Chemtrail discussion: ethics, psyops, and stuff

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So you know how the flight information is presented to each controller along the aircraft's route?
Please tell us how this is done.
No, I can't say that I do . . . but if an aircraft is on contract to the military for a covert mission (for example) I doubt they indicate to the control center this aircraft is on a secret mission to deliver weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartel . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So a tiny number of aircraft injecting a tiny amount of a natural element into the atmosphere is going to have global-changing effects?
How about no.


And because you know that airliners aren't producing these mythical 'chemtrails' I assume you will also help us correct the errant thinking of those that do believe that airliners are making 'chemtrails' ?
There are multiple studies indicating 9 to 30 aircraft can deliver from 1 million to 3 million tons of SOx into the stratosphere within one year . . . which has been calculated to effect the rate of warming . . .

And yes I tell participants that most if not all the trails they see are the products of long haul aircraft flying higher, with high efficient engines . . . greater in number and in higher frequency . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
There are multiple studies indicating 9 to 30 aircraft can deliver from 1 million to 3 million tons of SOx into the stratosphere within one year . . . which has been calculated to effect the rate of warming . . .

I recall you identifying 1 such - perhaps the others got hidden in the background - can you provide a list?
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
No, I can't say that I do . . . but if an aircraft is on contract to the military for a covert mission (for example) I doubt they indicate to the control center this aircraft is on a secret mission to deliver weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartel . . .

So you don't actually have any idea.




There are multiple studies indicating 9 to 30 aircraft can deliver from 1 million to 3 million tons of SOx into the stratosphere within one year . . . which has been calculated to effect the rate of warming . . .


We'd need to see some example of those reports.
It sounds extremely dubious at best.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I'm wondering if you know many chemtrail people in real life *outside of the conspiracy community*. If not, you may not be seeing this in the same way as some of us. I don't mean to disrespect you by saying this. It's just... having someone who is so focused on the issue it consumes them, when conversation with that person about anything not conspiracy-related has become all but impossible.... it's very hard, and for some I should think it's heartbreaking. Indeed in many cases chemtrails are not the only conspiracy they are obsessed with. But that there are people making money and grasping for attention out of that suffering, it's at best frustrating.

There's an insidious thing about the chemtrail theory, a thing that in my opinion makes it so much worse than for example "faked moon landings" or the obsession with the idea of 9/11 being an inside job. Now let me clear - I don't mean to be insensitive or in any way disrespectful to people who suffered and still suffer because of the tragic events which happened on that day. The reason the chemtrail theory is potentially more damaging, is that people believe they and their loved ones are being poisoned, violated, even having their DNA tampered with. Every single day. Not just in one country, this is affecting people all over the world. How hopeless, how tragic their situation must seem. How terrifying it must be to see your relatives and friends being poisoned yet they won't listen! How isolating. How utterly exhausting.

And yet there is Michael J Murphy, Sophia Smallstorm etc, etc, oh relief - people who "know the truth"! Like cult leaders they embrace their flock. (Reminds me of the captor whose captives succumb to Stockholm Syndrome.) Families, friends, colleagues, neighbours - they won't listen, but there's a whole community online. It's comforting. It's reassuring when one begins to doubt "the truth", but there will always be someone there, someone who's getting their "facts" from "looking up", and from What in the World are They Spraying?

"Us" against "Them" - it's a comforting position to be in when you believe you are being slowly killed by "Them".

Recently someone I used to consider a friend was talking about not seeing their kids grow up. Because of "chemtrails". I don't know whether to pity that person more than their children...
You are right I don't know anyone like that . . . however, we all get a steady dose of gloom and doom from Discovery Channel, History Channel, National Geograhic, many religious groups, movies, TV and now even commercials and ads . . . so if any of us are emotionally unstable I am not surprised of your observations . . . and can some people make money by manipulating the fear . . . in a skinny minute . . . but where to draw the line . . .???? What is acceptable and what is hype, unethical and immoral?? What is candid debate between equal parties and when is it over the top . . .?? I am not trying to say we should not be concerned or sympathetic to the people overly susceptible to Chemtrail fears but if it means no one can openly discuss their ideas for fear of harm . . . what then does that accomplish . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I recall you identifying 1 such - perhaps the others got hidden in the background - can you provide a list?
Here are a few . . .


THE BENEFITS, RISKS, AND COSTS OF STRATOSPHERIC GEOENGINEERING


Alan Robock, Allison Marquardt, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy Stenchikov Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Submitted for publication in


Geophysical Research Letters


May, 2009


http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf


-----------




Cost Analysis of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Delivery Systems


September 11, 2012


Table # 1

[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034019/article[/FONT]


http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...spheric-albedo-modification-delivery-systems/


Large cargo (Boeing 747-400


Maintenance hours per flight hour.
. 4


FY10 acquisition cost ($M) FY10, modification cost ($M),


Number of aircraft required . . . 14


Fleet acquisition cost ($B)


Yearly operations cost ($B)


Total yearly cost with depreciation and interest


------
Cost Analysis Final Report
Prepared Under Contract to The University Of Calgary
Contract Number: __UC01-001______
Aurora Report Number: ____AR10-182__ October 30, 2010


http://agriculturedefensecoalition....Aurora_Flight_Sciences_Final_Report_Keith.pdf


2 Geoengineering Concept of Operations
This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft opera- tions, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also ex- amined.


For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized. Transit operations are not economical as the leg length is dictated by the distance between bases (for 8-base operations, legs are approximately 5,000 km) causing release rates to be low and fuel costs to be high.




A comparison of regional and transit operations utilizing Boeing 747s (at its service ceiling of 45,000 feet) is as follows:


x Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.036 kg/m flown
o $0.8B for acquisition and $1B for one year of operations o 0.66M tonnes fuel burned per year


x Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.012 kg/m flown
o $1.4 B for acquisition and $2.8B for one year of operations o 1.6M tonnes fuel burned per year


x Transit: 747s transiting from 4 bases
o 48 airplanes, payload dispersed over 11,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.005 kg/m flown
o $2.8B for acquisition and $4.5B for one year of operations o 3.24M tonnes fuel burned per year


---------


Can a Million Tons of Sulfur Dioxide Combat Climate Change?By Chris Mooney

[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all[/FONT]


[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all[/FONT]

The next question, of course, is how to get the particles up there. Various proposals have suggested using artillery, balloons, suspended hoses, military jets, or even converted 747s. Then there is the question of where to deposit the sulfur. There are different elevations to consider, as well as planetary location. A number of scientists, most recently Wood and Caldeira in a yet-unpublished paper, propose dispensing the gas over the Arctic

— after all, that's where global warming is felt most powerfully and where cooler temperatures would help restore sea ice and stabilize Greenland.
Content from External Source
 

MikeC

Closed Account
OK - I thuoght I might have missed some - but these are all ther are then we've already discussed their inadequacies:

Here are a few . . .

THE BENEFITS, RISKS, AND COSTS OF STRATOSPHERIC GEOENGINEERING

<snip>

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf

Presuposes that ALL of an a/c's payload is available for carrying the product - whereas of course a great deal of it is required for its own fuel.


Cost Analysis of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Delivery Systems


September 11, 2012


Table # 1


http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...spheric-albedo-modification-delivery-systems/


Large cargo (Boeing 747-400)...

Table 1 is:

Table 1. Costs for existing aircraft with a fleet size required to deliver 1 Mt yr−1. Numbers in parentheses in the right-hand three columns represent costs with modifications to achieve an altitude of 18.2 km (60 kft). ‘FY10′ refers to the US fiscal year 2010.
Content from External Source
B747's will not fly as high as 60,000 feet, even empty - also a fail.

Cost Analysis Final Report
Prepared Under Contract to The University Of Calgary
Contract Number: __UC01-001______
Aurora Report Number: ____AR10-182__ October 30, 2010


http://agriculturedefensecoalition....Aurora_Flight_Sciences_Final_Report_Keith.pdf


2 Geoengineering Concept of Operations
...

A comparison of regional and transit operations utilizing Boeing 747s (at its service ceiling of 45,000 feet) is as follows:

Let's have a look at those figures:

Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.036 kg/m flown
Content from External Source
At 0.036kg/m*(1500*1000)m = 54,000kg per cruise leg (54 tonnes)

1 million tonnes requires 18,519 flights.

14 aircraft would each have to fly about 1323 flights...or an average of almost 4 per day every day of the year!!

that's not impossible of course - 4 flights a day is fairly trivial for short haul - but you're talking about taking a 747 to 45,000 feet in each flight, then cruising for about 1.75 hours, then returning to base, then reloading, etc. Plus time down for maintenance.

no attempt has been made in the study to show how this capacity wold be achieved - it is quite high utilisation for 747's.

Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.012 kg/m flown
Content from External Source
so 0.012*5000*1000 = 60,000kg - 60 tonnes.

For 1 million tonnes need 16,667 flights, so 24 a/c would be doing about 695 flights per year each, or almost 2 flights per day per a/c.

but now the flights are 5000km long + takeoff & land - each of these flights is going to spend about 5 hours in cruise, + takeoff, and, turnaround.

Again this is very high utilisation.

I haven't done het 3rd case - fel free....

I also note that the report happiloy includes a graph of the 747-400
altitude pwerormance -
Figure 9: Theoretical Coffin Corner (arrow) for a Boeing 747 is defined as the altitude at which the
stall Mach number (at max weight) and maximum Mach number converge.
Content from External Source
If you beleive this you would think that the a/c could happily flight at 50,000+ feet and mach .92 - ignoring its climb performance, fuel burn and payload capacity at those heights.

all in all while this report certainly looks good I have to say that it seems a little superficial - treating performance figures as if they were fixed in stone.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
OK - I thuoght I might have missed some - but these are all ther are then we've already discussed their inadequacies:



Presuposes that ALL of an a/c's payload is available for carrying the product - whereas of course a great deal of it is required for its own fuel.




Table 1 is:

Table 1. Costs for existing aircraft with a fleet size required to deliver 1 Mt yr−1. Numbers in parentheses in the right-hand three columns represent costs with modifications to achieve an altitude of 18.2 km (60 kft). ‘FY10′ refers to the US fiscal year 2010.
Content from External Source
B747's will not fly as high as 60,000 feet, even empty - also a fail.



Let's have a look at those figures:

Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.036 kg/m flown
Content from External Source
At 0.036kg/m*(1500*1000)m = 54,000kg per cruise leg (54 tonnes)

1 million tonnes requires 18,519 flights.

14 aircraft would each have to fly about 1323 flights...or an average of almost 4 per day every day of the year!!

that's not impossible of course - 4 flights a day is fairly trivial for short haul - but you're talking about taking a 747 to 45,000 feet in each flight, then cruising for about 1.75 hours, then returning to base, then reloading, etc. Plus time down for maintenance.

no attempt has been made in the study to show how this capacity wold be achieved - it is quite high utilisation for 747's.

Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.012 kg/m flown
Content from External Source
so 0.012*5000*1000 = 60,000kg - 60 tonnes.

For 1 million tonnes need 16,667 flights, so 24 a/c would be doing about 695 flights per year each, or almost 2 flights per day per a/c.

but now the flights are 5000km long + takeoff & land - each of these flights is going to spend about 5 hours in cruise, + takeoff, and, turnaround.

Again this is very high utilisation.

I haven't done het 3rd case - fel free....

I also note that the report happiloy includes a graph of the 747-400
altitude pwerormance -
Figure 9: Theoretical Coffin Corner (arrow) for a Boeing 747 is defined as the altitude at which the
stall Mach number (at max weight) and maximum Mach number converge.
Content from External Source
If you beleive this you would think that the a/c could happily flight at 50,000+ feet and mach .92 - ignoring its climb performance, fuel burn and payload capacity at those heights.

all in all while this report certainly looks good I have to say that it seems a little superficial - treating performance figures as if they were fixed in stone.
I think these all turn on how high is high enough and where (what latitude) the injection needs to be accomplished. I think because of aircraft limitations . . . compromises had to be made . . . 1-2 million tons in the northern latitudes in summer and southern latitudes during the northern winter months . . . probably no higher than 35,000 feet max . . .


Can a Million Tons of Sulfur Dioxide Combat Climate Change?By Chris

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all

The next question, of course, is how to get the particles up there. Various proposals have suggested using artillery, balloons, suspended hoses, military jets, or even converted 747s. Then there is the question of where to deposit the sulfur. There are different elevations to consider, as well as planetary location. A number of scientists, most recently Wood and Caldeira in a yet-unpublished paper, propose dispensing the gas over the Arctic — after all, that's where global warming is felt most powerfully and where cooler temperatures would help restore sea ice and stabilize Greenland.
Content from External Source
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
If you beleive this you would think that the a/c could happily flight at 50,000+ feet and mach .92 - ignoring its climb performance, fuel burn and payload capacity at those heights.

all in all while this report certainly looks good I have to say that it seems a little superficial - treating performance figures as if they were fixed in stone.

Thanks for the detailed post, Mike.
A 747 simply will not go M 0.92 at 50,000', nor will it reach 50,000' at any speed.
Your information shows how utterly ridiculous the proposal is.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Thanks for the detailed post, Mike.
A 747 simply will not go M 0.92 at 50,000', nor will it reach 50,000' at any speed.
Your information shows how utterly ridiculous the proposal is.
Sorry, You are wrong . . . no major project operates at maximum efficiency . . .The altitudes and tons are projected ideals not reality . . . if it was felt it was necessary to proceed these limitations would have been accepted as something to be dealt with . . . you don't stop fighting a war because your weapon is not perfect . . . 35,000 feet is more than adequate to reach the lower reaches of the stratosphere in the polar and near polar regions . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Sorry, You are wrong . . . no major project operates at maximum efficiency . . .The altitudes and tons are projected ideals not reality . . .

so why do you repeatedly use them as if they were reality??

...if it was felt it was necessary to proceed these limitations would have been accepted as something to be dealt with . . . you don't stop fighting a war because your weapon is not perfect . . .

Which is what I have been telling you for months...oh ...right...... yay - you get the point!! :D

35,000 feet is more than adequate to reach the lower reaches of the stratosphere in the polar and near polar regions . . .

Except of course the proposals are generally for equatorial regions - 30N to 30S.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Except of course the proposals are generally for equatorial regions - 30N to 30S.
Of course, based on the most RECENT computer modeling that is the optimal process for SOx injection into the stratosphere if you want the best mitigation per unit of SOx . . . however, it is not necessarily the best strategy to limit polar melting or is the most flexible to meet a contingency like a major volcanic eruption like the 20 million ton injection in 1991 . . .
 

Fred259

New Member
except of course the proposals are generally for equatorial regions - 30n to 30s

Precisely … all these reports that you posted up George are fake. I wasn’t even going to bother posting back. Its quite ridiculous. They talk for example about towing gliders behind B747's!. They are making this up they haven’t a clue what they are talking about. Most of us spend a lifetime trying to keep away from 747, and these idiots propose towing gliders behind them.... Its total disinformation designed for the gullible.


PS.... the other proposal in this wonderful report involves building a tower at the equator that would stretch high into the skies a bit like “ Jack and his Beanstalk” with the proposal to pump chemicals into the heavens from the tower.! Can someone work out the pressure that would be required for this pointless exercise...


Honestly, someone is sitting at home, drinking scotch smoking a cigar and having a great laugh..




I don’t believe this 0.92 either. Where did that come from? What is the Vmo 350/ .88 perhaps ?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Precisely … all these reports that you posted up George are fake. I wasn’t even going to bother posting back. Its quite ridiculous. They talk for example about towing gliders behind B747's!. They are making this up they haven’t a clue what they are talking about. Most of us spend a lifetime trying to keep away from 747, and these idiots propose towing gliders behind them.... Its total disinformation designed for the gullible.


PS.... the other proposal in this wonderful report involves building a tower at the equator that would stretch high into the skies a bit like “ Jack and his Beanstalk” with the proposal to pump chemicals into the heavens from the tower.! Can someone work out the pressure that would be required for this pointless exercise...


Honestly, someone is sitting at home, drinking scotch smoking a cigar and having a great laugh..




I don’t believe this 0.92 either. Where did that come from? What is the Vmo 350/ .88 perhaps ?

Fake??? . . . Don't think so . . . these are quite serious . . . you might not agree with them but the authors are quite serious . . .
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
I don’t believe this 0.92 either. Where did that come from? What is the Vmo 350/ .88 perhaps ?

Mmo on a 747 is M 0.92, and I've done it in real life during a test flight. We had to use climb power and put it in a shallow dive to get there.







Sorry, You are wrong . . . no major project operates at maximum efficiency . . .The altitudes and tons are projected ideals not reality . . . if it was felt it was necessary to proceed these limitations would have been accepted as something to be dealt with . . . you don't stop fighting a war because your weapon is not perfect . . . 35,000 feet is more than adequate to reach the lower reaches of the stratosphere in the polar and near polar regions . . .


There's the continuing problem of a complete and utter lack of any shred of evidence though. You keep coming up with bizarre theories which all have the common theme of zero evidence or credibility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Mmo on a 747 is M 0.92, and I've done it in real life during a test flight. We had to use climb power and put it in a shallow dive to get there.


There's the continuing problem of a complete and utter lack of any shred of evidence though. You keep coming up with bizarre theories which all have the common theme of zero evidence or credibility.

That is OK . . . I show it is possible, it has been proposed, computer modeled, and costed out . . . the question is . . . is it ongoing, tried and failed, or yet to be accomplished . . . I believe there is at least a 30% chance it has been attempted . . . I base my estimate on the people I think were responsible for such a decision, their mode of operation, access to budget and propensity to act . . . also their ability to design and execute covert operations . . . they don't leave evidence they are too capable and secretive . . .
 

Met Watch

Moderator
That is OK . . . I show it is possible, it has been proposed, computer modeled, and costed out . . . the question is . . . is it ongoing, tried and failed, or yet to be accomplished . . . I believe there is at least a 30% chance it has been attempted . . . I base my estimate on the people I think were responsible for such a decision, their mode of operation, access to budget and propensity to act . . . also their ability to design and execute covert operations . . . they don't leave evidence they are too capable and secretive . . .

What else could you say has a 30% chance of being attempted? Flying monkeys with AK-47s for the army? Hijacking a UFO and using the technology for warfare (who knows, maybe someone got ahold of something in Roswell)? I could probably find snippets of reports and cherry-pick and make an argument that those programs could be occurring, because they are capable of doing so and good at keeping it secret. Hell, almost ANYTHING could be proposed on that front!
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
That is OK . . . I show it is possible, it has been proposed, computer modeled, and costed out . . . the question is . . .

Another question is how do these 747's move around when they are all accounted for in either active airlines, mothballed, or destroyed?
Did Boeing secretly make some without serial numbers after hours when no-one was watching?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Another question is how do these 747's move around when they are all accounted for in either active airlines, mothballed, or destroyed?
Did Boeing secretly make some without serial numbers after hours when no-one was watching?
Why do they have to be secret . . .? The mission is covert not the ownership? They are just part of a fleet of a legit corporation or front company operated and funded by something like the CIA. Just how do you deliver weapons, drugs, personnel . . . ??
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What else could you say has a 30% chance of being attempted? Flying monkeys with AK-47s for the army? Hijacking a UFO and using the technology for warfare (who knows, maybe someone got ahold of something in Roswell)? I could probably find snippets of reports and cherry-pick and make an argument that those programs could be occurring, because they are capable of doing so and good at keeping it secret. Hell, almost ANYTHING could be proposed on that front!

In many ways you are correct . . . however, this Forum debates issues surrounding several issues but geoengineering and debunking the Chemtrail conspiracy is a major piece of the pie . . . so I introduced some concepts several months ago for debate . . . it could have been just as easily about cats or UFO technology very true!!!

Just for the record . . . I arrived at my concepts by asking myself "If I were going to design a covert atmospheric aerosol injection program how would I do it?" So it was an exercise in finding studies, data, and capabilities which allow such an effort . . . Simple . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Another thread wasted on this crap. What are we up to about five or six threads now?
Jay, I no longer introduce my theories about stratospheric sulfur injection or start Threads regarding them . . . I only answer questions . . . The responsibility is also on the part of the questioner . . . they don't ask . . . I won't answer . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Jay, I no longer introduce my theories about stratospheric sulfur injection or start Threads regarding them . . . I only answer questions . . . The responsibility is also on the part of the questioner . . . they don't ask . . . I won't answer . . .

I regret that you have been forced to recount your story so many times, George.
It must have become very tiresome for you.
Maybe we should have mercy and let it go.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I regret that you have been forced to recount your story so many times, George.
It must have become very tiresome for you.
Maybe we should have mercy and let it go.
LoL!!! It is hard not to be courteous. . . at least you have a sense of humor . . .
 

Fred259

New Member
Mmo on a 747 is M 0.92, and I've done it in real life during a test flight. We had to use climb power and put it in a shallow dive to get there.










There's the continuing problem of a complete and utter lack of any shred of evidence though. You keep coming up with bizarre theories which all have the common theme of zero evidence or credibility.

Wow...Ok, I apologise..... well done Bill. Perhaps this is because its got four engines, most probably British. The Americans make dependable engines don’t they, but Rolls Royce are better!


However I feel this isn’t a British registered aircraft. The CAA in London would be buttock shuffling and figure drumming on desk if they saw that!


At least Bill is gracious enough to say its a flight test and as such the aircraft was empty. With the nose slightly lowered and climb power set Bill and his colleagues have slowly squeezed out every last bit of available power.


So 10/10 and A+ to Bill . What can we learn? Notice the clock in the eight o’clock position the TAS clock. It reads 550kts so that’s fast 9 miles per minute to be precise.


The main instrument is reading 320 kts 40 knots above the red plastic bug that Bill set at 280 knots.


He also set the white plastic bugs at 245 and 135 kts respectively. They have taken the aircraft 40 kts above the red bug speed to get the Mach 0.92 required for this air test. On the other hand given it was a test perhaps they were just “experimenting” Experimenting would be a polite way of saying playing around or giving it wellie!


They are very high; where the air is less dense ( thin) and very cold (-60C ) As such they are able to get the high true air speed (TAS) of 550kts that you can clearly see. As the aircraft descends both the outside air temp and the air density ( the thickness of the air) will increase. The lower they descend the warmer the air and the greater the increase in air density.


When the aircraft descends the Mach No will decrease along with the true airspeed (TAS). The Indicated airspeed on the main instrument will also decrease towards the 280 kts red plastic bug. Bill then pilots the aircraft down to 1000 feet above the ground at the red bug speed of 280 kts. On reaching 2,000 feet (1000 above) he raises the nose and gently allows the speed to settle as they go level at 1000 feet above the ground.


Because the air density has now dramatically increased and the outside air temp is now +12C the 550kts Bill had at altitude is now impossible to achieve at 1000 feet above the ground and so now the true air speed (TAS) will be the same as the indicated air speed at 280kts (max). The Mach No speed is now negligible due to the dramatic increase in temp.


Therefore when Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush tell you that Muslim hijackers "slammed into the WTC at 550kts" you now know that this is impossible and that they are talking baloney.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Therefore when Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush tell you that Muslim hijackers "slammed into the WTC at 550kts" you now know that this is impossible and that they are talking baloney.

Bit of thread drift here, but the apparent impact speed of UA175 was about 510 knots, based on radar and video analysis.
http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c1/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11,_UA175.pdf

I'll move this into a new thread if you want to discuss the WTC impact speeds in depth. Or perhaps add to this one, where the speeds and control issues were discussed:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/727-The-Sensible-Doubt-Danish-911
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Therefore when Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush tell you that Muslim hijackers "slammed into the WTC at 550kts" you now know that this is impossible and that they are talking baloney.

So I assume you think it is not possible to hit two Towers dead on at maximum air speed at 1,000 feet above ground???
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
Wow...Ok, I apologise..... well done Bill. Perhaps this is because its got four engines, most probably British. The Americans make dependable engines don’t they, but Rolls Royce are better!


However I feel this isn’t a British registered aircraft. The CAA in London would be buttock shuffling and figure drumming on desk if they saw that!


It was a 747-300 that my company leased from Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Leasing to do the Hajj runs in about 2002 I think. That particular flight was the test flight for the hand-back to P&W and it had all their reps on-board.




The main instrument is reading 320 kts 40 knots above the red plastic bug that Bill set at 280 knots.


He also set the white plastic bugs at 245 and 135 kts respectively. They have taken the aircraft 40 kts above the red bug speed to get the Mach 0.92 required for this air test. On the other hand given it was a test perhaps they were just “experimenting” Experimenting would be a polite way of saying playing around or giving it wellie!

The white plastic bugs setting thing isn't related to the test flight, it's purely for the current weight of the aircraft. The lower bugs are the approach speed in the landing configuration and the upper bugs are 110 kts higher as that's the minimum speed in the clean configuration.




They are very high; where the air is less dense ( thin) and very cold (-60C ) As such they are able to get the high true air speed (TAS) of 550kts that you can clearly see. As the aircraft descends both the outside air temp and the air density ( the thickness of the air) will increase. The lower they descend the warmer the air and the greater the increase in air density.


I think we were about the low 30's when I took that photo.





When the aircraft descends the Mach No will decrease along with the true airspeed (TAS). The Indicated airspeed on the main instrument will also decrease towards the 280 kts red plastic bug. Bill then pilots the aircraft down to 1000 feet above the ground at the red bug speed of 280 kts. On reaching 2,000 feet (1000 above) he raises the nose and gently allows the speed to settle as they go level at 1000 feet above the ground.

No we did all the high-speed stuff (just testing the operation of the Mmo & Vmo clacker) up higher. The red bug is the desired speed bug and that is a function of weight and desired Mach number. Below 10,000' there is a standard 250 kt limit for ATC although yes we can go faster if required. The limit for the 747 Classic at sea level is 381 KIAS.

I also got a photo of us testing the Vmo clacker ...







Why do they have to be secret . . .? The mission is covert not the ownership? They are just part of a fleet of a legit corporation or front company operated and funded by something like the CIA. Just how do you deliver weapons, drugs, personnel . . . ??

Because of the reasons I just explained - All the 747's are accounted for in regular airlines, or grounded, or scrapped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Because of the reasons I just explained - All the 747's are accounted for in regular airlines, or grounded, or scrapped.

So no one does longterm leases or purchases 747s for legit purposes . . .?? Flying a 747 at 35,000 feet from one location to a different location is somehow unusual or outstanding . . .?

It was a 747-300 that my company leased from Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Leasing to do the Hajj runs in about 2002 I think. That particular flight was the test flight for the hand-back to P&W and it had all their reps on-board.
Content from External Source
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
So no one does longterm leases or purchases 747s for legit purposes . . .?? Flying a 747 at 35,000 feet from one location to a different location is somehow unusual or outstanding . . .?

It was a 747-300 that my company leased from Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Leasing to do the Hajj runs in about 2002 I think. That particular flight was the test flight for the hand-back to P&W and it had all their reps on-board.
Content from External Source

The vast majority of airliners are leased.
Search for Udvar-Hazy.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence - No it's not unusual for 747's to fly around at 35,000' as that's what they are built to do.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The vast majority of airliners are leased.
Search for Udvar-Hazy.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence - No it's not unusual for 747's to fly around at 35,000' as that's what they are built to do.
How would you know if a 747 was being used for injecting SOx at 35,000 feet by its tail number or by who owns or leases it . . .?
 

Billzilla

Senior Member.
How would you know if a 747 was being used for injecting SOx at 35,000 feet by its tail number or by who owns or leases it . . .?

For the third and very last time - All the 747's ever built are accounted for in either airlines, parked, or scrapped.

Please signify your understanding.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
For the third and very last time - All the 747's ever built are accounted for in either airlines, parked, or scrapped.

Please signify your understanding.
So . . . how does that prevent someone using existing (in use) aircraft from injecting SOx into the atmosphere?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
For the same reasons that have already been explained over and over and over again.
We must be talking past each other . . . because I don't get your point . . .

1) If I hire and control all my own maintenance
2) My flight schedules are no different than anyone else . . . I fly from point A to point B and return
3) Any modification to the aircraft are done by my employees at a secure location
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Of course, based on the most RECENT computer modeling that is the optimal process for SOx injection into the stratosphere if you want the best mitigation per unit of SOx . . . however, it is not necessarily the best strategy to limit polar melting or is the most flexible to meet a contingency like a major volcanic eruption like the 20 million ton injection in 1991 . . .

and since that is the most RECENT computer model you have just argued against this process being something that has been done through the 2000's.....

As for why you won't get "secret" 747's flying around - we had this discussion recently - surprised youhaveforgotten it so soon!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fred259

New Member
We must be talking past each other . . . because I don't get your point . . .

1) If I hire and control all my own maintenance
2) My flight schedules are no different than anyone else . . . I fly from point A to point B and return
3) Any modification to the aircraft are done by my employees at a secure location

Essentially George a leasing company which is basically a bank will agree a negotiated price for lets say 6 of the latest generation 747 with Boeing Company and a big announcement will be made at the Paris or Farnborough Air Show.


The leasing company will in turn have airline customers throughout the world and so the aircraft hull only will be leased to British Airways in our example for perhaps 300,000USD per month.


Then you need to consider maintenance and so the cost of tooling up and keeping spare engines, staff training specialist equipment all costs mouthwatering sums of money. Therefore in our example British Airways who partner with Rolls Royce will insist that the new aircraft is fitted with RR engines.


Four of the latest Trent engines will be shipped to Boeing and fitted onto the Jumbo. Rolls Royce will charge British Airways 100 USD per engine per operating hour in what is called “Power by the Hour” Depending on the deal that might be as much as 150,000 USD per month.


Finally British Airways will say we want a Honeywell Avionics package installed in the cockpit and that might come to 70,000USD per month.


Therefore at least three different banks will be involved in the deal. The banks may in turn sell or spread the risk of this investment by involving other banks.


So its a complicated deal involving huge sums of money. The banks in turn will want to have confidence in who is going to be operating the aircraft that they have a major stake in and so you can see that some serious due diligence will be conducted.


British Airways will never own the engines they just rent them by the hour. Rolls Royce are responsible for all major overhaul and so they keep constant around the clock watch on the health and operating performance of the engines installed on all BA aircraft. Basically an on-board computer system records the key operating parameters and performance of the engine. Once the aircraft is airborne every 15 minutes data is transferred via an uplink to a satellite and a downlink to Rolls Royce in Derby England where its evaluated by a local engineer who may be monitoring hundreds of engines at any one time.


TrentXWB-MS143400.jpg

Rolls Royce Trent 800. Power by the Hour on the A380


Below. RR Trent 800 - Three Stage Architecture.


(Given all this investment do you seriously think they are going to let some goof blow chemicals through their engine)


A380.4.jpg
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
and since that is the most RECENT computer model you have just argued against this process being something that has been done through the 2000's.....

As for why you won't get "secret" 747's flying around - we had this discussion recently - surprised youhaveforgotten it so soon!

What? Seems the fact that the computer models were RECENT and not even available when the decision was made to act . . . LLNL did the first of their kind . . . this tells you the opposite . . . a decision to use Sulfur Injection in the 1990s would not have had this information because the decision makers did not have the data from the recent computer simulations that the injection would be optimal nearer to the equator and at the highest possible altitude . . .

The flights are not secret . . . you can take all the pictures you want at them flying at 35,000 feet and you will see nothing out of the ordinary . . . just as I said in my response to the Thread you are referring to above . . .

OK . . . you can photograph aircraft at night . . . Point made . . . but if everything appears normal . . . it may not help identify covert activity . . . just very dramatic and artistic photos . . .
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West GeoengineeringWatch Chemtrail Posters fly-posted in Sydney Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Do Polls and Google Trends show Chemtrail Belief Declining? Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
StratMatt777 How to effectively talk to chemtrail folk Practical Debunking 9
Leifer Claim: magnetic dust on cars proves chemtrail fallout Contrails and Chemtrails 11
cmnit Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West A Conversation with "Chemtrail" activist Patrick Roddie Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Explained: Vatican "chemtrail spraying" coin [part of set depicting Pope's travels] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
deirdre J.Marvin Herndon tries to pass off Bird Poop as evidence of "chemtrail" spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 24
TEEJ Claim of "UFO" interacting with "Chemtrail", Paris, France, 28th September 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
JRBids "Chemtrail off your left wing": Air Traffic Controller Contrails and Chemtrails 18
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Why "Chemtrail" Tests on the Ground Find Metals That Don't Occur Naturally Contrails and Chemtrails 14
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Tapir-mâché Curious-- how low can persistent contrails form? Contrails and Chemtrails 25
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Another photoshopped chemtrail poster: Michael J Murphy Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Chemtrail Believers' predictions of "years left" before disaster Contrails and Chemtrails 6
A Augie Snyder's contrail/chemtrail questions Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Debunked: Rise In Respiratory Mortality from 4th to 3rd Cause of Death. "Chemtrail Flu" General Discussion 13
Mick West How Rogue Scientist J. Marvin Herndon Disproved the Last Resort of the Chemtrail Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Trailblazer Photoshopped "chemtrail" images on Geoengineeringwatch.org Contrails and Chemtrails 76
JFDee New fuel dump "chemtrail" video [Munich, Thai Airways Flight 925] Contrails and Chemtrails 33
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
Trailblazer Identified: Chemtrails Project UK's "chemtrail plane" (Air France A340) Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: Kylie Jenner's Chemtrail Meme Tweet Contrails and Chemtrails 54
S Contrail shadow Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Trailblazer Video of helicopter leaving "chemtrail"? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
TEEJ Chemtrail Fleet - Peter A. Kirby Contrails and Chemtrails 10
cmnit Chemtrailists articles on Las Vegas Tribune (in 2005) Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Critical Thinker San Diego Chemtrail group to 'educate' & Protest Scientists/Doctors Contrails and Chemtrails 3
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
S Black exhaust, contrail, or chemtrail? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West The Best Book for Explaining Contrails to Chemtrail Believers Contrails and Chemtrails 39
Husband of chemmy Help me! Wife is Chemtrailing... Contrails and Chemtrails 69
Jacob Aman J. Marvin Herndon's chemtrail letter to San Diego City Council Contrails and Chemtrails 39
A Dr. Kirkby 2009 CERN presentation: "Clouds Seeded by Jets" [Misunderstanding by Chemtrail Theorists] Contrails and Chemtrails 28
TWCobra Chemtrail evidence that would stand up in court Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Whitebeard Claim - 'Orbs Killing Chemtrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 29
Trailblazer Debunked: "The Snake" non-commercial chemtrail plane (China Eastern A330) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 33
Chemtrail_Follower Chemtrail Follower Escaping The Rabbit Hole 70
Peter How 'alive' is the topic of chemtrails nowadays? Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Homeopathic chemtrail detox formula Health and Quackery 25
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
Gundersen Debunked: Australian Rainwater "Chemtrail" test Contrails and Chemtrails 11
M Four Jets in Formation, Leaving Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top