posted 09-29-2002 12:49 AM            

Thank you for your reply.

You wrote:

.....Yes, it's quite common for traffic to pass over a major city enroute to other destinations.....

Surely you can't think I am so stupid as not to realize this.

I am asking specifically about _holding_ , not passing, over major airports, which are, in fact, generally located fairly close to major cities.

.....As for passing over major cities enroute to other locations, it happens daily.....

Yes - I do get that. That is not, however, what I am asking about.

.....Essentially, again, you can't really try to be like Alpha-Theta saying that *ONLY* X traffic is flying over your house, because you've got A,B,C,D,E,F and so on flying over your house too, and they are all headed to different places, at different altitudes, on different flight plans, and are even different types of traffic (airline FAR 121 traffic, commercial for-hire FAR 135 traffic, private biz jets FAR 91 traffic, military traffic, etc).....

I do understand this, Pacer. It's very busy up there.

.....Deborah, you need to realize that there is alot of flexibility in our air traffic system, and that the "rules of the roads" aren't as rigid as many chemtrail believers make them out to be.....

I appreciate the information you're providing here, don't get me wrong. However, I am asking what I think is a very direct and fairly basic question. I simply want to know what is, IN GENERAL, the _maximum altitude_ at which most, if not all, aircraft would be placed into holding pattern prior to clearance for final descent into most commercial airports. I am not asking about aircraft on their way over major airports or major cities to other destinations. I am asking only about aircraft with definite intent to land at these airports. So far, it is my understanding that the maximum altitude, IN GENERAL, at which most aircraft would be placed into holding pattern by ATC prior to clearance for landing would not exceed 24,000 feet. Is this a reasonable assumption?

posted 09-29-2002 01:43 AM            

Let's go with your theory for a second here. Basically you're saying that we are taking a little bit of "stuff" and adding it to the existing environmental moisture…..

Uh where have I heard this theory before? Oh yeah……that's how normal contrails are formed, with a little bit of "stuff" (called condensation nuclei) a nucleus upon which atmospheric super cooled moisture can form.

Only one problem with your theory; We're going to need an additional cooling mechanism as well as the condensation nuclei provided by the substance, which will cool the ambient air to the point where it can sublimate into visible ice crystals from the gaseous state. Hey, I got it…How about rapid expansion from a liquid to a gas when we release it from our on board chem tanks. That will provide the additional cooling needed to form visible ice crystal trails.

There goes you’re a -little-goes-a-long-way theory though, because storing it like this means a compressed liquid or gas under pressure. This means that the tanks actually would contain more of the substance per cubic volume that if it were under normal pressures.

We know that the way normal contrails form, requires a certain rate of fuel flow. Hey, we can expect at least this rate of flow from our chem tanks to the nozzles, since we're not using engine combustion and intake air as an expansion mechanism. In fact, we will probably need more of the substance, because we don't have the benefit of adding compressed air to the mix as we would with jet engines. Our expansion mechanism to provide adiabatic cooling occurs when we release it from the tanks. This requires pressurized storage…of about an equivalent air mass that we would normally receive in the intakes of normal jet engines. Therefore the rate at which we dispense the tanks is going to have to provide this volume to reproduce the required adiabatic cooling due to expansion. ….Hence our mystery chemical is going to need to be released at greater volume than normal fuel flow rate to the aircraft engines. Similar concept to how rockets are required to take up greater fuel than an air breathing engine. They're required to take up their own oxidizer for combustion because they can not obtain this from the atmosphere.

You know, I've got a better idea though……Why go through all this hassle to reproduce the contrail "look" when we've got the perfect mechanism to create chemtrails…WITHOUT the need for onboard storage tanks containing compressed gas or cryogenic liquid? Hey we've got those perfectly good engines out there attached to the wing that do the job perfectly. They provide the condensation nuclei. They provide the compressed moisture by intake though the compressor stages. They provide the expansion through combustion of compressed gasses, and therefore the adiabatic cooling we need upon exit from the nozzle. (Personally I don't see why we are trying to reproduce the contrail look for our covert mission anyway when we could just drop the liquid out invisibly)…

Get where I'm going with this yet?

posted 09-29-2002 01:17 AM            

1 1/2 lbs per minute X 6O min = 90lbs. per hr X 2 nozzles = 180lbs X 8 hrs a day = 1,440lbs per day. Approx a half ton per day per plane, according to this doc. 4 nozzles would obviously be twice this amount and 6 nozzles would equal 4,320lbs per day per plane. Looks totally do-able to me.

SCATTERING DEVICE FOR DEPLOYMENT


Inventor(s):
Werle; Donald K. , Hillside, IL
Kasparas; Romas , Riverside, IL
Katz; Sidney , Chicago, IL

Applicant(s):
The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, DC News, Profiles, Stocks and More about this company

Issued/Filed Dates: Aug. 12, 1975 / July 22, 1974

Application Number: US1974000490610

IPC Class: B64D 1/16;

Class: Current: 244/136; 040/213; 116/214; 241/005;
Original: 244/136; 040/213; 116/114.F; 241/005;

Field of Search: 244/136 040/213 241/5,29 222/3;4 239/171 116/28 R,114
R,114 F,114 N,124 R,124 B,124 C

Legal Status: Gazette date Code Description (remarks) List all possible codes for US
Aug. 12, 1975 A Patent
--
July 22, 1974 AE Application data
--

Abstract

Light scattering pigment powder particles, surface treated to minimize inparticle cohesive forces, are dispensed from a jet mill deagglomerator as separate single particles to produce a powder contrail having maximum visibility or radiation scattering ability for a given weight material.

Attorney, Agent, or Firm: Sciascia; Richard S.; St. Amand; Joseph M.; Primary/Assistant Examiners: Blix; Trygve M.; Kelmachter; Barry L.

U.S. References: Show the 1 patent that references this one

Patent Issued Inventor(s)
Title
US1619183* 3 /1927 Bradner et al.
US2045865* 6 /1936 Morey
US2591988* 4 /1952 Willcox
US3531310 9 /1970 Goodspeed et al. PRODUCTION OF IMPROVED METAL
OXIDE PIGMENT
USR0015771* 2 /1924 Savage

* some details unavailable

CLAIMS:

1. Contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having
maximum radiation
scattering ability for a given weight material, comprising:

a. an aerodynamic housing;
b. a jet tube means passing through said housing, said tube means having an inlet at a forward end of said housing and an exhaust at a rearward end thereof;
c. a powder storage means in said housing;
d. a deagglomeration means also in said housing;
e. means connecting said powder storage means with said deagglomeration
means for feeding
radiation scattering powder from said powder storage means to said deagglomeration means;
f. the output of said deagglomeration means dispensing directly into said jet tube means for
exhausting deagglomerated powder particles into the atmosphere to form a contrail; and
h. means for controlling the flow of said powder from said storage means to said deagglomeration means.

2. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said jet tube means is a ram air jet tube.
3. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein an upstream deflector baffle is provided at the output of said
deagglomeration means into said jet tube means to produce a venturi effect for minimizing back
pressure on said powder feeding means.
4. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said deagglomerator means comprises:

a. means for subjecting powder particles from said powder storage means to a hammering action to aerate and precondition the powder; and
b. a jet mill means to further deagglomerate the powder into separate particles.

5. Apparatus as in claim 4 wherein pressurized gas means is provided for operating said
deagglomeration means.
6. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said radiation scattering powder
particles are titanium
dioxide pigment having a median particle size of about 0.3 microns.
7. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said radiation scattering powder
particles have a coating of extremely fine hydrophobic colloidal silica thereon to minimize interparticle cohesive forces.
8. Apparatus as in claim 1 wherein the formulation of said powder consists of 85% by weight of
TiO2 pigment of approximately 0.3 micron media particle size, 10% by weight of colloidal silica of
0.007 micron primary particle size, and 5% by weight of silica gel having an average particle size of 4.5 microns.
9. The method of producing a light radiation scattering contrail, comprising:

a. surface treating light scattering powder particles to minimize
interparticle cohesive forces;
b. deagglomerating said powder particles in two stages prior to dispensing into a jet tube
by subjecting said powder particles to a hammering action in the first stage to aerate and
precondition the powder, and by passing said powder through a jet mill in the second stage
to further deagglomerate the powder;
c. dispensing the deagglomerated powder from the jet mill directly into a jet tube for
exhausting said powder into the atmosphere, thus forming a contrail.

10. A method as in claim 9 wherein said light scattering powder particles is titanium dioxide pigment.
11. A method as in claim 9 wherein said powder particles are treated with a coating of extremely
fine hydrophobic colloidal silica to minimize interparticle cohesive forces.
12. A method as in claim 11 wherein said treated powder particles are further protected with a silica gel powder.

Background/Summary:

BACKGROUND

The present invention relates to method and apparatus for contrail generation and the like. An earlier known method in use for contrail generation involves oil smoke trails produced by injecting liquid oil directly into the hot jet exhaust of an aircraft target vehicle. The oil vaporizes and recondenses being the aircraft producing a brilliant white trail. Oil smoke trail production requires a minimum of equipment; and, the material is low in cost and readily available. However, oil smoke requires a heat source to vaporize the liquid oil and not all aircraft target vehicles, notably towed targets, have such a heat source. Also, at altitudes above about 25,000 feet oil smoke visibility degrades rapidly.

SUMMARY

The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail" with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like. The term "contrail" was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention. Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more.***The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose.***the powder
contrail generator is normally carried on an aircraft in a pod containing a ram air tube and powder feed hopper. Powder particles, surface treated to minimize interparticle cohesive forces are fed from the hopper to a deagglomerator and then to the ram air tube for dispensing as separate single particles to produce a contrail having maximum visibility for a given weight material. Other object, advantages and novel features of the invention will become apparent from the following detailed description of the invention when considered in conjunction with the accompanying drawing.

Drawing Descriptions:

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWING

FIG. 1 is a schematic sectional side-view of a powder contrail generator of the present invention.

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

The powder contrail generator in pod 10, shown in FIG. 1, is provided with a powder feed hopper 12 positioned in the center section of the pod and which feeds a powder 13 to a deagglomerator 14 by means of screw conveyors 16 across the bottom of the hopper. The deagglomerator 14 produces two stages of action. In the first stage of deagglomeration, a shaft 18 having projecting radial rods 19 in compartment 20 is rotated by an air motor 21, or other suitable drive means. The shaft 18 is rotated at about 10,000 rpm, for example. As powder 13 descends through the first stage compartment 20 of the deagglomeration chamber, the hammering action of rotating rods 19 serves to aerate and precondition the powder before the second stage of deagglomeration takes place in the jet mill section 22. In the jet mill 22, a plurality of radial jets 24 (e.g., six 0.050 inch diamter radial jets) direct nitrogen gas (at e.g., 120 psig) inward to provide energy for further deagglomeration of the powder. The N2, or other suitable gas, is provided from storage tanks 25 and 26, for example, in the pod.

The jet mill 22 operates in a similar manner to commercial fluid energy mills except that there is no provision for recirculation of oversize particles. Tests with the deagglomerator show that at a feed rate of approximately 11/2 lb/min, treated titanium dioxide powder pigment is effectively dispersed as single particles with very few agglomerates evident.

The nitrogen gas stored in cylinder tanks 25 and 26 is charged to 1800 psig, for example. Two stages of pressure reduction, for example, by pressure reduction valves 28 and 29, bring the final delivery pressure at the radial jets 24 and to the air motor 21 to approximately 120 psig. A solenoid valve 30 on the 120 psig line is connected in parallel with the electric motor 32 which operates the powder feeder screws 16 for simultaneous starting and running of the powder feed, the air motor and the jet mill deagglomerator.

Air enters ram air tube 34 at its entrance 35 and the exhaust from the jet mill deagglomerator passes directly into the ram air tube. At the deagglomerator exhaust 36 into ram air tube 34, an upstream deflector baffle 38 produces a venturi effect which minimizes back pressure on the powder feed system. The powder is then jetted from the exhaust end 40 of the ram air tube to produce a contrail. A pressure equalization tube, not shown, can be used to connect the top of the closed hopper 12 to the deagglomeration chamber 14. A butterfly valve could be provided at the powder hopper outlet 39 to completely isolate and seal off the powder supply when not in use. Powder 13 could then be stored in hopper 12 for several weeks, without danger of picking up excessive moisture, and still be adequately dispensed.

Preparation of the light scatter powder 13 is of a critical importance to production of a powder "contrail" having maximum visibility for a given weight of material. It is essential that the pigment powder particles be dispensed as separate single particles rather than as agglomerates of two or more particles. The powder treatment produces the most easily dispersed powder through the use of surface treatments which minimize interparticle cohesive forces. Titanium dioxide pigment was selected as the primary light scattering material because of its highly efficient light scattering ability and commercially available pigment grades. Titanium dioxide pigment (e.g., DuPont R--931) with a median particle size of about 0.3µ has a high bulk density and is not readily aerosolizable as a submicron cloud without the consumption of a large amount of deagglomeration energy. In order to reduce the energy requirement for deagglomeration, the TiO2 powder is specially treated with a hydrophobic colloidal silica which coats and separates the individual TiO2 pigment particles. The extremely fine particulate nature (0.007µ primary particle size) of Cobot S--101 Silanox grade, for example, of colloidal silica minimizes the amount needed to coat and separate the TiO2 particles, and the hydrophobic surface minimizes the affinity of the powder for absorbtion of moisture from the atmosphere. Adsorbed moisture in powders causes liquid bridges at interparticle contacts and it then becomes necessary to overcome the adsorbed-liquid surface tension forces as well as the weaker Van der Waals' forces before the particles can be separated.

The Silanox treated titanium dioxide pigment is further protected from the deleterious effects of adsorbed moisture by incorporation of silica gel. The silica gel preferentially adsorbs water vapor that the powder may be exposed to after drying and before use. The silica gel used is a powder product, such as Syloid 65 from the W. R Grace and Co., Davison Chemical Division, and has an average particle size about 4.5µ and a large capacity for moisture at low humidities.

A typical powder composition used is shown in Table 1. This formulation was blended intimately with a Patterson-Kelley Co. twin shell dry LB-model LB--2161 with intensifier. Batches of 1500 g were blended for 15 min. each and packaged in 5-lb cans. The bulk density of the blended powder is 0.22 g/cc. Since deagglomeration is facilitated by having the powder bone dry, the powder should be predried before sealing the cans. In view of long periods (e.g., about 4 months) between powder preparation and use it is found preferable to spread the powder in a thin layer in an open container and place in a 400°F over two days before planned usage. The powder is removed and placed in the hopper about 2 hours before use.

posted 09-29-2002 01:37 AM            

what's wrong with posting links ????

btw U/T (ugly toad) I'm still wondering as a few others as to why you reposted the entire first page thread on the 2nd page of judging thomas...

and I thought you were a newcomer....

hmmmm....

posted 09-29-2002 02:39 AM            

quote:

---

Oh, I almost forgot Yodababy...Greetings to our finest from Fort Bragg. Ya rilly blundered on that one!

---

Sorry, I have no idea what this means.

So UT, do you really think the trails shown in the video clip (generally assumed to be chemtrails by chemmies) are powder trails?

Do you really think powder is going to expand miles wide and form cirrus clouds. Imagine the volume of material there? I mean what you're talking about basically amounts to dumping something the size of a bag of flour every minute, and that substance is specifically designed to reflect light for spotting and targeting aircraft.

Again, if this is a covert mission to secretly poison people from 30 thousand feet (or any altitude for that matter), has it occurred to you they might not want to make the stuff visible? Do you realize from reading that patent, that there is a great amount of work that goes into TRYING to make the stuff visible? Can't you people see the logical flaws here? Why would you try to make a covert mission as visible as possible?

Now we turn to Dr. Minnis' video clip. Assuming those are normal contrails, can you see the effect that normal contrails have on temperature by creating albedo (a reflective barrier for sunlight)? As Dr. Minnis’ study points out, normal contrails do this naturally to such a degree that the over-all effect is more constant temps from day to night. As you'll note, the clip talks about a wider temperature range from night to day in the absence of contrails (as occurred on 9/11). We also see the same phenomenon occur with natural cloud cover.

So what can we assume from this? For one thing, if the purpose of so-called "chemtrails" is to reduce solar radiation from reaching the ground...then the government doesn't need to spend a red cent on any type of program, does it. This effect is achieved for free by normal airline traffic.

Any thinking person also knows by now that great pains must be taken to try to simulate a contrail and make it visible. It can't be an aerial inoculation, or bio substance application program because the objective in that case would be to keep the substance invisible. Again we see that this is easy to do. The harder thing to do is to make them visible and simulate normal contrails!

I hate to bust your collective bubbles people, but as you can see, you've believed in a hoax that is no more than normal contrails from normal jet traffic. You have to conclude this if you simply use normal logic. Now don't you feel foolish?

posted 09-29-2002 03:11 AM            

The patents suggest control of the weather by much more sophisticated means which ultimately involve the exploitation of the iono/magnetosphere. You like to generally write it off as 'poison paranoia' or 'metereological JP dynamic'. You really don't think, in any way, that the 'directed energy' class sattelites, numerous 'tesla' arrays, and plenty of IR and/or Optical coverage ta' boot could have anything to do with 'chemical dispersion' in said atmosphere?? But it's not JPL territory, bub, not essentially. Perhaps LISA could be relative. You like to bicker about irrelevent association.

Chemical dispersion hasn't been applied recently to 'create' clouds, it has been applied to 'diffuse' them.

It's really very basic, but you and javelins like you tend to basically misconvey the truth. Is humidity the cause of persistence or is it the particulate matter?? I'll take deagglomerated alumina composites for 500$, Alex! And remember yoda, avoid considering the concept and possibilities of enviromental engineering and electromagnetics at all times. I wouldn't want you to go anywhere near the truth.

posted 09-29-2002 08:26 AM            

-"...to emit a 'contrail' with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like"-

Target vehicles are drones, like the QF-4. If you can't find the target (drone), the missile is so small that it's nearly impossible to document (film, photo) the missile hitting the target.

-"The term 'contrail' was adopted for convenience in identifying the visible powder trail of this invention"-

Because it's not really a contrail...it's a powder trail used to aid in visual identification.

-"Aircraft target vehicles are used to simulate aerial threats for missile tests and often fly at altitudes between 5,000 and 20,000 feet at speeds of 300 and 400 knots or more"-

And these powder "contrails" help the test folks spot their target before the missile blows it up...it helps them document the testing.

-"The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose"-

I suppose you could take this to mean that it can produce "chemtrails", but this statement is fairly vague, and can be conjectured to mean whatever you want it to mean. Again, no proof of chemtrails.

When they speak of making contrails, there is no operational reason to produce contrails other than to aid in visual identification. Doing so in wartime will only get you shot down.

The reference to "reflective screens" is reflective towards radar, not sunlight. So no, this isn't designed to warm or cool the Earth. And since the military is pouring money into making aircraft LESS visible to radar, the only use I could see to spray a reflective screen (which would produce a huge radar signature) is to aid in radar identification of the same (test) vehicle.

I bet anyone 10 to 1 that the chemtrail believers will use that statement above as their "out", even though it's entirely ambiguous and doesn't even really back up any of their present scenarios anyway.

Going back up the document, one finds this statement...a little background on WHY this particle "contrail" device was designed:

-"An earlier known method in use for contrail generation involves oil smoke trails produced by injecting liquid oil directly into the hot jet exhaust of an aircraft target vehicle. The oil vaporizes and recondenses being the aircraft producing a brilliant white trail. Oil smoke trail production requires a minimum of equipment; and, the material is low in cost and readily available. However, oil smoke requires a heat source to vaporize the liquid oil and not all aircraft target vehicles, notably towed targets, have such a heat source. Also, at altitudes above about 25,000 feet oil smoke visibility degrades rapidly."-

So, we now find out that this product fixes several problems they found with smoke generators on non-powered towed targets, and targets flying at higher altitudes.

So YES, U/T, it is "do-able"....but do-able for what? Creating contrails just for the hell of it? Or to increase radar signatures? Why would the military want to do this? Especially given the effort they've placed into getting rid of contrails or reducing radar signatures?

Here's my position on this patent, and it's one I've had ever since I first read it a while back: This patent is a device to help weapons engineers and other testing personnel to spot (and thus document) aerial test vehicles (drones) BEFORE the missile impacts the target. It has highly reflective radar properties to allow the drone to be tracked via radar during the same tests. This device can be used on non-drone aircraft for other testing purposes as well. PERIOD.

posted 09-29-2002 08:42 AM            

There is no maximum holding altitude. You can be placed into a holding altitude at FL450 (45,000). Again, it's totally situationally dependent. And depending on the route an aircraft flies, it may very well be placed into a holding pattern over a major city. All I said is the highest *I've* held was FL240. But there's absolutely nothing that would limit this altitude.

Holding patterns are essentially a tool for controllers to manage the traffic workload. The only rules governing a holding pattern include holding on the "holding side", and staying within the holding airspace. That, and controllers are required to give you an EFC (Expect Further Clearance) time. But beyond that, there aren't any other rules on holding.

Here's what I can say to perhaps answer your question: Yes, commercial airliners can and do hold over cities. No, there isn't any defined maximum holding altitude. No, you don't necessarily only hold on descent into an airport...you can also hold enroute too.

As for the statement made by E. Coli regarding aircraft holding over cities, what he meant is aircraft are not "stacked" overhead an airport in holding patterns. Aircraft are usually entered into holding patterns 50, 100 or even as far out as 200-300 miles away...and if that holding pattern happens to be over another city, well, then yes, they hold over cities.

posted 09-29-2002 08:52 AM            

Thank you for your reply above.

Could someone kindly insert into this thread that photograph of the aircraft discharging the circular contrail over whatever location it was during the Gulf War [the first Gulf War, I mean.]

posted 09-29-2002 10:46 AM            

The photos you posted will do nicely. **Thank you very much**. Back later.

Pacer -

Based on your experience, at approximately what altitude(s) do you think the trails in the above-posted photos are being discharged?

posted 09-29-2002 11:35 AM            

OK, just what kind of scam are you trying to run here? First you ask specifically about *commercial* aircraft only, and now you're showing photos of what are obviously military aircraft.

Again, a great example of chemtrail believer logic....use information useful only in Case A, to imply or support your theory about Case B.

I'm not about to guess at the altitudes of the aircraft in the above photos, because I don't have laser rangefinder eyes....but I'd say a ballpark estimate would be above 25,000 feet.

I'm not sure how you're trying to tie those in with commercial airliners in holding patterns, but both the 1991 Gulf War photo (which I've seen many times) and the above photos are NOT simply holding patterns, however they are NORMAL operations.

Military aircraft will fly in modified holding patterns called "orbits". These orbits can be made by one of many aircraft, for a variety of reasons.

Fighter and strike aircraft will hold in an orbit in several cases...when getting fuel from a tanker, or when waiting for other elements of the strike package to formate prior to preceeding to the target. F-15s will often orbit during CAP missions.

Bombers will often fly orbits to loiter over an area waiting for a call requiring their support, as they did often over Afghanistan.

Tankers will fly orbits that equate to aerial gas stations, so that fighters and other aircraft can find them easily and get fuel.

AWACs and RJs (RC-135s) will fly orbits as they conduct battlefield command and control, and recon.

Deborah, please realize that it's not uncommon for a military aircraft to stay in a holding pattern for a length of time, for a variety of reasons.

posted 09-29-2002 12:35 PM            

Note: About the Afgan war Pics...Similar photos can be found in the photos during the Gulf War and Kosovo. I think they are Hi-alt B-52 Contrails.

Thanx

posted 09-29-2002 12:43 PM            

***The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose.***

posted 09-29-2002 01:56 PM            

Again, my predictions came true:

"I bet anyone 10 to 1 that the chemtrail believers will use that statement above as their 'out', even though it's entirely ambiguous and doesn't even really back up any of their present scenarios anyway."

That was what I said about 5 posts ago. And this is what you said:

"Pacer...that patent says that device can be used FOR ANY DESIRED PURPOSE. aNy DeSiReD PuRpoSe. AnY."

True, they can use it however they see fit. However, it can only do so many things, U/T. For example, they can write messages in the sky if they like. They can create large radar returns if they like. They can use it to help observers on the ground spot research and test aircraft for documentation. They can use it to test the abilities of a missile to lock onto a large radar-returning contrail.

Here's what this invention CAN do, U/T....it can create visible trails in the sky. It is also highly visible by radar systems so it can create really good radar reflectivity.

So tell me, how is this going to fit into your latest chemtrail theory? This device does everything the military has been trying to avoid for years. The military doesn't like visible contrails. And they certainly don't like anything that makes them more visible to radar systems.

Ah, perhaps it could be used to confuse radar systems, like chaff? I'd laugh at that notion because the whole direction AF aviation is moving is to where the enemy won't know what hit them. Obviously, if they see this huge radar "screen" blocking "something" coming from the west, then all they have to do is alert all their IR and optical anti-aircraft systems to defeat the dubious radar "screen".

Chaff is entirely defensive. You don't spread chaff until AFTER the enemy knows where you are. And chaff is alot easier to use than attaching "contrail" generators to fighters and bombers....because now, instead of the radar missiles finding you, you've just provided every optical gun and missile system in the enemy's territory a perfect way to shoot you down.

U/T, this system was designed to aid in TESTING missile systems. It can also be used in OTHER capacities that would require observers on the ground to see contrails or spot the target vehicle by radar. So yes, within the context of test and evaluation/research operations, this device CAN be useful. But operationally, for some "chemtrail" operation....it's not.

posted 09-29-2002 02:11 PM            

We have radar on our aircraft, and it often sends back what to the untrained eye would be termed "strange" returns, like bright red "wedges" similar to the sun echos on the above photo...it will also make a city look like a huge thunderstorm if you've got the tilt too far down.

posted 09-29-2002 02:17 PM            

You wrote:

.....OK, just what kind of scam are you trying to run here? First you ask specifically about *commercial* aircraft only, and now you're showing photos of what are obviously military aircraft.....

I am not trying to "run a scam." I asked if someone would post those images for a reason, which I will get to in a minute. For purposes of this particular discussion I needed an accurate visual representation of aircraft actively discharging trails, which I am assuming [and have observed to] look more or less the same whether they are coming out of commercial, private or military aircraft. And, for this particular discussion, I needed photos of circular trails specifically. [Thank you again, Lulu.]

.....Again, a great example of chemtrail believer logic....use information useful only in Case A, to imply or support your theory about Case B.....

I have no "theory" in mind here. I am trying to get some questions answered and am perfectly willing to risk appearing "illogical" if that is what it will take to get through this process.

Trails are trails. That is how I see it for purposes of this particular discussion. If "military" trails are, in fact, significantly different in appearance from "commercial" trails, I'd genuinely appreciate it if you'd set me straight on that.

And as for "believer logic", I am a "believer" in NOTHING and will thank you kindly to desist from continually stuffing me into such a limiting frame of reference.

.....I'm not about to guess at the altitudes of the aircraft in the above photos, because I don't have laser rangefinder eyes....but I'd say a ballpark estimate would be above 25,000 feet.....

Thank you. That is good enough for me. I will assume that you are saying this based on your experience, for which I do, in fact, have the appropriate level of respect, whether or not you wish to believe that. May I ask you if, based on your experience, it is possible that any of the above-shown aircraft could have been at altitude(s) of less than 25,000 feet?

.....I'm not sure how you're trying to tie those in with commercial airliners in holding patterns, but both the 1991 Gulf War photo (which I've seen many times) and the above photos are NOT simply holding patterns, however they are NORMAL operations.....

As mentioned, the point of bringing in the visuals here is to show recent, accurate representations of aircraft actively discharging circular trails, period. And, again, it does not much matter to me, for purposes of this discussion, what type of aircraft are shown actively discharging the trails. It was also important to me to get your best estimate of the altitude(s) at which the above-pictured aircraft were emitting these trails.

.....Military aircraft will fly in modified holding patterns called "orbits". These orbits can be made by one of many aircraft, for a variety of reasons.

Fighter and strike aircraft will hold in an orbit in several cases...when getting fuel from a tanker, or when waiting for other elements of the strike package to formate prior to preceeding to the target. F-15s will often orbit during CAP missions.

Bombers will often fly orbits to loiter over an area waiting for a call requiring their support, as they did often over Afghanistan.

Tankers will fly orbits that equate to aerial gas stations, so that fighters and other aircraft can find them easily and get fuel.

AWACs and RJs (RC-135s) will fly orbits as they conduct battlefield command and control, and recon......

Thank you. I already knew some of this, but the additional details are interesting.

.....Deborah, please realize that it's not uncommon for a military aircraft to stay in a holding pattern for a length of time, for a variety of reasons.....

I do realize this and have realized it for quite some time. As mentioned, my interest in having the images posted above was to show [specifically] circular trails being actively discharged - and to find out, if possible, at what approximate altitude(s) this was occurring.

.....The above photos, as well as the Gulf War photos, do not show anything unusual. Take that as you will from a military pilot with 11 years in the military. But I'm sure my experience will be all but dismissed, while people like Klondike will be taken seriously because they rode in an airplane once. Such goes the merry-go-round of chemtrail activist logic.....

If you feel that I am "dismissing your experience" why don't you confront me directly in that regard instead of just assuming that this is, in fact, what I am doing [which I'm not.]

The following excerpts, copy/pasted in here, are from an e-mail I wrote on Friday, September 20:

9/20/02 -- Noon EDT

.....I have just come in from outside and the first thing I noticed when I went out, to my immediate SE, over the harbor, were four concentric circular trails in varying stages of fresh dispersion, with a fifth circular trail in-progress as I watched. I turned around 180 degrees to my immediate NW and noted several much smaller circles which had obviously been discharged earlier and were dispersing to look like cirro-form donut shapes. All this in an otherwise blue sky about 30% filled with assorted mare's tale and long feather-type cirrus formations. This "activity" seems to be drifting in from the Atlantic [the sky to my north appears clear as I am now looking at it out my window], but I am noting that the surface wind is currently from the SW. Current temperature, 72; RH 60. It feels a LOT more humid than that, and yet the air is so *dry* since yesterday I have tiny sores at the corners of my mouth today. I do NOT understand this extremely bizarre humid/dry combination.....

3:00pm EDT

.....Re: circular trails - do you remember that now-famous photo of the circular trails over the Gulf War battlefield? That's what these looked like this morning, only there were many more of them - and five of them were concentric. I have that Gulf War photo somewhere in my files but can't find it at the moment. There is a wall of white building to my north here right now - I expect "eyesopen" from south-central Maine will be reporting heavy activity on CTC today.....

END of e-mail excerpts.

The situation I described in the above excerpts was almost identical visually to the images posted here by Lulu, with the additional attribute of the five *concentric* freshly-discharged and slowly spreading - and ultimately persisting - trails.

Pacer, my question to you is: What kind of "normal operations" would be occurring directly over Boston, MA to generate in excess of eight persistent circular trails [five concentric] within a very circumscribed area? These circular trails persisted, by the way, for at least 4 hours in my direct observation. At the same time, the sky that day continued to "load" well into the afternoon with increasing presence of bizarre-looking mare's tail and long-feather type cirrus formations.

posted 09-29-2002 02:23 PM            

quote:

---

A/T....radar is one of those kind of things that you have to be careful at what you're seeing...

---