Explained: Chemtrail Plane Interior (Ballast Barrels)

KAT said:
Maybe put metabunk watermarks on images posted here?
Click to expand...

I only watermark (generally just a small label) images I created, or are significant derivative fair-use works. Most of the images posted here are copyrighted and I'm only using them for education fair-use purposes, so I can hardly be claiming ownership.
 
Mick West said:
I'm only using them for education fair-use purposes
Click to expand...

Well educationally it is working. At least 7 (anti-chem) sites have picked it up as is, the whole page of images, properly accredited to metabunk. That may be the source of some new members here. :cool:
 
Boeing 777 prototype during 1993. From the book "Airliner Color History: Boeing 777 - Jetliner for a New Century"
777 & 747 Books_0012 Ballast Tanks & Caption.JPG
 
Excellent, StratMatt!!

I was reminded the other day why water is used as ballast, to simulate the weight of people (besides being harmless, and cheap of course...unlike actual people!! ;) ).

The phrase "ugly bags of mostly water" comes from a Star Trek episode somewhere...in describing Humans.

Anyways, water weighs about 62 pounds per cubic foot (at room temperature). Or, put another way: About 8.3 pounds per gallon.

.......useful stuff.

(editing): The nerd in me requires that I find the specific Star Trek reference, to the above. Episode 18, Season 1 of "The Next Generation". Title: 'Home Soil'.

Clip:
 
Last edited:
Hello there , new to the forum , first post i watched , this clears up the conspiracy theory agenda going on , of which the barrels were clearly fuel for...good post but anyway we are dealing with Chemtrails and Geoengineering , if its not the barrels then the chemicals have to be in the fuel. Who is the biggest Aviation fuel manifacturer ? Its BP. BP is part of the worshipful companies of fuellers in the British crown and member of the Chatham House
 
 
Eric Protest said:
Hello there , new to the forum , first post i watched , this clears up the conspiracy theory agenda going on , of which the barrels were clearly fuel for...good post but anyway we are dealing with Chemtrails and Geoengineering , if its not the barrels then the chemicals have to be in the fuel. Who is the biggest Aviation fuel manifacturer ? Its BP. BP is part of the worshipful companies of fuellers in the British crown and member of the Chatham House
Click to expand...
And what is that meant to prove? Why do you find it surprising that a large British oil company should be a member of those associations? What does that imply, in your view?

Diageo is also a Chatham House member. Is the drinks industry involved in chemtrails? ;)
 
Last edited:
Eric Protest said:
Hello there , new to the forum , first post i watched , this clears up the conspiracy theory agenda going on , of which the barrels were clearly fuel for...good post but anyway we are dealing with Chemtrails and Geoengineering , if its not the barrels then the chemicals have to be in the fuel. Who is the biggest Aviation fuel manifacturer ? Its BP. BP is part of the worshipful companies of fuellers in the British crown and member of the Chatham House
Click to expand...
What has BP got to do with the British crown?

Is it the biggest aviation fuel manufacturer? Have you a link? Certainly many major UK airports don't use BP. Manchester is supplied by Essar and airports like Gatwick and Heathrow are Exxon mainly. A great deal of jet fuel is also tankered in from the Middle East, but irrespective of the origin 40% of UK fuel is carried along the same pipeline network.
 
Last edited:
Eric Protest said:
if its not the barrels then the chemicals have to be in the fuel.
Click to expand...

And the concise response is that if there's an additive in the fuel that produces thick white trails, then trails logically would be thickest when planes use the most fuel, which is on takeoff and climb.
See dense trails at low level on take-off and climb? Me neither.
Instead, what we see is that trails exhibit all the known normal characteristics of persistent contrails. Might be worth your effort investigating in detail the characteristics of persistent contrails.
 
GregMc said:
And the concise response is that if there's an additive in the fuel that produces thick white trails, then trails logically would be thickest when planes use the most fuel, which is on takeoff and climb.
See dense trails at low level on take-off and climb? Me neither.
Instead, what we see is that trails exhibit all the known normal characteristics of persistent contrails. Might be worth your effort investigating in detail the characteristics of persistent contrails.
Click to expand...

Also, if the trails were from fuel, how much would have to be sprayed in order to make long, persistent trails? All that stuff would have to have come from fuel. Wouldn't pilots notice fuel capacities increasing? Wouldn't mechanics notice bigger fuel tanks in planes?

It really makes no sense, logistics-wise.
 
Strawman said:
Also, if the trails were from fuel
Click to expand...

Again....the engines on a jet operate AFTER the "PUSH" from the gate. We get "pushed-back" by a tug attached to the nose gear. During this, we are usually starting the engines.

THEN....the way an airplane moves, as it is taxiing is from engine thrust. THEN.....the greatest engine thrust occurs during a take-off.

Yet...NEVER are seen any "white lines" at this point.

Hence....contrails are contrails....and so-called "chem"trails do not exist.
 
Strawman said:
Wouldn't pilots notice fuel capacities increasing? Wouldn't mechanics notice bigger fuel tanks in planes?
Click to expand...

Two pertinent (and apt) points.

Fuel density is how pilots (and others) monitor uploads OF fuel into the airplane. I can only speak to U.S. standards, since I am most familiar with these. For aviation in the USA we use pounds. (Other aviation jurisdictions use litres and "tonnes").

EVERY time we (in the U.S.) get a fuel upload, we must VERIFY the "Fuel Slip" (this is what the uploader gives us) to the former fuel, and the current indicated fuel. This is a STANDARD procedure for EVERY airline. The "Fuel Slip", whether indicated in Gallons or Litres....we can calculate just using the proper math....AND then verify that what we see on the fuel quantity gauges matches what we expect to see.

Thing is.....ANY so-called "additive" to Jet Fuel would throw off these calculations!!! AND would be immediately noticed.

(BECAUSE.....it all depends on "specific density" of the liquid!!! AKA, the Jet fuel).
 
That is actually a pretty good point. Here in Canada where I fly, we normally require x amount of fuel in lbs, ask for them in litres by doing a mathematical conversion, then get a fuel slip, and our fuel gauges should be where they need to be.
 
Rico said:
That is actually a pretty good point. Here in Canada where I fly, we normally require x amount of fuel in lbs, ask for them in litres by doing a mathematical conversion, then get a fuel slip, and our fuel gauges should be where they need to be.
Click to expand...

Rico...."back" in the day when I flew for a commuter airline....we had an "in the head" way to tell Operations, when we were "in range" inbound, how many gallons we wanted. For the life of me? I CANNOT recall this "in the head".....If I needed 1000 pounds for the next leg, I'd divide it in my head and convert it to gallons....because the fueler used gallons, not "pounds".

This is a "lost skill" I suppose...but it's in my brain, somewhere....Because after working for over two decades at a professional, major airline? These calculations were all done for me, I just had to verify that they were correct...and then, "Carry On".
 
Eric Protest said:
if its not the barrels then the chemicals have to be in the fuel.
Click to expand...
I would have hoped you had known that that isn't possible. You cannot put metal compounds through engines without "fluxing" them, in essence. And "fluxed" engines (that is coated internally with a molten glass-like material) conk out REAL QUICK. Turbines and combustion chambers just HATE such coatings.
Just think what happens when there's a volcanic eruption upwind of a major arterial air traffic route. Remember the Jumbo incident of, er, '82, South China Sea, was it? Pass my stick...
 
David Fraser said:
A great deal of jet fuel is also tankered in from the Middle East, but irrespective of the origin 40% of UK fuel is carried along the same pipeline network.
Click to expand...

In my younger days I worked for BP, albeit in the road and heating fuels retail sector, not aviation. (I was deputy manager at a service station). All the fuel we sold came from a huge storage depot in Avonmouth, and although the tankers that delivered to the garages had BP plastered all over them, tankers providing other fuel retailers in the south west used to load from the same site. I had occasion to visit a few times (part of company training courses) and you would see BP, Jet, Shell, Esso and Tesco tankers queuing up to fill from the same tanks. (I think the site itself was / is owned by Esso (I may be wrong).) So basically the 44,000 litres of 4 star BP had brought and passed onto our site* came from the same source and supply line as the 44,000 litres for the Jet station down the road.

So if the fuel companies are sharing facilities and distribution hubs for road fuels and heating fuels it's logical (to me at least) aviation fuel is handled in a very similar way.

*Yes the station was a BP owned site, not a franchised site.
 
Jazzy said:
Just think what happens when there's a volcanic eruption upwind of a major arterial air traffic route. Remember the Jumbo incident of, er, '82, South China Sea, was it? Pass my stick...
Click to expand...
Speedbird 9. Kuala Lumpur-Perth. Lost all four engines. Two weeks later a Singapore airlines flight lost three engines in the same cloud. In 1989 a Northwestern 747 had a similar problem with an Alaskan Volcano.
 
Eric Protest said:
Hello there , new to the forum , first post i watched , this clears up the conspiracy theory agenda going on , of which the barrels were clearly fuel for...good post but anyway we are dealing with Chemtrails and Geoengineering , if its not the barrels then the chemicals have to be in the fuel. Who is the biggest Aviation fuel manifacturer ? Its BP. BP is part of the worshipful companies of fuellers in the British crown and member of the Chatham House
Click to expand...

With the amount of 'chem' you'd need to make an effective 'chem-trail', how do you think they'd possibly fit enough chem/fuel mixture into one plane? To make a plane fly, you need really clean kerosene-like jet fuel, and any additives are minuscule, and to help the engines out. Not only would adding the 'chem' compounds likely make the planes inefficient and probably prone to breaking, you'd be taking up valuable space needed for, you know, fuel. Considering most of the planes people list as 'chemtrail planes' are really just passenger jets, those need tanks full of just fuel to make their flights. AND, if you were to add other tanks of 'chem', you'd be taking up space from passengers and baggage, and adding a huge amount of weight to the plane.. and it's just not feasible.

Trying to figure out how chem-tanks or chem-additives *might* work will be like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It would be much more productive, in my experience, to spend some time learning how contrails are generated, and how they persist. Once you learn all the details of normal contrail formation, you might find it explains almost all of what you see in the sky. Then, whatever's left, might be worth further investigation.
 
Last edited:
By merest happenstance, the Speedbird 9 incident was being replayed on TV tonight. Those who say that cabin air from the outside is filtered, need to explain why the first sign of trouble in the cabin was the appearance of something that seemed like smoke, but was actually volcanic ash. Apologies for OT
 
Eric Protest said:
Hello there , new to the forum , first post i watched , this clears up the conspiracy theory agenda going on , of which the barrels were clearly fuel for...good post but anyway we are dealing with Chemtrails and Geoengineering , if its not the barrels then the chemicals have to be in the fuel. Who is the biggest Aviation fuel manifacturer ? Its BP. BP is part of the worshipful companies of fuellers in the British crown and member of the Chatham House
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can find the math...

Here we go:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ch...uel-a-mathematical-analysis.4426/#post-125241
The Antonov AN-225 Mriya is the largest plane in the world. They only built one of them, and that one plane holds pretty much all heavy lift records and their runners up. It is just obscenely large, most airports can't even service it.

If it burned away it's ENTIRE maximum takeoff weight - fuel, cargo, passengers, crew, airframe, all of it - entirely down to chemtrail (a patently unsustainable proposal - planes are expensive, and ones this big almost don't exist), the chemtrail would be a bit over 12 kilometers long.
 
GregMc said:
excellent Boeing 707 youtube video
Click to expand...
Worth noting down for the discussion about modern jet engines is also the high amount of soot in the exhaust clearly visible e.g. around 19:08.
Incomplete combustion - less water exhausted.
 
Jazzy said:
I would have hoped you had known that that isn't possible. You cannot put metal compounds through engines without "fluxing" them, in essence. And "fluxed" engines (that is coated internally with a molten glass-like material) conk out REAL QUICK. Turbines and combustion chambers just HATE such coatings.
Just think what happens when there's a volcanic eruption upwind of a major arterial air traffic route. Remember the Jumbo incident of, er, '82, South China Sea, was it? Pass my stick...
Click to expand...

Hey there Jazzy , anyhow they are spraying us like insects and its damaging our environment and health they also use it very much for weather manipulation and its exactly the reason why its 7.5 years severe drought in california while normally there would fall 22 cm of rain per year , i like debunking of lies , but can someone tell me how they do it if its not in the fuel and not in barrels in the plane itself ? Would they have designed the airplanes for this specific task ? There could be tanks build in in the plane , i mean reall build in as certain plane factories like lockheed Martin , Douglas , Boeing and Curtis Wright are all owned by Jesuits according to the work of Avro Manhattan who was an insider and knew what he was speaking of , only thing is he wrote those books more then 40 years ago so today they would have much more under their direct control. They rule USA , Britain and Europe. And please don't censor this comment operator , because we want answers.
GeoEngineering Watch with Dane Wigington 9-20-2014
 
Last edited:
Want answers to what question? This one?
Eric Protest said:
but can someone tell me how they do it if its not in the fuel and not in barrels in the plane itself ? Would they have designed the airplanes for this specific task ?
Click to expand...
Simple; they don't, it's all a fantasy hoax that was started 15 years ago and has taken on a [...] life of it's own.
There is absolutely no evidence to indicate they are spraying you in the way you seem to think at all.
Planes are designed for many different special purposes.
The rest of your post is all assertion with no proof and no evidence, but please post other topics in their own threads.
This thread is particularly about the ballast barrels being passed off as chemtrail spraying equipment. Do you agree that the picture was used fraudulently and understand their true function as shown in this thread?
Does the fact a picture was claimed to be something it was not give you any sense that maybe you shouldn't believe everything that chemtrail promotors tell you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eric Protest said:
but can someone tell me how they do it if its not in the fuel and not in barrels in the plane itself ?
Click to expand...



Hi Eric and welcome to the forum.
Nobody is actually "doing it". What you see is just a natural result of engine powered aircraft flying in very cold moist air at high altitude.
It's like a speed boat leaving a white wake. No-one is intentionally "making" the white wake, it's just a natural unavoidable side effect of the crafts' high speed passage.
When jets fly their engines create water and that gets added to lots of water already in the sky , triggering it to condense on the small volumes of soot in the exhaust. If the air is really cold and humid up there the trails will persist a long time. If it's warmer and drier up there the trail won't last so long.
Unfortunately you are misunderstanding the fact that normal passenger planes regularly leave very long persistent condensation trails. They are not spraying anything. They don't need to carry anything in tanks to make trails other than unmodified fuel to make the plane fly. It's just ice crystals and if you explore this forum further you will discover more about the subject, but perhaps most concisely if you visit the sister site contrailscience.com

Please have a look at the Video I posted above called Boeing promo film 707 year one.
Whilst I posted It in regards to the ballast certification tanks used for simulating the mass of passengers, before the plane is allowed to carry passengers, notice how that promotional film, shown as a "short" accompanied by a major theatrical release clearly shows a normal 1960 passenger jet leaving long trails.
Notice how the narrator isn't mystified by the trail. Notice how He doesn't say: "Oh my god we're doomed someone is spraying poison from this new passenger jet". He knew and the public would have understood it was simply a condensation trail, a sight already familiar to the public from propeller driven passenger airliners:

This film would have been seen by millions of members of the public who also would have seen nothing strange about the trails.

Here's a famous Pan Am promotional film from decades ago.
Anything look familiar?
these very old films show that passenger airliners made very long trails decades ago, at a time when chemtrail believers insist no such thing occurred because they never noticed them in the past.






What you see in the sky was a common sight decades ago.
Unfortunately a hoax has arisen and people who never paid attention to these common trails previously, have only started to notice them now as attention has been drawn to them by fearmongers.

The same phenomenon of people not noticing incredibly obvious day to day things and thinking them new and suspicious only when someone specifically points them out is well illustrated by the Seattle windshield pitting "epidemic" http://www.neatorama.com/2012/09/17/The-Great-Seattle-Windshield-Epidemic/
 
Last edited:
CANNOT believe this keeps coming up!

When the next Boeing....(the "797"?) is in Flight Test mode? These photos will appear.

Airbus is developing the 'A-350'....(odd choice of designation, since they already have the A-300. A-310.)
AND?
A-320, (A-319??)... A-330 and A-340.....THEN they jump to that "Super-Jumbo" A-380.....but then pull back....and develop the
"A-350"???

They have "plans" ahead....so, watch out, @Boeing!!!

I like THIS photo of Ballast Barrels....because it is in a B-747-400, (UPPER DECK, obviously!) .....but is showing a bit of the technology for cabin lighting that is used on the newer B787s:

04fd9264acb35b5c045b6ce0d4980fa7._.jpg
 
Last edited:
In al the discussions I've seen on "Chem trails" no one has actually posted an image of a bona fide chemical spraying exercise like, say; Agent Orange to show the difference between that and regular condensation trail.

6d786a9e936aa40b28d1ca54b73a5e7c.jpg


The first thing you notice is they spraying at very low altitude, so they get an adequate concentration of chemical onto the target. Secondly the plains clearly have spray bars running the length of the wing, and presumably the agent orange would have taken up the majority of they usable payload capacity. Thirdly they are flying in a close formation to cover a large swath of jungle. And for comparison sake here's a regular old condensation trail

4a331668c2d443f3c39c3edf34a5e8cb.jpg


Lastly whilst Agent Orange was used in conflict zone and presumably under a degree of security, the truth came out once the personnel who were in close contact with it started to suffer adverse health reaction from their exposure.

So were is the rash of airline employees claiming compo from their exposure to whatever it is that is supposed to be being sprayed?
 
Jonathan Teatime said:
The first thing you notice is they spraying at very low altitude, so they get an adequate concentration of chemical onto the target. Secondly the plains clearly have spray bars running the length of the wing, and presumably the agent orange would have taken up the majority of they usable payload capacity. Thirdly they are flying in a close formation to cover a large swath of jungle.
Click to expand...

And fourthly, there's no gap before the start of the trails as there is with contrails
 
From the blurb:

External Quote:

Between 1953 and 1964 top secret trials were carried out using a chemical concoction of zinc cadmium sulphide to simulate how a cloud would disperse biological agents. The unsuspecting population in the East of England was sprayed covertly with the poisonous compound.
1/ Nothing to do with falsely reporting barrels in planes as "chemtrtrail tanks" or similar
2/ Now well known - try searching on here for zinc and you'll get all the info you want....or possibly don't want...
3/ Stopped happening 40-50 years ago.

Anything else?
 
Today on the BBC News site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32384435
External Quote:

Are we seeing the end of the era for the 'super-jumbo'?
By Tim BowlerBusiness reporter, BBC News

Last year not a single airline placed an order for the world's two biggest commercial jets, the Boeing 747-8 and the double-decker Airbus A380.
An accompanying video has an interior shot with a lot of ballast barrels in it:
Screen shot 2015-04-23 at 18.31.49.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
29K
Gary C
Gary C
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
Mick West
1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo
6 7 8
Replies
302
Views
74K
DavidB66
DavidB66
Mick West
'Fast Movers' and 'Transmedium' Vehicles
Replies
10
Views
13K
Sagittarius
Sagittarius
cmnit
Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport
Replies
9
Views
9K
cmnit
cmnit

Latest posts

Back
Top