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.

 

Chem-trail Plane Photographed on the ground?

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
BOL Chaff launchers are one of the examples of dispensing systems that can cut the chaff to the most appropriate length.

While most probably won't understand all of this (hell, I certainly don't!), the link is to a document discussing environmentally friendly countermeasure development, including chaff. Apparently the trial was successful.

Link




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Just thought I'd help out a little. I flew on KC-135Q's and KC-10's and am vary familiar with the wing pods.

First and foremost we never sprayed anything from a tanker but large amounts of fuel. The KC-135Q model was specially modified to transport JP-7 which is what the SR-71 used. We also hauled fuel for the U-2's which was similar to the SR fuel but not the same. Important thing to remember is that aircraft engines will be destroyed with bad fuel, no one or organization would ever intermingle the two systems. We could burn fuel intended for the SR or U-2 but only if the engines were above 60% (might have been higher its been a little while) but below that it would flame out the engine. So on a normal tanker transporting various fuels could not be done as the tanks could not be isolated. The Q model which is now the T after engine/wing upgrade the KC-10 have the ability to isolate tanks. The drogue in the picture started on the KC-10 due to our missions that involve navy and marine. Just real quick during Desert Shield/Storm my unit flew out of Riyadh and for maybe 2 weeks we dumped fuel on almost every mission to meet gross weight for landing. Here is the math on average; 30,000 / 6.4 Lbs in a gallon equals 4687 gallons dumped per mission with an average of 25-30 missions per day equals 127,000 gallons of fuel dumped into the air by just my squadron. I think it would be safe to say that this was happening at every tanker squadron in the middle east.

Back to the spraying, the plane pictured with the actual spray nozzle is is stationed at Edwards and every plane flying must complete an icing test inflight. This plane and I believe it is the only one, does all of these tests. They spray water on the nose and on the wings and I believe even in the engines.

So I'll say that without a doubt the tankers that are used in various military's around the world are not spraying anything but jet fuel into the air. Now I'm not saying that can't be happening but not with those systems. If this is happening I doubt you would find any pictures of the planes doing this at airshows for the public to see. I think crop dusters or helicopters used for crop dusting would be more suitable for spraying chemicals and at night.

When I first started flying we actually would do contrail reports. We were told this info was to be used so that when we nuked Russia or who ever we wanted that the planes could fly at a flight level that would not produce contrails. They do kind of give away your position from the ground. That program ended in the late 80's.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 






So the chem trails are like six miles up right??? SOOO...... If you was to park your car six miles down wind from me and i let a WET fart into the wind would your car have poop film on it????

Do you have those govt. trained mosquito's that carry that injected south nile virus there. If so could it be that they are spraying for those or maybe its a mind control substance that will make you want to stand on one foot and pick your nose. I dunno but if i was you i would buy a chemical warfare suit and wear it when the humidity is like 99 %.

I mean COME ON if i was to go up in a plane throw a bucket of paint out of it with a brand new dodge viper under it would i get paint on my new car???



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by imyourenemy
 


Good point, imyourenemy. But a person will never know the effects because the results are microscopic in size by the time these ‘chemicals’ from aircrafts above fall to ground zero below. But, hey, with that respect, we shouldn’t even be overly paranoid about inhaling the very air of the ancient dinosaurs. I mean that was long time ago and we are still alive now, right?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
BOL Chaff launchers are one of the examples of dispensing systems that can cut the chaff to the most appropriate length.

While most probably won't understand all of this (hell, I certainly don't!), the link is to a document discussing environmentally friendly countermeasure development, including chaff. Apparently the trial was successful.

Link


Most of the chaff and flare I worked with were packed in the MJU-11 chaff and flare mod. Occasionally we would use other types of mods for other types of chaff/flare. This image gives you an idea of how small the chaff inside the stick is.
www.aerospaceweb.org...

The stuff is impossible to get off your clothes or your skin. Sometimes packing the mods the caps would fall off and small amounts of the stuff would come out. In the air it just floats around all over the place and I'm sure it's not exactly safe to breath them either.

This site gives a great basic rundown on aircraft countermeasures though for those interested:
www.aerospaceweb.org...

The anti-radar missiles incorrectly referred to earlier are used for taking out sources of radar emissions such as SAM sites during vietnam. The AGM-88 is the primary weapon of choice for the Air Force for taking out such sites. It has been revamped a little over the years but is still in use today.

Not to change the subject..

-ChriS



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


I dunno I have been have this feeling to crawl on the floor and eat grass.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by imyourenemy
 


Well, I just hope the hair-like threads of chaff don't end up inside of you as you graze merrily along the green pastures.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
The posters with knowledge and experience on these aircraft have made an excellent case, and I must agree with them. I have had some correspondence with Ted T. over the years, and have found him to normally be cautious (he raises interesting questions on other issues, and has asked for input on his website), in at least one case debunking a photograph which was circulating the net as proof of spraying. The fact that he wrote a retraction of sorts at least means he recognized that his original post was erroneous and he admitted that he should have researched it more. Dr. Eastland has made some observations (though nothing I would consider as 'proof' one way or the other) that I find interesting as well. I am an open-minded skeptic, and will continue to be on this topic. Living in NM with skies that were notoriously absent of these trails until the 90s leaves me with questions--but I will not jump to conclusions without solid evidence one way or the other. I am solidly against polluting the air in any way, shape or form, whatever the source....and I will leave it at that. I'm still 'sitting on the fence' on this issue. I sincerely hope it gets resolved one way or the other soon.....



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by carole9999
The posters with knowledge and experience on these aircraft have made an excellent case, and I must agree with them. I have had some correspondence with Ted T. over the years, and have found him to normally be cautious (he raises interesting questions on other issues, and has asked for input on his website), in at least one case debunking a photograph which was circulating the net as proof of spraying. The fact that he wrote a retraction of sorts at least means he recognized that his original post was erroneous and he admitted that he should have researched it more. Dr. Eastland has made some observations (though nothing I would consider as 'proof' one way or the other) that I find interesting as well. I am an open-minded skeptic, and will continue to be on this topic. Living in NM with skies that were notoriously absent of these trails until the 90s leaves me with questions--but I will not jump to conclusions without solid evidence one way or the other. I am solidly against polluting the air in any way, shape or form, whatever the source....and I will leave it at that. I'm still 'sitting on the fence' on this issue. I sincerely hope it gets resolved one way or the other soon.....


Your Ted T still thinks there are things amiss with that airplane, so he did not completely retract it. He calls the turbine on the front of the pod a "propeller" (it doesnt propel anything) and thinks it is suspect, he still thinks the engine core is a chemtrail system, he still thinks its odd to see a French airplane (they are part of NATO).

Aircraft contrails were around in the 90s, and the 80s, and the 70s, and the 60s and the 50s, and the 40s. Just because you never looked for them then, does not mean they did not exist. Combustion of fuel results in water, water at -50 can easily freeze and last a while, and aircraft still crosscross the country then as they do now.

When the chemtrails hoax was first around, they were claiming contrails were really at around 3000 ft, just over our heads. Eventually never being able to offer proof, it changes to being about persistent contrails. But invariably, as winter comes around each year and the atmosphere gets colder, out come the claims of "biggest spray day ever", and as summer comes around they talk about the lull in spraying.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Star for you, firepilot.

Afraid if I say anything else I'll be branded a 'debunker'...



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by firepilot
 


Star for you, firepilot.

Afraid if I say anything else I'll be branded a 'debunker'...


Thanks! I have been called that ad nauseum by chemtrail believers.

Invariably, debating a chemtrail believer using results in them saying one of two things, or both.

A. "oh yeah, well if there is nothing to it, why are you in this thread"

B "How much does the government pay you to post all this disinformation"

If anyone needs something funny to read, google "chemtrails" and "aids", for the claims of chemtrail aircraft spreading AIDS around. There was even an ATS thread about chemtrails and aids too. There can really be some hilarious stuff on chemtrail boards.


[edit on 15-5-2008 by firepilot]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


love the signature.. really cool



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 





Ted T still thinks there are things amiss with that airplane, so he did not completely retract it. He calls the turbine on the front of the pod a "propeller" (it doesnt propel anything) and thinks it is suspect


Actually thats not true. The propeller Drives the fuel pump.





propeller on refueling pod - Source



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by QBSneak000
 


But it isn't a propeller. It is a power generator is it not? It isn't propelling anything becaues it isn't even powered although it does create hydraulic power for the pump. It is a turbine turned by ram-air.

From your link:

Ram Air Turbine (Dowty Propellers) provides hydraulic power to WARP


-ChriS

[edit on 16-5-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:32 AM
link   
DBL POST

[edit on 16-5-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
But it isn't a propeller. It is a power generator is it not? It isn't propelling anything becaues it isn't even powered although it does create hydraulic power for the pump.

From your link:

Ram Air Turbine (Dowty Propellers) provides hydraulic power to WARP

[edit on 16-5-2008 by BlasteR]


Yes, it's a RAT, but to everyone else it looks like a propeller, and it is really the easiest way to describe it to people even if it isn't propelling anything.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


apex,

For the benefit of our less aviation-oriented audience, mind if I decipher RAT for them?

Folks, RAT is an acronym for 'Ram Air Turbine'

Modern commercial jets have them, incase of a complete engine failure (since all the flight controls are hydraulically powered) the RAT will run a small hydraulic pump, so that control can be maintained until an engine can be re-started. OR, some designers use the RAT to power a generator, to power an electric hydraulic pump.

[edit on 5/16/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


If you go to the link I provided, it will explain what I am talking about.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
apex,

For the benefit of our less aviation-oriented audience, mind if I decipher RAT for them?

Folks, RAT is an acronym for 'Ram Air Turbine'


Yes, if you feel the need but it was in the post I quoted, so I didn't feel the need at the time.

As for it's uses to everyone else, if the plane you are on ever suffers a lot of engine failures the RAT is what will make it stay controllable for the pilots, though you really don't want to be in that situation unless you are feeling lucky, or your plane is near a usable runway.
These ones were lucky; the "Gimli Glider", An Air Transat plane over the Atlantic and A 747 which flew into an ash cloud*
However useful a RAT is, it isn't that great when someone hijacks you're plane and demands you fly further than you can.

* the 747 has a masterpiece of a quote. Imagine you are on a plane with no working engines, then the Captain says this:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress."
Apparently that's a masterpiece of understatement. The people who said that evidently liked stating the obvious.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by apex]

Edit to reword, to point out not all linked were from fuel exhaustion.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by apex]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


deleted, since it was already covered by apex....Thanks apex! And, sorry for jumping the gun....missed your links....


[edit on 5/16/0808 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join