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: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by duffster
 


Because chaff isn't only used by the US. Not to mention that it's a good idea to train with your allies so that when you fight with them you're not tripping over each other.




posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


It's carried in small dispensers under the tail of fighters, and bombers. It's bundled in strips and put into individual sections of the dispenser. Every time the pilot pushes a button, one section fires off. The same dispenser can also be used for high intensity flares.

Here are some examples of dispensers:









Ship borne:




posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


You did state you lived around the corner...pretty tight corner. Hers a little pic of chemtrails over St. Louis. dbarkertv.com...

I am going to have to disagree with you on what I SEE. Sorry about that.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Approx. what size area would be covered with these dispensers? Would you mind answering my question about training over populated areas?



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Oh sorry, I meant to but was talking to someone and forgot to. Training is USUALLY performed over unpopulated areas, like the desert or over the ocean, however chaff can drift before it dissipates. As for the area covered, visually it's a very small area per bundle, however usually 2-3 bundles are dropped at a time. On radar it will look like a huge area, because chaff is designed to give a much larger radar return than the aircraft that dropped it to decoy the missiles.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Perhaps the shortage of tankers for refueling are due to their need for operations elswhere...let's say for more covert operations. www.chemtrails911.com...

[edit on 11-5-2008 by Witness2008]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 



That made my day. No it's because they cost a lot...a lot...a lot. Darn that echoed means no one is home.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 


I'm happy to think I made your day...however after noticing your signature I suspect something else made your day.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Or it has to do with the fact that they're available in very limited numbers, and are also used for cargo hauling missions as well as for refueling. There are two types of tankers in use by the USAF, the KC-135, and the KC-10. The KC-135 average age is 40+, the last ones were built in 1968. That means a lot of time on the ground getting inspections done, and having maintenance done on them because they're getting so old.

If a KC-135 is transferring off 150,000 pounds of fuel (at 6.8lbs/gallon that's a little over 22,000 gallons), it can't even fly from Hawaii to California. We used to launch 12 fighters with 3-4 tankers minimum going with them, depending on how far they had to go. If they were going to Japan, or the east coast, it was 6 tankers, two would refuel them to about the halfway point then turn around and come back. It takes a lot of tanker support to move a fighter unit. If you're talking about refueling something like a C-5, you're talking 3 minimum. That doesn't even count the tankers being used as medevacs, hauling cargo, the ones that are at the depot for major maintenance, the ones that are just broken......

As of 2002, there were 545 KC-135s, that number has decreased since then however, and as of 2008 there are 451. There were only 60 KC-10s ever built, with one being lost in a ground fire. It takes one KC-10 to move 6 fighters from Hawaii to California, unless we're talking AV-8Bs, in which case it takes 3 to move 6, and almost a 1-1 with a KC-135.

The USAF has always been chronically short of tanker and airlift support to move things around with. There are a bunch of KC-135s that they CAN NOT retire (because they have to show a certain number of aircraft in inventory) that all they do is move them around the ramp once a month, change tires, and run engines. They are incapable of flying, but they still show up as being in the inventory because they're still "active" by being moved.

And yes, that is a spraying device in the article, it is used by ONE KC-135R that flies out of Edwards AFB to spray water on other planes to see how they handle icing conditions in flight.

As for the "white KC-135s" especially the ones at Tinker AFB, they aren't KC-135s. They're US Navy E-6B TACAMO aircraft. They are based on the 707 airframe, so they LOOK like KC-135s, but they aren't refueling aircraft, they're command and control aircraft. There are several different types of aircraft the US military uses based on the 707. Many are VIP transports, including several that are painted white so that they don
t fly into less than friendly countries in planes marked "United States of America" on them. As well as the E-8 Joint STARS plane that uses radar to track ground targets, and several others.



[edit on 5/11/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because chaff isn't only used by the US. Not to mention that it's a good idea to train with your allies so that when you fight with them you're not tripping over each other.


It's worth noting that the link provided earlier (FrenchTankers) shows a French tanker refueling F-16's from Belgium.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Now you really have me worried. Not about chemtrails but the fact that so many tax dollars are going into the defense of this country but the Air Force and Navy have to make due with what sounds like from you to be relics from the past. With so much of our defense being air borne one would think it to be a priorty in the minds of those that occupy the Pentagon.

BTW thanks for your service.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Here you go. This is another thread I did recently. This will really worry you. The average age of our frontline fighter (that's only now being replaced) is 25 1/2 years old. Its "backup" has something like 21% of the fleet grounded for fuselage cracks. The B-2, our newest bomber is over 15 years old now, and the B-52 which is still flying combat missions over Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't been built since the 60s and is older than most of her flight crews.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to serve, except as a civilian helping out, but I did that for 25 years, so I have a little experience around the military, and their planes.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
the Air Force and Navy have to make due with what sounds like from you to be relics from the past.


This is why the need for a new tanker was so important. The KC-135's entered service when Eisenhower was CIC! The absolute newest -135 airframe in service was delivered in 1965! Metal fatigue is a big concern for older aircraft. You can only rebuild the plane so many times before it is more efficient to actually buy a new more modern design. The Air Force (or any service for that matter) have a buying procedure that favours more "sexy" projects like new fighters or bombers (or ships, or tanks, or missiles) in stead of nuts and bolts projects like tankers and transports (or trucks, or freighters). The needs would arguably be better served by buying more of these "boring" assets at the expense of some of the more exciting ones. It took almost half a year for us to get enough troops, fuel, vehicles and weapons for an offensive to the Gulf Region in 1990. And that was a un-harassed build up. And after we mobilized the Civil Reserve Air Fleet! (if you don't know what that is, it is the program wherein we impress civilian airliners and cargo aircraft for military use). What would happen if we needed to get troops somewhere fast while an ongoing large scale battle was taking place?
Sorry, slightly off topic. But I see the "Why do we need new tankers?!" argument enter the chemtrail debate fairly often. It's because we don't have enough to meet our needs, not because we need extra to spray (insert whatever chemical here).



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


dbarkertv.com...

They are trying to tell you THEY are contrails??? Give me a break! Those CHEMTRAILS are massive, elephant in the living room. Thanks for your photo, more proof.

Also note the same "debunkers" in these threads. Either they don't want to believe, or they are maybe following an agenda? Either way, I don't buy their explanations when you provide such a damning photo. Thankyou Witness2008.

Love to ALL

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


With the small amount that I know about anything military I do know enough to be angered when I see lobbyist rubbing elbows with Military Might (the guys with all the bars) I think corporate interests have to much say in the lives of civilians and our military.

A question for you or Zaphod58..When I see those military planes making X's and varied grid patterns in the sky...just how much money is that costing? Give me the fuel consumption for tankers.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by Witness2008]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by _Del_
 


A question for you or Zaphod58..When I see those military planes making X's and varied grid patterns in the sky...just how much money is that costing? Give me the fuel consumption for tankers.


Well, first how do you know they were military planes? Second, fuel consumption would be impossible to tell you without knowing what type of plane it was, how it was loaded and at what altitude the a/c was flying at (this would not include costs for crew, maintenance, whatever chemicals they were supposedly spraying, etc)



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


You are welcome. I am always amazed at the denial and the debunkers. Maybe some people just can not stand the thought that their government would lie and put the health of their citizens at risk. The evidence is there, we may not have all the detail worked out but the simple fact is our skies are are being plowed with metals and poisons.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
A C-135 VIP transport using TF33 enignes used 6,000lbs an hour. A KC-135R using CFM56 engines burns less, I think it was between 4,500-5000 an hour depending on load out.

As for me debunking this, I do it because it's a load of crap. That plane that was on the Rense page is a normal tanker used by several militaries around the world. I know more about military ops than a lot of people do because I spent a LONG time around them, and learning about them, so I try to bring some of my knowledge to others. If you want to say I'm a debunker or I have an agenda, be my guest.

[edit on 5/11/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Thank you for a completely irrelevant, descriminative and unresearched post that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Are you even trying to support your claims and provide proof of chemtrails? You certainly aren't trying very hard. You seem more worried about a saying I created on ATS years before today over providing backup to your claims which are being thrashed by the member population at large.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks for the info. I'm not saying your a debunker...your are definetly a thread killer. I had no idea if the pic that started this thread was accurate or not..I'll have to beleive the expert..you.

I tend to believe my own eyes and until someone can give me some evidence that my eyes are lieing to me they will forever remain chemtrails.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join