Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Says Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped

this guy's awesome, and it's very surprising to hear it coming from someone like him

and it gives it a lot of weight when show it to other people

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smurfy

 

BTW fresh air is not available under pressurization.

Wrong!!! This is why I mentioned that you don't understand the technology, and the systems.

ALL the air that is used to pressurize the cabin comes from outside!! (Where else?)

It enters the engines first....undergoes some magic, and then is pumped into the airplane. I'm sure there are very detailed explanations on the Webz, I don't need to describe the entire process here.

Point is, there are NO "chem"-trail sprayers in use attached to regular large commercial airliners...and nothing other than outside air gets into the systems.

Now, on modern jets, as a fuel-saving plan, airliners ARE equipped with "re-circ" fans and ducting....this has caused more "controversy" in the media, urged on by ignorant reporters and members of the public, than it warrants.

Re-circulating the interior air isn't what it sounds like...the pressurization "packs" aren't shut-down in flight, they continue to pump air in...and, of course, there is either one or more outflow valves to regulate the internal pressure properly...in normal modes, this is entirely automatic, computer monitored and controlled. Unless it has a fault, then it alerts the crew, and there are back-up systems and methods and procedures.

The hot engine bleed air has to be "pre-cooled" through an air-to-air heat exchanger. This is a back-pressure thing....by re-using some of the interior air, already at correct temp, you can divert the hot bleed air overboard...valves modulate to do this, as part of the whole system mentioned above.

When you read on it, the difference for passengers is minor. The old Boeing 727 (about the same size cabin volume as the 757) completely replaced its air, when at altitude, about every five minutes. Ont he 757, it's about every 10 minutes. No big deal.

But note the words...."completely replaces". And, that comes from where? Yes, outside, of course.

The air is secondhand and you know it, you are just to quick to point out something in a false way. I never mentioned recirculated air either, that is your presumption. This is also why the air into the cabin can be contaminated. Now this is a link to the nasty stuff,

www.youtube.com...

You may also remember the 737 that crashed short of East Midlands airport. It crashed because the pilot thought he had lost his starboard engine, and shut it down when in fact he was losing his left. That's because he had smoke in the cockpit, and assumed that, because the aircon was situated on the starboard engine. The left engine then failed completely. It was considered pilot error. BTW I found this other video which might be helpful for you and Robin,


www.avweb.com...

I have had first hand experience of cabin fumes on a trip to Heathrow in a 727 when I was stuck at the tail. The fuel fumes were terrible, and I was sick as a pig!

Originally posted by schlub

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Oh wow. So how far are they going to go to vilify this gentleman? Let me guess...he's had a psychotic break...he's old and feeble...he has a grudge. Anyway...here's the video...

added video....

edit on 1/16/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

In all fairness, he does come across as a psychotic. The theory that there are death dumps to pointlessly and intentionally kill thousands of animals doesn't make sense. I'm not saying he's not right, just that I'd like to have a better idea of WHY they're doing it and what they hope to gain.

That was my point way back. TG needs to enlarge on what he has said. In the video he seems normal enough although angry, the background information is strange on the face of it and there again, needs enlargement by him. My main interest is that a Jet's engine is both toxic, in ways that have not yet been measured properly, and also fills the role as a chemtrail that produces a desired effect, as in creating cloud cover and from the fuel alone. All the maintenance tekkies in the world cannot answer that as a non-conspiracy or otherwise until they know exactly what is in the fuel, when it enters the engine.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by smurfy

 

The air is secondhand and you know it, you are just to quick to point out something in a false way. I never mentioned recirculated air either, that is your presumption. This is also why the air into the cabin can be contaminated. Now this is a link to the nasty stuff,

www.youtube.com...

See, THIS is why it's virtually impossible to properly educate "chem"-trail believers....they simply don't understand, and MISunderstand these unrelated incidents.

THAT YT video was to a specific airplane....the BAe 146. Adding, I see other isolated (and very rare) cases also. Found this, regarding an ongoing problem it had, with fumes in the cabin, introduced from the packs on that particular airplane:

National Jet Systems (NJS) of Australia has embarked on the latest in a long line of modifications to BAe 146 engines to reduce the risk of cabin fumes, a problem that has plagued the regional jet.

...... chemicals from oil and hydraulic fluids have leaked into the aircraft cabin air conditioning system as a result of engine oil seal failures.

To understand....this is merely because the internal components of some jet turbine engines had these flaws....and the engine oil (not sure how hydraulics get in there, but different systems...maybe why that airplane/engine combo has problems...) had minor leaks, and could vaporize in the heat of compression, within the engine. The video, each instance, mentions "oil". Hot oil. Leakage, for whatever reason....from bearings that might be in the engines, or in bearings in the ACMs. Also, have you looked at the labels on the oil you use in your automobile?? You're going to breathe a LOT more of that, at ground level....next time your neighbor's junky oil-burning heap goes down your street.

The only smells I've experienced, in the 23+ years flyng them, and riding them in the back is the occasional "hot" smell, when ducts get too warm. Usually, on very cold-soaked airplanes, early morning...the "auto" temp systems pump in too much hot air, and have to be watched, until temps stabilize a bit. Even "automatic" has its limitations.....SO, never had that occur, as shown in the video. In very high humidity, on the ground, got some mildewy smells before...but, the systems nowadays have HEPA filters in them...as long as they get changed regularly, but that's up to each company......

(Sat next to some really smelly lavatories, though, over the years....)


More is needed, to explain:

First...the "pack"....just a shorthand term to describe the entire suite of components that comprise the "air cycle machine". And, it could be referred to as "air conditioning", because it does that....just differently than in your car or Fridge....

Turbine engines operate on the "Suck, Squeeze, Burn and Blow" principle (which, actually is the same for your motorcar engine, in a way...each piston goes through that cycle, in a different way). Turbines are axial compressors....(opposed to 'centrifugal' compressors)....the air enters, is compressed through multiple "stages", ever-increasing the pressure, and temperature. At this point, it is STILL just the air "sucked in" as the engine pulls in ambient air. At various points ("stages") air is "bled" off. This "bleed" air is hot, under pressure. It is used for other things too, but for the packs, is sent to them, and as I mentioned, thru a heat exchanger, which takes out (exchanging with the outside ambient air, but NOT mixing...just radiating thermodynamically).

Here...I was going to write out the whole thing, then looked, and Wiki has done it for me (remember I said you could research it, but I didn't give you the correct terms, I suppose):

Air Cycle Machine

Bleed air from the engines, an auxiliary power unit, or a ground source, which can be in excess of 150°C and at a pressure of perhaps 32psi, is directed into a primary heat exchanger. Outside air at ambient temperature and pressure is used as the coolant in this air-to-air heat exchanger. Once the hot air has been cooled, it is then compressed by the centrifugal compressor. This compression heats the air (the maximum air temperature at this point is about 250°C) and it is sent to the secondary heat exchanger, which again uses outside air as the coolant. The pre-cooling through the first heat exchanger increases the efficiency of the ACM because it lowers the temperature of the air entering the compressor, so that less work is required to compress a given air mass (the energy required to compress a gas by a given ratio rises as the temperature of the incoming gas rises).

At this point, the temperature of the compressed cooled air is somewhat greater than the ambient temperature of the outside air. The compressed, cooled air then travels through the expansion turbine which extracts work from the air as it expands, cooling it to below ambient temperature (down to -20°C or -30°C). It is possible for the ACM to produce air cooled to less than 0°C even when outside air temperature is high (as might be experienced with the aircraft stationary on the ground in a hot climate).

The work extracted by the expansion turbine is transmitted by a shaft to spin the pack's centrifugal compressor and an inlet fan which draws in the external air for the heat exchangers during ground running; ram air is used in flight. The power for the air conditioning pack is obtained by the reduction of the pressure of the incoming bleed air relative to that of the cooled air exiting the system (Boeing[3] describes a reduction from about 30psi to about 11psi). After the air has been cooled down, water vapor in the air condenses, forming fog or high humidity. To get rid of this, the air exiting the expansion turbine is passed through a water separator, which uses centrifugal force to throw the water particles into a coalescer bag that absorbs the moisture (this condensate can be injected into the outside air entering the secondary heat exchanger to improve its performance).

The air can now be combined in a mixing chamber with a small amount of uncooled engine bleed air. This warms the air to a desired temperature, and then the air is vented into the cabin or to electronic equipment.

Click on the 'Bleed air" link, from Wiki, to see more comprehensive description of that.

Here is a pretty color schematic drawing of the air cycle machine, from a training presentation for the Boeing 737NG series of airliners.
Also has text, more photos, and more explanations:



This is an actual unit, removed from the airplane, and sitting on a bench:





__________

You may also remember the 737 that crashed short of East Midlands airport.

Yes, of course. In my profession we become aware of, and sometimes keenly study, such events.

It crashed because the pilot thought he had lost his starboard engine, and shut it down when in fact he was losing his left.

Yes....terrible airman-ship, on both the part of the Captain and First Officer. But, there were mitigating circumstances, and they reacted hastily too.

That's because he had smoke in the cockpit, and assumed that, because the aircon was situated on the starboard engine.

NO, who told you that?? See, again the type of misinformation that allow "chem"-trail nonsense to flourish.
The Wiki article is part of the problem, there though. It is vague, and misleading. Comes from a misunderstanding of how the B-737 (some versions) pneumatic system is 'plumbed' --- interconnected.

The Boeing 737 has TWO packs, or ACMs. There are limitations to their operation...for instance, it is forbidden to have the APU supplying the bleed air for both ACMs. Also, you should guard against accidentally "back pressuring" the APU from an engine bleed air source....so, as we say, some "switchology" and systems knowledge is required. Newer 737s have more automation, to alleviate this design burden. (Although, on mixed fleets, we don't rely on the "automation", but follow the old procedures, regardless).

Here is a photo of the 737-800 (NG) control panel, typical:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7885c6a8e850.jpg[/atsimg]


Oh, and.....(... if you happen to like schematics, and want to learn more, you should see what WE have to learn when it's the entire pneumatics system!)



In Wiki, here is what had those guys confused (and they over-reacted, as I noted):

The Captain, Kevin Hunt, believed the right engine was malfunctioning due to the smell of smoke because in previous Boeing 737 variants bleed air for the air conditioning system was taken from the right engine.

en.wikipedia.org...

ONLY true when you are operating it a certain way. Anyhow, he (they) had that notion because, ON THE GROUND, when using just the APU, it is plumbed into the left side...but when you want better cooling in the back, the cabin, you want the RIGHT pack on (the LEFT pack supplies the flight deck, mostly), so you open the isolation valve, turn on the Right pack, leaving the Left off. 737 pilots understand this, even if it sounds complicated, you get used to it.

I have had first hand experience of cabin fumes on a trip to Heathrow in a 727...

Well...that must have been some years ago, aren't many 727s flying anymore.

.... when I was stuck at the tail. The fuel fumes were terrible, and I was sick as a pig!

SO...you said "jet fumes". This means the actual exhaust fumes/gases....and yes (although I like the smell of burning jet fuel) in large concentrations it is less than nice.

BUT...just being "in the tail" means nothing....and, did this happen when on the ground only? Because, just like driving behind a diesel truck on the highway, you can breathe in fumes from other jets around you. OR, if at the gate, from ground equipment idling their engines nearby. Again, it is from those gases that enter the intakes of either the engines (if they are running) or the APU, which is just another turbine engine. BTW, the 727 was unique, as the APU was an "afterthought" addition....and they had problems finding a place to put it. SO, it ended up in the right wing root area, instead of the tail, as in most jets. 727 had an engine there, you know. So, the APU intake, there on the wing, was susceptible to more fumes, on the ground.


______________________

Oh, and about the video about "Smoke in the Cockpit". We DO have procedures for that, in the Airplane Flight Manual, and the QRH. It is specific to each airplane model, and there are checklist procedures to isolate the source, when it's from the ventilation ducting. (As opposed to electrical source). Also, once isolated, ways to clear it (raise the cabin altitude, basically is easiest).

As I mentioned, internal engine problems, mechanical failures, CAN cause smoke, as well as internal failures and overheating inside the ACMs themselves.

ALL cockpits are required to be equipped with not only the O2 masks (quick donning) but smoke goggles as well...here's a video I found of the 'EROS' brand mask, most common. The kid has the overhead speaker on, and the interphone on 'hot', so you can hear the sound, for effect!):



O2 masks are set to 100% "demand" on preflight. They also have a selection for positive pressure flow. Newer masks have the goggles integrated into one unit. (You see one briefly in the German video).

reply to post by weedwhacker

The video is not specific to one type of aircraft, it includes an American incident B767.
The Kegsworth incident actually involved a brand new 737-400 and according to the official report it says this,

"Mistake in knowledge based performance - Smoke in the cabin
indicates that the engine from which bleed air (used for heating,
pressure, etc) is taken will have smoke in it. But, the pilot
thought bleed air was taken from the right engine. This is true
of the Boeing 737 but not the new 737-400, which drew bleed
air from both.
• Design issue - No visibility of engines, so relied on other
information sources to explain vibrations
• Design issue – The vibration sensors were tiny, had a new
digital display style and were inaccurate on the 737 (not the
737-400)
• Inadequate training - A one day course, and no simulator training"
So I agree that there were very mitigating circumstances, Elsewhere is not quite what you are saying is it?
There is a discrepancy in what you have already said to me, either the older 737 had two bleeders or it did not, so if it did have two, and you know that, it would be new information to the enquiry. It would not change the official outcome of pilot error of course. Sad that.

The older 737 had bleed air from both engines, but the airconditioner pac only used from one. The air conditioner is in the aircraft, not the engine itself, but uses the pressurized air that is before any fuel and combustion.

And cockpit smoke is generally not from engine fumes, but from electronics and avionics burning,

reply to post by smurfy

There is a discrepancy in what you have already said to me....

No, there isn't. Not if you take time to study the information. And the schematics.

... either the older 737 had two bleeders or it did not, so if it did have two, and you know that, it would be new information to the enquiry.

Not "new" information at all. You misunderstood. From the very beginning, the 737 design for normal flight was each engine supplying its own respective ACM pack. Bleed air comes off of both engines, even in the "old" 737s. IF you look at the schematic (albeit for the 737-300/500..but the differences are minor... the engine type, and certain avionics) you see that engine bleed air is ALSO used for engine and wing thermal anti-ice (TAI, is the acronym used in that diagram).

Again, I am at a loss for that crew's "reasoning", as stated in articles....WHY they jumped to the wrong conclusion is beyond me. Unless they were operating in a configuration as I described...non-"normal"....with the right engine supplying the right pack, the isolation valve closed, and the left bleed switch "OFF"....with the APU operating and supplying the left pack. WHY they would be configured that way depends on whether the Left engine bleed was inoperative...or it was a certain company procedure, for some reason, etc.

Look at the diagrams...you should also know there is a take-off procedure used, when maximum power from the engines is required (short runway, high altitude, heavy weight). It is called a "Bleeds Off" takeoff....the engine bleed switches of selected "OFF", the APU is "ON" and the isolation valve closed. Thus, only the left-hand pack is operating. (The switch on the right pack is left "AUTO", but it does not operate, yet).

Look at the six switches...a memory mnemonic used, left-to-right, to configure before takeoff is "Squeeze - Spread - Squeeze" (I know...kinda sexist...).

Check position of the switches, in each "column", so when done you have:

• Both pack switches in "AUTO"
  
• Isolation Valve "CLOSE" and APU Bleed "ON"
  
• Engine Bleeds "OFF"
  

Some use the "M" pattern...start with the left engine bleed "OFF", then 'up' to the Isol Valve, "CLOSE", then 'down' to the APU bleed, to "ON" (back to Isol, but you just verify), then 'down' again to right bleed, to "OFF". As you taxied out, the packs are already in "AUTO"....

After takeoff, at 1,000 feet, you go right-to-left: Right engine bleed "ON", Isolation valve to "AUTO" (it remains closed because of the right engine bleed valve being open) and then, as you watch the cabin rate of climb, and it is stable, the left engine Bleed to "ON". Simple. (Assuming all is operating normally. Again, if the left engine bleed is in-op, then you leave the Isol Valve closed, and operate APU to left and Right engine to right.

It would not change the official outcome of pilot error of course. Sad that.

Yes, indeed. I agree.

What is shocking, to me, is the basics were ignored...a sudden vibration, you suspect an engine, there are ways to determine which one. NOT using smoke in the ducts as your "clue"!! (That seems to have been a 'knee-jerk' and panic reaction, contrary to procedure and training).

Reducing thrust, on the suspected engine is first step. You ascertain the change (if any) in vibration....if you have the correct engine, it will subside. THEN, the engine instruments are next...usually, they will provide more clues. Shutting down engines willy-nilly, without absolute certainty first is a cardinal sin!!!

_____________________________________________

BTW...you can see a portion of a typical airliner instrument/control panel....and, NO "chem"-trail switches, right?? Same thing, no matter where you care to look and examine, on any airliner. NO such switches, no such systems exist.......any number of photos can be researched, online.

www.airliners.net... is but one source for this......

reply to post by weedwhacker


What's this about chemtrail switches? it's not something I have discussed or ever inferred, keep the silly stuff to yourself. Regards the enquiry report they do differentiate between the older and newer model 'planes and concur it as a reason for the pilot error, and for no other purpose. It doesn't matter then if there were a hundred sources of incoming air, if those sources et al, had one final destination in the older 'plane, and hence the pilot error in the new 'plane.

How is oil getting into aircon systems relevant to the chemtrail hoax?

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

What's this about chemtrail switches? it's not something I have discussed or ever inferred, keep the silly stuff to yourself. Regards the enquiry report they do differentiate between the older and newer model 'planes and concur it as a reason for the pilot error, and for no other purpose. It doesn't matter then if there were a hundred sources of incoming air, if those sources et al, had one final destination in the older 'plane, and hence the pilot error in the new 'plane.

he is talking about secret switches

yea

Originally posted by MrAnnunaki

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

What's this about chemtrail switches? it's not something I have discussed or ever inferred, keep the silly stuff to yourself. Regards the enquiry report they do differentiate between the older and newer model 'planes and concur it as a reason for the pilot error, and for no other purpose. It doesn't matter then if there were a hundred sources of incoming air, if those sources et al, had one final destination in the older 'plane, and hence the pilot error in the new 'plane.

he is talking about secret switches

yea

I know, it's very childish stuff, Anyway the sooner everything is running on hydrogen cells the better. That should be 2020 for land based vehicles under Bush's HFI funding, maybe sooner if hydrogen can be produced on-the-fly as you go, as some guys are doing.

Looks like Tony Hilder and Gunderson have a new video!

Of course, it loses all credibility in the first few seconds, with a Cargolux 747 (that company has 12 planes I think) and you can see that the contrails begin behind the engines, just as you would expect.

reply to post by firepilot

Thanks for bringing that video to our attention, firpilot. It must mean a great deal to YOU. For you to hold it in such high esteem makes it credible., because you know SO much about this stuff.
Thanks again, firplot.

reply to post by Stewie


Ha Ha Ha!!!!

You just don't get it, do you??

Ted Gunderson is a loon!! The "Illuminati", as he mentions in just the opening few sentences.

He's a nut case, totally gone 'round the bend. He, and Glenn Beck would make perfect partners at the insane asylum. He makes Charlie Manson look almost rational, in comparison.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by firepilot

 

Thanks for bringing that video to our attention, firpilot. It must mean a great deal to YOU. For you to hold it in such high esteem makes it credible., because you know SO much about this stuff.
Thanks again, firplot.

Uh huh..I brought it up for the comedy aspect. Did you manage to find any new evidence besides small cloud seeding airplanes, and your mythical secret 600 new tankers coming?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by dplum517
Wow..... the that comes out of firepilot and weedwhackers mouths is ridiculously naive.
Get it through you tiny little brains that there are things way bigger than you. You two literally have no life. You sit on every Chemtrail thread ready to pounce on the next poster. Again... only confirming you're paid agents or very lonely men.
Let me say it again...... get it through your thick skulls that you will NEVER convince anyone that Chemtrails don't exist. You got that? You are LOSING the fight.

Of course, another barrage of insults from Dplum, as inevitable as death and taxes. Some things never change

If science, logic and common sense do not convince you chemtrailers, then thats an indictment of all of you. You all certainly are not doing a good job of convincing others that chemtrails exist, since its seen as a fringe kook conspiracy. You chemtrails have no evidence, just silly youtube videos and a string of insults for anyone who brings reality to the tables. I am sure you will follow up with more insults, more wild claims, and your continued inability to ever refute anything with science and logic.

Maybe you can help stewie look for his 600 new tankers, and help human alien find his secret aircraft carriers off the florida coast. Maybe help Gunderson find his secret chemplanes at Ft Sill too

I wonder who it is who is building 600 new tankers? Let's see - there's only a handful of places in het world building 737 or larger sized a/c - the Chinese just announced one - perhaps the NWO is co-opting them??

Thye might be a bit obvious tho - unexplainable numbers of ARJ21's over the US would be an easy thing to see - GECAS (GE's a/c leasing arm) have only orderd & optioned 25 - the other 250 or so orders & options are all in Asia - all you need is a small telescope to connect ot your camer to get perfect detail - much better than the usual grainy pics.

and they're planning on getting production up to 30/year by 2015..so don't hold your breath for 600 of them.....

Or there's the C919 - yet to see seervice and only 100 orders & options.

Who else - maybe the Sukhoi Superjet 100?? - mind you only 230 or so orders & options announced for it - or the An-148 - again if there's any large increase in numbers for these they should be easy to spot.

Another candidate would be the Bombardier C series - although poisoning couldn't start using them until 2013....

It's be pretty big news wherever it is .....600 jets.....at $40-50 million each.......someone's going to be a happy little jet manufacturing exec.....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I think I will cut and paste that post if you don't mind.
It is truly worthy of saving, if only to remind you that you once actually posted that drivel.
You must have been foaming at the mouth, or you can't spell. Or both.
OR. Maybe you actually believe that crap. Pity you if you do. But, pity you either way, you have given me no other choice.

Go for it - I won't be losing any sleep over any potential embarrasment I might suffer, and by all means keep some factual information for a change.

by all means tell us who you think is going to be making them??