If you go to 7:52 they ask for a mixture change to Bravo 4-8 with DP (dispersal pattern?) Charlie.

Good find.

He said,"runway 28 Left, taxi via Bravo 4, Bravo" there was nothing about a mixture in there. 28L is most likely the departure runway that day. ATC language can be difficult to understand unless it's something you're trained in.

Source: I am an air traffic controller

did you listen all the way in to 18 min?

Yes I did.

You did not.

Source: someone who listened to the recording.

http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php?m=kpdx_twr

Select a feed: KPDX Ground Tower

Select a Time: 0100-0130

Time of recording: 18:40

Not op but she definitely misspoke. She corrects herself and says contrail. There's nothing about "contrail generator."

I think DP stands for Departure Procedure or destination point, probably. They do double dip the abbreviations a lot.

Honestly if they do use civilian traffic for this shit, I'd put money on it being done automatically/infused in the fuel or something. Need to know basis, yanno...

I've thought for a while that it was something added to the fuel - that would be the easiest method of delivery.

And the method where the fewest people know about it.

If commercial airlines do chemtrails how many thousands of people would have to be involved? From Chem manufacturing to delivery to transplantation to loading and equipment maintenance? I don't buy it.

The Manhattan project had 100,000 people.

Also, if you control the mass media is doesn't matter how many people try to blow the whistle if it doesn't get reported.

If you estimate till current day, there were over 800,000 people who worked at over 300 facilities and Uranium mines who worked to build America's nuclear arsenal.

Not so fun fact: Many of the former workers are sick with radiogenic illness and cancer.

The manhattan project was dispersed at secure locations, before era of mass portable communication and wirless photo taking devices (smart phones), and enaged in work that was strictly military, beyond the understanding of most Americans at the time, to be deployed against a universally despised enemy across the ocean...

Meanwhile, chem trails would require the installation of 100 or 1000s of complex devices on commercial airplanes with commercial maintenance crews, based in commercial airports, overseen by civillian saftey regulators and funded by civillian airlines. Deployed against or at least exposing their own fellow ctizens including spouses, siblings, parents, friends...

Also, if you think delta or southwest don't have models that account for every extra lb carried on a flight to predict fuel expenditures and would miss a chemical cloud generating device?

Moreover where would such a device go? Space on a commercial plane is at a huge premium. The back is taken up by the APU, electronic, the front is the cockpit, wings have fuel and engines and everything else is baggage or passenger space.

Furthermore, if you claim its not commercial flights, most flights are tracked, people on those flights post on social media, oher airliners see their transponders... even CIA black flights got caught that way. No one has noticed any ghost planes with no passengers...

Also, the complexity of re-engineering a civllian jetliner to dispense chem trails would be immense. The load distribution of the plane and flight characteristics would change as chemical was used. The places where the emitter was would have to be reinforced. Plumbing would be a huge issue. Reloading it would be difficult in secrecy... Boeing is contemplating sretching the 737 and adding new engines... this would cost billions, its not trivial to add stuff to commercial airliners, these things cost 100s of millions of dollars and operated by corporations that run thin margins. Not to mention if its an airbus plane then either it would have to be done with european cooperation or without aribus support... same for embraer and bombardier...

Honestly, the scope of such a project to be kept a 100% secret would require the collective ignorance and participation of millions of disperate parties. Furthermore, it would be insane to thing that there would be no whistleblower by now. Even dimona was compromized by vanunu at that was a secure nuclear site, composed of a small cardre of scientist and technicians loyal to their state... and he did it before the advent of internet, digital cameras etc... the NSA could not keep their wire tapping secret, Russia and China hack the use with impunnity, CIA black sites in europe were exposed because the CIA could not be bothered to cover up their planes itineraries etc...

Proof of an international recruitment pull.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant

I agree, in addition, anyone can listen to those frequencies, so if "chem trails" were real and kept secret then they surely wouldn't broadcast it to anyone in range.

also, fucking read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

I think its delta airlines. im in nor cal and almost every time there is a lasting trail i look up the plane on flightradar24 and its most likely delta.

Definitely male voices up until 18:30 then you have the woman voice address the plane directly after and mention a 'chemtrail situation' distinctly twice with a follow up to that by addressing the plane to mention 'contrail off the left wing' for a third time. I believe she was made aware or remembered of the publicity of the broadcasting and knowingly covered with the final statement in regards to the matter.

She kept using the term chem trail by mistake. As an air traffic controller I can tell in her voice she didn't sound extremely sure of herself, either she is new or just not very confident but other way her saying chem trail sounds like it confused the pilot and knowing the environment and how we speak to one another daily one of her coworkers probably said something along the lines of,"contrail, not chem trail" while making fun of and laughing at her. She said chem trail off of the left wing twice and then said sorry contrail most likely after being made fun of.

Based on your experience, what altitude would you estimate this plane to be at when she mentions the contrail? She says, " I've never seen it that low before"

The aircraft was most likely between 2000 and 4000 feet as the top of most tower's airspace doesn't go very high, could have even been a tad lower. Many towers airspaces top out between 3000 and 5000 feet and then they are switched over to the departure controller for further climb

Thank you sir.

You might be right, you might be wrong. I love how nobody bothers to disagree with you or try to argue the point... you just get heavily downvoted. But they like to pretend they're different from the "sheeple"

I was also wondering why no one was responding. I was curious as to what other's were thinking but I guess rather than telling us they will just downvote

I don't buy that explanation. These are professionals why would she interject over the top of other communications to mention the wrong thing. It's an elaborate unlikely occurrence. If you were to interject wouldn't you make sure you are mentioning the correct thing. Someone inexperienced would still know the difference between a contrail or aerosol dispersion. Even a basic car mechanic knows what condensation is let alone a fully certified air traffic controller most likely of a managerial position.

Surely she was told of the publicity of the recording and had to rather than apologise and retract just reiterate what she wanted everyone listening to understand. She did not say sorry nor apologise. Just re-iterate herself over the top of the two clear communications. The pilot was shocked at her incompetence. Human error and all that.

I can tell you from experience we do, in fact, say the wrong thing sometimes. You're welcome to believe as you wish I'm just speaking from the point of view of someone who has been doing this job for 40 to 50 hours a week over the last 5 years.

Just like the woman made a mistake and chose the public channel rather than ask to switch to a different frequency and was made aware of the publicity of the broadcasting.

I have personally spoken to airforce aircraft engineers, sustainable engineers, pilots, and all persistently avoid answering with an affirmation yet all direct your attention towards to the known methods of weather manipulation. Solar Radiation Management (SRM), Albedo Modification, Nanotechnology, Dispersed Aerosols, cloud seeding etc.

Chemtrail is dumbspeak and quick lay English for a reference. The pilot disguised it with an, 'oh, what' sort of moment and she thought he was serious since of course she was very serious, so again mentioned it as chemtrail, further followed by her o'shit moment which was the, 'that was contrail, btw'.

All upon realisation, management make mistakes too.

Public and private channel isn't how it works buddy. There is a set frequency for ground control, set frequency for local control(tower) and so on. The reason you can go on that website and listen to the controllers there is bc that specific facility allows it as does every other facility on there. My facility does not have an agreement with the website hence we are not in there. If you know the local or ground or any other frequency for that matter you can tune in and listen if you have the equipment.

So can you assert that there are no private frequencies nor encrypted frequencies that are not made aware to public operations. A different frequency can be known as a different channel. A channel can be of a communication sense. Just because you don't control matters that involve contrail or chemtrails a.k.a solar radiation management does not mean you can unequivocally say how it may or may not be in respect to the communications of.

Have you dealt with military channels, have you dealt with encrypted or classified channels?

Yes I can assert there is not another channel because I do the job and deal with the frequencies. I can also assert it works the same way with the military as far as controller to pilot communications because I work at an airport that is a joint civilian/military airfield and deal with both every day

So you can assert there are both civil and military channels, one publicly recorded aka civil, and military which is made aware after a period of limitations in regards to the request of records, depending on the sensitivity of the information therein.

So perhaps because the facility in which this case occurred she was meant to use one channel but used the other. Perhaps there are cases of joint civil and military experiments. One way to debug a new aerosol system is to have a large pool of test cohorts. Rather than a limited release technology in military sense.

Like a cover story, "new fuel causes contrails -- new fuel developed by DARPA will discontinue use for release of patents into private sector". Pretty much how it goes with every other tech. New space mission, new LIDAR tech, new GPS tech, etc etc.

If you want to argue that military operations do not involve members of the public one would just have to look at mkultra for an example.

This is my last reply as now you are going off on a tangent unrelated to the discussion of what happened in this situation and you are choosing to disregard my experience as an actual air traffic controller and expertise in our phraseology, procedure, frequencies, etc. in dealing with both military and civilian aircraft and rather leaning on your apparently wealth of knowledge in conspiracy theories from sitting in front of your computer too often. Continue to believe what you wish about what happened in this specific instance(I am not denying chemtrails as a whole, just asserting that is not what happened here) and I'll continue with my experienced belief that the controller on this recording just misspoke. Take care.

Edit: I would also like to point out that civilian aircraft use VHF frequencies and military use UHF(and some military aircraft can use both). A radio in a civilian aircraft does not have the capability to access and use UHF frequencies so there was no military frequency or channel this civilian commercial aircraft could have or would have access to.

I disagree, you are the one going on a tangent of conspiracies I merely asked you questions to which you gave extremely vague statements in response. I do not believe anything, perhaps unlike yourself, I look only at the facts. You dug the hole by supplying what you evidenced as facts through your supposed expertise. Which might I add has not been confirmed nor sourced.

Rather then let you get away with vague statements, such as saying there is not two channels that air traffic controllers use, which you later stated so.

You now come back and tell me yes there are two channels and that a civilian craft does not have the capability to use both signals, are you telling me, that is to say it is impossible that an aircraft would have both UHF and VHF devices capable of sending and receiving on multiple channels?

So to confirm, it is your opinion that it is possible for an air traffic control site to monitor both civil and military traffic simultaneously, while civilian and military planes use differing channels of communication respectively. So in saying this and using your logic we can come to the conclusion that it is possible for an aircraft to be on both channels simultaneously and without being at the particular site witnessing the same outputs at the time of the recording it is impossible to say with certainty that the controller misspoke especially so considering it was the first communication from this particular ATC. There were no corrections made other than an off air correction to the statement. Although it is highly likely this site that runs dual operations, perhaps even geological surveys or scientific research, militarily or through private companies. Which may or may not be partnered government organisations.

I'm not discounting your conspiracy theory of the flight controller mistaking a procedure twice in a row as a whole just asserting the reasonable conclusion based off the expert evidence of account that you have purportedly made.

I would like to add that especially with such large pauses in communication, this could be the difference of 100-300 ftps at those speeds. Quite unprofessional.

I never went on about any conspiracies. Civilian aircraft(which this was a civilian aircraft she was speaking to) can only be on a VHF frequency, some military aircraft are capable of using both a VHF and UHF frequency. Again she was speaking to a civilian aircraft in these transmissions which only capable of VHF. There was no "military channel" as you call it this aircraft could have been on. For example at the facility I work at the tower VHF frequency is 126.0, the UHF is 239.0. No civilian aircraft has the capability to be on 239.0 because they don't have UHF capability, not to mention it emergency purposes we are always transmitting on both frequencies and receiving from both frequencies at the same time. I have no reason to get on here and pretend I am an air traffic controller. Again believe what you want everyone has a right to their opinion just like everyone has a right to be wrong.

Are you a comedian?

"not to mention it emergency purposes we are always transmitting on both frequencies and receiving from both frequencies at the same time."

So you deny that planes have the ability to use both and then state that....funny how you are pushing an agenda of conspiratorial nature. An experienced traffic controller misspoke twice and was not corrected and did not realise such a mistake on public record and did not say sorry, sounds like crazy talk from someone who knows their belief structure relies on the inability to realise real lies.

So she did not realise her mistake and continued on despite someone in such a position knowing the difference between the two.

I just said that certain military aircraft can use either. No civilian aircraft can. Are you dense?

"Civilian aircraft(which this was a civilian aircraft she was speaking to) can only be on a VHF frequency" I'm going to have to see some pretty big claims as to why this is true and that two frequencies cannot be operating on the same flight. That's like saying UHF and VHF cannot be received or transmitted from the same building.

I know you won't go into this and claim that you have no military understanding as to the goings on of such aircraft as you are not an engineer nor have technical understandings of frequencies. But I will take a layman's either way as to your conspiracy of sorts that no civilian aircraft uses VHF and UHF.

Until then your statement stands:

"we are always transmitting on both frequencies and receiving from both frequencies at the same time"

It appears you are getting extremely defensive. Perhaps you do have reason to fake such claims especially if you represent some alternative motives of sorts.

Especially so when you make an inflammatory statement in pleading defence with no motive is exactly what one of suspicious motives would say.

"I have no reason to get on here and pretend I am an air traffic controller"

Might I add you have not answered any of my questions directly.

Your ability to forum slide is amateurish at best.

It also appears that this thread has gained heat, and that your attempts to derail have failed.

It appears you missed this:

I disagree, you are the one going on a tangent of conspiracies I merely asked you questions to which you gave extremely vague statements in response. I do not believe anything, perhaps unlike yourself, I look only at the facts.

// You dug the hole by supplying what you evidenced as facts through your supposed expertise. Which might I add has not been confirmed nor sourced.//

Rather then let you get away with vague statements, //such as saying there is not two channels that air traffic controllers use, which you later stated so.//

You now come back and tell me //yes there are two channels and that a civilian craft does not have the capability to use both signals, are you telling me, that is to say it is impossible that an aircraft would have both UHF and VHF devices capable of sending and receiving on multiple channels?//

So to confirm, it is your opinion that it is possible for an air traffic control site to monitor both civil and military traffic simultaneously, while civilian and military planes use differing channels of communication respectively. So in saying this and using your logic we can come to the conclusion that it is possible for an aircraft to be on both channels simultaneously and without being at the particular site witnessing the same outputs at the time of the recording it is impossible to say with certainty that the controller misspoke especially so considering it was the first communication from this particular ATC.

Check mate dear friend.

Also I would like to point out she didn't interject over another communication. That recording is of both ground control and local control frequencies at the same time on the same recording, different controllers working each. She was not a supervisor, supervisors do not just plug in with us unless we lost our certification and they are re-certing us

She just got the words mixed up, meant to say contrail ended up saying chemtrail. Understandable that someone could regard both words synonymously.

You are wrong. The words are not synonymous. They are two separate definitions. In one you have moisture in the other a large array of aerosols. Thus con-trail vs solar radiation management. Further you could look at albedo modification or cloudseeding. They are all synonymous with each other but in no way is condensation - aerosols.

I believe the only.one mixed up is you.

I know they are different, but my point was the woman didn't, hens her mistake.

Thank you, exactly my point I was trying to make

How can you assume so? If your logic is that she was told the correct definition, why was she not told by the pilot, why was she not told after the first time.

It was her incompetence in regards to the matter being recorded. Perhaps she had recently transfered to that appointment at that particle station and was not aware of the publicity of the matter, that is using your logic in this way.

It is too simple to say she would err twice, without being picked up to just mutter the correct term at the end. I Don't think we can even conclusively prove the fact she even corrected to 'contrail' at all.

The reason you are hearing two voices is the male voice is working ground control while the female is working local control(also known as tower) hence the title being ground/tower. Also he was never told to turn anything off, she used the word chem trail because she got it confused with the term contrail as she probably just don't know the difference. As a controller we make fun of each other all the time when we mess things up, it's just part of the job. When she comes back and says sorry contrail she probably just got made fun of. The part where you think she is telling him to turn something off is her saying,"contact departure." She's telling him to contrail their arrival/departure control so he can be climbed out of tower's airspace and continue on his flight planned route.

Let your ears be the judge not the voice of others Source: someone who listened to the recording. http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php?m=kpdx_twr Select a feed: KPDX Ground Tower Select a Time: 0100-0130 Time of recording: 18:40

You listen to flight control recordings in your free time? I guess somebody's gotta do it. Not my cup of tea, though. Excellent catch, right or wrong :)

OP, please edit to clarify that 1:18 means 18 minutes into the clip.

I did. Thank you. Was thinking 1:18Z, which is where the interesting piece occurs.

It's from 18m 40s to 19m 20s in the audio file.

Also, she corrected herself to "contrail" afterwards, which clearly shows a coverup is going on.

Also, she corrected herself to "contrail" afterwards, which clearly shows a coverup is going on.

Or she made a mistake.

It was def a mistake.

Most certainly. A mistake once, yes. Twice - unlikely. Twice with a corrective correspondence indicates apologies for use of public channel for sensitive communications.

I could not make out anything except for 'southwest' around 1:18 it was too garbled.

Cool, downvoted for trying to listen to the source. Thanks /r/conspiracy!

18 minutes in.

She definitely said it.... twice, that's interesting af.

What stands out to me is that she says, "You have a chemtrail situation off your left wing. I've never seen it that low before,"

No kidding... a contrail cannot form at altitudes less than 30,000 feet. That's the science of it: 30,000 feet or higher, negative 40 degrees Celsius or colder, and 67 % relative humidity or higher. If this woman saw a trail being made by his left wing shortly after takeoff, it is impossible that it was a contrail. The proper conditions were not available for the production of a contrail. When she said "chemtrail", she knew exactly what she was saying. I don't doubt she was corrected and made fun of for it, but she wasn't mistaken.

Nice find OP

a contrail cannot form at altitudes less than 30,000 feet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRPq61oTYOs

In the case of this thread however, I highly doubt the controller was somewhere that cold...

That is interesting. Maybe the sources I have read are saying it has to be over 30,000 ft (one was a pilot) only because of the temperature variable. For example, "it generally only gets this cold over 30,000 feet, but if you're experiencing negative 40 degrees Celsius at sea level, it can happen then too." What do you think? I can't find clarification when I look for it. Maybe the "30,000 feet" variable has no validity?

Honestly I am far from an expert, but I suspect that the height makes no difference, other than it's rare to find the conditions to generate a contrail at less than 30,000 feet.

/r/Portland

I don't see why people still don't believe in chemtrails. We have seen videos on this sub in the past that are clear as day. One shows a plane that is clearly toggling on and off some sort of spray high in the atmosphere.

This thread is absolutely hilarious.

Get a load of this /u/coombeseh

Since the OP was deleted here is the link:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kpdx/KPDX-Twr-Sep-22-2016-0100Z.mp3

I don't here shit op. everytime that dude talks there's too much interference. too garbled.

18 minutes in.

Is the file you recommend downloading named KPDX-Twr-Sep-22-2016-0100Z? I listened at 1:18 and 7:52 and didn't hear anything about SAI.

It is around 18 minutes in, not 1 minute 18 seconds. I listened to the damn thing 5 times before I tried 18 minutes.

I looked at the MP3 from 0100-0130 and heard it. KPDX-Twr-Sep-22-2016-0100-0130Z

Both allied and axis planes during WWII left contrails.

I wonder if you realize that this kind of response does more harm to your cause than good? You make it look like someone doesn't want this info to come out. I'm not saying you are a shill, 99% of you are just in an ego-trance and as the world around you continues to trigger violent bursts of cognitive dissonance you lash out. It's ok, I understand.

I bet you get laid all the time

lol!

I wonder if you realize that this kind of response does more harm to your cause than good? You make it look like someone doesn't want this info to come out. I'm not saying you are a shill, 99% of you are just in an ego-trance and as the world around you continues to trigger violent bursts of cognitive dissonance you lash out. It's ok, I understand.

I agree, in addition, anyone can listen to those frequencies, so if "chem trails" were real and kept secret then they surely wouldn't broadcast it to anyone in range.

also, fucking read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

I think its delta airlines. im in nor cal and almost every time there is a lasting trail i look up the plane on flightradar24 and its most likely delta.

The Manhattan project had 100,000 people.

Also, if you control the mass media is doesn't matter how many people try to blow the whistle if it doesn't get reported.