Flight Tracking "Chemtrails" Aircraft

[Jay Reynolds]

Below is a continuation of the message from Griffin in the above quote

So, what is the difference between a transponder signal and an ADS-B plane feed, and why are there two systems? As far as I can tell (I trust I will be soundly corrected if I am wrong, in which case I will pass along the correction), there are three differences." (1) Transponders send out signals only when they are contacted by a radio request, while ADS-B is constantly broadcasting; (2) Transponders have a wide range of responses available depending on the nature of the request, while ADS-B transmits only one set of information; and (3) transponders are used in larger planes and commercial flights, not available to everyone, while ADS-B is a kind of poor-man's system, available to anyone who wants to have the safety benefits of being electronically visible to other aircraft.

According to Commercial Aviation Safety, 4th Edition, "ADS-B uses satellite navigation and datalink to enable an aircraft to broadcast its identification, position, altitude, velocity, and intent to every other aircraft in the vicinity as well as to the ground tracking system. This broadcast information may be received and processed by other aircraft or ground systems for use in improved situational awareness…."

That is the source of flight data used by Plane Finder. Data used by Flight Explorer and Flight Aware apparently are derived from a composite of other sources. Flight Aware says: "FlightAware compiles, aggregates, and processes data from a variety of government sources, airlines, commercial data providers, as well as FlightAware proprietary tracking network." It is possible that this aggregate includes ADS-B feeds, but I have not been able to find any mention of it.

The primary reason to be aware of this is that it takes some of the mystery out of the technology and makes the process less intimidating. The important thing to remember is that all three systems are locked into data that comes from conventional sources that exclude military or classified flight missions. Therefore, if there are such things as chemical tankers whose sole mission is to implement geo-engineering, they will not be tracked by any of these programs. Plane Finder has the advantage of being able to point an iPhone or Android camera at a specific aircraft and quickly identify it if it is in the system, whereas Flight Explorer and Flight Aware have the current advantage of being able to identify more planes. All of this leads to several challenges:

(1) If you look at the tracking screen of any of these programs and then try to locate them in the sky, you will never spot anything but a flight that is acknowledged by the system. In that event, do not be surprised if all of them show up as normal commercial flights.

(2) If you first spot planes in the sky and then try to locate them on the tracking screen (the preferred method for our purposes), they may not show up on the screen for up to five minutes or, possibly, not at all.

(3a) If not at all, and you are using Plane Finder, you have to determine if they are missing because they are private planes without ADS-B transmitters, your tracking program is not receiving ADS-B flight data in your area, or because the flight is blocked from the system. OR

(3b) If not at all, and you are using Flight Explorer or Flight Aware, you have to determine if they are missing because they are small, private planes without flight plans filed with the FAA, or because the flight is blocked from the system.

This may not be as difficult as it may seem at first. Knowing in advance that Plane Finder has areas with no coverage, the first step is to determine if your location is one of those. That can be done simply by looking at the tracking map and watching for a while. It soon will be evident that planes either are being tracked in your area or not. If any planes are being tracked in and out of your nearest major airport, probably all of them are, in which case you are set to go. If no planes are being tracked, simply choose another tracking program until you find one that shows the flights.

We have other issues that also need to be clarified in this project, but I want to get out this notice right away for the benefit of those who have been having trouble with Plane Finder. Another update will be sent in the near future.

To all of you helping in this investigation, I send my deepest gratitude.

G. Edward Griffin

 

[Jay Reynolds]

This subject dates back to my own use of flight tracking software 11 years ago, as described in another thread here:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/602

After contacting G. Edward Griffin on 5/25/11, the next day he put out the following call for the folks to use a flight tracking software called Planefinder:
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....ls-be-proved-from-g-edward-griffin/#more-7618

I checked out that particular website and found it had major shortcomings, and contacted him again on 5/28/11 :
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/676

By 6/1/11, Griffin had removed his first call to use planefinder from his website, and issued the following by email to his folks:

Update From G Edward Griffin: CHEMTRAIL UPDATE #2, Choice of Tracking Programs
Posted on 01/06/2011 by Clare Swinney


From G Edward Griffin Dated June 1st, 2011.

The first few days of experience with tracking live flights has been highly instructional, and we have had some surprises. One of them is that Plane Finder is not the best program for tacking commercial aircraft in the United States or Canada. There are numerous areas with high levels of air traffic, such as Las Vegas, that show no aircraft at all on their maps. In Canada, only a few routes along the southern border are included. Other parts of the world, except Europe, seem to be similarly blank.

I think the reason for this is that the company is still in the process of adding data receivers to its network, and these areas are not yet included. While scanning the Internet for more information, I came across a posting from Pinkfroot, the company that owns this software, offering to provide free receivers to private parties in North America who were willing to share the data with the company. That was posted on July 4, 2010, and there were numerous responses from private parties offering to help build the network. I don't know if the company still is offering receivers on this basis, but I mention it because it suggests that their coverage may still be in expansion mode.

When I checked out Plane Finder where I live in the greater Los Angeles area, the program picked up a large number of flights, and I was able to go outside and verify visually that what was on my computer screen actually was flying overhead. It was on that basis that I thought we were in good hands with this program.

There are two other tracking programs that have better coverage than Plane Finder. They are Flight Explorer and Flight Aware. Flight Explorer (Personal Edition) costs $10 a month for ten hours usage plus a small fee for each additional hour. Flight Aware is free. They are relatively easy to use if you are willing to spend about fifteen minutes exploring their features and controls. If you live in an area where Plane Finder does not work, you probably will find that one of these programs will.

There is, however, a drawback to both. According to the information provided on their web sites, flight data is delayed by five minutes because of FAA requirements. Only government and commercial users are able to access this data in real time. That means that what you see in the sky will not show up in the tracking program until five minutes after you see it. That is not too difficult to work around insofar as keeping records. It just means you have to be a bit patient.

Plane Finder says its images are displayed in "near real time." As far as I can tell with flights passing over my house (I am under a major air-lane into Los Angeles), the images either are in real time or within a minute of it. I don't know why Plane Finder displays flights so close to real time when others services are not allowed to do so, but I think it may be because it takes its flight data from a different source.

Plane Finder says it derives its flight data from radio signals constantly generated from each aircraft. These are called ADS-B plane feeds. This is not the same as signals from aircraft transponders. That is another type of identification altogether. Wikipedia says that a transponder "is an electronic device that produces a response when it receives a radio-frequency interrogation. In aviation, aircraft have transponders to assist in identifying them on radar and on other aircraft's collision avoidance systems. Air traffic control units use the term "squawk" when they are assigning an aircraft a transponder code." The reason we have created a place on our data sheets for "Squawk" is to make a record of each plane's transponder code.

NOTE: Quote by GEG continues in next posting

 

[Mick West]

GEG seems quite sensible here. Does not bode well for Murphy.

 

[Mick West]

I just found a few days ago you can use Wolfram Alpha to show what flights are visible from your area. Like:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planes+visible+from+los+angeles

Or even

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planes+visible+from+los+angeles+at+12:45pm+yesterday

 

[MikeC]

As a matter of interest, here in New Zealand I think all aircraft larger than microlights have to carry transponders - including gliders IIRC - not just large a/c as GEG thinks above. I'll check with my colleagues tomorrow.

 

[Ross Marsden]

Hot Air Balloons have to in most flying areas. In mode "C" which is just a squawk, no data.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I just found a few days ago you can use Wolfram Alpha to show what flights are visible from your area. Like:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planes+visible+from+los+angeles

Or even

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planes+visible+from+los+angeles+at+12:45pm+yesterday

This sooooo cool. Especially when you click the individual flights, you get a log of the plane's movements, altiude, etc since takeoff, and a satellite still of the plane's location over the area, even atmospheric data for the location.

I tried this for my location, and it is current up to 5 minutes ago. I also set the parameters to check the same time one month ago, and the same flight was headed over!

This is simply amazing, I cannot fathom how it is all done, a triumph of technology.

I emailed Mick yesterday asking about how flight tracking could be archived, and he came up with this!

Beautiful, marvelous.

 

[MikeC]

Had a word with a colleague - all controlled airspace in NZ is transponder mandatory airspace - there are a handful of non-microlight aircraft that are not fitted with them - noteably a few agricultural sprayers that never enter controlled airspace - but even many micrlights have them now as they are often based near the airports of population centres and fly in the associated control zones.

 

[Ross Marsden]

Hot Air Balloons have to in most flying areas. In mode "C" which is just a squawk, no data.

Actually, not Mode C (which has altitude data), but Mode A which does not.
I was agreeing with Mike C (which he has now confirmed) that all a/c in NZ must operate with a transponder in controlled airspace which is just about everywhere.
Wikipedia has good information about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_transponder_interrogation_modes

 

[Mick West]

I think Wolfram might be extrapolating the planes position five minutes forward from the older data to attempt to get you the actual current position (generally accurate, as planes mostly fly in straight lines at constant speed). It says: "(locations based on projections of delayed data)"

The info ultimately comes from here:

http://www.fly.faa.gov/ASDI/asdi.html

 

[Mick West]

Oh, and if you use the Wolfram alpha iOS app, you can just type in "planes visible from here", and it will use your precise GPS info.

Jay, did you get my reply about Expedia, etc.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Jay, did you get my reply about Expedia, etc.

Yes, thank you very much.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Had a word with a colleague - all controlled airspace in NZ is transponder mandatory airspace - there are a handful of non-microlight aircraft that are not fitted with them - noteably a few agricultural sprayers that never enter controlled airspace - but even many micrlights have them now as they are often based near the airports of population centres and fly in the associated control zones.

MikeC, I have a question. What resources are available to a commercial jet pilot who wants to know the identity of a military plane flying within his view? I am asking because over the years I have found chemtrail believers who either claim to be commercial jet pilots. If a commercial jet pilot saw something out of the ordinary, what could he do to prove his case?

BTW, none have ever actually come up with anything, or any proof that they were real pilots. I just want to know what would be a reasonable demand to make if such a person emerged.
Thanks,
Jay

 

[MikeC]

I'm not entirely sure - but my first port of call would be ATC - ask them what the a/c is at whatever clock reference & high or low - Mick would probably have a better idea.

There's an old story about some pilots making light banter with ATC about speed & altitude I recall from 25 years ago or more - a couple of light a/c pilots call up ATC to see who's going faster. Then an airline pilots calls up to put them in their place - 550 knots instead of 150, and 30,00 feet instead of 5000. Then an F-4 pilot calls up & gets 1200 knots at 45,000 feet, then an SR71 pilot asks & get 2500 knots at 60,000 feet....

 

[Mick West]

I'm not a commercial pilot, I just took private pilot training. But if something is flying within my field of view, ATC would always identify it by type, like "[my call sign] Traffic, 2 O'clock, 6000 feet, Lear Jet". They do this so you can confirm back to them that you see that same aircraft, and they don't have to worry so much about you colliding.

Commercial pilots could certainly ask ATC what type of traffic it is. Although ATC might just reply with "no factor" (meaning they are tracking it, and it's not a problem). ATC will likely have already have told them though.

 

[MikeC]

This in via Flight Safety over the weekend - http://www.flightglobal.com/article...ts-block-aircraft-registration-programme.html

The Federal Aviation Administration has made final its decision to remove a tail number tracking exemption now available to certain aircraft. The block aircraft registration request (BARR) programme, managed by the National Business Aviation Association for the FAA, allows requestors to have their registration numbers removed from publicly available flight tracking systems, an option that more than 3,000 operators now use for privacy, safety or competition reasons.

I don't know what effect that had on commercial tracking systems.....but it'll be gone soon assuming they do carry through on this.

 

[Ross Marsden]

Chemtrail update #3

Ooooh! It's getting interesting now. Here is Update #3

2011 June 6 from G. Edward Griffin

CHEMTRAIL UPDATE #3

Narrowing the Observations

Project Plane Tracker is well underway, and we have learned a great deal in the first few weeks. One of those lessons is that some of the data we have been collecting still will not close the case for many skeptics. It is tempting to just dismiss them as incurably brainwashed and not even try to answer their questions, but I feel that the better path is to dig deeper and try harder. I was once a skeptic, myself, and the fact that they are not yet in agreement with us is, I think, more of a reflection on us than them. In all honesty, we can do better – and we shall.

One of the issues omitted from the documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, was an explanation of the difference between contrails and chemtrails. Because of that, many people think we don't know that contrails are real or that, under certain atmospheric conditions, they actually can look like chemtrails; so we are constantly bombarded with emails referring us to books and web sites that say what we think are chemtrails really are just old-fashioned contrails, and we are ignorant fools for thinking otherwise.

We cannot ignore those charges, especially since we have learned a great deal about contrails and now are assembling data through Project Plane Tracker that we hope will demonstrate once and for all that most of the trails we are watching in the sky are not persistent contrails because they occur where the temperature and relative humidity are inadequate to cause their formation. This is not opinion or speculation. It is science.

A CLOSER LOOK AT CONTRAILS
Contrails can form at any temperature below freezing. That's because the water-vapor component of jet-engine exhaust comes in contact with cold air and turns into ice crystals. The important question is not if they form but how long they persist.

Below freezing at low relative humidity (RH), they are readily absorbed into the dry atmosphere around them and disappear in a few seconds. As RH rises, it takes longer for them to be absorbed, and their length increases. At the far end of the scale, humidity is 100%, which means the atmosphere at any given temperature cannot absorb more moisture. At that point, the ice crystals remain visible until they eventually come in contact with atmosphere with less than 100% RH, at which point they will be absorbed and disappear. In the meantime, as long as contrails remain at the extreme end of the scale where the atmosphere is totally saturated with moisture (a condition called saturation over ice), they can persist from horizon to horizon, spread out, and be mixed by high altitude winds to form a haze over large portions of the sky. In some cases, they may take on the appearance of natural cirrus (feathery, high altitude) clouds. These high altitude contrails are mostly just ice, have no toxic chemicals added, and are pretty harmless. So, what's the big fuss?

THE COOKIE-JAR THEORY
Before jumping to conclusions, we need to ask an important question: Just because contrails theoretically can produce these effects at specific conditions of temperature and humidity, does it necessarily follow that most of the trails we have been observing (or any of them) are contrails? Just because a thief could have come through the kitchen back door and taken the cookies out of the cookie jar, does it necessarily follow that this is what actually happened to the cookies?

The purpose of this research is to demonstrate that 85% to 95% of the trails seen completely covering the sky are forming in air space that does not even come close to the atmospheric conditions needed for a contrail. In other words, if the kitchen door is locked (and the window, too), the cookie thief will have to be found elsewhere, probably in the household.

If not contrails, then what?

BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS
The core of the present problem is that we started by asking field investigators to track aircraft in their areas regardless of the length of their trails, and we used terminology such as "short trail" and "long trail." This has turned out to be useless information for the following reasons.

As we have seen, contrails can be short, medium, long, or very long depending on atmospheric conditions. In other words, we are dealing, not with an absolute, but a continuum. However, at the end of that continuum, there is an absolute (ice over saturation). Therefore, we should forget the continuum and work solely with the absolute.

For this reason, using the saturation-over-ice test is of value only for horizon-to-horizon trails, because anything less could be explained as a contrail in the continuum. It would be impossible to quantify the atmospheric conditions that could produce a short, medium, or long trail – or even a so-called persistent trail – because those are subjective evaluations. A horizon-to-horizon test, accompanied by ample photo or video documentation, is far more difficult to challenge because it is independent of variables and subjective interpretation.

Saturation-over-ice is required for horizon-to-horizon contrails. I am not aware of any conventional alternate explanation for such formations. Therefore, we need to concentrate solely on that category of observations.

NEW TRACKING WORKSHEET AND NEW DATA SOURCE
We have updated our data worksheet to reflect this change, so that simplifies things a bit. But, wouldn't you know we thought of a way to complicate it again. We need two additional bits of information before we can generate the proof we seek. They are temperature and RH at the time and location the aircraft is observed. Without that, we cannot demonstrate that saturation-over-ice did not exist. Fortunately, this information is readily available from a web site maintained by the University of Wyoming, Department of Atmospheric Science. Twice each day they send up weather balloons that measure different parameters of the weather, including temperature and RH, at different altitudes up to about 50,000 feet. With a click of the mouse, we are able to select almost any major city in North America and find weather data for that general area for either the first or last half of each day. You won't need to worry about determining conditions for saturation-over-ice. We will do that. (If you want to do it yourself, we'll be happy to send you the chart, but it is not necessary.) The University shows altitude in meters; so, if you are using a plane-tracking program that measures in feet, you will need to convert to meters before you can locate the right elevation on their site.

Download new Observation Worksheet here. http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/aircraftobserverworksheet.pdf
Link to University of Wyoming atmospheric web site here. http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
Link to chart converting feet to meters here. http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/feet-to-meters.htm
Learn more about saturation over ice here. http://www.rhsystems.net/papers/RH_WMO.pdf

*******

FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON AIRCRAFT SIGNALS
2011 June 2 from L. Graves
ADS-B is relatively new in aviation, lagging the in-cockpit use of GPS by several years, while transponders have been around for 40+ years. I would characterize the use of transponders and "squawk codes," especially in busy airspace, as nearly universal, even among the "low-and-slow" trainer fleet of little two-seaters. Ground radar sends out an interrogation, and the transponder replies, amplifying the radar signature of the individual aircraft. ADS-B is in the adoption stage, and will someday take the place of the ubiquitous transponder interrogation/response IFF system. ADS-B is satellite-based and is not radar-dependent.

PILOT CLARIFIES AIRCRAFT TRANSPONDERS
2011 June 1 from David Lamb
As a licensed private pilot, I offer some clarification on the issue of aircraft transponders. Operating transponders are required to be installed on all civil aircraft, by FAR 91.215 (US Code of Federal Aviation Regulations). (Exceptions are aircraft manufactured without an electrical system (ultralights, antiques, and gliders) .) The requirements for when the transponder must be operating are complex, but basically any civil aircraft operating in any controlled airspace, in any Class A, B, or C airspace, within 30 miles of a major airport, within 10 miles of a minor airport, in or above a cloud ceiling, or above 10,000 ft., must have the transponder operating during flight. Essentially, any civil aircraft flying near a populated area below 10,000 ft., and any civil aircraft flying above 10,000 ft., will have the transponder turned on. The transponder is the primary means for ATC radar to identify specific aircraft and verify location.

The ADS-B system is the new GPS-based system. Civil aircraft are not required to have a ADS-B transmitter, but the newer aircraft that do are still required to have an operating transponder. My guess is that most commercial airlines are installing ADS-B transmitters in all of their older planes too, but there may be some that aren't.

I'm not sure why there's the assumption that the chemtrail sprayers won't be operating a transponder. My guess is that they probably are, because it is likely that they are civil aircraft per FAR definition, and I'd wait for some data to come back that indicates otherwise.

*******

Thanks again to everyone who has volunteered to participate in this important project

G. Edward Griffin

So he concedes that some persistent trails are genuine old-fashioned contrails. I don't think he has done this before.

In personal communication Ed states that the objective of this project "is to show that at least 85% of the aircraft seen with persistent trails are flying through air that is not even close to being able to support persistent ice formation."

So, as with What in the World Are They Spraying, he already knows the conclusion and is designing the experiment (or collecting data) to reach it.

 

[Mick West]

This is very good, he's getting into some pretty solid science. The more he looks at the actual science (and hopefully an objective look at the facts that are gathered), the more he'll see there's nothing odd going on.)

 

[Jay Reynolds]

This fellow is starting to track planes using flightradar, and while he comes to a conclusion regarding flight direction, at least he sees correlation with existing cirrus and persistence. Good effort.
Day 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBjnhRhcU8k
Day 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwBbQn4zrs
Day 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H5socmVN4I

 

[Ross Marsden]

Very good work.
I wonder if it has occurred to these "researchers" and "activists" that, having identified the flight number and destination, so-researchers at the destination can photograph activity surrounding the place when it lands. The could note the volume of cargo/passengers off-loaded, and what preparations are made for the next flight which will be about an hour or so later, and even what its new destination is.

This is the obvious (to me anyway) extension of any en-route identification of planes that are making trails.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

It sounds like Australians are way ahead of the US and are preparing a large effort to collect flight tracking data and plan to release it publicly this year. See this video at about 17 minutes in:

​

Congratulations on the Aussies for applying this method.

 

[Landru]

At around 17:30 the guy says the Guinness Book of World Records has the longest duration contrail at 45 minutes. That's a new one.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

At around 17:30 the guy says the Guinness Book of World Records has the longest duration contrail at 45 minutes. That's a new one.

I get no results for contrail, vapor trail, or vapour trail at GBOWR.

 

[captfitch]

I was going to add that over the last ten years as a pilot flying in the flight levels I can think maybe twenty times total I've seen military aircraft. Of those only two of them have been in a position to affect me. Generally speaking if there's some military traffic in the area EVERYONE looks out trying to see it because it's fairly rare and neat to see. EVERY time I've queried ATC about a military aircraft they have been more than forthcoming with the info. I would say that ATC sometimes goes out of thier way to point out military ops because they know we like to see it. Like a flight of F-16s is cool to see or tanker ops is neat too.

Additionally I would say that on a daily basis I can hear military traffic on the frequency but it's only the ATC transmissions because the military almost always talk on UHF and we talk on VHF. The ATC guys simply keys his mike and we can hear everything he says but only hear half the conversation. It's kind of strange.

I don't know about the Transponder, ADS stuff with them because I've never really tried to match a military target with what I see on my TCAS display.

 

[TWCobra]

I have challenged both the people in that video, Alan Ostrowsky and Paul Bennet ( who goes under the nom de plume of Paul Mac ( Melbourne against Chemtrails))to a debate on their claims. So far I get only deleted and blocked, but I have not given up.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

As far as I know, I may have one of the first in the world to use flight tracking software to see a contrail in the sky and identify the flight. This was sometime in 1999 or 2000 when the ATC feed had just begun to be commercially available. There was no personal use being sold at the time, only aviation related companies were offered the service, and it was expensive. They offered a trial at Flight Explorer and I was able to get on with it, and offered the idea to chemtrail believers.

I had no thought that any chemtrail believers would ever consider making threats or even think that a commercial passenger airplane would be spraying something.
It was too ridiculous for me or anyone else at the time to even think about.

Times have changed and the propaganda has changed so that the unthinkable has become very real, the Australians have done very well at identifying planes, all commercial, but they have taken it a step further than I had imagined and now are claiming that jets carrying hundreds of passengers are spraying poison.

There is a risk in this, but if widespread use of flight tracking were to become the norm among chemtrail believers, and they were willing to share and publicize that what they are seeing are ordinary passenger jets, I still think that it will do a great deal to de-mystify the unknown, and lead the rational ones towards a recognition that what they see are not mysterious unidentifiable planes, but rather a plane on which you can buy a ticket, look at at the airport, track the movements of, and understand is incapable of releasing anything but water vapor contrails.

If is a big word. The relative ease with which flight tracking has taken hold in Australia is commendable, hopefully it does not turn out negatively and will be publicized wide enough so that clear heads will prevail.

 

[scombrid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmZkqDaPprU

Flight tracking hasn't done this fellow any good. It has just made him believe that the conspiracy is that much deeper and more expansive.

 

[TWCobra]

Max is a piece of work. To his credit he doesn't ban people who comment on his volumininous amount of youtube videos but the endless parade of drivel is disheartening. He told me once that as an airline pilot I consume Borax to ward off the effects of chemtrails.

He appeared at the London chemtrail conference where, not unexpectedly I suppose, he revealed that he is a bricklayer who looked up at the sky and began to wonder. Such is the expertise of the chemtrail leadership.


[video=youtube_share;wnMJDpFsEzM]http://youtu.be/wnMJDpFsEzM[/video]

I believe Peter Kusznir, that pontificator on all things chemtrail and Sandy Hook, is a storeman and packer.

Both those occupations are good honorable work, and when I want detailed advice on bricklaying and storing and packing they will be on my shortlist, but for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone listens to a word they say on subjects as complex as meteorology and aviation.

 

[Mick West]

Both those occupations are good honorable work, and when I want detailed advice on bricklaying and storing and packing they will be on my shortlist, but for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone listens to a word they say on subjects as complex as meteorology and aviation.

So what do you think of Pilots for 9/11 Truth then?

 

[TWCobra]

I have flown with enough fellow pilots to know that no profession is immune from paranoia and distrust.

I have looked very extensively into the 9/11 attacks from a pilots point of view and find the Official Story to be the most plausible. Many forget little details such as the aim of the hijackers to cause as many deaths as possible... their lack of competence in the finer details of piloting saved many, many lives that day.

Their level of skill meant that they were content to simply hit the buildings. That is not very difficult to do but even then, the second aircraft almost missed. Pilots with any sort of skill, seeking to cause maximum casualties would have flown the aircraft into the buildings as low and as fast as possible, and as close together as possible. They didn't.

A near simultaneous attack, low down and fast on both buildings would have had the death toll at many multiples of the actual. But that requires skills they simply did not have, and hence many people survived.

I haven't seen anything that leads me to question those conclusions.

 

[Billzilla]

Pilots with any sort of skill, seeking to cause maximum casualties would have flown the aircraft into the buildings as low and as fast as possible, and as close together as possible. They didn't.

I also couldn't understand why they didn't try to do that. The casualty numbers could have easily been ten times higher. I've also thought up a few other things they could have done but I won't be posting them in public in case anyone gets any ideas from them.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Pilots with any sort of skill, seeking to cause maximum casualties would have flown the aircraft into the buildings as low and as fast as possible, and as close together as possible. They didn't.

I never heard that one.

I remember hearing one hypothesis that proposed they hit the upper floors of the towers because they knew the structural strength of the buildings got relatively weaker the higher you go. The lower floors having thicker beams to support the full weight of all the upper floors. The argument was supported by the fact that the planners of 9/11 would have remembered the truck bombing of the WTC in the early 90's. That explosion in the parking garage was meant to topple the building, but I don't think it did any significant structural damage at all (that would jeopardize the building). So for the next attack they decided to go high. Just food for thought...

 

[scombrid]

To his credit he doesn't ban people who comment on his volumininous amount of youtube videos but the endless parade of drivel is disheartening.

He blocked both of my accounts over a year ago simply for asking questions of him. I had forgotten about him until recently. Now I see that even comments that directly attack him and call him names remain below his videos.

 

[TWCobra]

I never heard that one.

I remember hearing one hypothesis that proposed they hit the upper floors of the towers because they knew the structural strength of the buildings got relatively weaker the higher you go. The lower floors having thicker beams to support the full weight of all the upper floors. The argument was supported by the fact that the planners of 9/11 would have remembered the truck bombing of the WTC in the early 90's. That explosion in the parking garage was meant to topple the building, but I don't think it did any significant structural damage at all (that would jeopardize the building). So for the next attack they decided to go high. Just food for thought...

That may be so, I am not a structural engineer however the speed at which the second tower to be struck collapsed, compared to the first tends to validate my hypothesis.

 

[KC-10FE]

 

[Lisa P]

As far as I know, I may have one of the first in the world to use flight tracking software to see a contrail in the sky and identify the flight. This was sometime in 1999 or 2000 when the ATC feed had just begun to be commercially available. There was no personal use being sold at the time, only aviation related companies were offered the service, and it was expensive. They offered a trial at Flight Explorer and I was able to get on with it, and offered the idea to chemtrail believers.

I had no thought that any chemtrail believers would ever consider making threats or even think that a commercial passenger airplane would be spraying something.
It was too ridiculous for me or anyone else at the time to even think about.

Times have changed and the propaganda has changed so that the unthinkable has become very real, the Australians have done very well at identifying planes, all commercial, but they have taken it a step further than I had imagined and now are claiming that jets carrying hundreds of passengers are spraying poison.

There is a risk in this, but if widespread use of flight tracking were to become the norm among chemtrail believers, and they were willing to share and publicize that what they are seeing are ordinary passenger jets, I still think that it will do a great deal to de-mystify the unknown, and lead the rational ones towards a recognition that what they see are not mysterious unidentifiable planes, but rather a plane on which you can buy a ticket, look at at the airport, track the movements of, and understand is incapable of releasing anything but water vapor contrails.

If is a big word. The relative ease with which flight tracking has taken hold in Australia is commendable, hopefully it does not turn out negatively and will be publicized wide enough so that clear heads will prevail.

I just found this comment and want you to know once I downloaded the flightradar app and started checked jets making trails I pretty quickly moved on from the chemtrail hoax. It got to the point where I would argue with other chemtrail believers. It was a very fast learning curve for me unfortunately not for some.

 

[Hama Neggs]

I just found this comment and want you to know once I downloaded the flightradar app and started checked jets making trails I pretty quickly moved on from the chemtrail hoax. It got to the point where I would argue with other chemtrail believers. It was a very fast learning curve for me unfortunately not for some.

It just seems like such a great debunking track, to take them to realizing that it's regular commercial airliners, so they can't be full of tanks, but they don't make trails when taking off, so it can't be in the fuel either. What do they have left?

 

[Trailblazer]

It just seems like such a great debunking track, to take them to realizing that it's regular commercial airliners, so they can't be full of tanks, but they don't make trails when taking off, so it can't be in the fuel either. What do they have left?

Agreed, and I have been trying to spread the word wherever possible. So many chemtrail believers seem totally unaware that such tracking sites/apps exist. Unfortunately many of those who do try are so inept at using them (possibly deliberately so) that they quickly decide that the planes "don't show up".

Incidentally, is G Edward Griffin still on the scene, or did he lose interest once he realised they were just normal aircraft?

 

[Hama Neggs]

Agreed, and I have been trying to spread the word wherever possible. So many chemtrail believers seem totally unaware that such tracking sites/apps exist. Unfortunately many of those who do try are so inept at using them (possibly deliberately so) that they quickly decide that the planes "don't show up".

Incidentally, is G Edward Griffin still on the scene, or did he lose interest once he realised they were just normal aircraft?

Griffin is still being quoted on certain things, but I'm not sure if he is still active.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Griffin still actively sells chemtrail DVD's, so there is a profit motive. He was shouted down by Dane Wigington after a conflict involving the subject of flight tracking. Griffin also bears responsibility for admitting to his network to account for tens of thousands of dollars of their money spent making the first WITWATS film which he eventually found to be bunk. Lastly, Griffin is rather elderly.

Wigington runs away from advocating that his tens of thousands of followers engage in an organized large scale systematic effort to determine the identity, origin and destination of the planes they see. Even though being well aware of how to collect the evidence any logical investigation should have done long ago, he has chosen to instead use a fear-based approach to build an ignorant mob up to an emotional fever like his own.