Matthew Lewis Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 How far away are you from DFW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 How far away are you from DFW? 15 miles. All planes flying west when wind is from south follow interstate 30 at low level till they reach Fort Worth. At downtown FW, they make the turns toward their destination and start gaining altitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 (edited) How far away are you from DFW? 15 miles. All planes flying west when wind is from south follow interstate 30 at low level till they reach Fort Worth. At downtown FW, they make the turns toward their destination and start gaining altitude. Highly doubtful the plane was at 2,000 feet 15 miles after takeoff. Not only would they be at greater risk of collision with buildings, towers, and slower private general aviation traffic from the multiple airports in the area, the airlines would also constantly be getting noise complaints from the residents in the area. Climbing faster is also desired for airliners as they operate much more efficiently at higher altitudes. From some quick research, a typical climb out from an airport is usually around a 15 to 20 degree climb to at least 10,000 feet or at the least around 2500 feet per minute with some climbs as much as 4,000 feet per minute. Even being conservative with a 10 degree climb would put an airliner at over 13,000 feet by the time it was 15 miles from the airport. I looked up the departure procedures for DFW and found nothing about having to stay low. It is worth noting that as your "chemtrails" became cirrus clouds they were likely above 25,000 feet anyway (the altitude for cirrus cloud formation). I'd be willing to bet the conditions were right in your area at the time for persistent contrail formation and I'd lay another bet that you never bothered to check if that were so. If the plane was unmarked (which I doubt), how did you know it was military? Edited December 4, 2010 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 How far away are you from DFW? 15 miles. All planes flying west when wind is from south follow interstate 30 at low level till they reach Fort Worth. At downtown FW, they make the turns toward their destination and start gaining altitude. Highly doubtful the plane was at 2,000 feet 15 miles after takeoff. Not only would they be at greater risk of collision with buildings, towers, and slower private general aviation traffic from the multiple airports in the area, the airlines would also constantly be getting noise complaints from the residents in the area. Climbing faster is also desired for airliners as they operate much more efficiently at higher altitudes. From some quick research, a typical climb out from an airport is usually around a 15 to 20 degree climb to at least 10,000 feet or at the least around 2500 feet per minute with some climbs as much as 4,000 feet per minute. Even being conservative with a 10 degree climb would put an airliner at over 13,000 feet by the time it was 15 miles from the airport. I looked up the departure procedures for DFW and found nothing about having to stay low. It is worth noting that as your "chemtrails" became cirrus clouds they were likely above 25,000 feet anyway (the altitude for cirrus cloud formation). I'd be willing to bet the conditions were right in your area at the time for persistent contrail formation and I'd lay another bet that you never bothered to check if that were so. If the plane was unmarked (which I doubt), how did you know it was military? The planes taking off over my house fly relatively low, then begin rising when they reach downtown. I have been on flights such as this and the pilot usually gets on the speaker and says IF YOU LOOK OUT THE WINDOWS ON THE LEFT, YOU WILL SEE DOWNTOWN FORT WORTH. My guess of 2000 feet is nearly a half mile. It could be 3000 or 4000...but it is less than a mile. I base my estimate on having seen airliners in the air many times at about a mile distant. Planes leaving DFW seldom make a steep climb immediately (flights I have been on). They take off, level off and follow a freeway westward before climbing steeply. Attached is a photo I took directly overhead over my driveway. The big plane is about the size I saw with my eye. I estimate it is 3000 to 4000 feet away, base on my experience. It was flying level, but I was holding the camera overhead, making it appear to be climbing. At this height the noise is deafening, once the point of Doppler effect is passed. As they approach, no noise is heard. The larger plane is actually in a landing pattern, traveling toward the airport, indicating a north wind for landing. The chemplane is at a much higher altitude. Commercial planes are marked for easy identification. Military planes are not. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 (edited) How far away are you from DFW? 15 miles. All planes flying west when wind is from south follow interstate 30 at low level till they reach Fort Worth. At downtown FW, they make the turns toward their destination and start gaining altitude. Highly doubtful the plane was at 2,000 feet 15 miles after takeoff. Not only would they be at greater risk of collision with buildings, towers, and slower private general aviation traffic from the multiple airports in the area, the airlines would also constantly be getting noise complaints from the residents in the area. Climbing faster is also desired for airliners as they operate much more efficiently at higher altitudes. From some quick research, a typical climb out from an airport is usually around a 15 to 20 degree climb to at least 10,000 feet or at the least around 2500 feet per minute with some climbs as much as 4,000 feet per minute. Even being conservative with a 10 degree climb would put an airliner at over 13,000 feet by the time it was 15 miles from the airport. I looked up the departure procedures for DFW and found nothing about having to stay low. It is worth noting that as your "chemtrails" became cirrus clouds they were likely above 25,000 feet anyway (the altitude for cirrus cloud formation). I'd be willing to bet the conditions were right in your area at the time for persistent contrail formation and I'd lay another bet that you never bothered to check if that were so. If the plane was unmarked (which I doubt), how did you know it was military? The planes taking off over my house fly relatively low, then begin rising when they reach downtown. I have been on flights such as this and the pilot usually gets on the speaker and says IF YOU LOOK OUT THE WINDOWS ON THE LEFT, YOU WILL SEE DOWNTOWN FORT WORTH. My guess of 2000 feet is nearly a half mile. It could be 3000 or 4000...but it is less than a mile. I base my estimate on having seen airliners in the air many times at about a mile distant. Planes leaving DFW seldom make a steep climb immediately (flights I have been on). They take off, level off and follow a freeway westward before climbing steeply. Attached is a photo I took directly overhead over my driveway. The big plane is about the size I saw with my eye. I estimate it is 3000 to 4000 feet away, base on my experience. It was flying level, but I was holding the camera overhead, making it appear to be climbing. At this height the noise is deafening, once the point of Doppler effect is passed. As they approach, no noise is heard. The larger plane is actually in a landing pattern, traveling toward the airport, indicating a north wind for landing. The chemplane is at a much higher altitude. Commercial planes are marked for easy identification. Military planes are not. Jack I tried twice to upload an image, and got a message that no image was selected, so no image appeared. I tried a third time, and got three images. Not my fault. Live with it. Edited December 4, 2010 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Commercial planes are marked for easy identification. Military planes are not. Jack Is this a military aircraft? http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/3/2/1801234.jpg Is this a military aircraft? http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/6/3/1791368.jpg Is this a military aircraft? http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/2/7/1757724.jpg Is this a military aircraft? http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/3/2/0540231.jpg Is this a military aircraft http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/7/3/0071374.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 How far away are you from DFW? 15 miles. All planes flying west when wind is from south follow interstate 30 at low level till they reach Fort Worth. At downtown FW, they make the turns toward their destination and start gaining altitude. Highly doubtful the plane was at 2,000 feet 15 miles after takeoff. Not only would they be at greater risk of collision with buildings, towers, and slower private general aviation traffic from the multiple airports in the area, the airlines would also constantly be getting noise complaints from the residents in the area. Climbing faster is also desired for airliners as they operate much more efficiently at higher altitudes. From some quick research, a typical climb out from an airport is usually around a 15 to 20 degree climb to at least 10,000 feet or at the least around 2500 feet per minute with some climbs as much as 4,000 feet per minute. Even being conservative with a 10 degree climb would put an airliner at over 13,000 feet by the time it was 15 miles from the airport. I looked up the departure procedures for DFW and found nothing about having to stay low. It is worth noting that as your "chemtrails" became cirrus clouds they were likely above 25,000 feet anyway (the altitude for cirrus cloud formation). I'd be willing to bet the conditions were right in your area at the time for persistent contrail formation and I'd lay another bet that you never bothered to check if that were so. If the plane was unmarked (which I doubt), how did you know it was military? The planes taking off over my house fly relatively low, then begin rising when they reach downtown. I have been on flights such as this and the pilot usually gets on the speaker and says IF YOU LOOK OUT THE WINDOWS ON THE LEFT, YOU WILL SEE DOWNTOWN FORT WORTH. My guess of 2000 feet is nearly a half mile. It could be 3000 or 4000...but it is less than a mile. I base my estimate on having seen airliners in the air many times at about a mile distant. Planes leaving DFW seldom make a steep climb immediately (flights I have been on). They take off, level off and follow a freeway westward before climbing steeply. Attached is a photo I took directly overhead over my driveway. The big plane is about the size I saw with my eye. I estimate it is 3000 to 4000 feet away, base on my experience. It was flying level, but I was holding the camera overhead, making it appear to be climbing. At this height the noise is deafening, once the point of Doppler effect is passed. As they approach, no noise is heard. The larger plane is actually in a landing pattern, traveling toward the airport, indicating a north wind for landing. The chemplane is at a much higher altitude. Again, highly doubtful for the multiple reasons I already posted. Commercial planes are marked for easy identification. Military planes are not. Jack Every military plane is required to be marked by international law. I doubt you can make out the markings enough from the ground and from below the aircraft to tell if something is military or commercial. There is also the fact that you've in the past claimed they are tankers and there are no 757 tankers in the US military. I tried twice to upload an image, and got a message that no image was selected, so no image appeared. I tried a third time, and got three images. Not my fault. Live with it. Why so testy here Jack? I personally don't care if you have three images or none. It proves nothing except the "chemtrail" plane is accompanied by cirrus clouds showing the conditions were good for persistent contrail formation. There is no way to prove it is a military jet either. One can NOT estimate the height of the other plane as there is no reference. The focal length is also unknown. If I had to guess and assumed there was no distortion from focal length then I'd say they were at 6000 to 7000 feet. Of course you would have had no problems if you'd used an external hosting site. Then of course your posts wouldn't be crippled now for those not logged in or not members or in the future for all others when you decide to remove the pics to post something else. But ultimately it is your choice whether you want to restrict the number of people who can see your research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Commercial planes are marked for easy identification. Military planes are not. Jack Is this a military aircraft? http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/3/2/1801234.jpg Is this a military aircraft? http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/6/3/1791368.jpg Is this a military aircraft? http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/2/7/1757724.jpg Is this a military aircraft? http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/3/2/0540231.jpg Is this a military aircraft http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/7/3/0071374.jpg Excellent examples Evan. They illustrate perfectly the fact that commercial planes require less overall markings than military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 (edited) Weather Control - A Research Paper Presented To Air Force 2025: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/shado... Info by Nasa about consistent 'contrails': http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/sc... Finally a reporter checked out a guy's complaint and took the samples he collected and had them tested. The result from a Dr. perspective: Barium will cause our Immune System to weaken. So maybe we won't survive the sudden "pandemic" of Swine Flu or other rare strands of Flu that keep emerging???? The constant exposure is NOT good for us, he says. google: - Welsbach Patent 5003186 - "weather as a force multiplier: owning the weather in 2025" research: AEROSOL OPERATION CRIMES & COVER-UP http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm Rep. Kucinich's HR 2977 Names Chemtrails As An 'Exotic Weapon' http://www.rense.com/general19/ex.htm CHEMTRAILS TO BE BANNED BY CONGRESS? http://www.mnmufon.org/chemt1.htm Chemtrail Central Forum http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/F... 3/30/09 Update: Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere http://cryptogon.com/?p=7709 I dont think anyone has the complete story on exactly what chemtrails are. I dont doubt that weather modification is a part of it, but take your pick on the rest. There's almost certainly a biological component to some of the spraying. 6/4/08 Becks new song "Chemtrails" http://tinyurl.com/3vp3zk Chemtrails - Beck Yet another update:(many may find of interest) 3/21/08 Breaking the Nuremberg Code: The US Military Human-Testing Part 1 of Heather Wokusch discussing "Breaking the Nuremberg Code." Covers Edgewood Arsenal, Project 112/SHAD and Stratton VA. Also, here is her website: http://www.heatherwokusch.com/index.p... Update: 3/18/08 A Doctor Speaks Out About Chemtrails four scenarios http://www.americanchronicle.com/arti... Also, some may want to change the scary term "chemtrails" to..."cloud seeding." Just read Senate Bill 517. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billt... Update: Germany Admits to Clandestine Chemtrail Ops. http://www.chycho.com/?q=Chemtrails SHREVEPORT, LA CHEMTRAILS: Is U.S. Gov't. Secretly Testing Americans 'Again'? Posted: Nov 9, 2007 07:46 PM EST Could a strange substance found by an Ark-La-Tex man be part of secret government testing program? That's the question at the heart of a phenomenon called "Chemtrails." In a KSLA News 12 investigation, Reporter Jeff Ferrell shows us the results of testing we had done about what's in our skies. story by Jeff Ferrell http://www.ksla.com/ Left side, sixth video down, watch it before they take it down... Also see, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ent... Finally, PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375. Edited December 7, 2010 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 (edited) Wow, you'd think you would have learned your lesson the last time you had multiple broken links from copying from another site. Guess not. Were you going to credit the original author you stole all this from? On any other site a disjointed, self-repetitive post like this would be the mark of a xxxxx. Of course since you just copied and pasted it without checking any of it you aren't the xxxxx and it isn't really your fault, kind of. Anyway, most of the links are broken. Is this an attempt to throw as much crap against the wall and see if it sticks? Most of the content has been brought up here already and some is repeated in the same post. Weather Control - A Research Paper Presented To Air Force 2025: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/shado... How old is this stolen post? Geocities was shut down over a year ago. Broken link but it looks like it is referring to the hypothetical, student paper part of the much larger 2025 student project. The whole thing is a really interesting read. It assumes an unlimited budget and proposes many things that are not only not possible but quite humorous. Info by Nasa about consistent 'contrails': http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html Some good info about contrails. Refreshing that the original author wanted their readers to look at both sides unlike many of the "chemtrailers" here. Too bad they couldn't get the wording right (did they even read their own link?), it is persistent, not consistent contrails. Finally a reporter checked out a guy's complaint and took the samples he collected and had them tested. The result from a Dr. perspective: Barium will cause our Immune System to weaken. So maybe we won't survive the sudden "pandemic" of Swine Flu or other rare strands of Flu that keep emerging???? The constant exposure is NOT good for us, he says. And? Seems like there is something missing here. google: - Welsbach Patent 5003186 - "weather as a force multiplier: owning the weather in 2025" OK, we have a patent for reducing global warming. Any proof it has been used, is being used, or is even possible? Again with the 2025 project? Did the original author have ADD? research: AEROSOL OPERATION CRIMES & COVER-UP http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm Rep. Kucinich's HR 2977 Names Chemtrails As An 'Exotic Weapon' http://www.rense.com/general19/ex.htm Kucinich did NOT write the bill. It was written by UFO enthusiasts that wanted to 1.Nullify a vast conspiracy by the military-industrial complex 2.Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy 3.Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens. It also included "chemtrails" with space based weapons. I thought the claim was they were too low, not too high? More info here http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ Its also been brought up before in this thread. CHEMTRAILS TO BE BANNED BY CONGRESS? http://www.mnmufon.org/chemt1.htm See above. Again with Kucinich and again with the ADD. Chemtrail Central Forum http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/F... broken link 3/30/09 Update: Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere http://cryptogon.com/?p=7709 I dont think anyone has the complete story on exactly what chemtrails are. I dont doubt that weather modification is a part of it, but take your pick on the rest. There's almost certainly a biological component to some of the spraying. A proposal to do something, especially when the proposal is unproven and not universally accepted does not prove something IS happening. Edited December 8, 2010 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 6/4/08 Becks new song "Chemtrails" http://tinyurl.com/3vp3zk Chemtrails - Beck And? So what? Yet another update:(many may find of interest) 3/21/08 Breaking the Nuremberg Code: The US Military Human-Testing Part 1 of Heather Wokusch discussing "Breaking the Nuremberg Code." Covers Edgewood Arsenal, Project 112/SHAD and Stratton VA. Also, here is her website: http://www.heatherwokusch.com/index.p... Not even about "chemtrails" and yet another broken link. Update: 3/18/08 A Doctor Speaks Out About Chemtrails four scenarios http://www.americanchronicle.com/arti... Also, some may want to change the scary term "chemtrails" to..."cloud seeding." Just read Senate Bill 517. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billt... More broken links Update: Germany Admits to Clandestine Chemtrail Ops. http://www.chycho.com/?q=Chemtrails Not a broken link but nothing on the site about "chemtrails". Also, Germany NEVER admitted to "chemtrails" as some like to claim. They admitted to using chaff, just like every other military on the planet. The german word for chaff was (deliberately?) mistranslated. SHREVEPORT, LA CHEMTRAILS: Is U.S. Gov't. Secretly Testing Americans 'Again'? Posted: Nov 9, 2007 07:46 PM EST Could a strange substance found by an Ark-La-Tex man be part of secret government testing program? That's the question at the heart of a phenomenon called "Chemtrails." In a KSLA News 12 investigation, Reporter Jeff Ferrell shows us the results of testing we had done about what's in our skies. story by Jeff Ferrell http://www.ksla.com/ Left side, sixth video down, watch it before they take it down... No "chemtrail" video on the site. But it refers to the same faulty testing already discussed in this thread. More info here http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/ Also see, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ent... Finally, PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375. broken link and a reference with no link and no proof that what is described is even happening. Again with the faulty KLSA testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 8, 2010 Author Share Posted December 8, 2010 I am continually baffled that some people defend government malfeasance without some quid pro quo. It seems far removed from the norm. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 I am continually baffled that some people continue to believe the LIE that contrails can't persist against all logic and science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) This proves your "persistant contrails" excuse is wrong. This video shows two planes flying at the same altitude.. One is leaving a short contrail behind it, while the other is spraying a long chemtrail. Edited December 9, 2010 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Wow, you'd think you would have learned your lesson the last time you had multiple broken links from copying from another site. Guess not. Were you going to credit the original author you stole all this from? I didn't steal any information .. Anyone who bothered to click onto the YouTube video I posted here could read the text that went with it for themselves.. It's not unusual for a few links to be broken .. Web sites go down all the time. I suspect your reason for being so confrontational about this subject stems from frustration over your obvious inability to prove that chemtrails are just "persistant contrails". Sorry, but all of the evidence proves differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now