Max Bliss - Anonymous Chemtrails 'Airline insider' speaks out

HappyMonday

Moderator
Here's the expose of the 'chemtrails insider' Max Bliss was touting for a while, which was released by publishing a number of emails he'd been receiving in a blog post.

This 'insider information' was exposed as a deliberate hoax perpetrated on Max Bliss. See this thread for details - (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/max-and-the-whistleblower.2144/)

Despite the revelations about it's origin, the information provided by the hoaxer is still being spread around the internet in support of the chemtrail conspiracy theory. As such, I intend to link and summarise debunking of at least some of the information provided later in this OP regardless of it's hoax origin.

I've removed a lot of the congratulatory preamble so as to concentrate on the claims in the hoaxed emails, and I've italicised Max's interjections.

Debunking of some of the specifics can be found below the copy/pasted emails.


The emails sent to me by the anonymous informant certainly appear genuine and as we continued our trust developed.

Here is the first email, at times I will omit some info that may be too sensitive and paraphrase where required.


“……Max

The time has come to come clean. Hopefully what I write here will help end the world-wide atrocity that I have been a part of. I know that what I say will shock many, but seeing that you seem to be almost there with uncovering the truth, the sooner this is out in the open the better.

So you know, I am a management pilot with one of the carriers that has figured in your videos; I am involved in the regulatory side of things, which is required because since just about everything we do in these spraying programs is illegal according to the CAA and JAA regulations, if a pilot becomes aware of what we are doing he or she will come to me first and I, supposedly, take it from there. Surprisingly very few of our pilots have become aware of the program, but your videos have alarmed the small group of managers I report to, and I fear the cat may soon be out of the bag.

At first I thought you had actually cracked it. From your latest videos you have accurately identified the method of getting the Al2O3 into the atmosphere, but not where it is stored. Right in the middle of most airliners, apart from the very short range ones, is the CWT or centre-wing fuel tank. As aircraft are fuelled, the tanks in the wings are always fuelled first to preserve what is know as favourable wing bending moments. Unless the aircraft is scheduled for a long-range flight, the centre wing tanks are empty and can be isolated if required by the use of shut-off and cross-feed valves.

Doing it this way allows us to accurately load the right amount of the material and avoid overloading the aircraft, which is a safety risk, particularly on take off. You are correct about the TMA. Other methods of delivery required too much in the way of pumps and switches, which meant too many people would notice what was going on. Under the guise of fitting an inerting system, which is automatic and has no cockpit controls, we can pressurize the CWT enough so that once a simple valve is actuated remotely, the TMA is drawn through the lines by the pressure differential and flows into the exhaust where it does its thing. And doing it this way has only one drawback, it limits “spray flights” by us and other airlines to shorter range flights but that is just a matter of scheduling and logistics.

Really the only people who need to be involved are the people who empty the honey-cart who must purge the TMA system after use; they are required to wear protective clothing for the honeycart job which also covers them for accidental exposure to TMA; and the refuellers who must configure the fuel system from a panel under the wing; have you ever wondered why most refuelling systems have two pipes attached to the wings?

Extraneous weight issues are handled by a small team of flight dispatchers, who exclusively handle the spraying flights. Some time before each flight they check the destination, alternate and departure airports, the planned loads and make sure that the prevailing winds will guarantee that the runways most likely to be used have a performance safety “pad” that will compensate for the extra weight that the pilots are unaware of. If there is any doubt then the TMA will not be loaded. Some other safety precautions include adjusting FMC stall margin values so the pilots do not climb too high for their REAL weight which could cause a high altitude stall. One of the ways we realised that was a problem was graphically illustrated back in 2009. Guess what I am talking about…

Under this program, I have personally been subjected to death threats should I ever reveal what is happening. Low level personnel are simply trained to do the job and have no real idea what is happening. Little do people realise that those doing what are considered menial jobs, refuelling and “waste disposal” are paid very handsomely for what they do, and their general ignorance means they don’t ask any questions. I guess that is just as well because they are monitored 24/7.

By doing this I hope to end the fear and guilt I and others have been suffering. Long ago I was spun a tale about how this program was a beneficial thing for the world and I believed with all my heart. Eventually, after much soul searching.. I realised the evil in which I was such an integral part….”

I am sure as a first time reader, you may be questioning is this real…? Well of course the emails are real and genuinely sent from who knows where, the techy people can deduce that.

I have done a great deal of research, the reason the whistleblower contacted me is because of my recent physical investigation when taking a flight, of one of the carriers I have seen spraying. I took photos and remembering much of the likely technical possibilities made assumptions and speculated on the likely system used. I contacted one of the internet radio shows I have been on and they ran a show rendering the pictures and my ideas. I was a little too quick and made mistakes, actually very basic mistakes. However, according to my new source I was actually close.


So onto the next email……I have purposefully left out some of the pictures for obvious reasons….

“……Hello Max

This message contains some graphics which if released, may expose my identity to those in the know. How that is handled by you is critical. I will let you know what you can share and what is for your eyes only. Secrecy is still very essential at this time.

My well being depends on it.

Earlier I told you about the unease regarding the use of TMA. Some of the reasons are obvious. Some not so. At the core of some of the problems is the cost of producing it in worthwhile quantities. Google some of the companies that sell it for an idea about how much just one spray flight must cost the taxpayer.

Europe is a problem because the vast majority of flights flown in the Eurozone are made by smaller aircraft such as the ones my company fly. Intercontinental, and longer range flights are more efficient because they are done by larger jets which can actually carry aluminium oxide in raw form. I will also explain how that is done in this message.

So…. as management, by law, we are not allowed to dictate to our captains how much fuel they carry on any particular flight. As professionals they know that fuel is expensive and they generally do not over-order but we must devise methods to ensure they do not order so much fuel for a particular flight so as to require the unused capacity of the CWT.

Control of this factor is done by using scheduling and logistics as explained earlier, and also by what is called the minimum equipment list, or MEL’s. On every aircraft, this is a list of defects that can be legally carried on a flight. Nowadays, all aircraft have a lot of redundancy built in to all their systems to allow for this. The MEL list allows aircraft to fly with minor defects and then be repaired in scheduled downtime.

Here is a photo of the MEL we use to allow the aircraft to fly, but prohibits using the CWT.

( NOT SHARED)

Earlier I told you how the CWT needs to be isolated so the TMA can be loaded. Reading this MEL you can see that even if one of these valves isn’t working then the CWT cannot be used in normal flight. Every flight that we use to spray carries this bogus MEL. Any suspicion by pilots that we carry this MEL too often is managed by making sure that no captain is rostered for a spray flight more than once a month. Rostering is tightly controlled by management. Every operator of the aircraft we fly has this MEL list so you may release this information.

Now to the larger aircraft. One of the problems with the smaller aircraft is that their cargo compartments are only designed to load passenger baggage and maybe a small amount of parcels via hand and a belt loader. Consequently there is no extra room in them for tanks/pumps etc required for really large scale spraying. Having this restriction means going down the TMA route, with all its attendant problems.

Extra negative factors include the impossibility of hiding the weight of large amounts of aluminium oxide from pilots on the smaller aircraft. “Meth”, as it is known by the few of us intimately involved, weighs less than the equivalent amount of fuel, so there is no real problem there. The extra weight is hidden by the methods explained earlier. Really large scale spraying however requires a bigger solution. Among the other problems of TMA is that aluminium oxide is only one of the byproducts created when TMA combusts, so burning a kilo of it creates much less than a kilo of AL2O3.

Intercontinental sized aircraft have advantages that are the answer to these problems. Like their smaller cousins, they can also carry TMA using the same systems if required, and more of it. Some, like the earlier domestic version of the 767 do not have a CWT, but most do.

High capacity aircraft like the A380, 747, A340, 777, A330 and the ER versions of the 767 all have the two things that make them ideal for large scale spraying. One is a large volume CWT and the other is two large capacity cargo compartments where aluminium oxide, mixed into a slurry with methanol, (for dispersion) can be loaded inside specially converted ULD (Unit Loading Device) containers.

When a spray flight is scheduled, a calculation is made by specially trained flight dispatchers as to the availability of payload weight that can be used for spraying. Early in the process, it is determined if both aluminium oxide and TMA can be used; just TMA for longer flights or if there is no spraying availability; generally this occurs on ULH (ultra long haul) flights.

At all times the weight limitations of the aircraft must be observed. Safety is paramount; the risks of TMA notwithstanding. You can see a loading message below. I cannot allow you to publicly disclose this because it is proprietary and was an actual flight, and may endanger a sympathetic contact I have in another company.

(NOT SHARED)

Some of this is a bit arcane but bear with me. In line 8 you can see a value called the Zero Fuel Weight. This is the key to making sure pilots do not know they are carrying spray material and still keeping the aircraft safe. The ZFW is the weight of the entire aircraft, including passengers and freight, minus the fuel. On the right of the actual value is the regulatory maximum that this value can be, on this particular aircraft type it is 175000 kgs.

For this particular flight, you can see that the ZFW was almost at the maximum value. On this particular day, the weight of the passengers and freight carried, (the total traffic load in line 6), which the pilot has no means to physically check, was altered to reflect the weight of the passengers and cargo PLUS the spray material, in this case both aluminium oxide and TMA.

One major advantage of this system is that it is foolproof from a safety point of view. Landing with spray material still on board, say in the event the remotely operated release valve failed, could mean big trouble if that weight was not accounted for by the pilot on landing. You can see that if the material sprays correctly, the aircraft will actually be much lighter for landing than the pilot realises, but all that means is that the landing is much safer from an operational point of view. On the other hand if the valve failed (rare but it has happened) the weight of the material is procedurally (but unknowingly) accounted for by the pilots in their landing distance calculations that they must carry out, and therefore the risk of a landing over-runs is negated.

Under this system, the critical speeds that are always calculated for a safe take-off are also inherently correct.

Now to look how all this is done in practice. All large aircraft are refuelled from a single point, by convention, usually under the left wing. In the following photos you can see the twin hoses that are used, and if you look very carefully at the CF6 engine in the background and the foreground in the second , you will see the same spray nozzles that are present on the 737 engines.

I took these photos myself at a large European airport, they are not proprietary so you may distribute them, or get your own CF6 photos off the net. Visually, the spray pipes are small but they have high capacity pumps inside the pylon (inside the white access panel on the pylon) which forces out large quantities of material in a small amount of time if required. Energy is diverted from the exhaust gas stream to power these pumps…. they are simple, foolproof, operate continuously when the engine is running and require no flight deck control.

Going with this system means that flexibility is maintained. Using TMA for longer range flights, loading can be done using the second hose. Lines carrying TMA and their access points, are part of just about all airports. Located only at the left hand wing, to keep the operation as simple as possible, they are pressurised to reduce the chance of air getting into them with the inevitable results. In the case of non TMA flights, the second hose is just there for show and is not being actually used.

But in the case of aluminium oxide, the weight and bulk of the material means that this method cannot be used. Loading aluminium is done by the modified ULD container method. Even this method however has its safety considerations which must be followed.

Cargo loading is critical and must take into account the weight and balance restrictions that all aircraft have. Real problems can be caused by mis-loading as the aluminium oxide slurry is very heavy. Every flight, even non spraying flights, must have containers loaded in correct sequences to avoid balance errors.

Duty load dispatchers aren’t required to know what is in the containers, just what each one weighs in order to get the sequence correct. ULDs that are modified for spray purposes are always loaded first at either cargo door (locations pictured below). Loading them this way is essential because they have pipe arrangements which hook into the onboard spray system, and the heaviest containers must go as close as possible to the C of G as you can see from this proprietary diagram… (not to be released.)

(NOT SHARED)

One can see that CPT 2 and 3 have the heaviest allowable weights, 20 and 15 tonnes respectively which is fortunate because they are the areas that must be used by the modified ULD containers. ULD use is ubiquitous and the modified ones can be found at holding areas at airports around the world if one knows what one is looking for. Suffice to say, if you are looking for evidence about how ULDs can be modified, check out “envirotainer” and imagine how simple it would be to do the required modifications.

Using the ADSB system, the inflight position of the aircraft is always known by spray controllers. New ATC procedures mean that the position of spray aircraft are always broadcast to satellite receivers that sites such as FlightRadar24 do not have access to. Spraying, even over oceans, can therefore be targeted very accurately and efficiently.

Knowing all this is a heavy burden I now wish to pass on to others. Every day has become a trial for me. Please us this information wisely. Trust is important..for the reasons we both know so well. I cannot meet you till this is out in the open, hopefully these disclosures will be the tipping point for you. Can you disseminate this as widely as possible, without the info that must remain confidential? All I long for is an end to this guilt.

Leaving it with you now, in hope……”
Content from External Source
SOURCE - http://mrmaxbliss.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/corpus-delicti-with-mr-max-bliss-and-the-chemtrail-files/

Whilst the above information is certainly provided by somebody with knowledge of airline and aircraft processes, the suggestion that TMA is the alleged sprayed agent causes a number of major issues with the theory as Trimethylaluminum ignites when brought into contact with oxygen, as shown in the datasheet for the material, shown in this post.

This would require extremely consistent careful handling and specialist equipment, and is unlikely to be compatible with the standard equipment used in fuelling aircraft.

Fundamentally, it's also highly unlikely that the processes described by the hoaxer could be hidden from the large numbers of loading / engineering staff that would have to be involved in them on a day to day basis at many different airports in many different locations, who would be implicated in loading a very dangerous substance on to passenger aircraft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JRBids

Senior Member.
So you know, I am a management pilot with one of the carriers that has figured in your videos; I am involved in the regulatory side of things, which is required because since just about everything we do in these spraying programs is illegal according to the CAA and JAA regulations, if a pilot becomes aware of what we are doing he or she will come to me first and I, supposedly, take it from there. Surprisingly very few of our pilots have become aware of the program, but your videos have alarmed the small group of managers I report to, and I fear the cat may soon be out of the bag.

I saw this on Max's blog and I'm sorry but tl;dr. What is "TMA"?

What is this management pilot supposed to do if one of the other pilots become aware? Shoot them on the spot? Have them stand in front of his desk and push the red button that makes them fall into the piranha tank? Max's confidant sounds much too melodramatic. How about instead of such a long winded whine he just anonymously send his diagram of where it is and what it is to all the news outlets , politicians, and Max-Alex-Russ types?

Also, is this the friend of a trusted friend who emailed a friend that Madison Star Moon spoke of?
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
Where to begin? Whoever wrote this knows exactly what they are talking about. To the point of sounding very believable. There's several problems however. Most of it comes down to phrasing actually. When they talk about the center wing tank they discuss how it has to be MEL'd for spray ops. All of the wording seems wrong on that and an MEL list and items on that list are touched and scrutinized be several, several people and groups. Even the pilots would have extreme suspicion if the same items kept getting MEL'd, the whole discussion about pilot scheduling is bogus because the MEL log stays with the plane (in the cockpit) for weeks. Every plane would have multiple MEL write-ups regarding the tanks. I would be tempted to turn down a plane that had multiple write-ups like that.

The discussion of zero fuel weights is wrong as well. The zero fuel weights would be fairly standard and you could only hide a few hundred, maybe a thousand pounds in the weight. So with the discussion of equipment and material there's no way. These guys would be flying consistently enough that of there was a huge change in weight, they would know it. Feel it basically.

The loading process is just ridiculous. With all the contract, part time people doing the lav service and fuel service the turnover rate is high. Add that to the hundreds of airports and now you have to keep thousands quiet, not just the management.

And there is zero chance that something loaded into the plane would EVER be plumbed into the plane. That would NEVER happen! So the ULD discussion is completely bogus.
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
So:
And doing it this way has only one drawback, it limits “spray flights” by us and other airlines to shorter range flights but that is just a matter of scheduling and logistics.
Content from External Source
Yet:
Intercontinental, and longer range flights are more efficient because they are done by larger jets which can actually carry aluminium oxide in raw form.
Content from External Source
Am I reading this wrong, or is there a something of a contradiction?

Is he talking about the Air France crash here?
One of the ways we realised that was a problem was graphically illustrated back in 2009. Guess what I am talking about…
Content from External Source
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
So the story is this.

I am an industry insider that has knowledge of a potentially devastating geoengineering programme. Exposing the programme may bring down governments so do I contact

A/ Glenn Greenwald. A US political commentator and respected journalist who helped expose the NSA and is credible.
B/ Max Bliss. He has a blog.
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
Neither. Threaten to disclose, blackmail anyone in charge, reap rewards regardless of "guilt". I wonder why no one has thought of this yet?
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
Among the other problems of TMA is that aluminium oxide is only one of the byproducts created when TMA combusts, so burning a kilo of it creates much less than a kilo of AL2O3.
Content from External Source
Hmmm... seemes to me somebody had read this:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/max-bliss-debates-chemtrails.1648/page-2#post-57352

--- Edit:

And please don´t forget. TMA is a real "nice stuff"

Trimethylaluminum (TMA or TMAI) (...) goes into flame spontaneously in air and reacts explosively with water. Therefore, this compound must be stored and handled under argon or nitrogen.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

solrey

Senior Member.
Here's another glaring contradiction:

Doing it this way allows us to accurately load the right amount of the material and avoid overloading the aircraft, which is a safety risk, particularly on take off. You are correct about the TMA. Other methods of delivery required too much in the way of pumps and switches, which meant too many people would notice what was going on. Under the guise of fitting an inerting system, which is automatic and has no cockpit controls, we can pressurize the CWT enough so that once a simple valve is actuated remotely, the TMA is drawn through the lines by the pressure differential and flows into the exhaust where it does its thing. And doing it this way has only one drawback, it limits “spray flights” by us and other airlines to shorter range flights but that is just a matter of scheduling and logistics.

I took these photos myself at a large European airport, they are not proprietary so you may distribute them, or get your own CF6 photos off the net. Visually, the spray pipes are small but they have high capacity pumps inside the pylon (inside the white access panel on the pylon) which forces out large quantities of material in a small amount of time if required. Energy is diverted from the exhaust gas stream to power these pumps…. they are simple, foolproof, operate continuously when the engine is running and require no flight deck control.

So is TMA "drawn through the lines by the pressure differential and flows into the exhaust " or is it pumps powered by exhaust gas? How are those pumps lubricated and cooled, how would the heat affect TMA and how the hell do mechanics and pilots not notice these pumps?

Anyone could read this forum and glean most all of the technical details incorporated in that alleged "confession".

Something doesn't smell right... I call bullshit.
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
Well, energy derived from the exhaust gas stream seems dubious. Although I'm not sure if that type of system has not been used before. It certainly would be impossible to conceel from the mechanics. Combine that with the fact that most engines are leased. Meaning they they get swapped often. Too many people involved with the maintanance and logistics. Plus there are multiple companies with thier hands in each engine. I can think of an instance where one company wanted to modify a part by drilling one small hole and everyone had lengthy discussions about it. How about the extra connections? Who wouldn't be involved.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
All large aircraft are refuelled from a single point, by convention, usually under the left wing. In the following photos you can see the twin hoses that are used, and if you look very carefully at the CF6 engine in the background and the foreground in the second , you will see the same spray nozzles that are present on the 737 engines.

I took these photos myself at a large European airport, they are not proprietary so you may distribute them, or get your own CF6 photos off the net. Visually, the spray pipes are small but they have high capacity pumps inside the pylon (inside the white access panel on the pylon) which forces out large quantities of material in a small amount of time if required. Energy is diverted from the exhaust gas stream to power these pumps….

Spray nozzles? Dual fueling lines?

Bet those photos that the "informant" took himself have been circulating already are have already been debunked.

High pressure pumps bleeding exhaust gas for power? And all the mechanics at 100s of airports around the world keep mum about them?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
How does all this TMA get to the airport? As I understand it there is no standard fuel infrastucture. The one near me, Manchester, is supplied by a single pipeline from the refinery and has no storage capacity. One presumes then that TMA could not be added without raising suspicions. I may look into fuel supply.


On a side note but Max related. He claims on FB posts that it is the EGCA orchestrating this. Anyone got a clue who they are?
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
I really think they put themselves into a corner when it was fairly universally accepted that this operation is not being done by military aircraft. Now all of the airlines have to be involved.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Max uses the following video to support his TMA claims. He has issue that there are Nitrogen tanks on the flight line. His claim is liquid nitrogen is used as a coolant and to keep the TMA stable. Don't they inflate the tires with nitrogen as well as fuel tank inerting?

 

captfitch

Senior Member.
Fuel inerting is rare. Very rare. And yes, all tires are filled with nitrogen as well as all hydraulic accumulators. There may be several of those. Besides, that's not liquid by any means. It's just dry nitrogen.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Fuel inerting is rare. Very rare. And yes, all tires are filled with nitrogen as well as all hydraulic accumulators. There may be several of those. Besides, that's not liquid by any means. It's just dry nitrogen.

Thanks for the info. I saw the pictures and Googled "nitrogen cannisters airport" and got my info from there. I find it worrying for Max at the moment. He has taken a great deal of time and effort to take these photographs and even has an industry insider yet he sees Nitrogen tanks and thinks " coolant". Why not ask the insider or Google? Talk about confirmation bias. I wonder if he helped compile the report on WMD for Tony Blair?
"That vehicle has wheels. That means it can be deployed in minutes and can carry chems".
"But Mr Bliss it appears to be a shopping trolley".
"That's just camoflague Sir".
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
anonymous informant

Why are all these "insider" accounts always "anonymous" ?? Anyone here (or elsewhere) could conjure a blank letterhead doc, and claim to be an informant.

1) Snowden exposed a much smaller scandal, and threw his life away for it (or his "way of life")
2) These "anonymous letters" usually explain the inner workings with some bit of research.....but not extensive research.....just enough research to convince some people.
3) The "danger" of coming-forth with a real name and real job placement (if it were true) would be the sign of a true hero.
4) Human morals would prevail, over keeping an identity a secret......especially given the numbers of people who could know the same info.
5) Too easy to make this sh*t up.
6) It's irresponsible to claim this info is true....without verifying the source.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
I really think they put themselves into a corner when it was fairly universally accepted that this operation is not being done by military aircraft. Now all of the airlines have to be involved.

All airlines. All flights, large aircraft and small, going near the tropopause.

Remember just within the last couple of weeks the chemtrail believers were going on about a Microsoft owned gulfstream trailing at +40k feet. There are a lot of problems for the chemtrail conspiracy theory that arise from what Max is getting from his "informant".
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Spray nozzles? Dual fueling lines?

Scombrid, I think this catches the hoaxer in a lie. Note that he is telling Max that one fuel hose is for TMA, and one is for jet fuel. He says the second fuel hose connection is "just for show".

anonymous hoaxer said:
Really the only people who need to be involved are the people who empty the honey-cart who must purge the TMA system after use; they are required to wear protective clothing for the honeycart job which also covers them for accidental exposure to TMA; and the refuellers who must configure the fuel system from a panel under the wing; have you ever wondered why most refuelling systems have two pipes attached to the wings?.........
Using TMA for longer range flights, loading can be done using the second hose. Lines carrying TMA and their access points, are part of just about all airports. Located only at the left hand wing, to keep the operation as simple as possible, they are pressurised to reduce the chance of air getting into them with the inevitable results. In the case of non TMA flights, the second hose is just there for show and is not being actually used.......

Now to look how all this is done in practice. All large aircraft are refuelled from a single point, by convention, usually under the left wing. In the following photos you can see the twin hoses that are used.........

However,
The dual fuel lines on an MD-11 are shown in this video, on the right wing, but it also shows two more available refueling connections on the LEFT wing, and explains that the second fuel hose connection is simply for more flow to fuel faster? (see video @5:00 minutes)


So, is the claim that on a 737 or other plane, the two fuel connections are "just for show"?
Pilots, let me know what you think about this.

BTW, here is some more detailed information on the 737 fuel system. Note the details mentioned about the center fuel tank, inerting leaves a 12% oxygen level in the center fuel tank. Remember, contact of TMA with any oxygen means spontatenous combustion!
http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel.htm

This write-up mentions that fueling is done from the RIGHT wing on the 737, not the left as the Hoaxer says:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&ved=0CIABEBYwDA&url=http://www.737ng.co.uk/B_NG-Fuel.pdf&ei=KLD-Ub2fH5Lo8QS3lIHYDA&usg=AFQjCNEH9cSk1EKxabKWjEmy6Kl1eDwIeQ&sig2=aWBRMq-q_oTDVvM3lVLZ-g

Lastly,
from the above link, here is a schematic of the 737 fuel system the Hoaxer is talking about. You can't simply load different fuels into different tanks, the tanks are all interconnnected by lines, valves, pumps and manifolds, fuel pumps receive their lubrication from the fuel itself, good luck pumping TMA through a fuel pump using a pyrophoric substance that spontaneously bursts into flame as a lubricant! The whole fuel system is interconnected means that one wrong flip of a switch and you send an explosive fuel headed to your engines. Having TMA piped into the engines means one mechanic at an unexpected airport who makes a wrong move, finds piping sending an explosive substance and opens the line, and BOOM!! Up goes the hanger in flames.

737-fuel system.jpg

Max, are you really so gullible?
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
All airlines. All flights, large aircraft and small, going near the tropopause.

Remember just within the last couple of weeks the chemtrail believers were going on about a Microsoft owned gulfstream trailing at +40k feet. ".

That was on Russ Tanner's Global Skywatch Conference call. One of Tanner's friends tracked the Starbuck's Corporate jet allegedly "spraying".
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/your-most-favoritist-wacky-chemtrail-theories.186/page-3#post-56593
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
For correctness, can you clarify that....as I have read that it is not nearly as combustible/flash-able if mixed with other components.
Well, for one, I certainly wouldn't mix it with water. I'm sure at some point and with some substance it might be safer, but the Hoaxer will have to answer that question, since he is the one making the claim and left out any reference to that. Maybe if he reads this thread he will come up with something........:D

TMA MSDS.jpg
 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member.
So, is the claim that on a 737 or other plane, the two fuel connections are "just for show"?
Pilots, let me know what you think about this.
I'd have to wonder how long there have been two fuel connections "just for show". They're always been putting "for show" connections on wings, just in case they needed something "just for show"? Are there any cockpit buttons "just for show"? Any other "just for show" gauges? Seems hard to believe anyone could come up with such a theory.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
This bit intrigues me:

High capacity aircraft like the A380, 747, A340, 777, A330 and the ER versions of the 767 all have the two things that make them ideal for large scale spraying. One is a large volume CWT and the other is two large capacity cargo compartments where aluminium oxide, mixed into a slurry with methanol, (for dispersion) can be loaded inside specially converted ULD (Unit Loading Device) containers.
Content from External Source
The only methanol I've ever seen in almost 40 years working in aviation was a 50/50 water/methanol mix used in NAC/Air New Zealand F-27 Friendships and Mount Cook Airlines Hawker Sidley 748's for take off power augmentation (hot, 'cos no airports are high in New Zealand!). Both aircraft used Rolls Royce Dart turboprop engines that were essentially 1940's technology - the water-meth was injected through the hub of the centrifugal compressor to cool the incoming air charge - this increased its density, so allowed the engine to generate more power.

As well as working on the airframes - the tanks, pumps and piping - I also spent some time working on the engine overhaul line, and a year or so working with fuel system components and specifically overhauling the water-meth metering valves for these engines shortly after I finished my apprenticeship.

So - back to the quote above - should a be a doddle to spot some ULD's that have all this stuff fitted to them then - and also the filling/servicing facilities that handle them??
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
So - back to the quote above - should a be a doddle to spot some ULD's that have all this stuff fitted to them then - and also the filling/servicing facilities that handle them??
ULD's all have specific numbers for each individual container. This is the sort of specific information these anonymous insiders always neglect to give, something that can actually be checked out.

If a person really wanted to blow the whistle, all they would have to do is to state a flight number, a pilot, a ULD number, and the jig would be up.
The story he told Max was designed to bamboozle, to flatter, to instill trust, all the same sorts of things that any con-man does. He exploited Max's desperation to be proven correct, flattered him by telling him he was correct, and told him what he wanted to hear. Max seems easily manipulated.

800px-Germanwings_Container_03.jpg
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The two fuel hoses are there to refuel both wing tanks simultaneously via a refuelling manifold. If you didn't do this, asymmetric loading of fuel would cause structural damage to the wing

The story is like chemtrail theory; small amounts of truth mixed with many bogus statements. I agree with Capt Fitch... It is done by someone who knows their stuff.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
The fittings used at the end of airplane refueling hoses are familiar to me. In my work pumping liquid cargo such as fuel and chemicals from ships to oil rigs I have used them many times. They are generically called TODO fittings/couplers, and are designed in such a way that practically no leakage is possible, if the connection breaks away internal valves close via spring pressure to prevent spillage. They are not fool-proof and I have had them stick open slightly and drip.

These are suitable for most fuels and chemicals, but look closely at the video below showing the principle with which these valves work and you will see that a wetted surface which is in contact wth the fluid transferred does remain exposed when the coupling is disconnected. That surface, when uncoupled after transfer of a pyrophoric substance such as TMA would leave a coating of TMA ready to spontaneously combust and such a coupling would therefore not be suitable for such a transfer.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I'm glad you brought that up, Jay....something I failed to think-of.
Thinking more.....if there is a highly flashable substance (low flash-point) mixed with another substance.....which evaporates first....leaving the other ?
I'm sure this must be a consideration, among all petro vapors.

Isn't there a grounding cable, when fueling....to prevent a static discharged spark ?
...or i it incorporated in the hose assembly itself ?

in my electronics usage connections .....ground meets ground first, then the active wires meet. But here, there are no volatile vapors.
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Senior Member.
OT:
The comments to Max's blog post are quite sad. People are losing hope and getting depererate, and for no real reason at all, all for a hoax. We always look for what chemtrailers might do to pilots, but it's easy to forget the toll the chemtrails hoax takes on its believers. It's not the first time I have seen people talk like this. It's understandable, really. So sad!
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Nobody has mentioned that TMA, when burnt, shines as brightly as the sun. That might be a give-away, don't you think? Quite visible during the day, and glorious at night... LOL
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
Nobody has mentioned that TMA, when burnt, shines as brightly as the sun. That might be a give-away, don't you think? Quite visible during the day, and glorious at night... LOL

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/max-bliss-debates-chemtrails.1648/page-2#post-57329

I'm sure there will be a way of integrating that into Max's spiel. Perhaps a reference to the airline eye-masks that are handed out?
http://blog.edreams.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/03/eye-mask-airplane.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Ok, I am going to put an end to this nonsense.

I have found detailed instructions for safe handling of TMA. The precautions needed to prevent the spontaneous eruption of fire when handling TMA are stringent and totally beyond anything mentioned by the hoaxer. The detailed instructions I have found come in the aftermath of a fatal accident at the University of California in which a lab assistant was burned to death by a syringe of pyrophoric material which came into contact with air and resulted in the prosecution of the supervising professor.

Here are the detailed instructions for handling small bottles of pyrophic materials. You will note that extraordinary precautions are taken to load a simple syringe.
To begin, all of this work must be done underneath a nitrogen purged hood to exclude contact with air containing oxygen.
The material is kept in a container purged with nitrogen and sealed with a rubber septum (rubber similar to a vaccine vial). Before inserting the needle, a positive pressure of inert gas is established and constantly maintained both in the syringe and the bottle to avoid even the slightest possibility of the entry of air into either of them.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CFYQFjAJ&url=http://www.ehs.columbia.edu/pyrophorics.pdf&ei=B5T_UfuEKsTKrQGXxIHICw&usg=AFQjCNHeTrwC49ds5K-80KKsGg_7w0oWww&sig2=2rI1U6pL6afXNjzqp1aOXg

here are two instructional videos showing the procedures:

Here is a vivid demonstration by a hazmat team showing the results of air contacting TMA, note what happens when water is introduced in an attempt to fight the fire, and the 'space suit' worn by the firefighter as a precaution. As he pours out the vial, the TMA spontaneously burns in a flaming stream. Also note that only dry chemical agents are effective at extinguishing this fire. Never use Co2 fire extinguishers on a pyrophoric material since the breakdown of CO2 will introduce oxygen to a pyrophoric fire, vastly accelerating it. An attempt to extinguish a TMA fire with standard firefighting aqueous foam used at airports would create a catastrophic explosion disintegrating the plane.

Even a madman wouldn't put this stuff in a passenger plane.


This gambit by the hoaxer could not have worked without the ignorance of the targets. The originator of the idea that trimethylaluminum (TMA) is used to create "chemtrails" had it's genesis from Harold Saive, a notable producer of hoax videos.

On August 11, 2011, I informed Saive about the flaws in his claim:
From: Jay Reynolds <thechief762@gmail.com>
To: Harold Saive
Mr. Saive,
I looked over your posting about a suspicion that Trimethyl Aluminum could be used as a fuel additive.

Considering the pyrophoric nature of trimethyl aluminum, this precludes it's use in ordinary aircraft fuel stored in wing tanks.
The reason why I say this is that this material is for all practical purposes an explosive.

See the MSDS here at Rosalind Peterson's website:
http://agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/6T_2001_Trimethylaluminum_2001.pdf
Reading the MSDS, you see that it's flash point is -1 degree fahrenheit, plus it is incompatible with air, water, oxygen, bases and acids.
Water is always present in fuels to some degree ,and this material explodes on contact with water.
It flashes into flame immediately on contact with air.
This does not sound like a material one would put on an ordinary jetliner.
I understand that some research was done which used a 14% mixture of TMA with JP-4 fuel.
Here it is:
http://www.archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19650014455/19650014455_djvu.txt
The mixture was considered unstable enough that it had to be kept under inert gas and was not sent through the engine. It was sent only to an afterburner in an attempt to find a way to allow a jet engine to fly above it's normal ceiling of ~90,000 ft. Using a fuel containing metals is a big no-no, as you saw after the recent volcanic eruptions. Metals in the combustion path of a gas turbine engine would either plate out on the hot gas parts or erode them. Effectively, this will destroy the engine you need to keep you aloft.
This experiment was done on the ground. Consider that only 14% of the fuel could be TMA, and the actual aluminum contained in that amount of TMA is only about 50% of that 14%, or 7%. So, the portion of actual aluminum in such a fuel is very small. Because the rest of Trimethyl aluminum is the methyl part, an aircraft such as a 747 which carries say 150 tons of fuel would only be able to carry 7% of that total in aluminum, .07 x 150= 10 tons.
If you could
a) load the planes with this unstable fuel likely to explode
b) keep the engines from failing due to running metals through the gas path
Then you would only be able to deliver 10 tons/flight. To get the 20 million tons, this means 2 million flights would have to take place. American airlines flies less than a million/year, so you would be looking at an operation about twice as large.
Trimethyl aluminum as a fuel additive?
I think not.

So, two years ago Harold Saive was fully informed about the flaws in his claim, yet he failed to relay those to Max Bliss. Harold Saive primed the "set up" for this hoax to become effective on Bliss just as the other gambits in this hoax have worked. By not taking debunking into account and engaging in open discussion these people always set others up for failure. This is the sort of stuff that hoaxes are made of, people staying silent when they are told exactly how they are wrong. From its inception with the false claim that contrails never persist up to now, the story is always the same. The virus of false information is spread from one to the next with total disregard for the truth and full disclosure of known faulty information. The Barn of Bunk is never cleaned out, and the crap is piled up higher by the minute.

Lastly, none of us including the hoaxer have looked carefully at the physical properties of TMA. It has a significant flaw which greatly complicates it's use.

TMA is a SOLID below a temperature of 15 degrees celsius (59 degrees F).

Max, you need to ask your "insider" how the TMA is pumped underground to the fueling stations on the tarmac when average soil temperature is 55 degrees, when air temperature is below 59 degrees, or when in flight the fuel tanks get chilled below that temperature. TMA cannot be pumped under those conditions because it is a solidified mass. What does a plane in flight do with a solid mass of pyrophoric material ready to vaporize in it's wing tanks?

Actually, Max, it is about time for you to eat some crow. You have been had because of your eagerness to be proven correct, you have been a tool of someone who toyed with you like a puppet, and you have now spread the bunk worldwide. It might hurt your pride and reputation to admit this, but you know it is the right thing to do. Disclaim all of this, admit publicly that you were talked into spreading a rumor which has proven to be false. Do the right thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

solrey

Senior Member.
Seeing what the results of "accidental exposure to TMA" are like pretty much makes the following claim rather ridiculous, no?

Really the only people who need to be involved are the people who empty the honey-cart who must purge the TMA system after use; they are required to wear protective clothing for the honeycart job which also covers them for accidental exposure to TMA

So many clues that he's being played.
 

TomC

Member
So the story is this.

I am an industry insider that has knowledge of a potentially devastating geoengineering programme. Exposing the programme may bring down governments so do I contact

A/ Glenn Greenwald. A US political commentator and respected journalist who helped expose the NSA and is credible.
B/ Max Bliss. He has a blog.

Quite. I've never understood what the argument is for why the "main stream media" won't report on chemtrails, even though (supposedly) "the evidence is undeniable!"

After all, they had no problem at all reporting on the Wikileaks scandal which embarrassed a lot of governments. And similarly Snowden's revelations were very damaging to governments and also to the evil big corporations that were complicit. Last I heard none of the journalists who had reported on those things had befallen any nasty "accidents" and the media organisations they worked for had all done very nicely out of the stories.

If the evidence is as strong as the ct followers believe then any journalist worth his salt would jump on this story faster than you can say "contrails don't persist". It would make their career and they would go down in history, as would whatever paper or network they worked for.
 

Sausalito

Active Member
And now we wait... Just wish someone was there to put a hand on his shoulder in a fraternal gesture, and offer him a pint and a sympathetic ear for his reflections.
 
Top