It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Chemtrail Myth

page: 21
24
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


kk....what in the heck does drug smuggling have to do with this 'chemtrail' nonsense?!?

AND, your silly post about 'free peanuts' just lowered your credibility to near zero! You might have thought it was 'oh-so-clever', but it was not funny, not pertinenent and made no sense.

Your lack of knowledge regarding aviation is stunning in its immensity.

I'd recommend some further study.

WW




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


kk....what in the heck does drug smuggling have to do with this 'chemtrail' nonsense?!?


I was attempting to make the point that things can / do in fact occur in and around commercial passenger aircraft WITHOUT omnipresent pilot knowledge.



AND, your silly post about 'free peanuts' just lowered your credibility to near zero! You might have thought it was 'oh-so-clever', but it was not funny, not pertinenent and made no sense.


Credibility near zero would be an improvement for me....thanks.


Your lack of knowledge regarding aviation is stunning in its immensity. I'd recommend some further study.


Thanks again. Roger that. Will do. Could you recommend anything specific?

Blue skies.......kk



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


kk...a pilot spends, maybe five minutes walking around the airplane during the preflight.

This, about 30 or 40 minutes before departure.

Of course, a mechanic will also be around the airplane, at a Major Hub Airport.

As will the ground crew, baggage handlers, fuelers, etc, etc.....

Point is, this is a thread about 'The Chemtrail Myth'. Not about drug smuggling.

Part of pointing out the myth of 'chemtrails' on commercial passenger jets is going to require some background information, as many of us have provided.

Red herrings aren't welcomed, sorry.

One last point, kk....your lack of aviation knowlege revealed itself in your term 'cargo holds'. A modern passenger jet is not a ship of the sea.

We have 'baggage compartments'. UPS and FedEx fly purely 'cargo' airplanes, true....but they are specifically designed for that mission.

Please have your terms straight, and come back to the discussion of the 'Chemtrail Myth'!!

Thanks for your post.

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I was attempting to make the point that things can / do in fact occur in and around commercial passenger aircraft WITHOUT omnipresent pilot knowledge.


Yes, but the activities you described are incredibly trivial and not comparable to the awareness and oversight of the flight characteristics or mechanical systems of a passenger airliner.

The idea that the average pilot of this sort would be unaware of several hundred gallons of material suddenly being ejected through a mechanical system hidden on his aircraft is just not in the realm of probability......



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



Point is, this is a thread about 'The Chemtrail Myth'. Not about drug smuggling.


But it is actually very pertinent to the thread. The pilots are going on about how they know all about what is happening of each flight, including the weight distribution, etc. KK made a point that proves that this isn't always the case. Part of the deny ignorance motto. We don't blindly believe and his point shows that things can be done without full knowledge of all parties.


Red herrings aren't welcomed, sorry.


Red herring, huh? First of all this isn't your thread so who are you to decide what is and what isn't welcome?


One last point, kk....your lack of aviation knowlege revealed itself in your term 'cargo holds'. A modern passenger jet is not a ship of the sea.


But in laymans terms we understand of the use of the word Cargo, or cargo bay to be the underbelly of the plane where luggage is stored. What is the area called where things are stored? Does it really matter what it is called?

News flash for Kinda Kurious.................A modern, or otherwise airplane is NOT a Ship of the Sea!!!! Sorry to burst your bubble! LOL


We have 'baggage compartments'. UPS and FedEx fly purely 'cargo' airplanes, true....but they are specifically designed for that mission.


Oh, so the word cargo is used regarding airplanes, so why the big deal over the term? KK never claimed to be an aviation expert, after all.


Please have your terms straight, and come back to the discussion of the 'Chemtrail Myth'!!


What ever you say boss, you da boss, right?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by interestedalways
 


IA, you are really da boss!!!!

What, are you tag-teaming now with kk?

No, I withdraw the question....back to you, your honor!

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Part of pointing out the myth of 'chemtrails' on commercial passenger jets is going to require some background information, as many of us have provided.


Somehere along the way this thread was "hi-jacked" to specifically relate
to "Passenger" aircraft. I re-read the OP (suggest you do the same) and
Oz NEVER, NEVER, NEVER mentioned "Passenger" aircraft.

Dear Mr. Whacker it is obvious you know a great deal about aviation, and perhaps more specifically, Commercial PASSENGER aircraft.

I hope that this thread returns to the OP's Myth /Fact intent.

Then, Mr. Whacker, you are simply an "Observer" like the rest of us since
we SHOULD NOT limit this discussion to CPA.

And kindly refrain from accusations regarding Red Herrings. I didn't make fun of your family.

Hat tip to InterstedAlways. (whom I've never "met" or chatted with) And to keep the vernacular in your boxing terms I am happy she/he is in my corner. The Corner of open minds. Ding, Ding, Ding - End of Round One.

toodles.....kk


Now how about some free nuts?





[edit on 24-4-2008 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


kk, go read the OP's first, on page one again....really, go read it.

Then, send him a U2U, in case you don't yet understand his point.

Toodles!

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


kk, go read the OP's first, on page one again....really, go read it.

Then, send him a U2U, in case you don't yet understand his point.

Toodles!

WW


Cut and Pasted from OP:


The Chemtrail Myth

Ok here it goes, I have done it again.I did this with Nibiru and it cleared some stuff up with a few people, so I decided to start one on something that has to do with meteorology, something that I work with daily....yep thats right...chemtrails


Myth- Chemtrails hang in the sky for hours, contrails dissipate quickly
Fact- Contrails, like all water based things in the sky (clouds for those who dont know) in the right conditions have the ability to persist in the sky. Its a long response to explain how so if anyone requests, I will be happy to explain right away


Also his last one:



Myth- Chemtrail believers know more than any meteorolgist (including OzWeatherman) about upper air meteorology, despite having no background knowledge. Photos of contrails, labelled as chemtrails far outweigh any scientific evidence provided
Fact- Yes yes of course they do


Oh. I get it satire. It seems only a select few are suppossed to be serious vs. silly.


OK, Mr. Whacker....Where does he mention Passenger jets ?

respectfully . . . kk


[edit on 24-4-2008 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


OK, kk....ya got me!

There are about four concurrent 'chemtrail' threads currently active, here at ATS.

After a while, they all tend to blend together, in my small pea-brained mind.

The OP of THIS thread happens to be a well-respected (in his profesion) Meteorologist of the Ausssie variety.

The original point is.....contrails are made by airplanes flying through the skies!!

Other threads have pointed out how impossible it is for a regularly scheduled passenger jet to be 'spraying'.

It has also been pointed out, repeatedly, that 'spraying' from 35,000 feet makes no sense whatsoever, since it has no 'targeting' ability from that altitude....ever wonder why cropdusters spray at low altitude? Like, from 5 feet?!?!?

AND finally....even IF it is some nefarious Military plot.....just stop a moment to consider how many square miles (or kms) of the Earth's surface exist. A few narrow lines of 'chemtrails' are going to make a big difference?!? Total nonsense.

This kind of hysteria is perfect for those scamps that want to write a book, and sell it....based on the usual bad science that persists in the modern World.

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Somehere along the way this thread was "hi-jacked" to specifically relate
to "Passenger" aircraft. I re-read the OP (suggest you do the same) and
Oz NEVER, NEVER, NEVER mentioned "Passenger" aircraft.


Its there by implication.

The military doesn't have enough large aircraft in its inventory to carry out this supposed "world wide" operation.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Let me just say that when I take over the world, I will distribute my poison/mindcontrolsubstance/flavord'jour through the water supply. It is ever so much more efficient than spraying miles above the surface. I can use substantially less material/substance. The daily savings in my operation would be astronomical. Further, the number of people in public works compared to the number of people in aviation who could tumble to my plan is smaller by orders of magnitude, saving me boat loads of money in payoffs. And while all the paranoid people are looking at the sky counting contrails, I'm silenty killing them off/weakening their immune systems/controlling their minds one by one (though I'm not exactly clear on why it is I'm doing this)...



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Maybe this whole notion got sparked when someone, somewhere saw an airplane dumping fuel.

For the record, I am type-rated on the DC-9/MD-80, the B737 and the B757/767.

The DC-9/MD-80, the B737 and the B757 DO NOT have 'fuel dump' capability. The B767 does, of course.

As does the B777, and B747....and DC-10/MD-11. I'm not very conversant with Airbus, but I'll assume the A330 and A340 can dump....I know the old A-300 could.

Basically, if it's a wide-body jet, it can dump. Modern narrow-body jets don't need the ability to dump fuel, since the difference between the Max Takeoff Weight and Max Landing Weight is less than in larger airplanes.

If a B737 or B757 needs to return for an immediate landing, just after take-off, then it lands 'overweight'....and it is well within the original design parameters.

For instance, I had to shut down an engine on a B757....we had just taken off from the NYC area...rule is, you divert to the 'nearest suitable' airport, so we went into Dulles. We had to land 'overweight' because it was an emergency, and the B757 cannot dump fuel. (We were fueled from takeoff for a nearly 8-hour flight, down to South America).

So....someone somewhere possibly saw a KC-135 or KC-10 dumping fuel, and this 'chemtrail myth' gets some legs....?

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
KK made a point that proves that this isn't always the case. Part of the deny ignorance motto. We don't blindly believe and his point shows that things can be done without full knowledge of all parties.


The point doesn't prove anything. Here it is from the post;


Does the pilot know how many passengers had free nuts? How many ordered a beer or soda? What the attendents are doing during the entire flight? Who is joining "the mile-high-club" in the lav.?


Frankly, I don't want the pilots aware of this stuff....I want the flight attendants to be aware of it....as I'm sure they are. Someone on board is responsible for being aware of and managing those aspects of an airliner. The flight attendants, not the pilots. I'm pretty sure the flight attendants are usually unaware of the aircraft's groundspeed, yaw, fuel levels, etc..etc..that's fine, as long as the pilots are aware of the mechanical systems and flight characteristics of their aircraft. Free nuts? Beer or soda? Guess what.....makes no difference as the total weight of the aircraft stays the same and any difference is neglible, being measured in ounces.

The comparison kk offered is ridiculous, you may as well say the cook is forgiven for failing to notice the filet mignon is in flames....'cause after all, he/she isn't aware of the fork a busboy dropped in the main dining room and can't be aware of everything.

It's not even defensible.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by MrPenny]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
But it is actually very pertinent to the thread. The pilots are going on about how they know all about what is happening of each flight, including the weight distribution, etc. KK made a point that proves that this isn't always the case. Part of the deny ignorance motto. We don't blindly believe and his point shows that things can be done without full knowledge of all parties.


Except that most drug smuggling on commercial flights is done in baggage that is accounted for in the weight and balance. Chemtrail spraying would change that weight and balance radically in flight, and would be VERY noticeable to a pilot. Not to mention the spray nozzles that weren't on the other plane he flew yesterday.

As for the military using tankers to spray, the USAF doesn't even have enough tankers for REQUIRED fighter movements at times. I have seen F-16s parked on the ramp for three weeks because they broke, and it was going to take that long to get a tanker in to get them to their destination. And this was when we WEREN'T fighting a war in two countries. The Air Force has been battling for more airlift and tankers for YEARS, and have had the numbers of new planes cut, or limited to much lower than they wanted. For example, they did a study that said they needed 220 C-17s to supplement the C-5/C-130 fleet, and maintain current airlift levels. They were authorized 179 (I think that was the number, I'm going off the top of my head here.)



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

The OP of THIS thread happens to be a well-respected (in his profesion) Meteorologist of the Ausssie variety.


WHY? Just because he has a cute little logo at the bottom of his page?
WHY Because YOU say so ? HAHA! Laughable.
Why should we believe HE is a meteorology expert and YOU are an Airline pilot. WHO MADE YOU EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD HERE ON ATS?

Show me some reliable credentials!



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


AS1.....You want to see MY creds?

Ask a Mod, and I'll be happy to fax him/her anything needed to support who I am, and what creds I have!!!

Actually, it is insulting, but I have thick skin. If you haven't been able to follow along with what I've posted so far, then you have no aviation background (at least not enough to understand) despite your cute little 'thing' in your Avatar!!!

You claim to have a knowledge of aviation....phhhhft!

WW



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
But have you thought about the numerous times where international drug smuggling rings were busted. Mostly baggage handlers and ground crew were busted, but rarely (if ever ) pilots as I recall.

Obviously, this goes into security stuff so I am not going to say a lot, but there is a big difference between what you are describing and what would be involved with someone putting “chemtrail sauce” on an aircraft.


Originally posted by kinda kurious
I was attempting to make the point that things can / do in fact occur in and around commercial passenger aircraft WITHOUT omnipresent pilot knowledge.

Actually you are misunderstanding what WW was saying. Yes, the pilot is not aware of every bag that goes on the aircraft, only the estimated weight of those bags (along with the exact weight of the freight, mail, fuel, etc), but he is aware of anything that is unusual that goes into his aircraft such as HAZMAT. It’s the Ramp Leads Job to ensure that a pilot is aware of anything such as this, and most of it requires a signoff sheet that has to be hand delivered to the cockpit and returned to Flights Ops with a Captain, first officer, or Flight engineers signature on it.

Additionally, WW was speaking to the fact that any additional equipment that would be added to an aircraft would be noticed on his walk-around. Not only do the pilots perform walk-arounds before departure, but so do lead agents. I used to walk around my aircraft two or three times before push-back. When you do a walk-around, you are looking at the general condition of the aircraft, and for anything out of the ordinary. I’ll give you an idea of how this works:

You start at the nose of the aircraft, check the towbars shear pins, Check the towbar connection, Check the that hydraulics are properly by-passed for pushback, check the condition of the tires, and look for any fluid that is leaking. If you find any fluid, you dip your glove in it and check the texture and smell to see what it is. You check the skin to ensure that a ramp agent has not bumped it with anything. You proceed up the side of the aircraft, stopping to check the Static Port, and Pitot Tubes to make sure no one damaged, or placed anything on them to obstruct them. Check the forward passenger and cargo doors. Continue under the wing to check the main gear, make sure that any installed pins were removed, check the tires, check inside the gear doors, again you note any fluid leakage and check that. You then walk down the leading edge of the wing, check the fuel panel, and check that the dripsticks are closed. Walk around the engine (if its wing mounted) looking for equipment that might have been set in it, damage to the blades, leaking fluid, open latches, if anyone damaged its skin, and so on. At the wingtip you check the lights and static dissipaters, then back down the trailing edge. All the time you are checking for any abrasions to the aircraft skin, anything that looks broken, any equipment that was set in the aircraft that should not be there, any panels that are not sealed, and any puddles of fluid. You basically proceed the same way around the rest of the aircraft, and if anyone approaches the aircraft after you have done your walk-around, you either go with them, or do your walk-around again.

Believe me, WW is correct, if anything was different on the aircraft it would be noticed.


Originally posted by interestedalways
But in laymans terms we understand of the use of the word Cargo, or cargo bay to be the underbelly of the plane where luggage is stored. What is the area called where things are stored? Does it really matter what it is called?

I am not sure that the argument about the baggage holds is about, and the proper term for them is “Bins”. Bin one is in the nose forward of the first cargo door, bin two is aft of the door, and so on… The Bins are not accusable in flight with the exception of the forward LD bin on a few widebody aircraft. Even then if you accessed that hold, it is a solid wall of LD cans.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 
You claim to have a knowledge of aviation....phhhhft!
WW


I see no claims made by All Seeing. Of what claims do you speak of ?

WW... why so grumpy? We are fortunate to have a pilot wth your
expertise in this forum, but I fear you alienate others with your tone.

as always . . . kurious



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Hey, my 'mood' is to continually thank 'KingLizard' for helping me wih my avatar.

Am I 'grumpy'? Well, only as much as I hate to see ignorance go unchallenged.

What is 'ignorance' you ask? It is the lack of knowledge, nothing meant as a pejorative, it is just a statement.

It is commonly thought that calling someone 'ignorant' is tantamount to insulting them. I beg to differ.

Before I learned to 'SCUBA', I was 'ignorant' of what was necessry to learn SCUBA.

If I can't speak Danish, then I am 'ignorant' of that language.

Shall I go on?

The capacity to learn to seek out knowledge, that is something that makes humans....well....human!

Be a sheep, or be the shephard. It's your choice......

WW



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join