|
|
PHXPilot
Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA |
 Sat Mar 15, 2003 5:21 am
|
 |
|
When a four engined jet making trails looks the size of a cessna 172, something isn't right and all the debunking in the world will not change even that one fact!
HAHAHAHA. *snort*. Dear God, "the size of a Cessna 172, somthing isnt right". HAHAHAHA.
Guys, seriously, GO LEARN ABOUT AIRLINERS.
Look, here is a photo of a man standing next to a Boeing 777-200 engine. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/005700/L/
The engine alone is far bigger than a 172.
Now, heres a photo showing contrails formed by a 747-200 (which has considerably smaller engines than the 777) and look how big the contrails it forms are. This is of a KLM 747-200 over international airspace whose flight path intersected with another passenger jet, that the photographer was in. (Oh no, that means they made an "X" shape, run for the hills!)
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/239080/L/
|
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 5:37 am
|
|
|
quote:
HAHAHAHA. *snort*. Dear God, "the size of a Cessna 172, somthing isnt right". HAHAHAHA.
Look sport, debunkers are the ones always touting how a jet at 20-30,000 feet is just a speck in the sky, a speck ahead of the trail.
I'm saying that when the plane appears the size of a Cessna >>>AT LOW ATLITUDE<<< while making trails, it is no where near that altitude. You are not the only private pilot on the board, son.
|
| |
|
|
PHXPilot
Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA |
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 5:42 am
|
|
|
Ahhhhhh, mis-communication I see. No matter, I still dont see the problem. An airliner doesnt have to be cruising at 20+K feet to create contrails. The aircraft doesnt care what alititude it is at, its going to create contrails as long as conditions are right. It just happens to be that those conditions are USUALLY found up above 20K. But under certain circumstances, contrail forming conditions can be found below that.
But, I still would like people to take a look at that second photo link I posted. Mainly because it is absolutely beautiful. As a matter of fact it is my wallpaper.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by PHXPilot on 03-14-2003] |
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 5:51 am
|
|
|
Debunk this one.
Camera-Sony cyber-shot 2.0 w/3x digital zoom
The telephone pole is 25 feet tall and 6 feet below the level of the road making it approx 19 feet above my head. Zoom was near max but not quite.
 |
| |
|
|
PHXPilot
Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA |
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 6:08 am
|
|
|
Well, that honestly doesnt look all that abnormal. It looks, from what I can discern, like it is cruising at about 20K or so. I live in Northwestern Phoenix and I live under a well-used approach path. The aircraft that fly over my house are usually at around 7-10 thousand feet. I spend HOURS sitting outside watching them so I know what they usually look like. This aircraft looks considerably smaller, plus you used zoom, so that means it was even smaller than that. So, my rough estimate is about 20K. But, I have seen quite a few airliners creating contrails at that altitude before. It doesnt seem abnormal in any way. |
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 6:13 am
|
|
|
Of course not. |
| |
|
|
PHXPilot
Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA |
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 6:23 am
|
|
|
Well, if it doesnt, it doesnt. Class B airspace over my house reaches from 6,000 to 10,000 ft. From this, and from my listening to Phoenix TRACON for years, I can conclude that most airliners I see are at around 7 or 8 thou. I can get fairly good shots of these aircraft with my 300mm Pentax, because they are fairly low, and very visible at 8-10 thousand feet. This aircraft in the photo is LOADS higher than the aircraft coming into PHX. I see airliners cruising at about 25K passing over PHX leaving contrails, and they look to be about the size of the aircraft in the photo.
Again, this aircraft does not give any indication that it is below 15K. |
| |
|
|
hitech_46253
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 499
Location: Indianapolis, IN U.S. |
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 5:55 pm
|
|
|
Just remember class that PHX debunkie here actually said: "Seeing is not believing." And we've seen he demonstrates the typical debunkster mentality that no matter what 'evidence' you put before him, it's not evidence TO him.
Just saw this demonstrated again when Lulu wanted more proof on the drought thread. Well, I provided it there as here and haven't heard (rather seen) the latest peep of response to the information.
You can likely bet though that seeing won't be believing with her either. This pattern of spraying into and ahead and ABOVE the oncoming fronts is VERY repeatable. I saw these douchebags spraying here back in August and took those satellite photos every 15 minutes. I knew what was above me came out of PLANES and expected the front to be NW of me. It was and I was 'rewarded' by capturing those photos that show the front dissolved as we've seen so many times here.
I offer you to CHECK IT FOR YOURSELF. Liars, provacateurs and PROPAGANDISTS don't present evidence or truths, they simply demonize and try to prop up lies with other lies. Truth is self-evident and stands like a rock IF you are willing and open to checking out both sides.
It's not like I WANT to tell people the government is doing this and has ill intentions toward people. I have no PROFIT in lies. This is what the FACTS have lead me to believe. Once you believe in such a sad sorry conclusion, you are then compelled to ACT and share this information with others. When you know you're right, you endure the derision heaped on you by those who are ignorant or propagandists in the hope others will check things out for THEMSELVES and then act also.
As to 'Capt Walker'..... Wasn't that the dude who couldn't keep his plane in the air on "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome"??? |
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
|
Sat Mar 15, 2003 6:52 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Again, this aircraft does not give any indication that it is below 15K.
15,000 ft. Wait a minute, you guys have been saying for the last couple of years that contrails do not normally form below around 22 thou, but now you are changing that figure to 15 thousand?
My turn to laugh. hahahaha
|
| |
|
|
PHXPilot
Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA |
|
Sun Mar 16, 2003 1:30 am
|
|
|
Oh for Gods sake. Guys, that photo gives me and VERY little to determine the actual altitude. I never said he was at 15 thou. I said the photo gives no indication that he is that low.
Your right, we do say that contrails USUALLY dont form below 20K because that is where the best conditions are found (20K+). But conditions can sometimes can be found below that under certain circumstances. But this aircraft doesnt look like it is low enough to have this be called one of those rare times. It looks like it is at about 20-25K. Again, I have VERY little to go on when determining this altitude. Dont look so desperate, whenever you guys get even a hint of a fault you freak out like it proves chemtrails or somthing.
This aircraft does not LOOK, from my experience, to be below 20K feet. Again, I have very little to work with. But nothing seems to be horribly out of the ordinary here.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by PHXPilot on 03-15-2003] |
| |
|
|
ICU812
Joined: 30 Mar 2001
Posts: 103
Location: Edmonton, Canada |
|
Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:33 am
|
|
|
Thank you hitech.
If one could access an archived radar tape from our air traffic controllers one could view 'all' the aircraft that were in the area that day and present an even larger evidence base. Archiving a reaction like this is invaluable. Your continued research and contribution is greatly appreciated.
As 'NEW' readers venture through web-sites to gain a better understanding in the 'chemtrail' phenomenon their search may bring them here.
It will quickly become obvious to the 'NEW' reader that some individuals who post aren't here to research and help others understand what's going on over their heads.
Rather, it's painfully obvious by this and other threads that some post simply to distract and mis-direct the process.
It's easy to see who's done research and who's done Tommy.
To date, the 'number' of individuals and groups that have worked towards complete disclosure of all atmospheric programs, questionable aircraft exhaust characteristics and un-common flight patterns has not been enough to make a change.
As the evidence thread grows, it is hoped that it will provide information to the 'NEW' reader that may invoke some change.
For the benefit of the 'NEW' reader and Pacer who somehow missed it.
SEARCH "Modular Aerial Spray System".
Here's one link:
The Modular Aerial Spray System
http://www.afrc.af.mil/hq/citamn/Default.html
A photo showing the under wing mount.
http://www.afrc.af.mil/hq/citamn/feb03/frontcover.html
(Archivedlink) http://w3.afrc.af.mil/units/910aw/spray/dod.af.htm
The MAS System is used to spray bugs. (hopefully pneumonia bugs)
* March 15, 2003: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - CDC Issues Health Alert About Atypical Pneumonia
CDC activated its emergency operations center on Friday, March 14, upon learning of several cases reported in Canada among travelers recently returned from Southeast Asia and their family members.
Additional information on UV sunscreen programs and Weather Modification programs utilizing KC-135/DC-10 type aircraft are welcome and encouraged.
How much money is spent maintaining and upgrading tanker aircraft?
Billions
This dollar value snip is from the 1998 report 'only':
"""The KC-135 maintenance is a portion of the Sacramento Air Logistics Center workload competition awarded by the Air Force to Boeing and its partner, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Utah. The total value of the combined contracted workload is approximately $1 billion over nine years.
The contracted value to Boeing of the KC-135 maintenance portion is $500 million over nine years, with the potential KC-135 value expected to double to approximately $1 billion over that time period with increased aircraft quantity and additional modification programs."""
What are the "additional modification programs"?
BOEING SITE search for ?KC-135 engine modification? http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news.release.970120a.html http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.951010.html http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980922n.htm http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news_release_971111o.html http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news.release.970326a.html http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q2/news_release_010504n.htm
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news.release.970106c.html
The floor is open for ATC reports on observations.
|
| |
|
|
Jeanie
Joined: 18 Nov 2001
Posts: 1323
Location: North East U.S.A. |
|
Sun Mar 16, 2003 6:10 pm
|
|
|
ICU812***Excellant post, great shot of the under wing aerosol spray mechanisim in the Air Force Reserve magazine. Wonder if they have more than one type of pest in mind to eradicate. hmmmmm |
| |
|
|
PHXPilot
Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA |
|
Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:05 am
|
|
|
ICU, I looked through all of those links you posted at the end of your comment and not one of them has anything to do with chemtrails. Im assuming that you think they do. Would you mind explaining how these things are pertinant? |
| |
|
|
PacerLJ35
Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA |
|
Mon Mar 17, 2003 6:02 am
|
|
|
Jeanie,
Considering my assigned career field is a C-130 pilot, I've never seen any underwing spray devices on any other C-130s except those used by the AFRC unit in Pennsylvania.
I find it highly ironic that ya'll blab all day about how the USAF hides its alleged spray devices or sprays stuff out the jet engines, yet here's a picture of a device that you say is perhaps part of the conspiracy and its spray system is mounted alot like a crop-duster's....exposed and completely observable for all to see.
Come to think about it, I've never seen any kind of spray system on ANY USAF aircraft outside the single AFRC C-13o unit mentioned in the article. |
| |
|
|
hitech_46253
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 499
Location: Indianapolis, IN U.S. |
|
Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:10 pm
|
|
|
I think we should be doing more than 'blabing' myself. We need to be informing neighbors, talk radio, meteorologists and anybody else who will listen rather than spin our wheels with these worthless wastes of skin debunkies here.
As to C-130's, American Freedom News had a beautiful photo of a C-130 spraying 2 trails. These were coming out of the interior however and out the back open hatch. The Air Force clearly states their intention to use weather as a 'force multiplier' on their enemies. SOME people here just don't realize that THEY have been declared the enemy.
Well debunkies, you'll figure it out all too late as you see our kids led into a TRAP overseas and this country taken by Bushie's FOREIGN troops. Enjoy your starvation death in Ashcrack's detention camps.
You've EARNED IT!!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.15B.ashcr.camps.htm
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 10:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
