posted 06-02-2002 12:58 AM            

quote:

---

My sample results don’t show anything? Well it’s obvious you weren’t sampling on the day they were spraying, or how about Well "they" knew you were coming so they stopped for the day

---

Samples would be taken over different areas Pacer, such as Texas, California, Florida, ect. Surely there's enough pilots on Mav's board to pull this off?

quote:

---

It is up to you, the believers, to furnish the proof, and allow that proof to be critically examined for flaws.

---

You are a believer as well Bonehead, believing that chemtrails are a hoax. Prove it.

posted 06-02-2002 06:19 PM            

Dwight D. Eisenhower was President of the United States for cryin’ out loud! And even he was kept out of the loop. The fact of the matter is that it was his fury over this pathetic situation that inspired him to write his famous and powerful farewell address. Stuff that in your pipes and smoke it, debunkers...

_____________________________

posted 06-02-2002 06:45 PM            

.....They know that any "proof" that would grab the attention of the masses remains just beyond the reach of the average person.....
.
.
Indeed they do know this.

And nothing - not the least SHRED - nor the biggest PILE - of consistently-noted and sincerely-presented circumstantial evidence of abnormality in our skies will EVER be enough to alter their orientation to this matter.

Their sole purpose is to subtly manage the perceptions of an increasingly observant public - and to generate self-doubt and paranoia among those who are directly engaged in organized discourse on this very complicated and distressing situation.

They are very good at what they do. Very.

But the apparent success of their campaign to-date is not going to change a thing where objective reality is concerned.

The damage to our atmosphere is progressing steadily - and that is ONE thing they CANNOT control.

posted 06-02-2002 09:01 PM            

Anyways, for the person living in Palmdale, CA....you live directly under one of the busiest flight corridors in the southwest. Due to the restricted airspace over southern Nevada and extreme southern California, most traffic coming and going to LAX, San Fran and Sacremento fly right over your head. I've flown that route several times in the past year, and every time we've been stacked up and put in line. In other words, airplanes are sequenced in seperated by 5 miles horizontally and 2,000 feet vertically. It's very common to see a jet directly above you flying the same route you're flying, and then look out to the side and see another jet paralleling your route. It's very congested over there, and despite the vast skies you see, the actual airspace available is a corridor about 100 miles wide, directly over Palmdale. Some traffic flies along the Mexico border, but most of that is going to San Diego.

posted 06-02-2002 09:49 PM            

Who are you to make presumptions about my character, simply because I don't believe in your theories?

It could be easy for me to say "back at ya", but I'm not going to. I have no idea who you are, so there really is no point in me making stabs in the dark about your personal character. I'd argue that the pilots whom you feel it necessary to call "nincumpoops" are likely not really spraying anything.

You're right...someone who would spray their own families and neighbors would be devoid of any morals. But I simply have never met anyone as evil as you describe, that currently flies anything, USAF or not. Be careful...the people you point fingers at have faces, names and loved ones just as you do, and they deserve the same fairness that anyone else should get.

posted 06-02-2002 10:02 PM            

Look, for the benefit of everyone on this board, I'll come out from behind the little internet moniker and let people know who I am.

Love? Well, I have a very close knit family, and a wife of 5 years. And a child on the way. I hope I have enough of that.

Compassion? Let's see....both cats we have are strays we took in. I donate annually to a child education fund, as well as other charities. I host local kids and give them tours of our airplanes. And I absolutely despise people being unfairly accused.

Respect? I have never personally attacked or flamed anyone, nor have I resorted to calling people names of any sort. I've told people that they were wrong, and if they were insulted by that, too bad. I am perfectly within my rights to state what I think is correct, and anyone trying to deny me that right is hypocritical, at best. I've had chemtrail believers insult my pregnant wife (somewhere buried in Carnicom's board), and tell ME that I'm a loser who spends extra time posting on chemtrail boards (never mind that the person who said that could EVER look in the mirror).

posted 06-02-2002 10:10 PM            

.....Deborah, I'd hope I'd be good at discussion contrails, flight routes, etc. After all, aviation is my profession.....
.
.
.
Pacer, I've tried, in good faith, to discuss this situation with you.

Unfortunately, we do not seem to agree that there is a problem with the condition of our skies. You feel that everything is normal - and I do not.

I'm sorry. I really tried my best.

posted 06-02-2002 10:12 PM            

So far this year, I have flown from Phoenix to St. Louis and back about once every six weeks.

These routes are among the most congested air routes around, especially the Phx-LAX run. During peak hours, there is either a Southwest or an America West shuttle along that some corridor every 20 minutes or so.

This means that I -- and every other frequent flyer -- fly through those other aircrafts' contrails a LOT.

So how come none of us ever get sick? If the belief about contrails causing sickness is true, then Phoenix Sky Harbor, Los Angeles LAX, Tokyo Narita, and St. Louis Lambert should be literal chemtrail extermination camps, with strangling and gasping passengers crawling off the 6:24 shuttle to die in a corner somewhwere.

So why don't they?

posted 06-02-2002 11:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lulu:
You are a believer as well Bonehead, believing that chemtrails are a hoax. Prove it.

---

Poor Choking. His thread has been totally highjacked!

Lulu, I am not sure hoax is the right word. I think Chemtrails belongs in a category that is more properly described as "Urban Myth."

Why rehash the old arguments. Both sides have laid them all out time and time again.

However, since you asked, based on what I have seen, the phenomena described as "chemtrails" generally have simpler, benign, more logical, explanations that are based on feasible, sound science and technology, than the Chemtrails explanation. Carnicom’s sample data is a joke. Persistent contrails have been documented as far back as WWII. Wing tip vortices have been studied and documented for decades. Most of the airplane photographs are too blurry to prove anything. The motives ascribed to the "PTB" and/ or "Elites" seem a little too paranoid for me.

I suspect that most of the True Believers did not bother to take any math or science classes in High School. If they had even the slightest training in critical thought, then they would see the flaws and holes in the chemtrails arguments.

On the other hand, if you were to ask if I thought that persistent contrails are a problem, I would answer "yes." From a ascetic standpoint as well as from the standpoint that increasing cloud cover, increased global emissions etc, caused by increased air traffic is a problem that we have to deal with (among many, many, many other environmental problems).

Is it worth the energy and effort that people pour into the Chemtrails issue, NO! There are far more serious air quality issues that you can be focusing on. Industrial emissions, indoor air quality, auto and truck exhaust, I could go on and on.

posted 06-03-2002 08:31 AM            

You are absolutely, positively correct and it is truly hilarious how you have so easily and simply made an obvious point. That's the exact thing I thought when I read that. Now the people who stated that AIR TRAFFIC would somehow be vulnerable to these chemicals either:

1. Are simply too unintelligent to realize what is intuitive;
a. All aircraft are sealed airtight.
(or provide an independent oxygen
source)
b. The chemtrails disperse and/or
expand below common flight altitudes.
c. Indeed, The planes velocity
creates momentum that would
propel the dense chemicals
away from the plane, outward.

2. Or they are just antagonists, which correlates with some previously cited hypothesis' .

Even without the airtight cabin, I doubt biological passengers would be succeptible to intake of these chemicals by flying through them. If anything a lot of the dense chemicals would be propeled away or vaccumed in by turbines, with a minimal amount of the external, settling chemicals being able to enter the passenger compartment.

I guess by their standards... you fly through a rainstorm in a 747, you better bring your umbrella! ROFL. Oh yea, and be ready for clouds to expand within the passenger area too !!!

BTW concerned mom are you talking about North Edwards AFB? or George AFB??

posted 06-03-2002 08:53 AM            

If these Chemtrails are being laid down along crowded and well traveled flight coridors, then the passenger jet will be flying through the trail along the entire length. Furthermore, simple dispersion would mean that the concentration is higher at altitude than on the ground.

ALpha-Theta, your troll attempt is noted

posted 06-03-2002 08:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonehead9:
As I understand it, Mom, passenger jet planes (and most other planes as well, bring in a fairly high percentage (50/50 or so)of outside (ambient) air into the plane in flight.

If these Chemtrails are being laid down along crowded and well traveled flight coridors, then the passenger jet will be flying through the trail along the entire length. Furthermore, simple dispersion would mean that the concentration is higher at altitude than on the ground.

---

Yes, "AIR" is correct. Substance (i.e. chemicals) are a whole different story.
Thanks god for those handy air filters, eh?
Just like Mastercards.

Bonehead your "ad hominem" is noted

(I always liked latin)

Also, that's interesting math you do there.
YOu say 50% of the outside air enters the plane? WOW!! There is a lot of outside AIR. By god, it must be like an F5 tornado in there!!!?? ROFL!

(that was trolling )

posted 06-03-2002 09:08 AM            

quote:

---

Is it worth the energy and effort that people pour into the Chemtrails issue, NO! There are far more serious air quality issues that you can be focusing on. Industrial emissions, indoor air quality, auto and truck exhaust, I could go on and on.

---

posted 06-03-2002 11:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alpha-Theta

---

Air is not a chemical or a substance?

Bonehead your "ad hominem" is noted

(I always liked latin)

"Illegitimi non carborundum"

Also, that's interesting math you do there.
YOu say 50% of the outside air enters the plane? WOW!! There is a lot of outside AIR. By god, it must be like an F5 tornado in there!!!?? ROFL!

(that was trolling )

You know what I meant. 50% of the air is recirculated, and 50 % is ambient.

Check out the following: (thx LTC)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/

Note that it only indicates that the recirculated air is filtered, not the ambient air intake.

posted 06-03-2002 04:29 PM            

Dense chemicals are a solid

from the site you posted:

"These high efficiency filters are similar to those used to keep the air clean in hospitals. Such filters are very effective at trapping microscopic particles as small as bacteria and viruses. It is estimated that between 94 and 99.9 percent of the airborne microbes reaching these filters are captured."

case closed.

posted 06-03-2002 04:37 PM            

Actually, aircraft cabins are NOT airtight. There are two problems with an airtight system...the first and most obvious being that you'll eventually use all the oxygen in the cabin.

One of you said that we have oxygen systems on board....well, then your ADDING more air to the cabin, and you'll eventually overpressurize the cabin. Actually, there is a system to add air to the cabin, but it's not a completely enclosed system like an oxygen generation system.

The cabin air system on nearly every passenger jet or business jet has an inflow system and an outflow system. The inflow system takes pressurized bleed air from the engine's high pressure compressor section, and mixes it with air with the low pressure compressor section. This is piped into two seperate systems, one for pneumatics and pressurization, the other for conditioned air.

The conditioned air passes through a modulation valve that mixes hot and cold to condition the air to the right temperature. The other air passes through the bleed air valves and pressurize the door seal and provide air to the anti-ice system on the wing leading edges.

There are usually two outflow systems...a normal outflow valve, and an emergency cabin safety valve. The outflow valve is connected to the cabin pressure controller, and opens to regulate the cabin pressure, and allow the air to circulate. The cabin safety valve opens if the pressure differential gets too high.

There are filters, but they are placed between the bleed air valve and the mod valve. They also aren't the type of filters used to filter out chemicals or biologicals. They are used to filter out larger particles to avoid damaging the bleed air system. Particulates can enter the cabin.

Now that we have an elementary understanding of cabin pressurization systems, let's discuss your previous preconceptions:

-"Lets see , Im not a pilot, but common sense tells me that- A: you are in an airtight cabin. B: you are going much faster up there than I am down here"

No airtight cabin, as discussed above. Going fast doesn't mean a thing, since the engines are giant vaccuum cleaners. Not only would we get very concentrated stuff, but it would be compressed and force fed into our cabin too. Second, since most of the winds at altitude are around 40-70 knots, (in some cases I've seen them as high as 150 knots) you wouldn't get very much of what was "sprayed" over your head.

-"1. Are simply too unintelligent to realize what is intuitive;
a. All aircraft are sealed airtight.
(or provide an independent oxygen
source)
b. The chemtrails disperse and/or
expand below common flight altitudes.
c. Indeed, The planes velocity
creates momentum that would
propel the dense chemicals
away from the plane, outward."

Your intuition hasn't proven to be a very good replacement for actual knowledge concerning aircraft pressurization systems. And again, the cabins aren't airtight.

As for the "common flight altitudes" thingy, what's a good "common" flight altitude? Can you tell me how you would determine what altitude to fly at? How do pilots determine cruising altitudes? Do you know? Didn't think so. Here's a quiz, answer with what you think is a good altitude:

1. Total distance: 250 miles, eastbound

2. Total distance: 1,100 miles, westbound

Give it a stab..maybe your intuition will help you out.

As for momentum theory, if that's true, then how would the engines work if air is being propelled away from them? They actually swallow huge amounts of air, and this air, after being sent through the compressor, is what is used for cabin air.

posted 06-03-2002 04:39 PM            

Filters on airliners are only used for the recirculated air, so that someone with a cold won't spread it to everyone else. The air from the compressor is not filtered in such a way.