|
Author
|
|
Topic: My Thoughts... | Topic page views:
|
|
YAMPilot
New Member
Canada
2 posts, Mar 2003
|
posted 03-30-2003 11:23 PM
  
First off....PHXPilot - Cheers to you for being able to put up with everything on here for as long as you have. I've been reading through some threads and well, way to keep a cool head. I assume you have all read the facts about contrails, and if you dont believe them. So be it.
Do any of you know what a 'chemtrail' would look like?
What would make it cloud like? The air becoming supersaturated, right? Well, when this happens, it just hangs there right, it doesn’t fall to the ground. So what’s the problem? Consider this picture http://www.airliners.net/open.file/287389/M/ A 747 dumping fuel. Looks like a contrail doesn’t it, but you can tell its not coming from the engines. So to create this much 'cloud'/'contrail' or I guess more precisely in this case a 'chemtrail' since it is fuel! But that aircraft is dumping over 60Tons of fuel every minute to create that, consider how much chemical would be necessary to carry on board an aircraft to create this effect that you guys are seeing in the skies. They sure wouldn’t be able to do it for long. Also, you must wonder what’s happening to all that fuel! Yep, you guessed it! Its evaporating! Transport Canada requires that an aircraft must be at least 2000 feet above ground when dumping fuel, why? Because that would allow enough time for it to vaporize. If chemicals were dispersed from 40,000 feet how would they ever make it to the ground without vaporizing? Not to mention the extremely high winds that would cause the chemicals to be spread across hundreds of square miles, and thus becoming so diluted that mosquito’s probably wouldn't even notice it! I have yet to see anything remotely close to convincing for these chemtrail theories. The images found on this website are just absurd. Anyone who has watched one show on Discovery about meteorology could easily explain every one of them. Assuming that they are not Photoshop altered. But nobody here would ever do that now would they?  But I digress..... PHXPilot, I think you really should start ContrailCentral.com I'll be your first member!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by YAMPilot on 03-30-2003] 
|
the professor
KNOW YOUR ROLE
heartland USA
1164 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-31-2003 12:03 AM
Yeah the balloning spiders theory in late november off the coast with heavy so called air traffic is bogus too right?
|
YAMPilot
New Member
Canada
2 posts, Mar 2003
|
posted 03-31-2003 12:28 AM
From the images gallery:
Location: Big White, near Kelowna, BC Canada
Date: 12/22/2002
Note: Here is a pic of two planes-one right behing the other. I thought there was an FAA rule against flying within 3 miles of another plane. Traffic like this continued throughout the week I was there. OK...first problem. What does the FAA have to do with airplanes in Canada? How can you possibly tell that those aircraft are flying at the same altitude?
If they were at the same altitude, then if they passed by the same point with 30 seconds between them, that would give them at least 4nm of lateral seperation.
But that is not how the cruising order/system works.
Another clear example of a lack of important knowledge.
|
NW41Heavy
Negro with an Attitude
Tallahassee, FL
88 posts, Mar 2003
|
posted 03-31-2003 12:28 AM
What are you talking about, the professor??!!?? I'm not too familiar with your pseudo technoligical lingo on this stuff.
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-31-2003 12:37 AM
>>"From the images gallery:
Location: Big White, near Kelowna, BC Canada
Date: 12/22/2002
Note: Here is a pic of two planes-one right behing the other. I thought there was an FAA rule against flying within 3 miles of another plane. Traffic like this continued throughout the week I was there."
OK...first problem. What does the FAA have to do with airplanes in Canada? How can you possibly tell that those aircraft are flying at the same altitude?
If they were at the same altitude, then if they passed by the same point with 30 seconds between them, that would give them at least 4nm of lateral seperation.
But that is not how the cruising order/system works.
Another clear example of a lack of important knowledge.<<First off, welcome YAMPilot. Secondly, I did ask 3 weeks ago for a pilot to comment on the above, so thank you for finally commenting. >>Perhaps one of the pilots here could comment on the three mile rule thing? For me it is very hard to gauge accurately the altitude of aircraft, let alone the miles that separates flight paths. How long did these 2 trails persist, and what were the atmospheric readings at altitude during this time? Thank you.<<
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001726-2.html Perhaps the other pilots have been too busy making up stories of how we don't like facts here, to comment?
|
Trail Nix
Senior Member
40 posts, Nov 2002
|
posted 03-31-2003 07:53 AM
Even if the picture at the arliner site is jet fuel, does that mean that all is well? It isn't water and it isn't healthy. If it evaporates, the substances still go somewhere. TN
|
PHXPilot
Your Mode C Veil is Showing
Phoenix, AZ, USA
800 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-31-2003 11:43 AM
Fine TrailNix. We will immediatly put a hold on all airliners with an emergency that need to dump fuel. Instead, we will let those airliners land over their maximum landing weight, let the main landing gear snap upward into the wing, let the aircraft flip, let the wrekage burn due to all the extra fuel, and let hundreds of people die.
Sounds like a plan to me!
|
PHXPilot
Your Mode C Veil is Showing
Phoenix, AZ, USA
800 posts, Jan 2003
|
posted 03-31-2003 11:48 AM
Lulu, I looked at the photo in the last comment on the thread and to be honest, I only see one aircraft in the entire photo. I see one contrail that spans the entire photo, and one aircraft leaving a contrail.Wheres the other one?
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-31-2003 12:17 PM
 Obviously the other plane has passed and no longer visible, just the trail is visible. I was hoping for a comment on the 3 mile rule. Just the facts 
|
NW41Heavy
Negro with an Attitude
Tallahassee, FL
88 posts, Mar 2003
|
posted 03-31-2003 12:27 PM
Hey Lulu- check out my post in the ridgefield thread on the same 3 mile issue. I stink it will answer your question.
FYI- the rule is 3 miles behind an aircraft less than 255,000 pounds....4 miles behind at 757 (it is less than 255K, but has pretty violent wake turbulence characteristics), and 5 miles behind a heavy (greater than 255,000 pounds).
Reference- 14 CFR 91
|
Lulu
ice behaving badly
right here
2553 posts, Dec 2000
|
posted 03-31-2003 12:53 PM
Hey Heavy, I did check out your post in the Ridgefield thread, again, thanks!>>I stink<< Really? snort!!
|
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
