Aviation fuel additives

Jazzy

Closed Account
Hiya, two Jays.

Apart from the above, aluminum or barium in fuel in greater than trace amounts will absolutely destroy a gas turbine engine in a matter of seconds.


You could argue that volcanic dust isn't the same, but actually aluminum and barium are metals, and they burn to a hard refractory material, which will either melt, or cut, into the turbine blades. The temperature rise due to burning will defeat the aircooling of the gas turbine which it relies on to continue to function.

Trimethyl-aluminum in the fuel is like liquid thermite: no solid material can resist it. None.

 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Thermic lances. The welders on the ship I crew on use those to sever up to 2" thick pipe caissons used on the oil platform superstructures we are removing.
Tubes full of magnesium rods fed pure oxygen cut through anything, even concrete. The 30 ft long shower of sparks is very impressive at night.

We just completed taking down the oldest functioning oil platform in the world, West Cameron 45-A, after 66 years it is gone, totally, cut down ten feet below the mud line:

GALLIANO, Louisiana—On June 10, 1947, Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. won an auction for the right to drill for oil on a plot seven miles off the Louisiana coast. The company built a spindly steel platform and drilled a well in shallow waters. It struck oil, and in 1950, Stanolind sold its first Louisiana sweet crude for $2.67 a barrel.
More than 60 years later, the West Cameron 45-A platform is, according to government records, the oldest functioning platform in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. One of more than 100 structures built in the 1940s and 1950s still in operation, the platform has survived seven Category 2 hurricanes and a major fire.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575644463302701660.html
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I remember thermic lances from a holiday job I had at a foundry once - I didn't use them, but they had some forklift counterweights that something had gone wrong with - rather than recast them they used thermic lances to bore holes in them - as you say and can see in the video it makes an awesome shower of sparks - even the little ones I saw!
 

justanairlinepilot

Senior Member.
The circle continues. When dealing with irrational people, so is the consequence.

Metabunk will be a target for believers. Any strong opposition will have the finger pointed back here. The page speaks for itself. If the has a reputation for being a troll factory, I don't know, but if it does, I didn't create that.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say, but it's the nature of the beast.


Trolls are people who don't agree with what is being said, it's a completely ridiculous statement. It's a way for conspirators to deal with not dealing with reality.
 

Marie

New Member
I expect it because your crew happens to be the only group that I know of constantly attacking a community that's concerned about persistent contrails filled with trade secret chemicals.

I don't care if the additives add up to 0.1% of the chemicals present in exhaust... I just want to know what's in there, just like everyone else.

It is laughable that you have an entire website devoted to debunking chemtrails, a forum devoted to debunking chemtrails, yet you actually don't know what's in the gas either.
I don't believe you Mick. I think you do know, and everyone else in the community agrees. You are a talented liar of omissions...

Further, I am not asking you to research for me, as my timeline is almost complete. I simply requested additional info from a community devoted to "i know everything about jet exhaust" only to get "Why on earth would you expect people here to know every single fuel additive?"

Well Mick, unlike you, I am a stickler for the facts. In less than two weeks, I will have a complete list of fuel ingredients and additives from 1980-present, and the information will be public. I don't need your help, I was giving you one last chance to save face.
There are over 300 chemicals contained within JP8+100 prior to additives being mixed, primarily military spec has 5 main additives however there are approved alternates as well, in hindsight you will be best sticking to the hydrocarbons as they are the ones that will cause long term health issues. As far as trade secret ingredient they are mainly sulphur based products. In ref to what comes out the exhaust, be sure to include beryllium as it's used in all engine and fuel systems components and bound to be spat out the arse end
 

Marie

New Member
A
I have located a few videos which show airplane refueling. These should help to provide an antidote to the fear brough about by ignorance.

The claims that airplane fuel contains aluminum in sufficient mass to create a plume hundreds of miles long through additives would require hundreds of tons of aluminum to be incorporated into the fuel. Aluminum is a solid substance and would be visible. This video shows how fuel trucks have a sump at the bottom to collect foreign matter, dirt, metal, or water. The sumps are checked regularly by the refueling operators as shown, and foreign material would be seen. The fuel operator would be derelict in his duties to allow contamination of any kind, and be responsible for a crash if he did so:

This video shows the fuel operator taking sump samples, doing a visual check to see that the fuel is "clear and bright", and some simple field tests both from the truck and at the tanks. This is a serious and very responsible job performed continuously thousands of times daily worldwide.

Furthermore, the airplanes themselves have sumps on their tanks, and visual checks are also made of these, as seen at 2:20 in this video. The video shows in detail fuel procedures including the fact that fuel is metered into this plane by weight, not gallons. Weight is used because stability of the plane is very important and stability depends on the weight of fuel. Pilots know what weight to expect and how far a given weight will take the plane. If a large mass of aluminum or other substance were added to the fuel, it would decrease the plane's range and be noticeable. Unusual trim conditions caused by unusual weight of fuel would also be an indication of problems. Fueling an airplane is a serious matter, because the pilot wants to live through the flight. Running out of fuel or carrying sub-quality fuel is not like spending some time on the side of the road or calling for roadside assistance, it is a matter of life or death for the pilot and passengers as well as the job of every person in the fuel supply chain. Risking safety by putting off quality fuel into an airplane is simply not an option.

Fuel additives such as Prist or Stadis 450 are sometimes claimed to create "chemtrails". Prist prevents icing of fuel in case small amounts of water form in fuel tanks which could possibly freeze and block fuel lines. It is added at the extremely low rate of 0.1 to 0.15% of the fuel volume(~1 gal. per 1000 gal.) by metering from a small container during fueling as seen at 1:50 during this video. Stadis 450 prevents fire producing sparks from happening in fuel system components, and is added at a MUCH lower rate of 0.00013%:

I hope this puts some perspective on these claims. Readers should be aware that this sort of information is not being shown inside the chemtrails believer camps because the leadership prefers that their followers not know the whole story, thus maintaining the hype of fear and eliciting an emotional rather than a factual response.

See, now your making me miss my old job, NOT...
 

Raphaelle

New Member
No, just are just asking people to do research for you. Why on earth would you expect people here to know every single fuel additive?

And debunking IS truth, if done right.

Debunking isn't truth if done "right". Debunking is truth if the claim being debunked is a lie to begin with. To set out with intent to debunk without first investigating doesn't make yours the truth. The fact is- you regurgitate official contrail rhetoric that anyone can quote, but can't prove what's IN the fuel to refute it honestly, while blaming chemtrail believers for not testing persistent contrails themselves. Have you? NO.

Anyway, I have another thread on Metabunk that I am going to get back to that was started for me after I fractured off of yet another thread ... I've been away, but will be back in these next couple of days... was doing other research and got led back here so thought I'd call out some bunk where I heard it.

Mick and the gang are so good at debunking, they'd debunk me out of my own mother if they had their sites set to it... but bottom line- you guys have no idea what is in the contrails, just like you have no idea what is in the jet fuel. You focus on the point that we believers can't prove our claims but are completely incapable of proving that the opposite is true yourselves.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Debunking isn't truth if done "right". Debunking is truth if the claim being debunked is a lie to begin with. To set out with intent to debunk without first investigating doesn't make yours the truth. The fact is- you regurgitate official contrail rhetoric that anyone can quote, but can't prove what's IN the fuel to refute it honestly, while blaming chemtrail believers for not testing persistent contrails themselves. Have you? NO.

Anyway, I have another thread on Metabunk that I am going to get back to that was started for me after I fractured off of yet another thread ... I've been away, but will be back in these next couple of days... was doing other research and got led back here so thought I'd call out some bunk where I heard it.

Mick and the gang are so good at debunking, they'd debunk me out of my own mother if they had their sites set to it... but bottom line- you guys have no idea what is in the contrails, just like you have no idea what is in the jet fuel. You focus on the point that we believers can't prove our claims but are completely incapable of proving that the opposite is true yourselves.

Jet fuel testing is done on a very regular basis because it has to meet extremely strict requirements. Any out-of-spec contaminants would be a serious problem, both with the risk of engine damage and the alteration of the energy density which would throw fuel calculations off.

Jet fuel is more stringently tested than the petrol you put in your car.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
The fact is- you regurgitate official contrail rhetoric that anyone can quote, but can't prove what's IN the fuel to refute it honestly, while blaming chemtrail believers for not testing persistent contrails themselves. Have you? NO.




So, would it be fair to say that, by your definition, to adequately debunk a claim about fuel additives creating chemtrails, I would need to:


1. Locate a specific plane identified (probably in flight) by a chemtrail advocate.

2. Test its fuel for additives. Presumably after it lands.

3. See if those additives are part of what, a chemtrail patent or containing the usual claimed Aluminum, Strontium, Barium elements?


Essentially, I would have to provide a negative proof for every single plane identified by a chemtrail believer.


I have two questions:

Doesn’t that level of proof seem absurdly high to you?

Have you done any of this investigation or have any proof that rises to this level?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Debunking isn't truth if done "right". Debunking is truth if the claim being debunked is a lie to begin with.

The debunking done here is focussed on claimed evidence. It's not focussed on arguing that a particular theory is right or wrong - instead we look at what the claims of evidence are behind a particular claimed theory, and see if they hold up. For example, there's a claim that contrails should not be able to persist (which would mean persistent trails were evidence of spraying).

So if done right, it should increase the ratio of truth to falsehoods.

but bottom line- you guys have no idea what is in the contrails, just like you have no idea what is in the jet fuel.

That's a bit like saying I've no idea if my neighbor's cat is a robot. I've got a pretty good idea, based on lack of both confirming and contrary evidence, that it's not a robot.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
The fact is- you regurgitate official contrail rhetoric that anyone can quote, but can't prove what's IN the fuel to refute it honestly, while blaming chemtrail believers for not testing persistent contrails themselves. Have you? NO.

Seems like a fallacy- argument from ignorance- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Technically, you are correct. No one here has sampled a contrail in the atmosphere. However, others have. Over decades, scientists have researched the nature of contrails- their contents, their formation and persistence criteria, indeed the very structure of the ice crystals and their optical properties. They have created and sampled contrails in situ, replicated them in labs, studied decades of satellite images. They have done all of this research based on the scientific method, peer review and the laws of physics. This body of knowledge is well documented, well tested and correlates extremely well with the empirical data that anyone can attest to.

So, personally, I am very confident that when I see a persistent trail in the sky, it follows the parameters of knowledge embodied in this decades of research. So, when someone tells me that what I see is NOT a well known, long studied, understood result of combustion in very cold air with irrefutable historical precedent....then the burden of proof is on them...er...you. You are asking us to suspend belief of the historical and factual nature of planes in the atmosphere based on nothing more than incredulity.

Not trusting the government, not remembering persistent contrails and being incredulous at the amount of air traffic is not proof.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
debunking is the process of removing bunk.
If a claim is NOT bunk, then saying it is is not doing debunking "right"
so debunking done right IS truth.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
You can look at this from a different point of view. As a pilot I get presented each flight with a flight plan that specifies a certain amount of fuel required to lift a specific mass (aircraft/payload/fuel) to a specific altitude and fly a specific distance. The energy required to be expended to do this work can be easily calculated.

To reliably achieve this mission, physics demands that the calorific output value achieved by combustion of the fuel must fall into a very tight band.

If additives affect this output, then the aircraft won't deliver the required thrust to perform the takeoff as per the certification requirements; it won't climb to and maintain its planned altitude and it won't make its planned destination with planned fuel reserves.

Therefore, maintaining the calorific output value of jet fuel is a flight safety critical operation.

To say you can maintain this energy value when secretly adding large volumes of other chemicals is a nonsense.

I am about to go and fly the 747 again after a hiatus of 20 years. After perusing the manuals I find the range figures unchanged, the fuel consumption figures unchanged, the fuel tanks sizes unchanged and the engines unchanged from when I first flew the aircraft in 1992. So the fuel it burns now must be very similar to what it was burning back then.

Bear in mind these particular aircraft are regularly videoed by chemtrail believers in Melbourne who claim they are spraying. One particular video has a horizon to horizon trail that both Russ Tanner and Amanda Baise confidently declared was a chemtrail. This particular trail was over 200 km long.

One can ask, what changes would need to be made to an aircraft to allow it to carry and spray a volume of over 200 million cubic metres without affecting the aircrafts range or performance?

They certainly aren't in the certified aircraft manuals I have been supplied with.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
You can look at this from a different point of view. As a pilot I get presented each flight with a flight plan that specifies a certain amount of fuel required to lift a specific mass (aircraft/payload/fuel) to a specific altitude and fly a specific distance. The energy required to be expended to do this work can be easily calculated.

To reliably achieve this mission, physics demands that the calorific output value achieved by combustion of the fuel must fall into a very tight band.

If additives affect this output, then the aircraft won't deliver the required thrust to perform the takeoff as per the certification requirements; it won't climb to and maintain its planned altitude and it won't make its planned destination with planned fuel reserves.

Therefore, maintaining the calorific output value of jet fuel is a flight safety critical operation.

To say you can maintain this energy value when secretly adding large volumes of other chemicals is a nonsense.

I am about to go and fly the 747 again after a hiatus of 20 years. After perusing the manuals I find the range figures unchanged, the fuel consumption figures unchanged, the fuel tanks sizes unchanged and the engines unchanged from when I first flew the aircraft in 1992. So the fuel it burns now must be very similar to what it was burning back then.

Bear in mind these particular aircraft are regularly videoed by chemtrail believers in Melbourne who claim they are spraying. One particular video has a horizon to horizon trail that both Russ Tanner and Amanda Baise confidently declared was a chemtrail. This particular trail was over 200 km long.

One can ask, what changes would need to be made to an aircraft to allow it to carry and spray a volume of over 200 million cubic metres without affecting the aircrafts range or performance?

They certainly aren't in the certified aircraft manuals I have been supplied with.
and it can't be in a separate secret tank they don't tell you about, cos the weight and therefore centre of gravity of your plane would change in a way you were not expecting which could be disastrous.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
Debunking isn't truth if done "right". Debunking is truth if the claim being debunked is a lie to begin with. To set out with intent to debunk without first investigating doesn't make yours the truth. The fact is- you regurgitate official contrail rhetoric that anyone can quote, but can't prove what's IN the fuel to refute it honestly, while blaming chemtrail believers for not testing persistent contrails themselves. Have you? NO.

Anyway, I have another thread on Metabunk that I am going to get back to that was started for me after I fractured off of yet another thread ... I've been away, but will be back in these next couple of days... was doing other research and got led back here so thought I'd call out some bunk where I heard it.

Mick and the gang are so good at debunking, they'd debunk me out of my own mother if they had their sites set to it... but bottom line- you guys have no idea what is in the contrails, just like you have no idea what is in the jet fuel. You focus on the point that we believers can't prove our claims but are completely incapable of proving that the opposite is true yourselves.
Exactly right. Whilst I can present absolutely no evidence, it's obvious that what we're seeing sprayed out of planes is addiction-triggering gummy bear mix..... Think about it - childhood obesity, diabetes, Haribo's sudden near monopoly of the bagged-sweet market. "Kids and grown-ups love them so..." Sweets... grown-ups love? Wake up!

Despite all the clues being there, all these guys can come up with to counter my argument is +60 years of documentary evidence and peer reviewed science of how clouds work, what contrails are, why they persist. Not one shred of proof that what we see in the sky isn't a deadly mix of glucose syrup and gelatin. I'd say that's a damning indictment of what these guys are all about.

Ray Von
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Asylumkid Deadly emissions? [1% contribution of aviation emissions to harmful air pollution] General Discussion 10
Qualiall Air Algerie Flight AH5017 carrying 116 disappears from radar General Discussion 10
Balance Civil Aviation Authority Confirms Chemtrails are a hoax Contrails and Chemtrails 4
George B What can civil aviation do to save the planet? General Discussion 47
Jay Reynolds Flight Magazine- Source of Aviation history Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC Evergreen Aviation in the gun again Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jeffrey Orling The Role of Diesel Fuel in WTC7 9/11 12
SR1419 Claim: 757s cant dump fuel. (True) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Bunk Archeology: Barium in Jet Fuel Additive Stadis 450 [There Isn't Any] Contrails and Chemtrails 17
Trailblazer Fuel dump from one wing? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
M fuel dumping or Aerodynamic contrail Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Unusual Trail on the Russian Su-24 shot down By Turkey Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West ExpressJet Plane Leaking Fuel From the Wing Contrails and Chemtrails 0
MikeC New Fuel additive to decrease volatility Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Trailblazer UAL395 and LH404 fuel dumps and diversions Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
JFDee New fuel dump "chemtrail" video [Munich, Thai Airways Flight 925] Contrails and Chemtrails 33
MikeC Jet fuel damages human cells - study Health and Quackery 16
Mick West HAL47 and HAL9981 Two Hawaiian Flights Diverted to Oakland Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Mick West Hoax: Fuel Dump video on Facebook [Flight BA244 from Buenos Aires to London] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 181
Mick West Delta 5733 (DAL5733) Burning Fuel to Return to Airport Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
MikeC Airbus looking at Fuel Cells to replace APU's Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Efftup Chemtrail additives in Jet fuel: a mathematical analysis Contrails and Chemtrails 23
NikTesla How Much Water is there in Jet Engine Exhaust? [About 1.3 Gallons per Gallon of Fuel Used] Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Mick West Debunked: Aerosol Geoengineering Film Footage Reality [Fuel Dumps] Contrails and Chemtrails 54
Mick West San Diego: Two jets in formation with independent on/off trails [Fuel Dump] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 71
Dylmar Low flying plane leaving trails that don't come from the engines [Fuel dump, Continental flight 009] Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West Debunked: Wingtip Chemtrails over London [Fuel Dump, New Jersey, 2010] Contrails and Chemtrails 12
David Fraser Explained: Search plane in MH370 filmed spraying over Indian Ocean [Fuel dump] Contrails and Chemtrails 18
TWCobra Debunked-Max Bliss implying that aluminium can be added to modern turbo-fan engine fuel. Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Rns Jet Fuel, Additives, Water, and Green Jet Fuel. Contrails and Chemtrails 54
FuzzyUK Debunked: Plane leaving trails from under wing [E-6 TACAMO Fuel Dump] Contrails and Chemtrails 2
C Help debunk please!? [Contrail Grids, Weather Modification, Fuel Dumping] Contrails and Chemtrails 18
MikeC Some fuel quality seminars....... Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Grieves Fukushima Fuel Pools - A Serious Threat To Humanity? General Discussion 69
M Health Effects - Jet Fuel Exposure (JP8+100) Health and Quackery 4
Classified Is Barium in Jet Fuel? Contrails and Chemtrails 138
Mick West Jet Fuel Additives - Composition and Usage Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Debunked: Why In The World Are They Spraying - Wingtip Fuel Dump Photo Contrails and Chemtrails 26
Related Articles






































Related Articles

Top