Chemtrails: holiday update

[Super 80]

Re: Two things....

Super80, my fine feathered friend, I believe you're truly hypoxic. You wrote, <<The truth is that chemical pollution is being spread daily by our burning of semi-refined petrol-chemical fossil fuels in the upper reaches of our atmosphere.

And it's really not a secret...and when the green movement gets a hold of this, their potential campaign against aviation will make their war against fur and meat seem benign.>>

There is no question that large transport category aircraft are the most efficient users of fossil fuel.

...I just had a conversation with a 747-400 Capt who told me he calculated his "mileage" to be about 3 miles per gallon.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the most wasteful application fossil fuel burners is the big-assed SUV which may manage a cool 12 miles per gallon.

...Please do us a favor and tone down the rhetoric and tune up the rational thinking.

Okay Mar, and by the way I liked your story on Difficult Captains, here's the numbers:

Picking a typical flight, 130,000# @ FL330, mach .76 at cruise power, I use 3,096 pounds of fuel per hour per engine.

Times two, that's 6,192 pounds per hour total, divided by an average fuel density of 6.7 pounds per gallon that equates to 924 gal/hr.

At this altitude and airspeed, which is pretty much standard operation for the Super-duper, really Super 80, I'll be doing 442 ktas on a standard day. Assuming no wind, l'll equate that to ground speed and convert to miles as 508mph. Now in that time, I used 924 gallons of kerosene, or jet fuel.

My miles per gallon is 508/924 (per hour cancels out) and I get a whopping .550 miles per gallon.

Granted this is less than 1mpg but I'm hauling 129 people plus a crew of 5 and up to 3 more jump seaters X and W so we kind of make up for it on an individual basis and each person in that scenario would have to get 75 mpg to equate to the total fuel burn to transport them all across the sky as efficiently as a full airplane would.

And we do it pretty safely too. Maybe even better than your SUV.

So no I'm not hypoxic, and yes we are burning millions of gallons of kerosene at altitude every hour of the day without the benefit of a catalytic converter but as far as moving people around, it's not too bad a system. I think that's your economies of scale you were talking about.

Apples and oranges, eh? You can look at it more than one way and try to justify either argument.

The car I drive gets 34mpg.

 

[mar]

So we agree?

Super80--Thanks for the nod re: Difficult Capts.

So we're in agreement over the efficiency of jet aircraft. I was surprised to see that you used M 0.76 in your calculations.

I'm sure the 747 Capt used M 0.86.

At any rate, I appreciate your response.

I think the engine manufacturers have come quite far in the last 20 years in the areas of fuel economy, emissions and noise.

Any self-respecting Greenie will recognize that these aircraft are truly state of the art.

Grid lock on the nation's highways, on the other hand, is nothing but poor planning.

Drive safe.

 

[Super 80]

Re: So we agree?

So we're in agreement over the efficiency of jet aircraft. I was surprised to see that you used M 0.76 in your calculations.

I'm sure the 747 Capt used M 0.86.

Jet aircraft are efficient on a weighted per person basis when fully loaded and flying at the optimal altitude and airspeed.

However, as a gas user, they can be incredibly wasteful when not full. Take my example out of the Performance - Cruise page 13 of my Operating manual. If I take 100 people off, basically 20,000 pounds and I operate it as efficiently as possible, .762 mach and FL370 my total fuel flow will be 5146lbs/hour and the TAS will be 437. Doing the math results in .654 mpg. Now spread over 29 people + 5 crewmembers means we're averaging around 22 mpg if everyone drove separately as far as total fuel usage. That's inline with some SUV's highway mileage.

.76 is the most efficient mach for the Super 80. I looked through the manual because while .77 has the best overall performance, .76 has the highest specific range when compared to .77 and .78 at various weights and altitudes. At .79 or greater, you're just pissing gas away. I can easily burn an extra 1500 pounds on a DFW-IAD leg at .79 and only save a few minutes. Above .81 has been rare in my experience, (3200 F/0, 1100 CA) and I've never done it as Captain.

I think the 74 would fly more around .80-.82. I think the limiting mach on that is .90 and I would be surprised if .86 was its normal cruise. The 72 could easily do .86, but it was a waste of gas too. Although we did do one SJU-IAD flight at .88 with a barber pole descent.

We made up about 20 minutes that night and caught the SJU-BWI flight before Bacus, the checkpoint off N.C. so they got slowed down for ATC separation going in the D.C. area instead of us. We got a good laugh out of it too. We passed over them blacked out with the transponder in stdby, then with both hands, the Captain and I turned everything we had on at once. It gave our friends we had been partying with the previous night a real good start. I'll always remember the Captain, calling on the air-to-air freq; "A/C at 330 identify yourself!" (Jan was pretty laid back, and didn't ruffle easily.) I think he spilled his coffee.

Oh yeah, and on the 72, the FE opened up the Chemgoo nozzles and sprayed Solvent Green all over them. They had to use their wipers to see to land.

 

[414Flyer]

Re: Re: So we agree?

Oh yeah, and on the 72, the FE opened up the Chemgoo nozzles and sprayed Solvent Green all over them. They had to use their wipers to see to land.

And we all know what Solvent Green is made from

PEOPLE!

 

[Denver130]

Chemtrails the controversy

What is it that is mesmerizing people about this issue? Why are intelligent people spending their time analyzing this issue? Don't they have better things to do? To tell you the truth, I never noticed it until a supervisor came to me with a puzzled look on her face and asked me if a contrail grid laid over her area was "normal". I was like you pilots at the time. I was sure there was a logical explanation out there. If I was a pilot I would have quoted page 294 in the HAND BOODK OF CLOUDS and TRAILS and given her the usual explanation of what a jet contrail was.

But anybody with an open mind can see the obvious. It only takes SIMPLE observation to see that what is going on is "un-normal". It doesn't take rocket science, a Doctorate degree or any fancy equipment from NASA. It only takes SIMPLE observation.

For example, grid patterns over your subdivision are totally un-normal as well as X patterns, massive trails, drippy appearance of contrails, on again off again trails being laid by aircraft at low altitudes and on it goes. Any average person on the street (educated or uneducated) can see there’s something un-normal with what they are seeing. Even the skeptics at the office at Conoco after observing these trails daily during lunch hours admitted that they were un-normal. But alas, you have to decide for yourself.

For me the evidence is overwhelming.

1. Government admission: The government admits the existence of this program, just like they acknowledge Area 51, Project SHAD and hundreds of other projects. In order to deny chemtrails you have to close your eyes to what they said.
2. Jet contrail science: If we accept NASA or NOAA's scientific research as to the conditions of contrail formation as valid and as our standard, then we must interpret what we see by that standard. If citizens begin seeing low altitude trails that defy the standards set by NASA and NOAA and we just "write it off as normal", then we might as well close our eyes again.
3. Observation and documentation by citizens: Believe it or not, there's a lot of intelligent people studying the chemtrail issue. They are documenting their observations, reading up on explanations, reading scientific literature and making their own conclusions. Very few are concluding what pilots here believe: that chemtrails is just a hoax. Most, are saying the opposite: this is a real issue. I could ignore these people, but I'd have to close my eyes again to the obvious: people are concluding that this IS an issue.

There’s a lot more to say but for the sake of space I close with this: if you have your eyes closed, people might think your sleeping.

 

[414Flyer]

Here we go again..I still cant decide if you are trolling or not, because while your behavior is troll like, its typical of the chemmies.

You never have told us when an X in the sky is not normal. Do you think planes paths never cross..

Find us anything from NASA or NOAA that back you up.

 

[Mogus]

Denver130, you still haven't yet answered Typhoon's question.

But anybody with an open mind can see the obvious. It only takes SIMPLE observation to see that what is going on is "un-normal". It doesn't take rocket science, a Doctorate degree or any fancy equipment from NASA. It only takes SIMPLE observation.

To the ill-informed, uneducated, ignorant people (and there are a lot of them) out there, many things look strange and unusual. This doesn't mean their observations warrant closer attention. (By the way, where the hell did you come up with "un-normal"? Quit degrading the English language, dumb@$$.)

1. Government admission: The government admits the existence of this program, just like they acknowledge Area 51, Project SHAD and hundreds of other projects. In order to deny chemtrails you have to close your eyes to what they said.

Show me your "Area 51" and its large runway on my Government-published Las Vegas Sectional. You can't. We know it's there but I don't see it on my chart. Since when has "the Government" (whoever the hell that would be) acknowledged its existence?

2. Jet contrail science: If we accept NASA or NOAA's scientific research as to the conditions of contrail formation as valid and as our standard, then we must interpret what we see by that standard. If citizens begin seeing low altitude trails that defy the standards set by NASA and NOAA and we just "write it off as normal", then we might as well close our eyes again.

You misinterpret and misapply their research.

3. Observation and documentation by citizens: Believe it or not, there's a lot of intelligent people studying the chemtrail issue. They are documenting their observations, reading up on explanations, reading scientific literature and making their own conclusions. Very few are concluding what pilots here believe: that chemtrails is just a hoax. Most, are saying the opposite: this is a real issue. I could ignore these people, but I'd have to close my eyes again to the obvious: people are concluding that this IS an issue.

What's your definition of intelligent? "Open-minded"? Naive? Gullible? Obviously there are many gifted and smart people who have strong religious beliefs. Have you ever seen one of these people defend their religion? Their antics often become illogical and childish, despite their usually rational approach to things. The same applies to contrails. People let emotion and feelings override logic and science.

There’s a lot more to say but for the sake of space I close with this: if you have your eyes closed, people might think your sleeping.

Wow, that's deep. Go to hell you moron.

 

[Denver130]

Question: You never have told us when an X in the sky is not normal. Do you think planes paths never cross..

Answer: In Houston, a study was done on jet contrails. One of the things they found was that the average jet contrail lasted less than a minute. If that is true, then an X pattern over Westhiemer and Gessner that lasts for 2 hours could be considered un-normal based on length of time. If you can demonstrate with photos a series of pictures over an hour, I would call that un-normal. I took some pictures on the way to Austin (which has a hotter and dryer climate than Houston) and did this. You can see the results at

http://www.geocities.com/houstonchemtrails/Austin3.html

Heres another common scenio: chemtrails below cloud level. Its too hot in Houston to form jet contrails below cloud level on an average day. (clouds in Houston are typically between 5K and 10K feet, well below the 30,000ft plus you need for chemtrails)

And yet here they are:

http://www.geocities.com/houstonchemtrails/dec1102.html

What about Las Vegas? If there ever was a dry, hot environment that is not conducive to contrails of any sort, surely you wouldn't expect contrails there would you? But alas, examine those at

http://www.geocities.com/houstonchemtrails/vegas1.html

What is fascinating to me is the mammoth size of the trails in the top 2 photos. Since jet contrails occur over 30,000ft, they should appear pencil thin not like a giant train track in the sky.

A more important question concerning Vegas is why are chemtrails in Vegas at all? Of all places, this climate of hot, dry desert shouldn't fit the bill for anything.

Here is what one Vegas citizen says about these observations:

"Chemtrails are a common sight here in Las Vegas. They appear EVERY weekend without fail, the only exception being the two weeks after September 11, 2001.

An acquaintance once tried to assure me that it was just the result of heavier air traffic and atmospheric conditions. But he couldn't tell me how the atmospheric conditions were always so favorable to trails on the weekend, especially when the weather here is so consistent from one day to the next during the summer.

We stood there and counted 11 jets in the air; nine of which were leaving trails, and some that were not leaving trails were flying at a higher altitude than the ones that were. That was on Sunday. The very next day, I took him back outside for another look. That time we counted 9 planes in the air, none of which were leaving trails. How very curious. The temperature was the same, and the air traffic only slightly less. Yet the trails were gone! They came back on Thursday, of course, and stayed for the weekend once again. That was a rare Monday, though, as it is common for the trails to still be hanging around then. We almost never have chemtrails on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but they are here Friday through Sunday like clockwork."

What should we do with this gentleman’s testimony? You decide.

Question: Find us anything from NASA or NOAA that back you up.

NASA and NOAA both say this: Jet contrails occur under the following conditions:

1. Extremely cold temperatures - -40 is the temp most start at
2. High altitudes: Usually 30,000ft and above
3. High humidity: to the point of saturation (80 percent or higher)

So when my Continental pilot tells me that the bottom of the clouds is at 2,000ft and the top is 4,000ft and I get off of the plane and look up and see jet contrails under those clouds in the shape of an X, is that normal? No.... Do you see what I'm saying... This is what people all over the country are observing.

Some of the links but not all that I have found verifying this are:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Flagstaff/science/contrail.htm
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/oth/cntrl.rxml
http://130.104.105.148/Bede/EBED302000/A5-187-2000.pdf
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/Pubs/Aeroeng/eng393.pdf
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/reports/2000/meps/aviationrptdraft.htm

 

[414Flyer]

So its not the X now that is unusual, its the persistance of the contrail? Make up your mind. Contrails persisted during WW2 Was that a giant spraying operation??

According to your logic, there shouldnt be snow on mountain tops either, because that is certainly warmer and more able to support evaporation/sublimation, than air at the flight levels.

Clouds in Houston are typically wherever they are, because of temperature/dewpoint spread. Maybe lower altitudes in winter, higher in summer. But there is no typical altitude.

Air at 24000 ft on up, is not hot anywhere, and while it can be dry, it takes little moisture to saturate it. Especially once you are in the 30,0000 - 40000s.

If you say it is hot in the air way above Las Vegas, tell us a temperature for the air in the 20s or 30000s.

Contrails do not have to be pencil thin, just as any cloud does not have to be any certain shape.

You have never seen contrails under clouds that are 2000 ft above the ground.

Give us a link where NASA says it has to be -40 anyways?

DId you see this quote on that same NASA website? If you had read it carefully, it completely blows away your whole conspiracy

"Since air temperatures at these high atmospheric levels are very cold (generally colder than -40 F), only a small amount of liquid is necessary for condensation to occur."

Your Green Party page doesnt mention chemtrails anywhere.

Its obvious what you are doing, is starting with your conspiracy belief, and then trying to find anything you can, any sentence, that can possibly support your belief. How about educating yourself, then coming to a conclusion. And no, reading carnicom.com, rense.com and chemtrailcentrail.com does not qualify.

 

[uscpilot]

"Chemtrails are a common sight here in Las Vegas. They appear EVERY weekend without fail, the only exception being the two weeks after September 11, 2001.

I dont know how this quote supports your theory. The groundstop following 9-11 affected civil aircraft. Presumably military/goverment aircraft would be allowed to fly. Since it is the government that is responsible for these chemtrails wouldnt they still persist on those post 9-11 days?

The link to the NOAA says exactly what we have been telling you. The pictures they showed might were identical to your "chemtrails". Further more while you provide weather conditions at the surface you are not giving the weather conditions at alititude. You have no way of accuratly measuring their altitude so you cannot possibly provide the correct tempratures. Look at a wind and temp aloft chart for Las Vegas for the summer, you will be suprised.
The only "emperical reshearch" that you have is what the weather was in Houston as stated by the Capt of a Continental Airlines flight. I dont know how many times I have gotten off of a plane and the weather is different than what the flight crew said it was. They are only relating what the most current weather report says. I t could be an hour old, compounded by the fact that the weather is give to the passangers in mid flight or during the descent some 20-30 minutes before deplaning. Of course then you went into the terminal waited for your bags then went out side. As much as two or more hours could have elapsed between the time the origonal weather observation was made and the time you made your amature observation. Weather conditions can change alot duing in a very short amount of time. This is undoubtably what happened.
Where is this government research that contradicts us? Dont link to some huge 50 page document. I dont have time to sift through endless amounts of parlimentary procedure. If it is there show it to me/us.
Otherwise STOP WASTING OUR TIME!!!
USC

 

[Denver130]

jet contrail formation

May I ask you 3 questions:

1. What altitude range doe jet contrails form?
2. What temperatures are needed for jet contrails to form?
3. How much humidity is needed for jet contrails for form?

 

[uscpilot]

Denver,
Read the NOAA link you provided. It does not give a minimum alt for contrails. All that is required is the apropraite temp, humidity relationship. That link that you provided does a better job than any of us at decimating you argument.
Have a nice weekend.
usc

 

[skeezer]

Denver dude, listen to me. Between all the pilots on this board we log hundreds of thousands of hours in flight. Many of us over the places you mention, on the days you mention and take pictures on. Yet, NONE of us has EVER seen these low altitude contrails (sorry "chemtrails") that you speak of.

How could that be? We spend more time in the sky than you could possibly spend looking at it, yet we never see low altitude contrails. Why? They do not happen! Believe me dude, if I saw contrail at low altitude I would notice it!

Those pictures of so-called low altitude contrails are really high altitude contrails. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Skeezer

 

[414Flyer]

Re: jet contrail formation

May I ask you 3 questions:

1. What altitude range doe jet contrails form?
2. What temperatures are needed for jet contrails to form?
3. How much humidity is needed for jet contrails for form?

Yes you may ask questions, but when will you start trying to answer our own pointed questions to you, instead of dodging them to protect your chemtrail religion.

1. At least where it is cold enough for the moisture to cause local saturation from the air, with the addition of the moisture from combustion.

2. As cold enough as it takes. Typically will be very cold.

3. Enough that the humidity, plus the added moisture, cause saturation of the air in that location.

But I can just see you know saying, Oh that proves my trails I see from 2000 - 12000 ft are chemtrails!

And back again in the circle.

 

[uscpilot]

I hope you feel guilty Denver, you are making me waste the first ten minutes of my weekend.
I believe that you posted the NOAA link to educate us on the subject of contrails. Based on that it is safe to assume that you think that those pictures that the NOAA posted are contrails. Those look the same as the "chemtrails" that you posted. The did not look pencil thin. The NOAA also said they can linger for over an hour, and studies are being conducted to see if there is an impact on the climate in areas with large concentrations of contrails (VOR's?). They also said they are nothing more than water vapor.
On the subject of low altitude contrails/"chemtrails", I have nearly 4000 hours of flight over the last 4 years. Every bit of it has been from the surface to 10,000'. I have flown all over Texas, OK, Arkansas, TN, GA, NC, SC, AL, and FL. I have never seen a contrail/"chemtrail" anywhere near me, same alt or below. The only ones I saw were way above me. What alt? Just like you, there is no way for me to accuratly guess.
usc

 

[VNugget]

"typically" != "necessarily"

 

[Denver130]

NOAA Pictures

I have to make a judgement on the pictures posted at NOAA.

If those pictures were taken at altitudes of 30,000 plus, then its possible those are true jet contrails and I don't have an issue with them.

If they were taken from the ground, I would have an issue because the appearance of those jet contrails is exactly what people are complaining about. And since they don't TELL us, I can't use those photos in an argument.

Find a seinor citizen in your community and ask him/her. In all the years you have lived in the community, does this look like a normal jet contrail? Grab a person off the street and show them the NOAA photos and ask them, does this look normal to you? I do it all the time. Hands down most people that I've interviewed have said NO.

Look at the chem X photo at

http://www.geocities.com/houstonchemtrails/

and you will see near the electrical pole a small tiny trail. Doe you see it? its a small, small, small trail. When your flying at altitudes of 30,000ft plus trails appear tiny not massive.

You can do the reverse. When I fly, the pilot will say at sometime, we are now cruising at 35,000ft (or similar altitude).

What do you see when you look out your window toward the ground? Massive buildings? Could you take a photo of your community at 35K and pinpoint your house? If you can you must have vision that most people dont have.

So why should I call NOAA's photos normal if they were taken from the ground as normal if jet contrails appear pencil thin normally?

The only explaination pilots give is

"it CAN happen"
"its POSSIBLE"
"it doesn't ALWAYS appear that way"

If you looking for exceptions in the rules, anything is possible. But I think you would have a stronger argument if you went outside with a camera, photographed the sky above your house so that we could see electronically what appears normal over a time frame vs looking for exceptions in the rules.

 

[enigma]

Methinks that Denver is actually Duane Worthe and is trying to create a distraction to keep us away from the true conspiracy. Why do we allow him to perpetuate his misdirection?

Denver just in case you are not really Duane, you should go to Airliners.net and look for inflight pictures. If you look at some of them in the large mode, you might be able to see the spray apparatus.




enigma

 

[Denver130]

USC Pilot response

You made an interesting point. You said this:

“On the subject of low altitude contrails/"chemtrails", I have nearly 4000 hours of flight over the last 4 years. Every bit of it has been from the surface to 10,000'. I have flown all over Texas, OK, Arkansas, TN, GA, NC, SC, AL, and FL. I have never seen a contrail/"chemtrail" anywhere near me, same alt or below. The only ones I saw were way above me.”

I agree 100 percent with your observation.

So when I was walking off my jet in Michigan to visit my folks and the pilot tells me that the bottom of the clouds is at 2,000ft and I step out of the airport and see all these massive white trails in X patterns underneath the clouds what am I suppose to think?

If you never see trails under 10K and admit their at higher altitudes and I am looking at trails under the clouds with a pilots confirmation of a bottom cloud ceiling of 2,000ft, wouldn’t you wonder what’s going on? Wouldn’t that defy your years of mental pictures of the sky?

Anybody can see the problem here. Its as plain as day. This validates what intelligent, concerned citizens are saying, are documenting, and are photographing every day. This is un-normal.

Mix that in a bowl of government admissions and what do you have? A chemtrail program that is real, true and factual.

 

[uscpilot]

Re: USC Pilot response

If you never see trails under 10K and admit their at higher altitudes and I am looking at trails under the clouds with a pilots confirmation of a bottom cloud ceiling of 2,000ft, wouldn’t you wonder what’s going on? Wouldn’t that defy your years of mental pictures of the sky?

Anybody can see the problem here. Its as plain as day. This validates what intelligent, concerned citizens are saying, are documenting, and are photographing every day. This is un-normal.

Mix that in a bowl of government admissions and what do you have? A chemtrail program that is real, true and factual.

Look I am not going to restate my last post. You did not see contrails/"chemtrails" below a 2000' ceiling. Did you ask the captian why there were contrails at such a low alt. He is your expert witness, what did he say?
"Mental pictures of the sky"??? I suppose it depends on what you are smoking.
With regards to "normal" people; normal is a relative term. If I lived in Germany during the 30's and early to mid 40's I would be normal if I felt that I belonged to a superior race, and that Jews, homosexuals, and the mentally retarted should be eradicated. You hang around with conspiracy theorists who think that the government is forever trying to poison, watch, or otherwise infringe on your civil rights in varying degrees. I dont go around and interview the "man on the street", and I find it highly unlikely that you do. I have never heard of chemtrails except from you, or that wonderfully entertaining, and certifiably (sp) insane, people on Coast to Coast. What is the old addage, ask a crazy person if they are normal, and they will say yes, but everyone else is nuts. Its all relative.
If you actually surveyed a diverse cross-section of society you would find the majority are something ranging from ambivolent to completly ignorant. If you are infact asking people on the street I dont believe that you are phrasing it as normal or abnormal. You are showing people/laypersons your version of a normal contrail (the small pencil thin variety), then a "chemtrail". At that point they probably concede, for no other reason for you to leave them alone, that what they are seeing every day are what you claim to be a "chemtrail".
A question: if these "chemtrails" are being sprayed at low altitudes why arent small piston aircraft being used? Since they are slower it seems they could saturate an area much more efficiently then a large jet which has a horrible fuel burn at low altitudes.
Quit discussing these patterns. They are all in association with various navigation facilities, nothing more.
If you dont believe me then read the NOAA site that you linked to in an attempt to validate your absurd hypothesis. Actually hypothesis is a poor choice of words, since it would imply rational thought and use of the scientific method. I have yet to see you or any other chemmie demonstrate either.
You seem to have confused the words standard and normal. As the FAA, NOAA, and NASA will use the word standard to describe arbitrary values assigned to different measurements, ie. tmep, bar pressure and so on. This is done so that we pilots may have a starting point or a standard to predict how an aircraft will perfom on a given day. With standard we can calculate how the aircraft will perform on a nonstandard day (which is almost everyday). So by your rational every nonstandard day is an abnormal day. How do you get out of bed every morning??
usc

 

[enigma]

Re: USC Pilot response

So when I was walking off my jet in Michigan to visit my folks and the pilot tells me that the bottom of the clouds is at 2,000ft and I step out of the airport and see all these massive white trails in X patterns underneath the clouds what am I suppose to think?

Well, the wife and kids are off to the mall and I'm slightly bored. Why else would I be here?

Anyway, Denver. If the trails you see are below two thousand feet AGL, I will suggest that you buy yourself a quality camera and take a picture of the airplane dispensing those trails. Two thousand feet is way close. Close enough to capture specific details; so you should be able to detail just which aircraft are spreading the chemgoo and how they do it.

later
enigma

 

[VNugget]

Hm, while we're on the subject, I have one question for you guys that know all your stuff: Shouldn't contrails be able to form at any altitude, even near the ground, if the relative humidity is just a tiny bit short of 100%, and the moisture from the exhaust puts it over the threshold?

 

[Super 80]

VNugget,

I turn on the spray nozzles as soon as I have power. I've gotten ridden of 73 ramp rats this year alone. Next, I turn them on when I waiting the active so the aircraft behind me ingest the goo. Last week, I did a low pass over Harlem from LGA 04 spraying goo all over the place. I surprised anyone is still left alive in Riker's Island. This month the Government gave us some new stuff. They didn't say what it was, but they all had chem masks on. Now the Flu breaks out all over. I say it's a open and shut case of Big Brother infecting millions. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands think they're getting a flu shot and instead are getting a transreceiver that's capable of uplinking personal movements within the continental US.

Remember it's all a conspiracy and they really are out to get you.

In the words of Arthur Dent's nemesis, "Be afraid, be very afraid."

 

[mattfish42]

The word is "abnormal".

 

[VNugget]

Uh..... what?

I think you have me mistaken for either a chemmie, or someone who didn't read the last 100 sarcastic "spraypilot posts" on the forum.

 

[skeezer]

Vnugget, what are are saying should be possible (forming contrails at low alt.). However it will be dang cold outside and my union butt would call in sick that day along with everyone else.

So yes, it should be possible. And no you probably won't see it because most of us are smart enough to stay indoors if it got that cold!

Skeezer

PS Denver do NOT use my post as proof that your so called "low altitude trails" are really chemtrails because all your pictures are of HIGH altitude contrails. Please get that through your thick skull.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Hm, while we're on the subject, I have one question for you guys that know all your stuff: Shouldn't contrails be able to form at any altitude, even near the ground, if the relative humidity is just a tiny bit short of 100%, and the moisture from the exhaust puts it over the threshold?

Look at this...

Given the right temperature, pressure, and humidity, you can have contrails at any altitude.

 

[Wankel7]

Well, I opened this thread again.

I just thought I would show what happens. As a warning to the future posters...

www.aztechrotary.com/files/planeforumpic.jpg

Wankel

 

[EagleRJ]

This thread is like an '84 Renault Fuego with a thrown rod.

Just walk away from it and forget about it completely, and you'll be none the worse for it.

 

[Denver130]

the pilots response

The fact is simple.

The Pilot said the bottom of the cloud level was 2,000ft that day.
He ought to know....he flew into it....he has gauges.... I don't see why your upset about his answer.

What it gives me is a brief standard in that time frame and I used that just like any other average, normal person.

If the clouds were 2,000ft high and I immediately see jet contrails below the clouds what is my conclusion?

1. Are they normal jet contrails according to jet contrail physics? NO Why? the altitude is too low.
2. Where the trails massive looking? YES
3. Where they in patterns in question? YES

What could it be? It could be chemtrails (Even though your afraid to admit it.)

Instead of questioning the pilots answer, you should take it to heart, make more observations and give a more scientific response.

By the way, you forgot that the trails I saw are on the web site too. I got photos of them. Photos don't lie. I bring my camera equipment everywhere I go which is more....much more than the average person does.

So I did see those trails. And that pilot told the truth. The evidence is overwhelming.