Pilots For 9/11 Truth Weigh in on Chemtrails

Status
Not open for further replies.
SpaceCowboy said:
External Quote:

MikeC said: ↑
not the terminology I would use - bleed air comes from the compressor section - not the turbine section........
Exactly. :)
Click to expand...

not exactly at all - you complained that the term showed ignorance - I asked if perhaps it was different language use - which can be due to location, job/role, culture or various othe things.

My question was not dismissive and argumentative.
 
deirdre said:
maybe because you purposefully didn't paste the end part of your forum post in the OP.
Click to expand...

The link is there. Some people clicked on it and understood exactly what we were saying. Others assumed based on their hatred for P4T. Your mileage may vary....



MikeC said:
not exactly at all - you complained that the term showed ignorance - I asked if perhaps it was different language use - which can be due to location, job/role, culture or various othe things.

My question was not dismissive and argumentative.
Click to expand...

A bit of background - I have been dealing with "weedwhacker" for many years. He has attacked our organization for many years. He has refused to confront us directly.

Based on what I know about weedwhacker, he has the same "location" and "culture" as many Pilots I know who now fly for the same exact airline as "weedwhacker" has claimed he flew. Not one of them will ever refer to cabin air being bled from a "turbine cycle". And as you have confirmed, neither would you use the same type of terminology when referring to bleed air.

Yes, the whole engine is a "turbine". In fact, I have thousands of hours PIC "turbine". But I would never refer to bleed air as coming from a "turbine cycle", nor would I express that to a layman during instruction.
 
SpaceCowboy said:
I have been dealing with "weedwhacker" for many years. He has attacked our organization for many years. He has refused to confront us directly.

Based on what I know about weedwhacker, he has the same "location" and "culture" as many Pilots I know who now fly for the same exact airline as "weedwhacker" has claimed he flew. Not one of them will ever refer to cabin air being bled from a "turbine cycle". And as you have confirmed, neither would you use the same type of terminology when referring to bleed air.

Yes, the whole engine is a "turbine". In fact, I have thousands of hours PIC "turbine". But I would never refer to bleed air as coming from a "turbine cycle", nor would I express that to a layman during instruction.
Click to expand...
So...my helpful, friendly note (post #45) did not seem like a good plan to you...? Right back on the same damned path that was sooooooo fruitful before...?
 
SpaceCowboy said:
The link is there. Some people clicked on it and understood exactly what we were saying. Others assumed based on their hatred for P4T. Your mileage may vary....





A bit of background - I have been dealing with "weedwhacker" for many years. He has attacked our organization for many years. He has refused to confront us directly.

Based on what I know about weedwhacker, he has the same "location" and "culture" as many Pilots I know who now fly for the same exact airline as "weedwhacker" has claimed he flew. Not one of them will ever refer to cabin air being bled from a "turbine cycle". And as you have confirmed, neither would you use the same type of terminology when referring to bleed air.

Yes, the whole engine is a "turbine". In fact, I have thousands of hours PIC "turbine". But I would never refer to bleed air as coming from a "turbine cycle", nor would I express that to a layman during instruction.
Click to expand...
this entire thread you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Perhaps that's why more people don't visit your site.
 
SpaceCowboy said:
Not one of them will ever refer to cabin air being bled from a "turbine cycle".
Click to expand...

That was not what I meant, and you know it. You know that when writing to someone online who is known to be a layperson, one will often write in terms that one supposes that person will grasp.

Only a pedantic nitpicker with an agenda would take glee in the manner displayed, here. It's very illuminating.

And, ever hear of "glass houses"? If a person wishes to focus on another person's minor "un-technical" phrasing, then that individual should ensure that his/her own house is free of any gaffes.

<cough, cough> ...cockpit door... <cough, cough>​
 
​
WeedWhacker said:
That was not what I meant, and you know it.​
Click to expand...

Readers can decide for themselves....

WeedWhacker said:
Air that is ingested by the engine is compressed as part of the turbine cycle, and some of it is "bled" off (tapped off, if you will) for various uses, one of which is to supply the Air Cycle Machines (or "packs").
Click to expand...

By the way weedwhacker, what exactly did you mean in this post?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread338733/pg5#pid4421263
 
deirdre said:
no I don't want to reread what ive already read here.. that was tiresome enough.
Click to expand...

Well if you read it, then you would know that I am not here for increased traffic, as this forum/website only gets a fraction of the traffic we observe daily. You would also know that the OP is debunking chemtrails.
 
WeedWhacker said: ↑
Air that is ingested by the engine is compressed as part of the turbine cycle, and some of it is "bled" off (tapped off, if you will) for various uses, one of which is to supply the Air Cycle Machines (or "packs").
Click to expand...

Yeah...it's right there, I wrote the words "compressed" and " 'bled' off". I was focused on explaining how the air for Pneumatics is "tapped" from the compression cycle. Compressors ARE turbine rotors, and stator vanes. I never wrote "turbine section" when referring to bleed air.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Yeah...it's right there, I wrote the words "compressed" and " 'bled' off". I was focused on explaining how the air for Pneumatics is "tapped" from the compression cycle. Compressors ARE turbine rotors, and stator vanes. I never wrote "turbine section" when referring to bleed air.
Click to expand...

Whatever weedy... the point is actually moot at this time. But next time you are discussing bleed air, you may want to tell the "layperson" that it comes from a compressor section and not the "turbine cycle"..... because it will only confuse the student/layperson when they google "turbine cycle bleed air".
 
SpaceCowboy said:
Whatever weedy... the point is actually moot at this time. But next time you are discussing bleed air, you may want to tell the "layperson" that it comes from a compressor section and not the "turbine cycle"..... because it will only confuse the student/layperson when they google "turbine cycle bleed air".
Click to expand...
he SAID to me...the compressor rotor. which I understood.
 
SpaceCowboy said:
The link is there. Some people clicked on it and understood exactly what we were saying. Others assumed based on their hatred for P4T. Your mileage may vary....

A bit of background - I have been dealing with "weedwhacker" for many years. He has attacked our organization for many years. He has refused to confront us directly.

Based on what I know about weedwhacker, he has the same "location" and "culture" as many Pilots I know who now fly for the same exact airline as "weedwhacker" has claimed he flew. Not one of them will ever refer to cabin air being bled from a "turbine cycle". And as you have confirmed, neither would you use the same type of terminology when referring to bleed air.

Yes, the whole engine is a "turbine". In fact, I have thousands of hours PIC "turbine". But I would never refer to bleed air as coming from a "turbine cycle", nor would I express that to a layman during instruction.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything wrong with the use of "turbine cycle" personally. I don't think it invalidates him as a pilot nor should it be used to discredit his opinion. I don't fly the airliners myself (I'll just stick to turboprops), but for all intents and purposes, what he said isn't exactly wrong, even if it isn't mainstream pilot terminology. Heck, I sometimes even call the yoke in the airplane anything from the control column to the wheel. It's all semantics at this point. Rather than sling personal attacks back and forth, which is clearly what is happening at this point, this thread should be more directed to the topic at hand. Being constructive and less emotional goes a long way in winning an argument.
 
Bottom line, the OP establishes why Chemtrails cannot be true.

Does anyone here disagree with the OP? And if so... why?
 
SpaceCowboy said:
Bottom line, the OP establishes why Chemtrails cannot be true.

Does anyone here disagree with the OP? And if so... why?
Click to expand...

Rob, this forum has an entire sub-forum debunking "chemtrails".

The greatest proof of the non-existence of chemtrails lies more with the logistics than anything else. The meme says that aluminium oxide, barium and strontium are the main chemicals supposedly sprayed. However there is even disagreement on that. Aluminium oxide isn't even toxic. It does however have a hardness value 1 less than diamonds so any aircraft flying through a cloud of it is going to be heavily abraded.

Chemmies say it is in the fuel... that is ludicrous. But the real killer is the weight. The heaviest load current liftable by any aircraft is around 140 tonnes in a 747-8 freighter. A persisent contrail lasting for 10 minutes or so is going to contain tens of thousands of tonnes of ice. A cloud of aluminum oxide, as optically dense as a contrail, is going to weigh 3 to 4 times as much.

Explaining this to non-technical people is the problem. It doesn't compute with them.

What you have written in the OP may happen if flying directly behind an aircraft spraying a dense cloud of toxic chemicals, but that is not really the meme.
 
SpaceCowboy said:
Bottom line, the OP establishes why Chemtrails cannot be true.

Does anyone here disagree with the OP? And if so... why?
Click to expand...

This OP?

SpaceCowboy said:
What To Expect If Your Airplane Flys Through A "chemtrail"

If any one of the airplanes in the below link (or your airplane) fly through a visible "chemtrail"....

http://flightradar24.com

....you can expect this to occur...

- Visibility in the cabin to go to zero as the cabin will be filled with compressed visible "chemicals". Aircraft cabins are not a sealed container. The air you breathe in the cabin comes directly from outside the airplane regardless of altitude. The air (and any possible "chemicals"), are sucked into the engines, compressed, and then dumped into the cabin.
- Passengers and crew suffocating from high concentrations of chemicals
- If the O2 masks were not deployed within 1-3 mins, incapacitation of the entire crew and passengers shortly followed by death.
- If the O2 masks were deployed, the crew would be reading erroneous instrument data...
- airspeed readings would now act like an altimeter due to the pitot tubes being clogged with chemicals.
- Fire in both/all engines due to chemicals igniting within the combustion chambers
- If the engines did not catch fire, engine surges/flame-outs/compressor stalls due to FADEC probes clogged with chemicals... compressor fans clogged with chemicals.
- AOA vanes providing erroneous data, erroneous stall warnings.. due to AOA vanes caked with chemicals.
- Failure of AP systems due to Air data computer logics not adding up
- Stall due to leading edges of wings/empennage caked with chemicals.

And this is just off the top of my head...

Full article - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22652
​
Click to expand...

It's a bunch of rather specious assertions. Like, why exactly would the wings be caked? Why would passengers be dead shortly after 3 minutes? It establishes nothing.

If you fly through a cloud, would you expect it to start raining in the cabin?
 
From the post on PfT that SpaceC did not quote
Again.. this theory is very easily proven. All one needs to do is get us an airplane and we will go fly through some of the "chemicals", despite the many hazards to flight safety if in fact they are "chemtrails". Anyone who believes in "chemtrails" is welcome to ride along.... Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse "Chemtrail" theories for the very reasons stated above.. and the fact that thousands of aircraft are airborne right now while you read this, and are flying merrily on their way....
But for those who do believe in "chemtrails", you might want to think twice about taking your next flight to your dream vacation, because if your airplane flies through one, you may not survive, if in fact "chemtrails" are true.
Click to expand...

If this is supposed to be a ringing non-endorement of Chemtrail Ct then Mr.Balsamo needs a course in writing. There is also the possibility that Mr. Balsamo wrote it this way deliberately in order to play at trapping people into arguing as if he does believe the chemtrail CT. The later would seem to be supported by the exclusion of this final part of the PfT post quoted in the OP.Aside from the one line bolded above, the entire post is ambiguous at best as to the position that PfT has on the issue.

As of late it appears that the raison d'etre of Rob Balsamo is to simply start arguments rather than engage in civil discourse.
 
You guys are taking this the wrong way...in fact most of you seem to be holding 'SpaceCowboy' in contempt.
His OP is very common sense. He's saying, (in a manner of speaking):
  • If chemtrails were real,
  • These effects would be observed
  • These effects are NOT observed
  • Therefore there's no basis in chemtrails.
It's pretty cut and dried. It seems the knee jerk reaction here is to bash his views even if they're on the same side as 'debunkers',..why is that?
 
Josh Heuer said:
You guys are taking this the wrong way...in fact most of you seem to be holding 'SpaceCowboy' in contempt.
His OP is very common sense. He's saying, (in a manner of speaking):
  • If chemtrails were real,
  • These effects would be observed
  • These effects are NOT observed
  • Therefore there's no basis in chemtrails.
It's pretty cut and dried. It seems the knee jerk reaction here is to bash his views even if they're on the same side as 'debunkers',..why is that?
Click to expand...
There is a history of suspected motives, some here are expecting a different shoe to drop. So caution is used when debating someone who has shown a pattern of disagreement on a different and/or similar set of issues.
 
Josh Heuer said:
You guys are taking this the wrong way...in fact most of you seem to be holding 'SpaceCowboy' in contempt.
His OP is very common sense. He's saying, (in a manner of speaking):
  • If chemtrails were real,
  • These effects would be observed
  • These effects are NOT observed
  • Therefore there's no basis in chemtrails.
It's pretty cut and dried. It seems the knee jerk reaction here is to bash his views even if they're on the same side as 'debunkers',..why is that?
Click to expand...
there aren't 'sides'. there is bunk and nonbunk
 
on an upnote- if the compressor rotors...oops Fans...get clogged then the chemicals wont be so thick inside the airplane! ; )
 
I have no previous knowledge of Rob or P4T but I took the OP as being a ridiculous scenario created to ridicule the chemtrail theory. Both are a fiction. To me, that infers agreement that chemtrails are a myth, ergo nothing to debate here.
 
George B said:
There is a history of suspected motives, some here are expecting a different shoe to drop. So caution is used when debating someone who has shown a pattern of disagreement on a different and/or similar set of issues.
Click to expand...
And this isn't even a 'debate' ; the guy is backing up the idea that chemtrails are bunk. Why such hostility towards him?
 
deirdre said:
there aren't 'sides'. there is bunk and nonbunk
Click to expand...
Yeah, semantics, you just split it into two 'sides' you say don't exist; bunk side and nonbunk side (which is potentially much larger since you can come up with anything you want).
I'm just saying, in this particular instance he's got the same view point (no such thing as chemtrails) and he's still being thrown under the bus. Seems a little hostile to me.

Anyway, I understood his intentions in the OP, just confused as to why he was being treated as though he was here to prove chemtrails were real. I'll back out (until I'm quoted again lol)
 
Josh Heuer said:
Yeah, semantics, you just split it into two 'sides' you say don't exist; bunk side and nonbunk side (which is potentially much larger since you can come up with anything you want).
I'm just saying, in this particular instance he's got the same view point (no such thing as chemtrails) and he's still being thrown under the bus. Seems a little hostile to me.

Anyway, I understood his intentions in the OP, just confused as to why he was being treated as though he was here to prove chemtrails were real. I'll back out (until I'm quoted again lol)
Click to expand...
? so are you calling his OP bunk? (if there are 2 sides).
it's his attitude and approach that got the reaction, not the 'chemtrail' discussion. I understood his OP too.
 
Josh Heuer said:
Yeah, semantics, you just split it into two 'sides' you say don't exist; bunk side and nonbunk side (which is potentially much larger since you can come up with anything you want).
I'm just saying, in this particular instance he's got the same view point (no such thing as chemtrails) and he's still being thrown under the bus. Seems a little hostile to me.

Anyway, I understood his intentions in the OP, just confused as to why he was being treated as though he was here to prove chemtrails were real. I'll back out (until I'm quoted again lol)
Click to expand...
Josh, go all the way back to Post #6...which of the alleged "sides" are you putting me in?
 
deirdre said:
? so are you calling his OP bunk? (if there are 2 sides).
it's his attitude and approach that got the reaction, not the 'chemtrail' discussion. I understood his OP too.
Click to expand...
*whooooosh* straight over your head!
No, all I'm saying is I understood his OP to support the idea that "chemtrails" (noticed he used quotations as I just did!) would be bunk for reasons listed. Just adding to reasons why they're bunk.
 
NoParty said:
Josh, go all the way back to Post #6...which of the alleged "sides" are you putting me in?
Click to expand...
If you think chemtrails are bunk, then you're on the 'side' of debunking chemtrails. If you think he meant they're real, you're on the 'side' of confusion :eek:
 
Josh Heuer said:
*whooooosh* straight over your head!
No, all I'm saying is I understood his OP to support the idea that "chemtrails" (noticed he used quotations as I just did!) would be bunk for reasons listed. Just adding to reasons why they're bunk.
Click to expand...
I cant even recall anything in the thread that had to do with chemtrails. did you read the thread? it became a spat about vocabulary after my first question.
 
Josh Heuer said:
If you think chemtrails are bunk, then you're on the 'side' of debunking chemtrails. If you think he meant they're real, you're on the 'side' of confusion :eek:
Click to expand...
You lost me, brother. My point is that, early on some saw it for what it is, anti-chemtrail but just rendered poorly.
So I absolutely don't fit into the teams you're alleging.

If you sincerely do not understand why some here might question the accuracy or sincerity of the OP, just read some of his other posts.
 
NoParty said:
You lost me, brother. My point is that, early on some saw it for what it is, anti-chemtrail but just rendered poorly.
So I absolutely don't fit into the teams you're alleging.

If you sincerely do not understand why some here might question the accuracy or sincerity of the OP, just read some of his other posts.
Click to expand...
I don't need to take his other posts into consideration Re: the OP. I understood the OP plain as day, and I agree with it. I'm not going to look at his other posts and try to find a way to use that against the OP. You can do whatever you choose.
 
Josh Heuer said:
I don't need to take his other posts into consideration Re: the OP. I understood the OP plain as day, and I agree with it. I'm not going to look at his other posts and try to find a way to use that against the OP. You can do whatever you choose.
Click to expand...
no one is using it (the spat part) against his OP. it wasn't really off topic, spacecowboy just wouldn't let a semantics issue go.
the topic isn't really 'are chemtrails illogical', although I know what youre trying to say. The OP topic is "is this what would happen to a plane if it flew through a chemcloud'. so what do you think of the topic? Would that, as cowboy wrote it, happen to a plane? or is it bunk?
 
Josh Heuer said:
I don't need to take his other posts into consideration Re: the OP. I understood the OP plain as day, and I agree with it. I'm not going to look at his other posts and try to find a way to use that against the OP. You can do whatever you choose.
Click to expand...
Dude, you're missing the point entirely.

Most of the people on this site are well-versed re. the documentation of http://contrailscience.com etc.

I doubt OP's delivery impressed anyone (except possibly you)...it was attempting to refute "chemtrails,"
but on a much, much lower level than this sites participants are accustomed to.

I'm glad you agree with refutation of "chemtrails"...I do too. But if you refuse to look at the context of the particular poster,
then you refuse to understand why people react to him as they do. If you choose not to understand,
I'm totally fine with that...though you might want to think twice about being so damned loud about what you don't know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TWCobra
Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 truth WTC speeds
2 3
Replies
94
Views
90K
Mick West
Mick West

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top