Chemtrails. It's in the jetfuel.

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 




Basic Chemical Information for Jet fuel
For detailed chemical information see the chemical detail page.

Basic Identification Information About This Chemical
Chemical Name
CAS Number
U.S. EPA PC Code
CA DPR Chem Code
Use Type
Chem Class Jet fuel
94114-58-6
063515

Insecticide, Solvent
Petroleum derivative

Synonyms
Chemical versus Common Names
063515 (US EPA PC Code) , 94114-58-6 (CAS Number) , 94114586 , 94114586 (CAS Number) , Fuels, jet, JP-3 , Fuels, jet, JP-4 , Fuels, jet, JP-5 , Jet fuel , Jet fuels, JP-4 , Jet fuels, JP-5 , Jet fuels, JP-6 , Jetfuel , JP-5 jet fuel , JP-6 jet fuel , Navy fuels JP-5 , Navy fuels JP-5, petroleum derived , NCI-C54784

www.pesticideinfo.org...

Jet fuel is classified as a insecticide?




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctordoom

What is ethylene glycol monomethyl ether?


Well I wouldn't really want to get any on me but it is added in very small amounts to the fuel. Once it goes through the engine you know what you end up with?

Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide may form when heated to decomposition.

www.jtbaker.com...

Not all that scary. It's also used in gasoline for cars.

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctordoom

Now, think about how witness explained the recent Montana plane crash. It seems to me that that is how a plane would react if it was sputtering, not getting enough fuel.



Your above point is well taken, but to be honest, how does this have anything whatsoever to do with so called "Chemtrails"? Engine and Line Sludge are common factors brought about due to sub par Fuel Refining Processes, and/or Improper Refueling Methods in regards to Aviation.


The Top 4 Reasons for "Fuel Contamination" and thus Engine Failure, are as follows:


1. Inadequate preflight inspection by Pilot.
2. Servicing aircraft with improperly filtered fuel from small tanks or drums.
3. Storing aircraft with partially filled fuel tanks.
4. Lack of Proper maintenance.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by doctordoom
 

Since kerosene is classed as an insecticide and jet fuel is kerosene...
Oh, surprise! So is diesel fuel.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


well, back in the day when I did about 6 months in a FAA approved college (before I decided it was a bad idea), the regs for the maintenance on commercial flights was freaking enormous !!

That being said, how could the filters get so bad if the maintenance regs are so strict and should be followed? Some parts of the aircraft are time limited(?) meaning they MUST be changed regardless whether or not their condition is satisfactory. I'm sure they should at least do a yearly inspection of the fuel system... yes?? (FAA certified maintenance techs fire away here )

From what I understood back 20 years ago, each aircraft that landed HAD to report any anomalies with the plane before they took off which needed to be inspected, repaired or cleared before take off.

Here's what I just found in about 10 mins of google search. I bolded #4.


New Inspection & Maintenance Requirements Create Widespread Uncertainty
Air Safety Week , June 21, 2004

The four major safety programs involve electrical, fuel and structural systems, with new requirements for airplanes with 14 or more years of service. To recount briefly each of the four initiatives affecting transport-category aircraft:

1. Electrical system safety. This initiative has a mouthful of an acronym, EAPAS, which stands for Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Aircraft Systems. It involves zonal inspections of electrical wiring and interconnection systems (EWIS). These inspections were dubbed the enhanced zonal analysis program (EZAP) for wiring. The EZAP effort reportedly will commence in 2006, a two-year slide from the original plan to begin that effort this year (see ASW, May 5, 2003, and ASW, July 14, 2003). A subset of this effort involved a onetime detailed visual inspection of cockpit, electronics and equipment bay wiring, and power feeder cables (CEEPF). However, according to the June bulletin of the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), the CEEPF inspections have been folded into the larger EZAP effort .

2. Structural system safety. The second program involves widespread fatigue damage, or WFD. This effort requires operators to implement maintenance actions to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches a set number of flight cycles and/or hours. The problem of WFD from scribe marks scored into the aluminum during preparation for painting was recently the subject of FAA concern (see ASW, April 12, and ASW, June 7). A corrosion prevention and control (CPCP) initiative is evidently on "hold" for the moment, although corrosion can contribute to WFD, as was evidenced in the fatal May 2002 explosive decompression of a China Airlines B747, which involved WFD aggravated by corrosion (see ASW, June 30, 2003).

3. Structural system safety. For aircraft with 14 or more years of service, the FAA wants damage-tolerance-based inspections incorporated into the aircraft maintenance programs. This initiative applies the damage-tolerance concept to structure outside of the pressure hull.

4. Fuel system safety. Under a Special Federal Aviation Regulation known as SFAR 88, manufacturers are required to conduct fuel system safety assessments and to implement required inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the original design, intended to minimize the presence of ignition sources, remains intact through the life of the airplane. Since electrical components are found in fuel pumping and fuel level indication systems, there is a certain amount of overlap between the SFAR 88 effort and the EAPAS program.

An overall plan was expected to be published May 4 in the Federal Register, but that document, the subject of ongoing review within the FAA, the Department of Transportation, and the Office of Management and Budget, has been delayed. Imminent release is expected.
Source

I have no idea wheather it got published or not.

After a quick read of the article, it seems that the FAA KNOWS that older aircraft are in dire need of better maintenance and was/is trying to do something about it.

As for the fuel filters being clogged, I for one will have to go with the OP on this on...especially since the above is true. Those that perform the maintenance of these aircraft HAVE to sign their maintenance reports as having made the repairs/maintenance of the part/aircraft.

Fuel filters and fuel systems IMO, get a check up regularly and the only reason they get clogged before the maintenance was due would be someone added something to the fuel that shouldn't have been there; wheather it was at the manufacturing plant or after refueling.

just my .02



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I will keep posting fact until it sinks in. It's in the jetfuel.

Prove me wrong.



Additives

Both standard jet fuels (Jet A and Jet B) may contain a number of additives:

* Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, eg. AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;
* Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as the active ingredient, is an example
* Corrosion inhibitors, e.g. DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;
* Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) agents, e.g. Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense.
* Biocide can be added if evidence of bacterial colonies inside the fuel system exists.


en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 24-3-2009 by doctordoom]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


But what's the point adding something? The filters catch it, that's why they get clogged.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tagus2012
I really would like to see an actual picture of a sky with chemtrails with a plane producing contrails.

Maybe it´s my fault by not finding any, but my question is:
If we are to believe chemtrails are deliberately spread into the sky by some planes and not an atmospheric phenomena, then there must be pictures of planes producing contrails while others chemtrails, in the same weather conditions above in the sky.

If we see some planes throwing "normal" contrails, and we see some planes that spread chemtrails which after a while can become a cloud of it´s own, then why can´t i find pics where a "normal" plane and an evil one are flying together in the same weather conditions?


Many thx


google the word contrail in ATS .. there are 1000 hits or more with video, pics and tons of pros and cons..



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by doctordoom
 

Who ever said there are no additives? The fuel for your car has additives.

Your post even tells you what the additives are for!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
I have no idea wheather it got published or not.

After a quick read of the article, it seems that the FAA KNOWS that older aircraft are in dire need of better maintenance and was/is trying to do something about it.

As for the fuel filters being clogged, I for one will have to go with the OP on this on...especially since the above is true. Those that perform the maintenance of these aircraft HAVE to sign their maintenance reports as having made the repairs/maintenance of the part/aircraft.

Fuel filters and fuel systems IMO, get a check up regularly and the only reason they get clogged before the maintenance was due would be someone added something to the fuel that shouldn't have been there; wheather it was at the manufacturing plant or after refueling.

just my .02


The problem isn't the older aircraft, it's subpar fuel filtering systems at airports, and older FUEL STORAGE at airports. The lines carrying fuel rust, which is where the iron in fuel comes from. Most fuel lines from the tanks are underground, which means they'd have to dig them up to replace them. Airports aren't going to want to spend millions to do that every two or three years, so they run them as long as they can before they have to. The problem is when the lines age more rapidly than they planned for, which leads to fuel contamination.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by doctordoom
 


I'm with Phage on this one. Do you actually READ these links? It tells you every single additive right there in your quote. They are all things that are necessary for safe operation of the plane. No one has said there are no additives in the fuel. But the additives aren't causing chemtrails, they're keeping the planes flying safely.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Again, you are trying to throw the focus off the real subject,

Mod Edit - Pointless sniping removed - Civility and Decorum and Requireed




Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0411; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-061-AD;
Amendment 39-15488; AD 2008-09-07]
RIN 2120-AA64
...
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 757 airplanes and Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F
series airplanes. This AD requires revising the Limitations section of
the airplane flight manual to advise the flight crew of procedures to
follow to ensure that a fuel filter impending bypass condition due to
gross fuel contamination is detected in a timely manner. This AD was
prompted by an error in the operating program software (OPS) of the
engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS). The error prevents
the display of an advisory message to the flight crew of a left engine
fuel filter contamination and imminent bypass condition, SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
...
We are issuing this AD to prevent
malfunction and thrust loss on both engines, which could result in a
forced off-airport landing.

DATES: This AD is effective May 8, 2008.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 23, 2008.


edocket.access.gpo.gov...



[edit on 24-3-2009 by doctordoom]

[edit on 25/3/09 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Komodo
 


But what's the point adding something? The filters catch it, that's why they get clogged.


because the OP stated/suggesting that their is something OTHER than what should be in there.. which 'could' be in the fuel thus clogging the filter..which 'could' be what is being sprayed in our atmosphere..

but clogged filters isn't what we should be really be focusing on in the thread...and I only brought it up as a side point..

the big question is...is there something really in the fuel that shouldn't be there??

I still think it's a great idea; I dont' 'think' it's ever been mentioned before....



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Like gerktron01, I have also been a fueler. There is a very simple way to prove that Chemtrails have nothing to do with the fuel. Diesel ground equipment is fueled with the same gas that is used on aircraft, and from the same trucks. We used a hydrant system, which is nothing more then a pump and set of filters that are attached to a truck frame, then driven out to the aircraft where it is hooked up to the plane and a ground pit. When we would do ground service fueling, the airlines would call us to come out to an empty gate, where they would have all their ground equipment parked around a fuel pit. We would hook up to the pit as normal and use a special handle (like at a gas station, which is a bit smaller then an over-wing attachment), to fill the equipment from the pit. The pits for an entire airside are interconnected, and the fuel that was being pumped to that pit would be the same as the fuel pumped into aircraft on the same system at other gates. I have yet to see a piece of ground equipment emit a chemtrail after being fueled with the exact same gas as the aircraft.

As others have said, fuel get contaminated due to condensation in the fuel tanks. In order to prevent this from happening, the fuel is regularly tested and maintained at the tank farm, it’s filtered twice on the hydrant truck, the truck is regularly sumped, and the aircraft tanks have to be sumped. Sumping is nothing more then a process were the condensation water that builds up in the fuel tank is removed. As fuel and water don’t mix, you simply draw the water level out from on top of the fuel, it’s a pretty simple process really. The bacteria and fungus that you are reading about are the result of stagnant water that naturally condenses in the fuel tank. I believe that the same thing happens in your car fuel tank, though to a lesser extent, which is why your car has a fuel filter.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


excellent point ! never thought about the tanks in ground.
However, that would account for the higher than normal traces of debris but, from what the OP is suggesting there something other than what is the normal debris.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


After reading this post, it would be hard to put something in the fuel. Thanks for clearing this whole process up~!




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by doctordoom
 


Your thread title says this is about "chemtrails". So far all you've been providing is links about are contaminated fuels, clogged filters, fuel additives, and pilot advisories.

If your point is that the contaminants cause "chemtrails" it doesn't make sense because the contaminants get caught by the filters (which clog if not serviced or if the contaminant level is high). The contaminants don't make it to the engines. The don't get burned. They can't form "chemtrails".

If your point is that the authorized additives create "chemtrails" that would mean that every jet aircraft would always produce "chemtrails". That isn't the case either.

You're not making any sense.

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Like gerktron01, I have also been a fueler. There is a very simple way to prove that Chemtrails have nothing to do with the fuel. Diesel ground equipment is fueled with the same gas that is used on aircraft, and from the same trucks.


THANK YOU! someone actually read what i wrote!

so if the fuel that is used for the trucks and ground equipment is the same as the jets, does the GE and trucks make chem trails too?

doesnt sound possible.. or does it HAVE to be burned through a turbine to cause a chem trail?

just checkin




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


We're talking nanoparticles here.

Hence the "sludge" appearance.




[edit on 24-3-2009 by doctordoom]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
well, i work tomorrow and ill ask around to see if they know anything about the extra additive that we add as we pump the fuel into the plane. maybe we will see the truth then.

have you ever felt jet fuel? spilt any on your hand? it is thicker than avgas and normal mogas..

what "sludge"?





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join