Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Mick West, Jul 20, 2012.
I'm assuming he was being facetious.
If this isn't blatant I don't know what is. The first picture is a snapshot from the page CA Chemtrails, the second is of the original picture from the first page of this thread. They cropped it and posted it on their page.
Maybe put metabunk watermarks on images posted here?
The above images are also on
attributed to metabunk,
ALL the images (properly attributed) are also on
It's on heaps of other anti-chemtrail sites, too.
this is good PR for metabunk.
I only watermark (generally just a small label) images I created, or are significant derivative fair-use works. Most of the images posted here are copyrighted and I'm only using them for education fair-use purposes, so I can hardly be claiming ownership.
Well educationally it is working. At least 7 (anti-chem) sites have picked it up as is, the whole page of images, properly accredited to metabunk. That may be the source of some new members here.
Boeing 777 prototype during 1993. From the book "Airliner Color History: Boeing 777 - Jetliner for a New Century"
From "Boeing 777" by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner
I was reminded the other day why water is used as ballast, to simulate the weight of people (besides being harmless, and cheap of course...unlike actual people!! ).
The phrase "ugly bags of mostly water" comes from a Star Trek episode somewhere...in describing Humans.
Anyways, water weighs about 62 pounds per cubic foot (at room temperature). Or, put another way: About 8.3 pounds per gallon.
(editing): The nerd in me requires that I find the specific Star Trek reference, to the above. Episode 18, Season 1 of "The Next Generation". Title: 'Home Soil'.
Hello there , new to the forum , first post i watched , this clears up the conspiracy theory agenda going on , of which the barrels were clearly fuel for...good post but anyway we are dealing with Chemtrails and Geoengineering , if its not the barrels then the chemicals have to be in the fuel. Who is the biggest Aviation fuel manifacturer ? Its BP. BP is part of the worshipful companies of fuellers in the British crown and member of the Chatham House
And what then when it's found not to be in the fuel? Please read these threads for some discussion on fuel.
And what is that meant to prove? Why do you find it surprising that a large British oil company should be a member of those associations? What does that imply, in your view?
Diageo is also a Chatham House member. Is the drinks industry involved in chemtrails?
What has BP got to do with the British crown?
Is it the biggest aviation fuel manufacturer? Have you a link? Certainly many major UK airports don't use BP. Manchester is supplied by Essar and airports like Gatwick and Heathrow are Exxon mainly. A great deal of jet fuel is also tankered in from the Middle East, but irrespective of the origin 40% of UK fuel is carried along the same pipeline network.
And the concise response is that if there's an additive in the fuel that produces thick white trails, then trails logically would be thickest when planes use the most fuel, which is on takeoff and climb.
See dense trails at low level on take-off and climb? Me neither.
Instead, what we see is that trails exhibit all the known normal characteristics of persistent contrails. Might be worth your effort investigating in detail the characteristics of persistent contrails.
Also, if the trails were from fuel, how much would have to be sprayed in order to make long, persistent trails? All that stuff would have to have come from fuel. Wouldn't pilots notice fuel capacities increasing? Wouldn't mechanics notice bigger fuel tanks in planes?
It really makes no sense, logistics-wise.
Again....the engines on a jet operate AFTER the "PUSH" from the gate. We get "pushed-back" by a tug attached to the nose gear. During this, we are usually starting the engines.
THEN....the way an airplane moves, as it is taxiing is from engine thrust. THEN.....the greatest engine thrust occurs during a take-off.
Yet...NEVER are seen any "white lines" at this point.
Hence....contrails are contrails....and so-called "chem"trails do not exist.
Two pertinent (and apt) points.
Fuel density is how pilots (and others) monitor uploads OF fuel into the airplane. I can only speak to U.S. standards, since I am most familiar with these. For aviation in the USA we use pounds. (Other aviation jurisdictions use litres and "tonnes").
EVERY time we (in the U.S.) get a fuel upload, we must VERIFY the "Fuel Slip" (this is what the uploader gives us) to the former fuel, and the current indicated fuel. This is a STANDARD procedure for EVERY airline. The "Fuel Slip", whether indicated in Gallons or Litres....we can calculate just using the proper math....AND then verify that what we see on the fuel quantity gauges matches what we expect to see.
Thing is.....ANY so-called "additive" to Jet Fuel would throw off these calculations!!! AND would be immediately noticed.
(BECAUSE.....it all depends on "specific density" of the liquid!!! AKA, the Jet fuel).
That is actually a pretty good point. Here in Canada where I fly, we normally require x amount of fuel in lbs, ask for them in litres by doing a mathematical conversion, then get a fuel slip, and our fuel gauges should be where they need to be.
Rico...."back" in the day when I flew for a commuter airline....we had an "in the head" way to tell Operations, when we were "in range" inbound, how many gallons we wanted. For the life of me? I CANNOT recall this "in the head".....If I needed 1000 pounds for the next leg, I'd divide it in my head and convert it to gallons....because the fueler used gallons, not "pounds".
This is a "lost skill" I suppose...but it's in my brain, somewhere....Because after working for over two decades at a professional, major airline? These calculations were all done for me, I just had to verify that they were correct...and then, "Carry On".
go back and have a look at the OP for this thread - it is one of the original examples of faked evidence!
I know, that's why I posted it here. My friend on Facebook had recently shared it and it popped up on my 'news' feed. Funny coincidence, eh?
I would have hoped you had known that that isn't possible. You cannot put metal compounds through engines without "fluxing" them, in essence. And "fluxed" engines (that is coated internally with a molten glass-like material) conk out REAL QUICK. Turbines and combustion chambers just HATE such coatings.
Just think what happens when there's a volcanic eruption upwind of a major arterial air traffic route. Remember the Jumbo incident of, er, '82, South China Sea, was it? Pass my stick...
In my younger days I worked for BP, albeit in the road and heating fuels retail sector, not aviation. (I was deputy manager at a service station). All the fuel we sold came from a huge storage depot in Avonmouth, and although the tankers that delivered to the garages had BP plastered all over them, tankers providing other fuel retailers in the south west used to load from the same site. I had occasion to visit a few times (part of company training courses) and you would see BP, Jet, Shell, Esso and Tesco tankers queuing up to fill from the same tanks. (I think the site itself was / is owned by Esso (I may be wrong).) So basically the 44,000 litres of 4 star BP had brought and passed onto our site* came from the same source and supply line as the 44,000 litres for the Jet station down the road.
So if the fuel companies are sharing facilities and distribution hubs for road fuels and heating fuels it's logical (to me at least) aviation fuel is handled in a very similar way.
*Yes the station was a BP owned site, not a franchised site.
Speedbird 9. Kuala Lumpur-Perth. Lost all four engines. Two weeks later a Singapore airlines flight lost three engines in the same cloud. In 1989 a Northwestern 747 had a similar problem with an Alaskan Volcano.
With the amount of 'chem' you'd need to make an effective 'chem-trail', how do you think they'd possibly fit enough chem/fuel mixture into one plane? To make a plane fly, you need really clean kerosene-like jet fuel, and any additives are minuscule, and to help the engines out. Not only would adding the 'chem' compounds likely make the planes inefficient and probably prone to breaking, you'd be taking up valuable space needed for, you know, fuel. Considering most of the planes people list as 'chemtrail planes' are really just passenger jets, those need tanks full of just fuel to make their flights. AND, if you were to add other tanks of 'chem', you'd be taking up space from passengers and baggage, and adding a huge amount of weight to the plane.. and it's just not feasible.
Trying to figure out how chem-tanks or chem-additives *might* work will be like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It would be much more productive, in my experience, to spend some time learning how contrails are generated, and how they persist. Once you learn all the details of normal contrail formation, you might find it explains almost all of what you see in the sky. Then, whatever's left, might be worth further investigation.
By merest happenstance, the Speedbird 9 incident was being replayed on TV tonight. Those who say that cabin air from the outside is filtered, need to explain why the first sign of trouble in the cabin was the appearance of something that seemed like smoke, but was actually volcanic ash. Apologies for OT
I'll see if I can find the math...
Here we go:
The Antonov AN-225 Mriya is the largest plane in the world. They only built one of them, and that one plane holds pretty much all heavy lift records and their runners up. It is just obscenely large, most airports can't even service it.
If it burned away it's ENTIRE maximum takeoff weight - fuel, cargo, passengers, crew, airframe, all of it - entirely down to chemtrail (a patently unsustainable proposal - planes are expensive, and ones this big almost don't exist), the chemtrail would be a bit over 12 kilometers long.
An-225 with contrails
I found this excellent Boeing 707 youtube video from long ago with ballast barrels shown and described by narration, and some contrails
I've annotated the links so they go straight to the relevant part of the vid.
707 ballast tanks
707 long trail
707 mark in the sky
Worth noting down for the discussion about modern jet engines is also the high amount of soot in the exhaust clearly visible e.g. around 19:08.
Incomplete combustion - less water exhausted.
Hey there Jazzy , anyhow they are spraying us like insects and its damaging our environment and health they also use it very much for weather manipulation and its exactly the reason why its 7.5 years severe drought in california while normally there would fall 22 cm of rain per year , i like debunking of lies , but can someone tell me how they do it if its not in the fuel and not in barrels in the plane itself ? Would they have designed the airplanes for this specific task ? There could be tanks build in in the plane , i mean reall build in as certain plane factories like lockheed Martin , Douglas , Boeing and Curtis Wright are all owned by Jesuits according to the work of Avro Manhattan who was an insider and knew what he was speaking of , only thing is he wrote those books more then 40 years ago so today they would have much more under their direct control. They rule USA , Britain and Europe. And please don't censor this comment operator , because we want answers.
GeoEngineering Watch with Dane Wigington 9-20-2014
Want answers to what question? This one?
Simple; they don't, it's all a fantasy hoax that was started 15 years ago and has taken on a [...] life of it's own.
There is absolutely no evidence to indicate they are spraying you in the way you seem to think at all.
Planes are designed for many different special purposes.
The rest of your post is all assertion with no proof and no evidence, but please post other topics in their own threads.
This thread is particularly about the ballast barrels being passed off as chemtrail spraying equipment. Do you agree that the picture was used fraudulently and understand their true function as shown in this thread?
Does the fact a picture was claimed to be something it was not give you any sense that maybe you shouldn't believe everything that chemtrail promotors tell you?
Hi Eric and welcome to the forum.
Nobody is actually "doing it". What you see is just a natural result of engine powered aircraft flying in very cold moist air at high altitude.
It's like a speed boat leaving a white wake. No-one is intentionally "making" the white wake, it's just a natural unavoidable side effect of the crafts' high speed passage.
When jets fly their engines create water and that gets added to lots of water already in the sky , triggering it to condense on the small volumes of soot in the exhaust. If the air is really cold and humid up there the trails will persist a long time. If it's warmer and drier up there the trail won't last so long.
Unfortunately you are misunderstanding the fact that normal passenger planes regularly leave very long persistent condensation trails. They are not spraying anything. They don't need to carry anything in tanks to make trails other than unmodified fuel to make the plane fly. It's just ice crystals and if you explore this forum further you will discover more about the subject, but perhaps most concisely if you visit the sister site contrailscience.com
Please have a look at the Video I posted above called Boeing promo film 707 year one.
Whilst I posted It in regards to the ballast certification tanks used for simulating the mass of passengers, before the plane is allowed to carry passengers, notice how that promotional film, shown as a "short" accompanied by a major theatrical release clearly shows a normal 1960 passenger jet leaving long trails.
Notice how the narrator isn't mystified by the trail. Notice how He doesn't say: "Oh my god we're doomed someone is spraying poison from this new passenger jet". He knew and the public would have understood it was simply a condensation trail, a sight already familiar to the public from propeller driven passenger airliners:
This film would have been seen by millions of members of the public who also would have seen nothing strange about the trails.
Here's a famous Pan Am promotional film from decades ago.
Anything look familiar?
these very old films show that passenger airliners made very long trails decades ago, at a time when chemtrail believers insist no such thing occurred because they never noticed them in the past.
What you see in the sky was a common sight decades ago.
Unfortunately a hoax has arisen and people who never paid attention to these common trails previously, have only started to notice them now as attention has been drawn to them by fearmongers.
The same phenomenon of people not noticing incredibly obvious day to day things and thinking them new and suspicious only when someone specifically points them out is well illustrated by the Seattle windshield pitting "epidemic" http://www.neatorama.com/2012/09/17/The-Great-Seattle-Windshield-Epidemic/
This thread is about the photos of barrels. Please stay on topic. New topics in new thread please.
Briefly showing the A350 XWB barrels here at 1:40
Interesting "trail" from the water ingestion test too.
CANNOT believe this keeps coming up!
When the next Boeing....(the "797"?) is in Flight Test mode? These photos will appear.
Airbus is developing the 'A-350'....(odd choice of designation, since they already have the A-300. A-310.)
A-320, (A-319??)... A-330 and A-340.....THEN they jump to that "Super-Jumbo" A-380.....but then pull back....and develop the
They have "plans" ahead....so, watch out, @Boeing!!!
I like THIS photo of Ballast Barrels....because it is in a B-747-400, (UPPER DECK, obviously!) .....but is showing a bit of the technology for cabin lighting that is used on the newer B787s:
In al the discussions I've seen on "Chem trails" no one has actually posted an image of a bona fide chemical spraying exercise like, say; Agent Orange to show the difference between that and regular condensation trail.
The first thing you notice is they spraying at very low altitude, so they get an adequate concentration of chemical onto the target. Secondly the plains clearly have spray bars running the length of the wing, and presumably the agent orange would have taken up the majority of they usable payload capacity. Thirdly they are flying in a close formation to cover a large swath of jungle. And for comparison sake here's a regular old condensation trail
Lastly whilst Agent Orange was used in conflict zone and presumably under a degree of security, the truth came out once the personnel who were in close contact with it started to suffer adverse health reaction from their exposure.
So were is the rash of airline employees claiming compo from their exposure to whatever it is that is supposed to be being sprayed?
And fourthly, there's no gap before the start of the trails as there is with contrails
Yes, in fact the trails are more dense the closer they are to the nozzles, as you would expect.
Separate names with a comma.