CLOSE-UP VIDEO: Pilot filming plane spraying into the air, page 31

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by firepilot

Thanks Weed, but I found that link some time ago, I do believe I posted on a form of Barium being in jet fuel, some time ago in other threads, as well. At least then, you are aware of what is whizzing out from under your backside! unlike another skypilot who thinks Barium "occurs naturally in the ground"

Well it sure isnt found in aircraft fuel or exhausts.

But it is used in fireworks, drilling mud and even ingested to help x-rays show up better. iAnd it is certainly found in the ground in a compound form, as Barium Sulfate. If it is not in the ground, then how it is it mined?

If you are talking about the metal known as Barium, it's not much use at all and cannot be found in nature. the non-metallic forms are used as you described, however that does include a sulphate in jet fuel. As to what form it emerges from a jet engine, that I am not sure of, it could be Barium Sulphide, or Sulfide and most likely bonded to a carbon nucleus.

I love it when guys who skipped 6th grade science class get all chemistry womnky.
c The primaryadditive in jet fuel is an anti-iving, anti-microbial product by the trade name of Prist (TM). There is no barium or sulfur in diethylene glycol monomethyl ether, chemical formula CH3CH2OCH2CH2OH. See, no Bas or Ss anywhere. And in no analysis of Stadis 450 has Ba been found. One chemtrail supporter says it is "implied" but neither a mass spec nor a gas chronatograph implies stuff. It's either there or it's not.
And what magic process are you using to "bond" Barium Sulfide to a carbon nucleus. As I'm sure you remember from your fourth semester organic chemistry course or maybe your graduate physical chemistry seminar, the carbon nucleus, for both co-occurring isotopes, is tetrahedral with a large neutral nucleon at each of the four corners. It has 6 protons. Barium Sulfide is an ionic compound of a +2 Barium ion and a -2 SO4 ion. It is neutral. So tell us again how this neutral BaSO4 molecule is going to "bond" to atetrahedral carbon nucleus. Do I need to set out in detail the electron shell configurations to show you. Pray tell, you wouldn't be making this stuff up, would you? If you make chemistry stuff up, somebody with a PhD in Chemistry is going to call you on it.

Read my posts again, and Weeds forbye... and this is the original link,

en.wikipedia.org...

Now if you read my posts, you will note that I am not a chemist, I am not that concerned about the video, but what is in a jet's contrail. In other words, what comes out of the jet exhaust, and as I said in the posts I have no idea, other than perhaps. You are also talking about some other substance that may be an additive like antifreeze. Anyway it doesn't matter, the more important thing is that something toxic could well be coming out of a jets exhaust, like it or not. The jets actual exhausts is something of a mystery to me, but, put it this way, what goes in has to come out, in some form or another. That is why I ask the questions, is it the high heat of the engines that makes transformations in the exhaust for instance, to produce something different. Frankly, I have yet, no real definition of a contrail versus chemtrail, as to me they could well be the same thing. Tell me the diffference.

reply to post by smurfy

---

OK, fair enough.Here's a little tutorial.
You are absolutely correct. What goes in is what comes out. And it does not come out in the same form as it went in. Energy, in the form of heat, is applied. That energy can be used to break bonds and to reform new ones. One thing that definitely goes in is jet fuel. Jet fuel is primarily kerosene, which is comprised of long chains of carbon and hydrogen. It ranges from C12H26 to C15H32. So all we have here is Carbon (think pencil leads, charcoal and diamonds) and hydrogen (the Hindenburg, water with oxygen, and the most abundant element in the universe). Also going in is air. In that we have nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%) argon (<1%) and trace quantities of other stuff. But it's the reaction with oxygen which matters since kerosene won't burn without it. Combustion is an oxidation reaction needing an oxidant, like, yup, you guessed it, oxygen. So we have C, O, H, N. What can we cook up with that. One thing is H2O, or water. and it's hot so it's vapor (sorry, vapour). We can also make CO2 or carbon dioxide. We have nitrogen and leftover oxygen, so we can get some NO and NO2, nitric oxide and dinitric oxide. But were not finished yet. NOx dissolves in the water we made and in the other water vapor in the atmosphere to make nitric acid. The reaction is 2 NO2 + H2O → HNO2 + HNO3. That's one form of acid rain. While we're on that subject, all fossil fuels contain some elemental sulphur in them. And that S can react with the oxygen to make SOx, which in turn can react with the hydrogen in the fuel to make H2SO4, which is sulphuric acid, the stuff in your auto battery. More acid rain. Now there are very small amounts of some additives in the fuel. One is Prist (TM), an anti-icing, antimicrobial formulation. It has more hydrogen and carbon and a little oxygen of its own, but no new elements.
Now, jet fuel combustion produces nothing not produced by other internal combustion or turbine engines. And it doesn't have MTBE, which is put in auto gas sometimes, to "oxygenate" it. It again is just another organic compound of C, H and O, but in kind of a nasty structure. And there is no ethanol in jet fuel. Ethanol is an alcohol, which means it is a molecule with a hydroxl group (-OH) attached.
a little chemistry geek trivia. Our word alcohol comes from the Arabic word al-kuhul, which means eye shadow made of antimony. I don't know the connection.
And sometimes all of what goes in doesn't react and it comes out unchanged. Like if you have too much of something. That can be true especially with carbon. So jet engines sometimes emit pure carbon, in the form of 'carbon black'. That's the stuff you see belching out of diesel trucks sometimes, particularly at low power, when there isn't enough oxygen coming in to react with all the carbon in the fuel. Diesel fuel is very closely related to jet fuel.

reply to post by 4nsicphd

---

THANK YOU!!!!

Since I don't have the chemistry background/education, I can't put it in those scientific terms, but essentially that is what I've been trying nto convey! In "layperson-speak", and comparing to OTHER fossil-fuel-buring internal combustion engines...so THIS sentence deserves a repeat (yet again..):

Diesel fuel is very closely related to jet fuel.

AND, in terms of exhaust gases, and pollution, there is far more, in amount, spewing from the hundreds of thousands of semi-trucks, diesel-engined autos, ocean-going vessels and railroad locomotives that all burn a form of diesel fuel!!!

AND, those vehicles are emitting their exhausts low, low to the ground....and therefore they are more effective, and have m ore influence, on US, as we breathe, than airplanes at 6-7 miles overhead!

Where the exhaust will stay aloft, and be diluted as it spreads on the wind, over time....

reply to post by 4nsicphd

---

I agree with most of what you say, although you did not include other fuel ingedients that may be present like Stadis 450. However, when you say this,

"That can be true especially with carbon. So jet engines sometimes emit pure carbon, in the form of 'carbon black'. That's the stuff you see belching out of diesel trucks sometimes, particularly at low power, when there isn't enough oxygen coming in to react with all the carbon in the fuel. Diesel fuel is very closely related to jet fuel. " then that isn't completely right as it is the very carbon black which mostly becomes a core of a larger particle, as in this link,

www.trbav030.org...

and this, (long explanation on how accretion to black carbon occurs from a jet engine)

ftp.rta.nato.int...

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by 4nsicphd

---

I agree with most of what you say, although you did not include other fuel ingedients that may be present like Stadis 450. However, when you say this,

"That can be true especially with carbon. So jet engines sometimes emit pure carbon, in the form of 'carbon black'. That's the stuff you see belching out of diesel trucks sometimes, particularly at low power, when there isn't enough oxygen coming in to react with all the carbon in the fuel. Diesel fuel is very closely related to jet fuel. " then that isn't completely right as it is the very carbon black which mostly becomes a core of a larger particle, as in this link,

www.trbav030.org...

and this, (long explanation on how accretion to black carbon occurs from a jet engine)

ftp.rta.nato.int...

You can have accretion onto a carbon structure, as Professor Starik explains. However it is an accretion of stuff that is already there, like oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and a trace (less than 430 ppm) of sulfur. Combustor ionization of the hydrocarbon does not magically create new elements. Turbine engines are not alchemists, although jet aircraft are often accused of transmuting vast amount of money into smoke and noise.
BTW, the first experiments with using biofuels as jet fuel have already ocurred www.ens-newswire.com...
However, guess what? Ethanol and other biofuels are also carbon, ohygen and hydrogen. Ethanol, for instance is C2H5OH. The OH on the end is indicative of the hydroxl group, denoting an alcohol.

Part of my post from the "A few more questions for those that believe in the chemtrail conspiracy" thread:

I just found a very interesting video, quite by accident. In all my years flying for the airline, never saw this (of course, I didn't work in the maintenance department, nor did I hang around while they serviced the airplanes overnight!!)

I don't know if it's only Southwest Airlines doing this, but if it improves fuel economy, and is cost-effective, there's little doubt others will. Fuel costs are one of THE biggest chunks of overhead operating expenses for an airline, and saving even small percentages affect the bottom-line profits.

So, for those who STILL believe in the "chemtrail conspiracy", I invite you to notice how many people are involved in this operation, as shown in the video. AND, none of them see anything peculiar, I.E., NO "spraying" apparatus!

(skip)...

A few notes from the video, as well:

The Dallas-based carrier is using the EcoPower system offered by East Hartford, Conn.-based flight technology firm Pratt & Whitney Global Service Partners. Terms of the deal weren't disclosed, but Pratt & Whitney said Southwest's annual fuel-cost savings could exceed $20 million. The airline also stands to cut 135 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions annually as a result.

YouTube Link

(tags)



[edit on 1 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by 4nsicphd

---

I agree with most of what you say, although you did not include other fuel ingedients that may be present like Stadis 450. However, when you say this,

"That can be true especially with carbon. So jet engines sometimes emit pure carbon, in the form of 'carbon black'. That's the stuff you see belching out of diesel trucks sometimes, particularly at low power, when there isn't enough oxygen coming in to react with all the carbon in the fuel. Diesel fuel is very closely related to jet fuel. " then that isn't completely right as it is the very carbon black which mostly becomes a core of a larger particle, as in this link,

www.trbav030.org...

and this, (long explanation on how accretion to black carbon occurs from a jet engine)

ftp.rta.nato.int...

You can have accretion onto a carbon structure, as Professor Starik explains. However it is an accretion of stuff that is already there, like oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and a trace (less than 430 ppm) of sulfur. Combustor ionization of the hydrocarbon does not magically create new elements. Turbine engines are not alchemists, although jet aircraft are often accused of transmuting vast amount of money into smoke and noise.
BTW, the first experiments with using biofuels as jet fuel have already ocurred www.ens-newswire.com...
However, guess what? Ethanol and other biofuels are also carbon, ohygen and hydrogen. Ethanol, for instance is C2H5OH. The OH on the end is indicative of the hydroxl group, denoting an alcohol.

Actually, accretion is a word I used, Nucleation and Accumulation (chemiions) is among the actual terminology used in the links I posted. more importantly in a different sense, this thread is still not in the hoax museum, fair play by ATS.

reply to post by Copernicus

---

My dad is a WW2 vetren and a Viet Nam War veteren. He told me that during the vietnam war our troops sprayed chemicals that killed the crops and innocent civilians in Vietnam. the chemicals all had names after the colors in the rainbow (ie: purple agent, pink agent) well my dad and his troops had to walk through the forest after it was sprayed by agent orange (the most popular used during the war) and most of the troops died from it later on. If i was born the opposite gender, i would've had cancer b/c of it. Born with cancer. 3rd and 4th generation kids today in vietnam are born disfigured (ie: w/o eyes, legs, half their head) most of the time they're dead or don't last long.

Google it. Tough, on most sites it says the U.S. gov't didnt know it sprayed where innocent ppl lived. My dad told me they did. They were to kill any innoecnt people left alive. Obviously, not all of them died.

Just saying.
Though I'm sure this whole chemical cloud thing isn't dangerous.

reply to post by ohsnaptruth

---

Google it.

Yes.

Obviously you did? So, how can you not realize it's an entirely different situation???

And, did you read this thread, or just the OP?

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

---

Ahhh...I soo miss the formality and most proper communiques of the 1900's!!
*swoons back onto my chaise fanning my heaving bosom*


ps- You DID say humor was welcome....correct??

reply to post by 4nsicphd

---

Wow...why werent YOU my college Chemistry teacher dammit!! Very well explained! Thank you!

Originally posted by ohsnaptruth
reply to post by Copernicus

---

My dad is a WW2 vetren and a Viet Nam War veteren. He told me that during the vietnam war our troops sprayed chemicals that killed the crops and innocent civilians in Vietnam. the chemicals all had names after the colors in the rainbow (ie: purple agent, pink agent) well my dad and his troops had to walk through the forest after it was sprayed by agent orange (the most popular used during the war) and most of the troops died from it later on. If i was born the opposite gender, i would've had cancer b/c of it. Born with cancer. 3rd and 4th generation kids today in vietnam are born disfigured (ie: w/o eyes, legs, half their head) most of the time they're dead or don't last long.

Google it. Tough, on most sites it says the U.S. gov't didnt know it sprayed where innocent ppl lived. My dad told me they did. They were to kill any innoecnt people left alive. Obviously, not all of them died.

Just saying.
Though I'm sure this whole chemical cloud thing isn't dangerous.

Agent Orange and Operation Ranch Hand certainly existed, but are not more germane to "chemtrails" than agricultural cropdusters and firefighting aircraft are though.

Originally posted by smurfy

Read my posts again, and Weeds forbye... and this is the original link,

en.wikipedia.org...

Now if you read my posts, you will note that I am not a chemist, I am not that concerned about the video, but what is in a jet's contrail. In other words, what comes out of the jet exhaust, and as I said in the posts I have no idea, other than perhaps. You are also talking about some other substance that may be an additive like antifreeze. Anyway it doesn't matter, the more important thing is that something toxic could well be coming out of a jets exhaust, like it or not. The jets actual exhausts is something of a mystery to me, but, put it this way, what goes in has to come out, in some form or another. That is why I ask the questions, is it the high heat of the engines that makes transformations in the exhaust for instance, to produce something different. Frankly, I have yet, no real definition of a contrail versus chemtrail, as to me they could well be the same thing. Tell me the diffference.

So what it sounds like is, that you admit you really have no idea about how a jet engine works, no idea about chemistry, but you are just throwing things out there hoping something ends up being "chemtrails"

If there is anything we can count on from chemtrailers, its uniformed speculation and then using that as evidence.

How a jet engine works is not a mystery, and yes kerosene is similar to diesel, both engines could run off of the others fuel. However a jet engine is nothing like a diesel, so the comparison is not an accurate one. The main exhaust components are carbon dioxide and water.

While its good to admit that you do not actually know much about chemistry, jet engines and aviation, why not then go learn something about those topics, rather than use that same lack of knowledge to promote some conspiracy?

reply to post by weedwhacker

---

Sorry if it didn't make sense to some people, I just wanted to add what my dad told me when I was younger. I'm sure the chemtrails are not as dangerous as we make it to be. I Googled it when I was younger to find more information about it after hearing it from my dad but on some sites it says the US gov't didn't know civilians lived there which my dad clearly stated that the military forces did. It's a whole 'nother subject though. I don't think the chemtrails we're talking about now are as dangerous as the ones during the Vietnam War but I think that's where the idea for chemtrails and messing with peoples' health and minds and such originated.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Yeah it's a MCD KC-10 .

en.wikipedia.org...

It is a tanker aircraft after all. Designed to carry large amounts of 'fuel'.

Yeah the areas where he says they are "nozzles" is almost certainly the wing stabilizers. Just look at any pics of the KC-10.

I have a few questions now that I think about it more.

#1) how does this random pilot get to fly right behind a KC-10 like this??

#2) is this type of flight maneuver even legal? seems really dangerous to follow that close

#3) who shot this video?

#4) who was the pilot of the craft following the KC10?

This may help us figure out the video better.

neformore Do you really think that US Military pilots following the tanker could actually record a video (even for a joke) and then get it out of the base and onto the internet (youtube of all places)?? Do you really think that the US military allows that type of stuff? I don't.

But I also really think it probably was US AF pilots. They are the only ones who would be able to get this type of footage, IMHO.

So, maybe it is planted to mislead or misinform?? Hmmm....

How do you think that KC-10s and other aircraft refuel from the KC-10 tankers? Yes crew on board take stills and video of refuelling.

In regards to Tanker Enemy and his videos. They are some of the worst examples of people with video cameras with no clue as to what they are filming . Half the time Tanker Enemy can't even correctly identify the type of aircraft.

Based on that he makes wild and inaccurate statements and blocks people who post the correct identity or provide a link to that particular aircraft recorded by aviation enthusiasts. Therefore all that is left on his channels are chem-trail supporters back thumping him for posting more 'proof'.

Tanker Enemy likes his 'unmarked' planes in Italy. Unfortunately for Tanker Enemy these aircraft do carry registration markings and are in the public domain and well known by aircraft enthusiasts. Aviation enthusiasts have even been on board and photographed on board this Italian Air Force training tanker.

Of course Tanker Enemy and others similar posters on You Tube don't allow any debate on the subject. Sadly the visitors to his channel are being grossly misled.

Tanker enemy and his white 'unmarked' plane. Note all the back slapping from his supporters.

Unidentified airplane with identifying marks removed



The unmarked airplane



TJ

[edit on 31-8-2010 by tommyjo]

[edit on 31-8-2010 by tommyjo]

[edit on 31-8-2010 by tommyjo]

The 'evidence' produced by Tanker Enemy is laughable at best. Of course nobody is allowed any other theory other than 'Tanker Enemies'. For all the back slappers on his videos here is Boeing 767 registration N606TW as leased to the Italian Air Force to train up its air-refuelling pilots.

cencio4.wordpress.com...

jetphotos.net...

www.planepictures.net...


'Italian Air Force 767-200 arrives at Nellis AFB'



TJ

Lifting Secrecy on Information About Extraterrestrial Intelligence. The Clintons and Rockefellers.
  Posted 13 days ago with 111 member flags

Did NASA "bomb" the moon to hide something?
  Posted 2 days ago with 76 member flags

New Plasma Battery Technology Probably Powering Stealth Sattelites
  Posted 15 days ago with 17 member flags

Nick Pope Interview on ATSLive, Got a Question to ask?
  Posted 18 days ago with 13 member flags

May 13th, 2012: One Week \'Till May 20th, 2012 - 222 Days \'Till December 21st
  Posted 15 days ago with 13 member flags

Will Planet X be visible during the eclipse on May 20th?
  Posted 10 days ago with 9 member flags

Obama and the Card Game Illuminati
  Posted 10 days ago with 9 member flags

CNN wants you afraid to fly.
  Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: