indiana to my daughter's home. I went out to smoke, and the sky looked much like your photo. And something else. I noticed shiny, silvery particles drifting down, and actually collecting on the lawn. In the morning Sun, they sparked.

I have read that the chemicals are said to be Barium and powered Aluminium. My question is, who is behind this, and what is the purpose of it? ATS has a great many intelligent minds, and many have classified connections they are forbidden to speak of.
How about a full, ATS style investigation?

Heavy metals concern me the most. Chronic foot problems from metals sinking in our bodies

That sounds like something someone working the "foot bath detox" scam would tell you. Heavy metals do not "sink" in your body.

reply to post by Northwarden


Except that if you were to do a detailed breakdown comparing aircraft exhaust, to the pollution put out by coal plants, and other manufacturing plants, the amount of pollutants would be significantly higher, and would cause more contamination of our ground water, and our bodies than all the air travel combined. Air travel does cause pollution, and does affect the environment, we saw that after 9/11, but I'm much more worried about what ground pollutants are doing than the 747 leaving a contrail at 34,000 feet.

Originally posted by Northwarden
I conclude through these rough statistics that commercial air flight in the US accounts for approximately the same amount of exhaust pollution as ten percent of passenger vehicles.

Other people use not so rough statistics to agree with your conclusions -

US Statistics in fuel use by different types of transport perannum since 1960

Aviation fuel use 2010: 12,712 million gallons
highway gasoline, diesel & other fuels in 2010: 169,769 million gallons - of which 86,666 million gallons are attributed to light vehicles with short wheelbase - ie cars and small trucks - and motorcycles

Aviation is a long LONG way behind land transport in burning up hydrocarbons!!

reply to post by Northwarden

What kind of fuel are they using now, and how much of what chemicals are entering our atmosphere?

Jet A and Jet A-1. High grade diesel fuel, pretty much. Water and CO2 are the main products.


What makes you think there are heavy metals involved?

From now on....let's just call these "trails".....rain makers!

And, just so you know....you can't win the "chemtrail"/"contrail" battle. The same debunkers show up every time a post is made, so you're wasting your time.

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
From now on....let's just call these "trails".....rain makers!

And, just so you know....you can't win the "chemtrail"/"contrail" battle. The same debunkers show up every time a post is made, so you're wasting your time.

Contrails don't make rain. They are ice clouds that form very high. Sometimes the ice does precipitate out, but it generally does not reach the ground before it evaporates.

Just call them "manmade cirrus clouds" if you want to call them something else.

reply to post by Uncinus


Heavy metals often refers to those which have a specific gravity of 4.0 or 5.0, and it's documented that they will sink to the feet, bottom of lungs, etc just as any heavier-than-air element will. How is that a stretch? Organ, brain, and respiratory damage is the greater danger.

emedicine.medscape.com...

reply to post by Zaphod58


I agree completely! Relating to cars was for the sake of comparasion only, and those ground-based sources do outweigh the pollution air travel regularly causes.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


That's 7.5% of land traffic, so my 10% rough estimate wasn't so far off. It was certainly ball park!

Just verifying that figure from page one :

There are over 87,000 flights every single day..25-28,000 in the U.S. alone

Lonewolf

Flights Operated

U.S. carriers and foreign carriers serving the United States operated 10.0 million domestic and international flights in 2009, 6.6 percent fewer than operated in 2008 (Table 1).

www.bts.gov...

Ten million / 365 days of the year = 27,397 flights per day.

reply to post by Phage


Accurate enough, as the other commonly-used variants also primarily use kerosene. But what about all the additives?

Both JP-5 and JP-8 are distillate fuels consisting of distilled process streams refined from crude petroleum. Characteristics of JP-8 fuel (such as density and distillation temperatures) are very similar to those of JP-5 (DOD 1992). There is no standard formula for jet fuels. Their exact composition depends on the crude oil from which they were refined. Variability in fuel composition occurs because of differences in the original crude oil (Custance et al. 1992; IARC 1989) and in the individual additives. As a result of this variability, little information exists on the exact chemical and physical properties of jet fuels (Custance et al. 1992). However, the differences in these fuels are minor.

The primary ingredient of both JP-5 and JP-8 is kerosene, and the composition of these fuels is basically the same as kerosene, with the exceptions that they are made under more stringent conditions and contain various additives not found in kerosene (DOD 1992; IARC 1989). The crude oil from which JP-5 and JP-8 are refined is derived from petroleum, tar sands, oil shale, or mixtures thereof (DOD 1992). Typical additives to JP-5 and JP-8 include antioxidants (including phenolic antioxidants), static inhibitors, corrosion inhibitors, fuel system icing inhibitors, lubrication improvers, biocides, and thermal stability improvers (DOD 1992; IARC 1989; Pearson 1988). These additives are used only in specified amounts, as governed by military specifications (DOD 1992; IARC 1989).

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

And this is what I was originally considering, the wave of the future.

New Rocket Fuel Mixes Ice and Metal
Date: 21 October 2009
www.space.com...