Matthew Lewis

Jack, would you say that persistent contrails exist?

It all just depends on the weather and how much other air traffic is in the area. Charles...you should be aware that Lewis is in the Air Force. Chemtrails are sprayed by the Air Force. Do you find the coincidence interesting? Attached are typical chemtrails over Louisville. Jack Charles... you should be aware that White is a conspiracy researcher. "Chemtrails" is a conspiracy theory which is low on facts and high on accusations and insinuations. Do you find the coincidence interesting? Here is a report on persistent contrails dating back to WWII http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report...ca-wr-l-474.pdf Good primer here http://www.rmets.org/education/secondary/scisky3.php Another good site http://www.vnwa.com/Oncourse/Articles/Contrails.htm Some great pics of persistent contrails from the past Dogfights create contrails over London's St. Pauls Cathedral during the Battle of Britain in 1940- at sixty years one of the oldest contrail photos http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/stpauls.jpg Crewmen of an American ship watch the contrails as American and Japanese planes fight it out above Task Force 58 in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot on June 19, 1944. http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/Taskforce58.jpg Satellite image of the North Atlantic corridor shows contrails west of Great Britain and in mid-Atlantic forming preferentially ahead of two different frontal systems due to higher moisture as the front approaches. http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/atlanticsat.jpg 1981 NOAA photo of contrail at sunset http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/noaacon1981.jpg Many pictures of persistent contrails here taken from space on early shuttle missions. http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/STSHH.html A navigator's log from WWII. Note in particular mission #24 and this quote "The contrails were dense, persistent - really hard to even see our own squadron." http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1393/andy2.html WWII pilot's diary Note mission #33 http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/crews/crews3/jensen.htm More WWII pics http://www.100thbg.com/mainmenus/airplanes...es2/Trails6.jpg http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/b17trails.jpg

Can't attack the facts so attack the person huh Jack? I am in the Air Force because of a love of aviation. That same love of aviation is why I have both a Bachelor's and Master's in aviation. Throughout my education and in my free time I have researched this and many other issues pertaining to aviation. As I've said before, my posting here has nothing to do with the Air Force. I post here on my own free time on subjects that are of interest to me. Oh and this is purely opinion. Apparently you missed (or diliberately ignored) where I previously stated there are plenty of photos of commercial airliners leaving persistent contrails, how they have existed since before WWII, or how the Air Force doesn't have enough tankers to do what you think they are doing anyway.

I dont know the answer to that. When it comes to the patterns which have been photographed, the answer would be no. The patterns themselves seem pretty weird. I would think that the more fuel efficient engine designs would cut back on any kind of trails, owing to the engine exhaust pollutants in creation of core particles for ice crystal formation. I would say yes. A more fuel efficient design cuts back on the pollutants and leaves more water vapor in the exhaust. Plus newer engines are more powerful, burning more fuel which again leads to more water vapor. There is also evidence that engines ahve been recently changed. Not too long ago (1999), Stage 3 regulations went into effect. These were noise regulations that cut back how noisy commercial jet engines could be over populated areas. All carriers in the US had to be compliant with these regulations and as such most carriers had to replace their engines or install hush kits. Newer Stage 3 compliant engines tend to be more fuel efficient as well as more powerful so most carriers went for that option orif they installed the hush kits for monetary reasons have since replaced the engines. Coincidentally, most "chemtrail" believers will tell you that "chemtrail" started around 1998 right when many carriers would be replacing their engines. I suspect the emergence of the internet around the same time helped to spread the idea. Persistent contrails have been around for a long time but the idea that they are "chemtrails" is easier to spread with the internet. I've seen pictures from space in the early 80's showing persistent contrails and a video of a Phill Collins concert in 1987 showing them as well. Of course there are also the photos one can find dating to before WWII and the numerous anecdotal stories of pilots and navigators that flew during WWII about the hazards of persistent contrails. Basically, since they can be predicted, down to a general altitude layer, if the enemy can see your persistent contrails, they can target you easier.

Generally any conditions in which there are or can be high cirrus clouds there can also be contrails and persistent contrails. They need sub freezing temperatures which are always present at altitude and super-saturated air which is not always present but can be predicted. Variations in temperature, humidity and wind will cause some to persist longer than others and can affect how much they spread out. To get more specific one would really have to speak with a meteorologist. I've seen studies done on all of this but am at a loss for where they may be located right now.

It all just depends on the weather and how much other air traffic is in the area.

It is a proven fact that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions so it is wrong to say that they evaporate withing minutes. Depending on the conditions, contrails can evaporate quickly or persist, covering all times in between. Even if it were true that only these mythical "chemtrails" were the onnes persisting, then where is the dividing line? If it dissipates quickly within minutes then it is a contrail, what about if it takes 20 minutes? What about 30, what about 60, 2hours, 3 hours, etc? The science behind it perfectly explains the differences. I've seen studies where they observed contrails lasting all times short and long with no clear dividing line. There are plenty of photos showing regular commercial jets leaving persistent contrails too. Further, the program flight explorer that I mentioned previously can tell you what many of the flights you see in the air are in near real time. There is also a problem of scale with assuming it is government tankers. The Air Force has what seems like a lot of tankers but many of them are suffering from periodic maintenance issues as most of the fleet was built in the 60's. At any given time, 1/3 to 1/2 the available tankers are deployed and helping with OIF and OEF. Millions of pounds of fuel are delivered by air through these tankers every day. Back home at least 1/3 of the jets are being repaired or overhauled. This leaves 1/3 to 1/6 the total left and they are kept busy providing training to pilots in the states. Pilots need to air refueling practice every month to keep current and more often if they expect to keep their skills up. You would hardly expect a pilot to refuel by air for the first time while deployed in a war zone. To spread "chemtrails" on the scale suggested by some just in the US not to mention worldwide would require hundreds if not thousands more planes that just don't exist in the miltary tanker fleet.

The only samples that have ever been taken have been on the ground where it is not only possible but highly likely that the samples are contaminated by other sources. Both aluminum and barium are known air pollutants from power plants and various other industrial facilities. To assume they came from a trail 30,000+ feet in the air when collected on the ground when there are other sources on the ground is bad research at best and deceptive at worst. One thing most forget is anything sprayed at altitude may not come down for days or weeks and definitely not in the area they were sprayed.No one has yet taken a sample from a trail in the air. There is no proof that they are government planes. Quite the opposite actually as anyone can grab a pair of binoculars and see normal commercial flights. One can also get the program flight explorer and compare the contrails they see being formed to the scheduled flights in the program. Persistent contrails are perfectly explained through science. They have existed since planes could fly high enough and pictures exist of them from before WWII. they have become more common lately at planes have updated their engines with newer more powerful and more fuel efficient engines (thus having more water in the exhaust), jet traffic flying higher (Where the air is colder giving more of a chance for contrails to form and persist), and an increase in jet traffic (jet traffic has doubled a few times since the 70s and is projected to double again in less than 10 years) making contrails in general more common and forcing more traffic higher to accomodate (again where the air is colder). One can even predict the days and areas where they will see persistent contrails (chemtrails as some would like to call them). If you know what to look for in the weather you can tell if an area will have conditions likely for contrails. I have never seen "chemtrails" show up when the weather was not already likely for persistent contrails.

Huh. Cold weather. Persistent contrails are known to be more common in cold weather. Go figure.

Healthcare is never something I worry about. As many on here know, I am in the USAF and it is paid in full for me and my spouse and children. We never pay a cent. For prescriptions, if we go on base and wait it is free(the wait is often long unless you are active duty and on duty at the time). Otherwise we can go to any pharmacy and pay only $3. Dental and vision are different. Mine is completely paid for while theirs has limits and a small fee each month for that coverage.

No , the small scale mountain didn't really "grow" , it just looks like it did because the small scale model "LM" shrunk ! Can you really not see that the PERSPECTIVE IS BACKWARDS ? Unbelievable ! Everything looks as it should. The mountain is the same size and the LM looks smaller because the picture was taken from farther away. It is exactly how the perspective should look. Unbelievable!

Other than seeing more of the mountain to the left in the first photo, the mountains are the same size in the pictures. These are the originals both redcued to 25% of their original size to fit better on the page. Both mountains are about the same height as a percent of the picture in each photo as they should be. Individual craters seen on the mountain in both photos are about the same distance apart. The mountain does not grow.

Have you not even looked at the original uncropped images? The mountain is the same size in those as expected. You are arguing something that is not seen in the originals. The mountain does not grow.

If you look at the uncropped originals whose links have been provided multiple times on this thread, the mountain is approximately the same size in both. The LM gets smaller as the photographer moves away as expected. Nothing is wrong. The only time it appears wrong was in Jack's study where he compared the two photos cropped to different sizes and compared the mountain size in those. Edit: it may not be Jack's study as it was in Duane's post #377 and not attributed.

Looks to me like dust from the scanning process. Especially since some of your "stars" can be seen on the ground.

Jack obviously didn't read the whole post because one photo was taken from the top of the LM and the other was "some distance away" from the LM not beside it. But more importantly, the greater difference between the two photos comes from the change in sun angle because they were taken at quite different times. Surely Jack, with his photo experience would agree that a change in sun angle would make a distant mountain appear slightly different right?

post deleted. wrong thread and forum. sorry.

The map you posted was quite clearly class B airspace and not the prohibited area. The article writer made a mistake. I checked multiple sources online and offline of various ages and the prohibited area was always the same. The airport in question has been there for quite some time and has had to deal with that prohibited airspace for a long time as well. Regarding fighters at many airbases near DC, that I believe was already answered by another poster. Alert fighters were available at Otis and Langley. Other bases may have had fighters but they were not on alert and hadn't been for quite some time due to reductions after the end of the Cold War. I have not done much research on this nor do I care and have similar feelings on the rest of your post. I really only wanted to post on the airspace over the Pentagon as it relates most directly to my area of expertise. I don't post much on the subject of 911 for similar reasons. I prefer usually to lurk. I don't have the time or will to look much further. In the past few years I have seen nothing change on either side nor do I see that changing any time in the future. Note that the fact that the airspace over the Pentagon is not restricted or prohibited does not change anything else that one might believe about 911. It simply means that this one supposed fact of it being restricted reported by some sources was wrong.

I posted a link directly to the FAA and that is somehow bull? You know who I work for, that is if you are competent enough to click on a link at the bottom of every one of my posts. I am a lieutenant in the US Air Force exactly as it says in my biography. Specifically I am an air battle manager and work with and around various airspaces every day. I have also worked with and talked to various people in NORAD at SEADs at Tyndally AFB where I was stationed for a year and a half for training. I am currently stationed at Robins AFB in GA and fly on the JSTARS E-8C aircraft. Additionally, I am a private pilot and hold a Bahelors and Masters in Aviation. My postings here and elsewhere reflect my views and research and do not necessarily reflect nor coincide with the views of the Air Force. I take it from your tone though that you don't believe that and perhaps believe that I am paid to post here? Paranoid much? Is it impossible for someone to simply disagree with you? Do you always have to be right? You can't refute what I posted so you have to attack the person? You must be really fun at parties. edited to correct spelling

The picture previously provided by Peter Lemkin accompanying an article supposedly showing prohibited area P-56 is wrong. The picture posted by Peter Lemkin instead shows the class B airspace around the major airports in the DC area. I've attached (and linked the image directly from the page in case some have trouble seeing it) a graphic from this page from the FAA showing P-56. http://www.faa.gov/ats/dca/dcaweb/p56.htm Note the Pentagon is outside of P-56 which is on the other side of the river covering the Mall. Note also that arrival and departure instructions repeatedly mention staying clear of p-56 but nothing about flying over the Pentagon. Again, the Pentagon is flown over hundreds of times daily. The airspace above it is, as shown, not restricted or prohibited.

Every single one of those interceptions was outside of US airspace in the ADIZ (air defense identification zone) and quite rightly as before 911 NORAD was not looking inward. Their entire radar system looked outward. They were only tasked to look for inbound threats. It was a holdover from the cold war. Also of note is the scramble time of 10 minutes only refers to the time it takes to get a jet already on standby to take off, not the entire intercept time. The only intercept before 911 over the continental US was the intercept of Payne Stewart's plane. An intercept that took over an hour following a plane that was not maneuvering with its transponder on and that intercept was accomplished by a jet already airborne for another mission and diverted to the task. A jet dedicated to airborne defense arrived later. Yes there were some exercises taking place that day. There are exercises taking place most days of the year. No, they did not decrease the number of planes dedicated to air defense. Those airplanes were at their same level before and during the exercises. They had been decreased over the years from the much larger numbers available during the Cold War but the exercises did not decrease them. Again, I'll ask, since the Pentagon is directly in the flight path of a major airport which receives hundreds of flights every day and is not restricted airspace, how do they determine which planes to shoot down? Is it any one without a transponder? They wouldn't be military transponders anyway. What about the planes landing with a broken transponder or electrical problems?

Thank you Len. As I suspected, the claim that the plane should have been shot down by missile or anti-aircraft batteries is yet another claim made up without any evidence to support it and repeated verbatim around the internet with nobody bothering to check the facts.

Is there any proof that anti-aircraft batteries even exist at the Pentagon? The airspace above it is not and has not been restricted as the building is in the direct landing path of a major airport. I've yet to see any photos showing these batteries, even though thousands of tourists fly over the building every single day. You imply that one must have a "friendly" code to avoid getting shot at. Assuming you mean a working transponder, what about a civilian plan that is landing with a broken transponder or electrical problems?

Just one quick thing. The Apache Longbow is not a missle but rather a helicopter. I'm sure it was just a typo. Carry on.

Some ISPs have their own spam filters on their domain that they not only don't tell the user about but they also don't give the user access to anything that might be blocked. As good as some spam filters might be, none are perfect and legitimate email will be caught. Notice I said "will" and not "may". It is not a question of if but rather when.