Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport

[cmnit]

The well know Italian chemtrailist "tankerenemy" aka Rosario Marciano' interviewed a technician working at the Malpensa airport (MXP, North Italy, close to Milan).

A transcript of the interview is available here (in Italian only).

The two main points raised by Enrico Gianini (the whistleblower) are:

• fluids from various aircraft pipes, water found in the cargo space
• alleged new way to load the cargo in a passenger plane

The problem, he adds, came back to him in another form: the strange way of loading luggage and goods. "The first time I was on the square - he remembers - there were the Md-80 of Alitalia", manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. "We first loaded the trunk in the hold 5, which is the rear, then the 4, the goods at 3, the post at 2. In 1, only the baggage of the crew. That was the standard load of the MD-80 Alitalia, until the de-hubbing ". Recently, Gianini happened to still deal with Md-80 aircraft, no longer Alitalia but with a charter company, discovering that the loading system has radically changed: luggage ahead, rather than at the bottom.


"The first low cost airlines (Volare, Air Europe) always loaded the baggage from the tail, because the plane must always travel with the nose facing upwards", from 5 to 10 degrees of inclination. "If it does not travel like this, consumption increases considerably, and a low cost that increases consumption does not make sense." Moreover, the plane becomes more stable: «If instead it travels horizontal, any turbulence causes it to pitch». Up to the Airbus 319, Gianini says, the planes were loaded starting from the tail. On the Airbus 320, however, no: "All the weight is in front. Because?". It makes no sense, the operator reasons. "Behind it's empty. The 320 is longer than 319, and I have to put all the weight in front ". Ditto, for low cost companies that use the Boeing 737-800, as well as the upper or lower models: they load almost everything in front.Airbus 319 Lufthansafirst they loaded the hold behind the cargo box, now they divide the load: they tell you how much luggage behind and how many in front. They tell me "80 luggage behind", whereas before they were 120. So - concludes Gianini - it emerges that these planes seem to have weight, in the queue, not declared ".....

I understand that the first point was addressed in this forum before, therefore I would like to have your opinion about the second point.

More in detail, Gianini claims that in the past (MD80 up to A319) he was accustomed to load cargo starting from the rear of the fuselage to improve the balance of the airplane especially during takeoff (it seems to make sense). More recently, he claims, he is told to load more and more cargo at the front of the fuselage (from A320, but also B737-800, especially with low-cost companies), as if the rear were not available or already loaded with something dubious. He also claims that under instructions by a new handling company even on A319 he was instructed to load at the front as much as possible.

Your take?

 

[MikeC]

Unless you are seeing actual load sheets it is pure conjecture. A loader doesn't decide where stuff is put - that is decided by computer programmes these days.

 

[Keith Beachy]

What MikeC said.

Aircraft Weight and Balance, extremely important. Aircraft are loaded based on maintaining the CG in acceptable limits. The loader's ignorance of why the load is loaded forward and aft, and variations for loading different planes, not evidence for chemtrails.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/12_phak_ch10.pdf

http://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/aerodynamics-and-performance/weight-and-balance

Loading more cargo in the rear makes no sense to maintain the CG (center of gravity); the load would be according to maintain the proper CG for safe flight. If you load from a cargo door in front of the wing, you might load the appropriate cargo in the rear first, followed by cargo as you go forward. You can't load the rear with cargo blocking the path to the rear. Failure to load the aircraft based on the proper weight and balance, can be fatal.

The libreidee website link in the OP, has a lot of chemtrail conspiracy theory related pages. The 'technician' offered no evidence for chemtrails.

 

[Trailblazer]

The loading claim sounds like a rehash of a similar claim made by Ian Simpson of Look-up.org.uk a few years ago. That site seems to be down now though.

 

[cmnit]

What MikeC said.

Aircraft Weight and Balance, extremely important. Aircraft are loaded based on maintaining the CG in acceptable limits. The loader's ignorance of why the load is loaded forward and aft, and variations for loading different planes, not evidence for chemtrails.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/12_phak_ch10.pdf

http://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/aerodynamics-and-performance/weight-and-balance

Loading more cargo in the rear makes no sense to maintain the CG (center of gravity); the load would be according to maintain the proper CG for safe flight. If you load from a cargo door in front of the wing, you might load the appropriate cargo in the rear first, followed by cargo as you go forward. You can't load the rear with cargo blocking the path to the rear. Failure to load the aircraft based on the proper weight and balance, can be fatal.

The libreidee website link in the OP, has a lot of chemtrail conspiracy theory related pages. The 'technician' offered no evidence for chemtrails.

I understand, we know the nature of libreidee & tankerenemy, but my specific question is related to the fact that - according to the "whistleblower" - the technical guidelines for balance apparently changed with time for the same aircraft. I wonder if someone more versed in the matter can shed more light about this change (if any).

 

[cmnit]

The well know Italian chemtrailist "tankerenemy" aka Rosario Marciano' interviewed a technician working at the Malpensa airport (MXP, North Italy, close to Milan).

A transcript of the interview is available here (in Italian only).

The two main points raised by Enrico Gianini (the whistleblower) are:

• fluids from various aircraft pipes, water found in the cargo space
• alleged new way to load the cargo in a passenger plane

The problem, he adds, came back to him in another form: the strange way of loading luggage and goods. "The first time I was on the square - he remembers - there were the Md-80 of Alitalia", manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. "We first loaded the trunk in the hold 5, which is the rear, then the 4, the goods at 3, the post at 2. In 1, only the baggage of the crew. That was the standard load of the MD-80 Alitalia, until the de-hubbing ". Recently, Gianini happened to still deal with Md-80 aircraft, no longer Alitalia but with a charter company, discovering that the loading system has radically changed: luggage ahead, rather than at the bottom.


"The first low cost airlines (Volare, Air Europe) always loaded the baggage from the tail, because the plane must always travel with the nose facing upwards", from 5 to 10 degrees of inclination. "If it does not travel like this, consumption increases considerably, and a low cost that increases consumption does not make sense." Moreover, the plane becomes more stable: «If instead it travels horizontal, any turbulence causes it to pitch». Up to the Airbus 319, Gianini says, the planes were loaded starting from the tail. On the Airbus 320, however, no: "All the weight is in front. Because?". It makes no sense, the operator reasons. "Behind it's empty. The 320 is longer than 319, and I have to put all the weight in front ". Ditto, for low cost companies that use the Boeing 737-800, as well as the upper or lower models: they load almost everything in front.Airbus 319 Lufthansafirst they loaded the hold behind the cargo box, now they divide the load: they tell you how much luggage behind and how many in front. They tell me "80 luggage behind", whereas before they were 120. So - concludes Gianini - it emerges that these planes seem to have weight, in the queue, not declared ".....

I understand that the first point was addressed in this forum before, therefore I would like to have your opinion about the second point.

More in detail, Gianini claims that in the past (MD80 up to A319) he was accustomed to load cargo starting from the rear of the fuselage to improve the balance of the airplane especially during takeoff (it seems to make sense). More recently, he claims, he is told to load more and more cargo at the front of the fuselage (from A320, but also B737-800, especially with low-cost companies), as if the rear were not available or already loaded with something dubious. He also claims that under instructions by a new handling company even on A319 he was instructed to load at the front as much as possible.

Your take?

Note: in the last sentence please read "... these planes seem to have weight, in the tail, not declared".

 

[cmnit]

En passant, on his YT channel Mr Gianini (the "whistleblower") posts an ample collection of alleged UFO video proofs ...

 

[deirdre]

En passant, on his YT channel Mr Gianini (the "whistleblower") posts an ample collection of alleged UFO video proofs ...

He admits in his interview he was a chemtrail believer long before his "we need weight in the back so planes can keep their nose up" theory. But I don't think his belief in chemtrails or UFOs is relevant to his "claim(s) without evidence".

 

[Keith Beachy]

I understand, we know the nature of libreidee & tankerenemy, but my specific question is related to the fact that - according to the "whistleblower" - the technical guidelines for balance apparently changed with time for the same aircraft. I wonder if someone more versed in the matter can shed more light about this change (if any).

I may not be more versed, but I have worked weight and balance for many years in the USAF. Weight and balance don't change, they are in the manual for each aircraft and type, and if there are differences between planes, that will be included for each aircraft. I posted some reference which talk about weight and balance, it is science, based on physics. I loaded, supervised and was responsible for weight and balance since I first flew in the fall of 1973. I have flown aircraft loaded to 300,000 pounds, all over the world. The guidelines (WRT - weight and balance) don't change, loads change, loads vary depending on fuel, passengers, cargo, and models of aircraft. Weight and balance is the guideline. Bowling balls go over the wing, sleeping bags go in the back.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI

the 747 crashed when the cargo shifted aft - weight and balance are critical

On our KC-135 the boom operator was the loadmaster and pilots were trained, (like all pilots) to properly load the aircraft within limits. The weight and distance from the center of gravity were used to place cargo. You need to know the weight and then place in the correct location. This does not change, it depends on what is loaded and where, it has to be planned. Lightweight containers can be placed aft of the wing, but there needs to be heavier items over the wing and forward to offset the moment of the aft cargo. We filed weight and balance with our flight plan, and it had to be complete before flight. The KC-135 mission included offloading as much as 70,000 pounds of fuel to a receiver aircraft in 20 minutes, and the CG had to be monitored to maintain balance, the trim was a great indicator. The "whistleblower" thinks loads between planes are different is not an issue, the weight and balance is critical, the "whistleblower" anomalies are not valid.

You can't load a plane randomly, it has to be planned. In the KC-135Q/T, planes which handled segregated fuel (JP4/JP7), there was a ballast weight placed as far forward as possible to maintain CG/weight and balance due to the mission.

The weight and balance is according to the aircraft's CG. It has to be correct (in a range the plane is designed for) or the plane will not fly right. Each type of aircraft, the configuration, and mission of each aircraft can be different. Passenger baggage will be distributed between compartments as needed to meet the CG. Mail, extra cargo has to be loaded accordingly to make the CG work.

The "whistleblower" appears have limited or no knowledge on why and where things are loaded, and I doubt he can do the weight and balance for an airline and direct the load plan. There are other pilots besides myself on metabunk; for me the points the "whistleblower" has, don't make sense and are not evidence for chemtrail claims. If chemtrails were real, "we" would hide the secret elixir tanks in the fuselage of the aircraft in accordance with proper weight and balance not to crash our NWO aircraft. Wait till the chemtrail guys study aircraft with afterburners and see all the nozzles used to spray raw fuel into the exhaust.

For more on CG, I believe I added links which explain weight and balance. For more on weight and balance google aircraft weight and balance. This has some more info - http://avstop.com/technical/weightbal/weightbal.htm

 

[cmnit]

I may not be more versed, but I have worked weight and balance for many years in the USAF. Weight and balance don't change, they are in the manual for each aircraft and type, and if there are differences between planes, that will be included for each aircraft.
[...]
The "whistleblower" appears have limited or no knowledge on why and where things are loaded, and I doubt he can do the weight and balance for an airline and direct the load plan. There are other pilots besides myself on metabunk; for me the points the "whistleblower" has, don't make sense and are not evidence for chemtrail claims. If chemtrails were real, "we" would hide the secret elixir tanks in the fuselage of the aircraft in accordance with proper weight and balance not to crash our NWO aircraft. Wait till the chemtrail guys study aircraft with afterburners and see all the nozzles used to spray raw fuel into the exhaust.

For more on CG, I believe I added links which explain weight and balance. For more on weight and balance google aircraft weight and balance. This has some more info - http://avstop.com/technical/weightbal/weightbal.htm

Thanks a lot Keith for taking your time to elaborate.
The same level of ignorance of aviation technicalities from the "whistleblower" is apparent from the way he describes all sort of pipes and fluids related to aircrafts (his first main point in the interview).
Yet another example of the BS effect: you need a 10x effort to dispel a piece of BS ...

 

[Craig]

The well know Italian chemtrailist "tankerenemy" aka Rosario Marciano' interviewed a technician working at the Malpensa airport (MXP, North Italy, close to Milan).

A transcript of the interview is available here (in Italian only).

The two main points raised by Enrico Gianini (the whistleblower) are:

• fluids from various aircraft pipes, water found in the cargo space
• alleged new way to load the cargo in a passenger plane

The problem, he adds, came back to him in another form: the strange way of loading luggage and goods. "The first time I was on the square - he remembers - there were the Md-80 of Alitalia", manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. "We first loaded the trunk in the hold 5, which is the rear, then the 4, the goods at 3, the post at 2. In 1, only the baggage of the crew. That was the standard load of the MD-80 Alitalia, until the de-hubbing ". Recently, Gianini happened to still deal with Md-80 aircraft, no longer Alitalia but with a charter company, discovering that the loading system has radically changed: luggage ahead, rather than at the bottom.


"The first low cost airlines (Volare, Air Europe) always loaded the baggage from the tail, because the plane must always travel with the nose facing upwards", from 5 to 10 degrees of inclination. "If it does not travel like this, consumption increases considerably, and a low cost that increases consumption does not make sense." Moreover, the plane becomes more stable: «If instead it travels horizontal, any turbulence causes it to pitch». Up to the Airbus 319, Gianini says, the planes were loaded starting from the tail. On the Airbus 320, however, no: "All the weight is in front. Because?". It makes no sense, the operator reasons. "Behind it's empty. The 320 is longer than 319, and I have to put all the weight in front ". Ditto, for low cost companies that use the Boeing 737-800, as well as the upper or lower models: they load almost everything in front.Airbus 319 Lufthansafirst they loaded the hold behind the cargo box, now they divide the load: they tell you how much luggage behind and how many in front. They tell me "80 luggage behind", whereas before they were 120. So - concludes Gianini - it emerges that these planes seem to have weight, in the queue, not declared ".....

I understand that the first point was addressed in this forum before, therefore I would like to have your opinion about the second point.

More in detail, Gianini claims that in the past (MD80 up to A319) he was accustomed to load cargo starting from the rear of the fuselage to improve the balance of the airplane especially during takeoff (it seems to make sense). More recently, he claims, he is told to load more and more cargo at the front of the fuselage (from A320, but also B737-800, especially with low-cost companies), as if the rear were not available or already loaded with something dubious. He also claims that under instructions by a new handling company even on A319 he was instructed to load at the front as much as possible.

Your take?

Anyone got a link to the first debunking of this on this forum? As can't seem to find it. His name and video are still being given as evidence of a smoking gun to chemtrails

 

[Mendel]

Anyone got a link to the first debunking of this on this forum? As can't seem to find it. His name and video are still being given as evidence of a smoking gun to chemtrails

Bit it makes no sense!

always loaded the baggage from the tail, because the plane must always travel with the nose facing upwards", from 5 to 10 degrees of inclination. "If it does not travel like this, consumption increases considerably, and a low cost that increases consumption does not make sense."

This is bonkers.
It is important where the center of gravity is on an aircraft. This depends on how it is loaded (passenger/cargo) and where the fuel is in the tanks. Depending on the aircraft type, there are limits on how far to the front and to the back the center of gravity can be, for the aircraft to fly safely.
Generally, it needs to be aft of the center of lift from the wings.

Now compare (images from wikipedia):
MD-80

A320neo

The MD-80 has the wings further aft, so it needs to have the center of gravity further aft. No conspiracy theory needed.

The guy didn't understand it, and instead of asking someone who knows, he invented a weird theory. That's all there is to it.

 

[JMartJr]

The guy didn't understand it, and instead of asking someone who knows, he invented a weird theory. That's all there is to it.

99% of conspiracy theories (well, OK, I have not calculated this number, so change it to "A whole lot of conspiracy theories" if you prefer) is just "I don't understand, but rather than cultivate an understanding I'll just make something up."

 

[Craig]

Bit it makes no sense!

always loaded the baggage from the tail, because the plane must always travel with the nose facing upwards", from 5 to 10 degrees of inclination. "If it does not travel like this, consumption increases considerably, and a low cost that increases consumption does not make sense."

This is bonkers.
It is important where the center of gravity is on an aircraft. This depends on how it is loaded (passenger/cargo) and where the fuel is in the tanks. Depending on the aircraft type, there are limits on how far to the front and to the back the center of gravity can be, for the aircraft to fly safely.
Generally, it needs to be aft of the center of lift from the wings.

Now compare (images from wikipedia):
MD-80
View attachment 80584
A320neo
View attachment 80583
The MD-80 has the wings further aft, so it needs to have the center of gravity further aft. No conspiracy theory needed.

The guy didn't understand it, and instead of asking someone who knows, he invented a weird theory. That's all there is to it.

I know all about the centre of gravity and how that works. Have spent years in aviation. It's his claim that the samples he took from the aircraft (I know from fuel,water and hold drains) from spray nozzles , were tested and the results show borium as one of the chemicals, plus other chemicals including heavy metals.

 

[Ann K]

I know all about the centre of gravity and how that works. Have spent years in aviation. It's his claim that the samples he took from the aircraft (I know from fuel,water and hold drains) from spray nozzles , were tested and the results show borium as one of the chemicals, plus other chemicals including heavy metals.

The word "borium" baffled me, and I find it to be a trade name for a type of Tungsten Carbide welding product. Do you mean "barium", or perhaps "boron"?

 

[Mendel]

It's his claim that the samples he took from the aircraft (I know from fuel,water and hold drains) from spray nozzles , were tested and the results show borium as one of the chemicals, plus other chemicals including heavy metals.

Well, that wasn't in your quote.

 

[John J.]

Do you mean "barium", or perhaps "boron"?

Barium is one of the chemicals that "chemtrail" conspiracy theorists sometimes implicate,

While certain elements of the narrative are fixed, namely the belief that the persistent trails left by aeroplanes are being deliberately sprayed and are not simply contrails, other elements, such as what exactly is in the trails – for example, aluminium, barium, pathogens, or even desiccated blood... ... are more fluid and open to diverse interpretations.

"Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering", Rose Cairns, 2014,
The Geographical Journal 182 (1), March 2016 https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geoj.12116

One of the higher-profile claims linking "chemtrails" and barium has been persuasively debunked:

As evidence of the threat posed by chemtrails, Marrs points to a 2007 "investigation" by a television company in Louisiana, KSLA. Investigative reporter Jeff Ferrell tested water captured under a crosshatch of alleged chemtrails. According to Ferrell,
"KSLA News 12 had the sample tested at a lab.
The results: high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million (ppm). That's more than three times the toxic level set by the Environmental Protection Agency."

Scary, isn't it? Except that SI contributing editor David E. Thomas, a physicist, took a closer look at the TV report. As Thomas notes,
"The actual video clearly shows 68.8 μg/l. (micrograms per liter), or 68.8 ppb (parts per billion)....68.8 millionths of a gram per liter corresponds to 68.8 parts per billion....Ferrell overestimated the amount of barium in the test report by a factor of 100.... The test result was not 'three times the toxic level set by the EPA'; it was around thirty times less than the EPA's toxic limit."

"Curious Contrails: Death from the Sky?", Benjamin Radford, March 2009, Skeptical Inquirer 33 (2), https://skepticalinquirer.org/2009/03/curious-contrails-death-from-the-sky/ [the 4-dot ellipses are in the original text].

Referring to the values given in the Skeptical Enquirer article, the Wikipedia item "Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory" states

...the true level of barium measured was both usual and safe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#cite_note-Cairns2014-35

Website Lead Stories has a screenshot from the original KSLA News 12 report,

from "Fact Check: Rainwater Did NOT Contain Dangerous Levels Of Barium When Tested In 'Chemtrail' Investigative Report", Sarah Thompson, 4 August 2022 https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/...f-barium-when-tested-in-chemtrail-report.html


Other than the absence of testable evidence of covert aerial spraying of the types alleged by "chemtrail" believers, it has to be asked, why spray barium?
Barium is reactive and not found in a free state in nature. It has a number of uses, see Wikipedia, Barium.
Different barium compounds differ in their chemical and biological effects, but the main use of barium in medicine is the "barium swallow" aka "barium meal", and the "barium enema", still used for X-ray studies of the gastrointestinal tract;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_gastrointestinal_series, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_gastrointestinal_series.
Barium sulphate, BaSO4​, is used due to low toxicity and high density (making it radiopaque).

A total of 350–450 mL of barium is swallowed during the process

Wikipedia, Upper gastrointestinal series, link above (to be clear, that volume is insoluble BaSO4 ​powder in a water suspension).

Soluble compounds of barium are more hazardous to health due to the toxicity of Ba2+​ ions,

Soluble barium compounds have LD50 near 10 mg/kg (oral rats)...
...Little is known about the long term effects of barium exposure. The US EPA considers it unlikely that barium is carcinogenic when consumed orally. Inhaled dust containing insoluble barium compounds can accumulate in the lungs, causing a benign condition called baritosis.

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium#Toxicity

In the past barium carbonate was used as a rodenticide but is now considered obsolete.
Why the (wholly hypothetical) groups behind (undemonstrated) covert aerial spraying would want to (supposedly) disperse what would be utterly ineffective concentrations of a not particularly effective rodenticide (if they're spraying soluble barium compounds) is anyone's guess.
If the naughty people are spraying non-soluble barium compounds, the biggest risk- in the extremely unlikely event that a sufficiently high concentration reached the ground, and was maintained to allow long-term, inhaled exposure, would seem to be baritosis:

Baritosis is a benign type of pneumoconiosis, which is caused by long-term exposure to the dust of insoluble compounds of barium, such as ground baryte ore.
... ...
After cessation of exposure, there is a gradual clearing of the opacities.

Symptoms and signs
Cough
Wheezing
Nasal irritation
In some cases, it is asymptomatic.

Diagnosis
The particles of barium compounds can be seen as opaque shadows on the chest X-rays of people with baritosis. However, being a benign condition, it neither interferes with lung function nor causes symptoms other than a mild cough.

After exposure to barium compounds dust ceases, the X-ray abnormalities gradually resolve.

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baritosis

Coughs, wheezes, nasal irritation are not necesarrily, in themselves, evidence that people have baritosis caused by airliners spraying us with barium.

I do wonder if chemtrail believers might have confused "barium" with "bromide" somewhere along the line.
Lithium bromide and potassium bromide were used as sedatives in the 20th century, up to 1975 in the USA when their use ended; prolonged bromide use has toxic effects.

This use gave the word "bromide" its colloquial connotation of a comforting cliché.

It has been said that during World War I, British soldiers were given bromide to curb their sexual urges.

Wikipedia, Bromide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromide

(My father was a British soldier in the 1950s, he claimed -I think in jest- that their tea had bromide in it! Probably just awful tea.)

Bromides, sedatives with toxic side-effects and a folk history of being used to suppress our natural, healthy behaviour, and with a contemporary metaphorical meaning not far removed from "opiate", seem to be just the sort of substance that chemtrail believers might worry about.

 

[elvenwear]

(My father was a British soldier in the 1950s, he claimed -I think in jest- that their tea had bromide in it! Probably just awful tea.)

Not sure if he meant it in jest or not, but this is a well know myth in military circles and surprisingly to me, it appears to adapt to different cultures.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/06/29/2611115.htm

Military myth puts lead in bromide's pencil

Back in my high school days, I was in the school cadets. Every now and then we'd go to a real army base for advanced training.

It was there that we heard from the regular army soldiers that 'someone' (whoever 'someone' was) put bromide in our food to keep our sexual libido well suppressed.

In his book Sex and the British, the author Paul Ferris refers to the use of bromide to reduce the sexual libido of soldiers. But once again, it's not true.

This myth that the new recruits are so virile that they need to be tamed and contained by drugs is a backhanded compliment to the soldiers.

This fable is well-known to various military recruits around the world. The story given in Poland is that the coffee has been treated, while in France, the legend is that the French soldiers are given adulterated wine. The South African recruits reputedly have a mysterious substance called 'blue stone' added to their food to keep them calm, while in Germany, the tale is that German recruits are kept in line with a double dose — the addition of iodine into the coffee as well as soda in the meat.
...
So if salts of bromine (the bromides) do have any effect in reducing libido, it's mainly as a minor side effect of their prime use as a sedative.

It's not as though there was a fully alert person with a mysteriously absent libido, but rather you had a sleepy person on your hands.

And in military recruits, the lack of libido is more easily explained by their extreme exhaustion, anxiety, change of lifestyle, and close contact with many other similarly exhausted colleagues.

But Spike Milligan, who served with the British Army in World War II, had a different point of view in his book Rommel? Gunner Who?

Spike wrote:

"I don't think that bromide had any lasting effect, the only way to stop a British soldier feeling randy is to load bromide into a 300lb shell and fire it at him from the waist down."

 

[elvenwear]

I know all about the centre of gravity and how that works. Have spent years in aviation. It's his claim that the samples he took from the aircraft (I know from fuel,water and hold drains) from spray nozzles , were tested and the results show borium as one of the chemicals, plus other chemicals including heavy metals.

I'd like to see someone who believes in chemtrails (or who doesn't), take a camera and do a spectral analysis of the trails. If there was anything in their other than CO2, H2O and unburnt aviation fuel, that would be very interesting. Even if they didn't find the chemicals they expected to find, they might find something interesting and something that could be useful to aviation science.

 

[FatPhil]

I'd like to see someone who believes in chemtrails (or who doesn't), take a camera and do a spectral analysis of the trails. If there was anything in their other than CO2, H2O and unburnt aviation fuel, that would be very interesting. Even if they didn't find the chemicals they expected to find, they might find something interesting and something that could be useful to aviation science.

Don't be fooled into thinking that the "aviation" in "aviation fuel" means "purer", if anything it's the opposite:

Over the past decade there has been a worldwide trend to lower sulfur content in motor gasoline
and diesel fuel with some countries requiring near-zero sulfur today or in the near future. These
limits have been mandated by government regulations driven by the need to reduce harmful
emissions. A similar reduction has not occurred for jet fuel; the specifications continue to allow
a maximum of 3000 ppm sulfur although the worldwide av erage sulfur content in jet fuel appears
to be between 500 and 1000 ppm.

https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/2478.pdf

That's a teaspoon in a 2L bottle.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'd like to see someone who believes in chemtrails (or who doesn't), take a camera and do a spectral analysis of the trails. If there was anything in their other than CO2, H2O and unburnt aviation fuel, that would be very interesting. Even if they didn't find the chemicals they expected to find, they might find something interesting and something that could be useful to aviation science.

As for the chem-trail people, I'd imagine the results of a spectral analysis will be alarming and nefarious, regardless of what they actually find. Somewhere on here in an older chem-trail thread, there is a discussion of some testing down by some chem-trail advocates.

Their claim, at the time, was that pure aluminum was being sprayed for a varsity of reasons. IIRC, they went out in the woods around Mt Shasta and took a number of samples and had them tested via a standard EPA test. The results show pure aluminum was present and concluded, that since pure aluminum doesn't exist in nature, its presence was the result of chem-trails.

Whether they knew or cared that aluminum is something like the third most common element in most Earth samples, they did know that when aluminum is present, it's bound up in things like aluminum oxide. It's not pure. However, either they did not understand or purposely obfuscated the fact that the test used broke the sample into its elemental components. Any aluminum oxide in the sample would show as pure aluminum and oxygen in the test results. No chem-trails needed for pure aluminum to found in a sample. So, they just skip that part.

I wouldn't expect anything enlightening from an research chem-trail guys do.

Found the old (2016) thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...d-find-metals-that-dont-occur-naturally.7842/

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Bit it makes no sense!

always loaded the baggage from the tail, because the plane must always travel with the nose facing upwards", from 5 to 10 degrees of inclination. "If it does not travel like this, consumption increases considerably, and a low cost that increases consumption does not make sense."

This is bonkers.
It is important where the center of gravity is on an aircraft. This depends on how it is loaded (passenger/cargo) and where the fuel is in the tanks. Depending on the aircraft type, there are limits on how far to the front and to the back the center of gravity can be, for the aircraft to fly safely.
Generally, it needs to be aft of the center of lift from the wings.

Now compare (images from wikipedia):
MD-80
View attachment 80584
A320neo
View attachment 80583
The MD-80 has the wings further aft, so it needs to have the center of gravity further aft. No conspiracy theory needed.

The guy didn't understand it, and instead of asking someone who knows, he invented a weird theory. That's all there is to it.

Here's my take...

Spoiler: What purpose does this serve - devaluation or understanding?

Like for 40 years I've been fascinated about what people believe and why they believe it. I know there's pushback about "psychoanalyzing" (wrong word) people with odd beliefs. But what are you left with if you stop at merely solving a case of bunk? Nothing more meaningful than a completed jigsaw puzzle.

The argument seems to be about motivation...

The objection to analyzing the thought process behind an odd belief seems to go something like this: This odd belief really bothers you and you're motivated to discredit it anyway you can. So you resort to devaluing the person who holds the belief. Grind him into the dust and you'll grind the odd belief into the dust.


This isn't at all what I'm trying to do. The odd belief is trivial. It's the psychology I'm trying to understand. And it doesn't even matter to me whether the analysis has any practical result. I just want to increase my understanding.

I reject the idea that the process of understanding the psychology of someone is inherently a process of devaluing. It isn't to me, anyway. I just want to understand. Like the guy in my Avatar.

And I don't see any harm in approaching this as an exercise in the difference between unclear thinking and clear thinking.

Psychological Factors

Motivated Reasoning
The man wants to believe that a secret cargo is being loaded in the aft of the plane. Motivated reasoning leads people to selectively interpret evidence to support conclusions they are already inclined to believe.

He interprets normal cargo loading (which he doesn't understand) as confirmation of his suspicions.

Dunning-Kruger Effect
He lacks expertise in aircraft loading and CG (center of gravity) management, but believes he understands it better than he actually does. This cognitive bias leads individuals with low ability or knowledge to overestimate their competence.

He doesn't seek expert opinion, likely because he believes he doesn't need it.


Confirmation Bias
He likely notices or remembers only those details that support his belief (e.g., "unusual" loading patterns).

He may ignore or downplay contrary evidence or routine explanations offered by others.


Suspicion or Conspiratorial Thinking
The idea of a "secret cargo" suggests a suspicious mindset, which may stem from a general distrust of authority or institutions.

People prone to conspiratorial thinking often see hidden motives or plots in ordinary events.



Logical Fallacies

Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
He assumes that because he doesn't understand the current cargo loading, it must be wrong or suspicious.

In reality, lack of understanding does not prove wrongdoing.


False Cause (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
He may believe that the "unusual" loading causes or indicates secret cargo, even if there's no causal relationship.

Misinterpreting correlation (or coincidence) as causation.


Hasty Generalization
Based on a few personal observations of how the cargo is loaded, he jumps to a sweeping conclusion (that there's secret cargo or improper procedures).


Appeal to Personal Incredulity
He cannot personally understand why the plane is being loaded this way, so he concludes it must be wrong or must indicate a secret plot.

 

[Gary C]

IMO the prevalence of conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and other assorted forms of "woo" across all forms of 21st Century media creates a readily accessible emotional escape hatch from the unrelenting pressures of modern life. Even those who are not embedded in any particular anti-scientific (?) grouping are still culturally primed with socially mediated examples that can be adopted on-the-fly to explain an unexpected or disquieting experience.

When likes, shares, and followers form a type of social currency that allows seemingly unremarkable people to literally become 'rich and famous' no one is more than one paranormal experience away from their own "fifteen minutes of fame." IOW modern society is actively rewarding people who "want to believe."

/rant

 

[Mendel]

This isn't at all what I'm trying to do. The odd belief is trivial. It's the psychology I'm trying to understand. And it doesn't even matter to me whether the analysis has any practical result. I just want to increase my understanding.

But you can't do that by speculating — that only reveals your own psychology. If you want to understand someone, you need to base it on what they reveal about themselves, either by talking to them, or by using what they have written or said as evidence. But you don't do either, and that offends.

 

[Mendel]

Generally, it needs to be aft of the center of lift from the wings.

This is false. The center of pressure is the point where the wing lift can be abstracted to act on the aircraft. For the airliner to be stable, the center of gravity needs to be forward of that, balanced by the downforce from the tailplane.
The engines are the second heaviest items on the aircraft, so for the empty MD-80 to be balanced, the wings need to be further back. (The heaviest items are the fuel tanks. They're in the wings themselves and thus don't affect balance that much.)

My general point still stands, though: the position of the wings affects how the aircraft must be loaded.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

But you can't do that by speculating — that only reveals your own psychology. If you want to understand someone, you need to base it on what they reveal about themselves, either by talking to them, or by using what they have written or said as evidence. But you don't do either, and that offends.

Speculation? Or educated observation?

There's caution and then there's stubbornness. I'm talking about common biases and logical fallacies, not a DSM diagnoses. These things are common and not that hard to spot. Pretty blatant in this case.

Let's examine the alternative. I think we all agree that the idea this guy has is not true and his idea is based on some kind of faulty reasoning. Is it really impossible to analyze what's wrong with the thought process?

 

[Mendel]

Speculation? Or educated observation?

My criticism is that your "observation" base is scant and not well documented, and that you make up for that shortfall with speculations and assumptions (e.g. "general distrust of authority or institutions"). It's a bunch of generalities such as LLMs produce to pad their answers.

I'm talking about common biases and logical errors, not a DSM diagnoses.

And because you're not linking them well to actual quotes and definitions, they're unreliable. For example:

False Cause (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
He may believe that the "unusual" loading causes or indicates secret cargo, even if there's no causal relationship.

Misinterpreting correlation (or coincidence) as causation.

You give the correct definition (misinterpreting correlation), but the changed loading pattern does NOT correlate to secret cargo, because there is no secret cargo. (If it existed, the causal relationship would be correct!)
We could speculate that Enrico Gianini started noticing more contrails (A) as he noticed the changed loading pattern (B) for newer aircraft, and then constructed a false common cause for it: chemtrail spraying from secret chemical tanks (C). Actually, if (A) is true and not a self-deception, a more reasonable common cause is the advent of high-bypass ("thick") engines (D), which are mounted in a different place (hence B) and have different contrail-forming properties¹ (hence A, possibly). But that's a different logical fallacy!

In short, the absence of rigor makes your contribution unreliable, and where it concerns the character of a fellow human, offensive.

---

¹ see e.g. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-make-contrails-actually-they-make-more.3187/ or https://www.metabunk.org/threads/co...m-vermont-and-new-hampshire.14059/post-338850

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It's not about the character of a person. My take is a toolbox, nothing more. I guess I could qualify each tool with something like "it seems to fit"... or "let's consider the possibility" and add other qualifications. In fact, I did use quite a few qualifications. Maybe too subtle?

I think we've reached the end of the road here. Certainly getting off topic for the thread.

 

[Mendel]

It's his claim that the samples he took from the aircraft (I know from fuel,water and hold drains) from spray nozzles , were tested and the results show borium as one of the chemicals, plus other chemicals including heavy metals.

The source given at the start of this thread does not have that. So if you want thst debunked, my advice is to start a new thread, and to quote the claimed evidence there. You could also do a search for "tankerenemy" here on the forum.

I did look at the Italian transcript, and it explains how Gianini went down the rabbit hole:

Article:

Gianini has been working at Malpensa since 1998. He "stumbled" on the issue between 2004 and 2005, even before Alitalia moved its fleet to Fiumicino. "I started to see that there were really a lot of contrails. Too many. I asked for explanations at the airport, but they told me that traffic had increased. The logic was: more planes, more contrails." Via the web, he contacted Rosario Marcianò, manager of the site " Tanker Enemy " which documents the presence of anomalous contrails in our skies. "I started to not listen to the mechanics anymore," Gianini says in the video, uploaded to YouTube . "Their explanations were devoid of logical evidence." On planes, he explains, there are special ducts to drain the condensation water that forms between the moving planes of the wings. They are positioned in various points, especially near the reactors [engines]. They can be used to convey water and oil vapor. "Explanations that I initially took for granted," admits Gianini. "But the skies were increasingly full of white trails." One day, a Boeing 737 from a charter company arrives on the service stand. "On both engines, inside, in front of the blades of the reactor's propellers, they had installed Pitot tubes. An almost homemade contraption, certainly not something that came out of the factory. And on that plane I found I think 4 of them, of different sizes and heights." An oddity that does not escape the operator: what are those tubes for?

Gianini is surprised that the technicians are checking the wear of the blades of the Airbus 321s, in the part closest to the hull. "A light bulb went on: I remembered the plane that had arrived on my apron a few weeks earlier", the Boeing 737. "I look into the reactor and see two protuberances, which they say are the reactor's fire sensors. But it doesn't make sense, because the fire sensors should be in the central body of the reactor, not on the external blades. And what is the sensor supposed to measure? The air passes through there at incredible speeds...". The technician walks away from the Airbus, and Gianini has the green light: "I put my hand behind this sensor and I feel three holes, about 6-7 millimeters wide. So, from there I said: maybe Rosario Marcianò is right."

Source: https://www-libreidee-org.translate.goog/2018/02/scie-chimiche-a-malpensa-tutti-lo-sanno-ma-nessuno-parla/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

So it is in fact as I wrote before: he finds something he doesn't understand, and instead of trusting the explanations he's been given (or looking for better explanations), he trusts the bunk he's been primed with via the chemtrail website.

 

[elvenwear]

Don't be fooled into thinking that the "aviation" in "aviation fuel" means "purer", if anything it's the opposite:

Over the past decade there has been a worldwide trend to lower sulfur content in motor gasoline
and diesel fuel with some countries requiring near-zero sulfur today or in the near future. These
limits have been mandated by government regulations driven by the need to reduce harmful
emissions. A similar reduction has not occurred for jet fuel; the specifications continue to allow
a maximum of 3000 ppm sulfur although the worldwide av erage sulfur content in jet fuel appears
to be between 500 and 1000 ppm.

https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/2478.pdf

That's a teaspoon in a 2L bottle.

Could that be that because the pollutants are disposed of at high altitude much less of them is dispersed where people are living? I feel as though this may have relevance if it is true.

 

[John J.]

[Quoting Gianini]
One day, a Boeing 737 from a charter company arrives on the service stand. "On both engines, inside, in front of the blades of the reactor's [jet engine's, John J.] propellers, they had installed Pitot tubes. An almost homemade contraption, certainly not something that came out of the factory. And on that plane I found I think 4 of them, of different sizes and heights." An oddity that does not escape the operator: what are those tubes for?

Gianini is surprised that the technicians are checking the wear of the blades of the Airbus 321s, in the part closest to the hull. "A light bulb went on: I remembered the plane that had arrived on my apron a few weeks earlier", the Boeing 737.
I look into the reactor and see two protuberances, which they say are the reactor's fire sensors. But it doesn't make sense, because the fire sensors should be in the central body of the reactor, not on the external blades.

Gianini's account raises several questions that might cast doubts on his competence to interpret what he claimed to see.
In fairness, perhaps the translation from Italian might have introduced ambiguities or phrasings that were unintended.

Individual airliners, up close, are easily identifiable. They carry operator livery, a registration code, sometimes a name:

How aircraft registration codes are assigned
Aircraft registration numbers are assigned by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which requires that all aircraft flying internationally display unique assigned registration markings. ICAO Annex 7 contains standards adopted by ICAO as the minimum requirements for the display of marks to indicate appropriate nationality and registration, which have been determined to comply with Article 20 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
... ...
Registration number placement on an airliner
The registration identifier must be shown prominently on the aircraft. It is typically displayed as follows:

• On the side of the fuselage near the rear of the plane, or on the tail or fuselage-mounted engine
• It may also be located under the left wing.
• A shortened version of the number may also appear on the nosewheel door of the front landing gear.

Most countries also require the registration number to be imprinted on a permanent fireproof plate mounted on the fuselage in case of a post-fire/post-crash aircraft accident investigation.

From Airline Spotter website, https://airlinerspotter.com/airliner-registration-numbers.htm

All jurisdictions (AFAIK) have similar requirements for civil aircraft used only for domestic flights;

While the Chicago convention sets out the country-specific prefixes used in registration marks, and makes provision for the ways they are used in international civil aviation and displayed on aircraft, individual countries also make further provision for their formats and the use of registration marks for intranational flight.

Wikipedia, Aircraft registration, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_registration, my emphasis.

Gianini doesn't seem to have recorded which specific aircraft he worked on, which makes checking his claims difficult.
Nor does he claim to have taken any photographs. Perhaps there were workplace rules that prevented this, but I doubt if it would be illegal (excepting e.g. where use of a mobile phone might be deemed a safety hazard).
If he genuinely thought his employer was involved in illegal spraying from passenger aircraft, I'm surprised he didn't take the opportunity to gather photographic evidence and record checkable details of the aircraft involved.

Gianini:

...they had installed Pitot tubes.

A pitot tube is an instrument that measures fluid flow velocity. On aircraft, exterior-mounted pitot tubes indicate airspeed.
Wikipedia, Pitot tube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube

Not sure what aircraft is on the left; middle is a Boeing 737, right, forward fuselage of a Ryanair Boeing 737.
Some prototype aircraft, and some Cold War era military jet types, have much more pronounced pitot tubes, a long "spike" projecting forward from the nose or sometimes a wingtip.

A pitot tube doesn't spray anything. If Gianini was an aircraft technician with anything to do with pitot tubes, he would know this. If he identified the pitot tubes correctly, he had no need to worry: They're not involved in spraying.
If he spotted tubes which seemed unusual to him, was unsure of their function but called them "pitot tubes", he was using a technical term incorrectly. "A tube I couldn't identify" would have been more accurate, but perhaps sounds less sciencey.

Gianini:

An almost homemade contraption, certainly not something that came out of the factory.

So who did Gianini alert?
If an aircraft technician saw something resembling a "homemade contraption", "certainly not something that came out of the factory" that they couldn't identify, attached to an aircraft- in this instance, it seems inside an engine cowling, you would think they had a professional responsibility- not to mention a responsibility as an adult human being and member of society- to report it- not just discuss it with peers, whose explanation he seems to reject. An unidentified homemade contraption is almost a synonym for "improvised device".

Gianini is surprised that the technicians are checking the wear of the blades of the Airbus 321s, in the part closest to the hull.

This isn't explained. Most aircrew and passengers are probably quite happy with regular checks on engine components. And if you're checking the fan/ compressor blades, you have to start somewhere and work your way around (I'm guessing! We need @Duke.)
And turbofans rotate. There's no reason to believe that the blades that happen to be closest to the fuselage when the engine is at rest are under more strain than other blades.

Gianini:

I look into the reactor and see two protuberances, which they say are the reactor's fire sensors. But it doesn't make sense, because the fire sensors should be in the central body of the reactor, not on the external blades.

Gianini, who doesn't alert security services when he thinks he sees homemade contraptions stuck on a plane where they shouldn't be, and who for some reason is surprised at technicians checking fan blades, is now deciding jet engines only need fire detectors in "the central body".

Jet engines do have fire detectors in their core area.
And further forward, inside the cowling, level with the fans/ forward compressors. (Again, if G. thought there was something on the blades, shouldn't he have reported it?- Maybe a translation problem).

In most large aircraft, engines and the APU [Auxiliary Power Unit, John J.] are lined with loops or firewires where a fire is most likely to happen. Firewire is a tubular structure consisting of an electrode covered in an insulating material which is then covered by a steel tube. This firewire is connected to the fire detection computer or the control unit.
The control supplies a small voltage to the firewire, which remains constant with no changes in temperature. However, if the temperature were to increase (due to a fire), the resistance of the insulating material would decrease, causing current to flow between the outer steel tube and the inner electrode. This increase in current is detected by the fire detection computer, which then gives a warning to the pilots in the cockpit.

The firewires are always connected to the detector on both sides. This way, even if the wire were to break at a certain location, the fire detection continues to work.

"What Are Engine Fire Detection & Extinguishing Systems And How Do They Work?", section "The engine fire detection system", Anas Maaz, 14 October 2014, Simple Flying website https://simpleflying.com/engine-fire-detection-extinguishing-systems-guide/, my emphasis.

The illustration above originates from Airbus and shows the fire detection loops / fire wires of a CFM engine.
Most contemporary Boeing 737s have CFM engines,

-edited table from Wikipedia, Boeing 737 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737
Gianini made his observations while working on a Boeing 737 and an unspecified Airbus airliner.


So, two connections from the firewire to the aircraft's detector system per engine. The Boeing 737 (like most Airbus jets) has two engines:

And on that plane I found I think 4 of them...

I suspect G. was looking at parts of the fire detection system, just as his colleagues told him.
Gianini makes it clear he didn't expect to find fire sensors that far forward of the engine core: The Airbus picture showing fire detection loop locations in a CFM engine demonstrate that he was wrong about this.

And... he thinks he found four? He's working on a civil airliner.
Supervisor: "Did you check the pressure on all six tyres?"
Technician: "Yes. I think it was six."

Firewire end terminals and connector joints might be said to have a superficial resemblance to pitot tubes,

Nuts at the end of the sensing elements [Figure 15] should be inspected for tightness and the presence of a safety wire. Loose nuts should be re-torqued to the value specified by the manufacturer's instructions. Some types of sensing element connection joints require the use of copper crush gaskets, which should be replaced any time a connection is separated.

"Engine Fire Protection Systems", free-ed net website N.B. Insecure site https://www.waybuilder.net/free-ed/SkilledTrades/Aviation/AvPowerPlants/09FireProt/09FireProtFra.asp

In the absence of further, testable evidence, I think Gianini's claims are unfounded.

 

[Mendel]

Nor does he claim to have taken any photographs. Perhaps there were workplace rules that prevented this, but I doubt if it would be illegal (excepting e.g. where use of a mobile phone might be deemed a safety hazard).

The chemtrailers have scores of photos, including of nozzles that look like pitot tubes. They just don't know what they're for, and prey on the credulity of people who don't know, either.
See e.g. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ther-unlabeled-photos-from-facebook-etc.1318/ , https://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/ , https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...d-spray-pipes-on-a-320-are-pylon-drains.2855/

Gianini's descriptions are unreliable, and we don't know whether he recalls correctly what he was told, especially if he didn't understand it—or maybe the people he asked didn't know either and were guessing. It's pretty much futile to debunk these claims, especially since Gianini comes to believe that aircraft spray via pylon drains somehow, which he does know and can identify, because the chemtrailers are claiming that's where the chemtrails come from. Once he's down that rabbit hole, he sees everything through this lens,

 

[Mauro]

perhaps the translation from Italian might have introduced ambiguities or phrasings that were unintended

I have just checked the Italian transcript (I did not follow much this thread). Some remarks about the Italian text (https://www.libreidee.org/2018/02/scie-chimiche-a-malpensa-tutti-lo-sanno-ma-nessuno-parla/) and the translation of the parts quoted by @John J.

The first impression I had is he is not an airplane technician, because he does not uses the tecnichal terms.

Su tutti e due i motori, all'interno, di fronte alle pale delle eliche del reattore, avevano installato dei Tubi di Pitot.

"On both engines, inside, in front of the blades of the engine fans, someone had Pitot tubes installed".

"Eliche" is wrong: it means 'propellers' and is not used for jet engines, not even in common parlance. The rotating part of a jet engine is generically a 'turbina' in Italian, while a technician would use 'compressore' and 'turbina' (as in English 'compressor' and 'turbine') depending on which part of the engine he's referring to.

"Reattore" in the sense of 'jet engine' is not a technical term too.



I later looked for informations about his actual duties at the airport, there's not much around and everything is from blogs or other not-so-reliable-sources, but it seems he was tasked with loading/unloading the planes, which I'd take to mean he was a hauler, not a technician.

Classe 1968, Enrico Gianini ha lavorato fino al 2018 all'aeroporto di Malpensa, occupandosi del carico-scarico degli aerei e di altre mansioni a cui è addetto il personale di terra.

https://www.byoblu.com/2025/03/04/il-caso-di-enrico-gianini-una-persecuzione-psico-giudiziaria/

"Born in 1968, Enrico Gianini worked until 2018 at Malpensa airport, tasked with loading-unloading the planes and other duties to which the ground personnel is assigned".


About the translation of a point quoted by @John J./@Mendel:

Gianini is surprised that the technicians are checking the wear of the blades of the Airbus 321s, in the part closest to the hull.

'Hull' is a mistranslation of 'carena'. A 'carena' in this context means 'fairing' (technically it should be a 'carenatura', the 'carena' is more properly the keel of a ship, but in common speaking 'carena' is also used instead). What I understand is that the wear was checked near the blade tips (closest to the engine fairing), which I also guess is where more wear should be expected, given the higher speed.



It then seems Enrico Gianini was convicted to six months of reclusion in 2019 for assaulting a policeman, and contestually he was diagnosed with a paranoid syndrome and given a further one year of probation and psychiatric treatment. From the same article I linked above, "The case of Enrico Gianini, a psycho-judiciary persecution", which takes a conspiratorial stance on the matter (Sorry for not providing a translation but it's too long and full of legal terminology. Maybe later):

Per questo episodio Gianini viene rinviato a giudizio, sceglie il rito abbreviato e viene condannato a sei mesi di reclusione per lesioni. Sconta 40 giorni in carcere e il restante tempo agli arresti domiciliari. Nell'ambito del processo, come racconta lo stesso Gianini in un video pubblicato all'inizio del 2020 sui suoi canali, il giudice dispone una perizia psichiatrica affidata al dottor Antranik Balliant dell'ospedale psichiatrico di Gallarate, che lo dichiara affetto da psicosi riscontrando un disturbo paranoide da trattare con psicofarmaci. Il giudice Daniela Frattini, nella sentenza emessa il 7 ottobre 2019, scrive:

"Si ritiene dunque che l'imputato non avendo alcuna intenzione di curarsi volontariamente sia al momento da considerare pericoloso. Ciò impedisce la concessione del beneficio della sospensione condizionale della pena ed induce all'applicazione della misura di sicurezza della libertà vigilata, secondo le indicazioni di contenuto formulate dal perito. Dichiara Gianini Enrico responsabile dei reati ascrittigli e (…) lo condanna alla pena di sei mesi di reclusione oltre al pagamento delle spese processuali. Applica a Gianini Enrico la misura di sicurezza della libertà vigilata prescrivendo la presa in carico da parte del CPS (centro psico-sociale, ndr) per la durata di un anno".

More recently, Enrico Gianini has been subject to a TSO (Trattamento Sanitario Obbligatorio: mandatory sanitary treatment), that is to say he has been institutionalized after a judicial review. I only found reports in conspiratorial outlets:

La vicenda di Enrico Gianini, ex operatore aeroportuale di Malpensa e divulgatore su tematiche legate alla geoingegneria e all'antisistema, sta sollevando seri interrogativi sul rispetto dei diritti individuali. Recluso nella REMS di Castiglione delle Stiviere dal 25 febbraio 2024, Gianini si trova in una situazione che sta generando preoccupazione e indignazione, non solo tra i suoi sostenitori ma anche tra chi teme le implicazioni più ampie di un simile trattamento.

https://www.lidentitario.com/2025/0...ini-una-detenzione-che-solleva-interrogativi/

"The affair of Enrico Gianini, an ex-employee at Malpensa and a divulger of themes related to geoengineering and anti-system (sic!), is raising serious questions on the respect of individual rights. Jailed in the REMS (psychiatric judicial hospital) of Castiglione delle Stiviere since February 25, 2024,Gianini finds himself in a situation which is creating preoccupation and indignation, not only among his supporters but also among those who fear the bigger implications of such a treatment".

 

[JMartJr]

"Born in 1968, Enrico Gianini worked until 2018 at Malpensa airport, tasked with loading-unloading the planes and other duties to which the ground personnel is assigned".

Baggage handler? "Lighted-waggle-stick" guy? Wheel chocker?

 

[Mendel]

"Lighted-waggle-stick" guy?

aircraft marshaller

 

[John J.]

"Lighted-waggle-stick" guy?

aircraft marshaller

 

[Ann K]

aircraft marshaller

OK, what is it called in German, and is it a translation of "lighted waggle-stick guy"?

 

[Mendel]

OK, what is it called in German, and is it a translation of "lighted waggle-stick guy"?

"Einwinker" = come-in-wiggler

 

[JMartJr]

I actually knew "marshaller" as the term, but wasn't sure how many other people would, and whether it would create confusion with "Air Marshal," who might be in a position to know more about what sort of clandestine legal stuff was being put into (and subsequently sprayed out of) planes...

 

[elvenwear]

"Einwinker" = come-in-wiggler

Does that mean Einstein's name roughly translates to "come in and have a beer?"