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.

 

Chemtrail Plane Crashes in California

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Hi. I'm waiting for any other witness reports of no boom for the plane in the crash that was the original topic of this thread.


Tanks full of jet fuel do not boom, they burn. No one said there was an explosion.




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Hi. I'm waiting for any other witness reports of no boom for the plane in the crash that was the original topic of this thread.


Tanks full of jet fuel do not boom, they burn. No one said there was an explosion.


That's a joke...right? Witness reports state the plane had no boom NOT that the plane didn't go boom. Very cute and clever in any event.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Unread 03-11-2011, 08:34 PM
Buzz123
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
7,142 posts, read 7,910,400 times
Reputation: 1610
Homeland Security (what a Nazi sounding name) is coming for you now. Not supposed to photograph planes that do not exist that fly to a place that doesn't exist.

I don't know how many they have now, but there was at one time a large, plain wrapper, airlines that flew out there daily from here, Southern Calif., and Arizona. Between Area 51, Nellis, and the Test Site, there were several thousand workers and scientists, most of whom lived in Las Vegas. Too bad Clinton created such a brain drain, and put so many professionals out of work when he closed the Site to testing nukes.

[+] Rate this post positively

Read more: www.city-data.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
According to the FAA this particular crash was operating under provision 14 part 91 of federal regulatory code. Have to find out what that is since no reports list a destination.


Part 91 is the general operating rule that all aircraft have to operate under.

There are other parts that airliens and various other types of operation ALSO have to meet - eg Pt 121 for large a/c (10 seats & greater), Pt 125 for business jets, Pt 135 for smaller a/c and helicopters.

so every civilian aircraft is operating under Pt 91 - private pilots, microlights, baloons, gliders, etc - and airlines and some other types of operation have additional ruels to comply with as well



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Thanks for info. - already had it from reading the rules. Since you seem to know your way around perhaps you could find or direct me to a way to find the destination of this particular plane.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Not all aerial refueling aircraft have what are known as "flying booms".

N707AR is the registration Number of the "chemtrail" aircraft brought to our attention by the OP. Here are some pictures of that very aircraft! Take a close look at the last picture of it. The caption says:

The two ports for the refueling hoses are visible under the rear fuselage.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Not all aerial refueling aircraft have what are known as "flying booms".

N707AR is the registration Number of the "chemtrail" aircraft brought to our attention by the OP. Here are some pictures of that very aircraft! Take a close look at the last picture of it. The caption says:

The two ports for the refueling hoses are visible under the rear fuselage.



Correct,, its the US Navy that is the main client of Omega, and most Naval aircraft do not have a receptable for a boom,which is why the Omega 707 has just the two hoses from the wings

This whole idea that this is some chemtrail operation, is just ignorant fear mongering.
edit on 15-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


The destination of this aircraft was to be Port Hueneme-Point Mugu NAS, CA. Quite often refueling aircraft return "home" after a mission.

Here is a crash report that gives the details!

This aircraft was nothing more (or less) than a flying fuel station!

See ya, Milt



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Since you seem to know your way around perhaps you could find or direct me to a way to find the destination of this particular plane.


the NTSB preliminary report says it was a "local flight" - which as I undersand these things is shorthand for landing back at he sme airfield it took of from - www.ntsb.gov...

I don't specificaly know where the Aviation Safety Network Benreclused links to above gets their info from, but the FSF (Flight Safety Foundation) is a well known and respected industry information and safety lobbyist & I would believe it too - it's also likely to be updated more often than the NTSB!



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 

Thanks for that and the pictures. Looked up also pictures on various other sites like Lockheed etc. for probe and drogue just to make sure and verify and so it is.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 

Thanks for that. Understand the whole booming thing now. Intrepid as I am, though, I still have questions and am not yet ready to put this to rest quite as white-washed as you would have it be. BTB what happened to your avatar?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 

Thanks again for that report which I had already read yesterday. There are still some details that puzzle me and hopefully they will be as simply resolved as probe and drogue.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Appreciate your efforts. Didn't know that this is what a local flight means for a re-fueler. Will check tomorrow to verify this.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Appreciate your efforts. Didn't know that this is what a local flight means for a re-fueler. Will check tomorrow to verify this.


www.ntsb.gov...


Another distinction that can be drawn between flight profiles is between local and point-to-point operations. A local flight is one that departs and lands at the same airport, and a point-to-point flight is one that lands at an airport other than the one from which it departed. Typical local flight operations include sightseeing, flight instruction, proficiency flights, pleasure flights, and most aerial observation and aerial application flights.

edit on 16-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by firepilot
 

Thanks for that. Understand the whole booming thing now. Intrepid as I am, though, I still have questions and am not yet ready to put this to rest quite as white-washed as you would have it be. BTB what happened to your avatar?


Well I cant see anything that is suspicious or sinister. When did people start finding aerial refueling to be something nefarious anyways?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


Some of us still believe there are monsters in our closets, I reckon. lol

See ya, Milt



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
A 42 year old plane bought for less than $200,000, hauling $60,000 worth of jet fuel is out refueling Hornets that cost 66 million fully loaded. And this 42 year old plane, strangely enough, is classed as experimental. There's more: in 1969, 9 months after delivery, this exact plane was involved in an accident in Australia where according to the accident report it was "substantially damaged" and "extensively damaged." It spent years off and on in storage including Marana, AZ. (of Evergreen fame) and (you guessed it) the Mojave Desert.

If you search N320MJ you'll find that in 1990 another of these same planes (serial no. 20028 - this one is 20029 was involved in an accident with a fatality for Omega Air at Evergreen in Marana.

This plane, the subject of this OP was fitted with an incomplete refueling boom in 1996.

Lastly, but not unimportant, the empty weight on this plane is 150,000 lbs. (given as up to 171,000 lbs. and down to 141,000 lbs. on some sites) and the maximum loaded weight for take-off is 333,000 lbs. That's a light weight of about 75 tons and a heavy weight of about 166 1/2 tons for those who don't do lbs. Now this heavy weight is without wind and reports indicated that winds were fierce. Also I'm not factoring in fuel density because this is sea level and because back in 1969 the hydrometer was already faulty and I couldn't find a record of it's having been replaced or repaired. Two different sets of numbers in the news stories say that 150,000 lbs. of fuel or 158,000 lbs. of fuel were taken on.

And, absolutely lastly, no foam was used to put out the fire.

Here are the search criteria:
Boeing 707-321B, Serial No. 20029
N707AR (previously N892PA)
Ntsb wpr11pa227

Also a story called "Jet Catches Fire on USS Vinson" which is a description of a training drill using textbook for putting out a jet fuel fire.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I see absolutely suspicious about that any of that. Would you rather they had gotten a newer more expensive plane, rather than pulling one of a boneyard that would have been chopped up soon?
edit on 17-6-2011 by firepilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Summary of the thread so far...

News is "just emerging" of a chemtrail plane crashes!!
No, it was widely reported at the time.

But the plane is a chemtrail plane!!
No, its a refuelling plane.

Its owned by easyfly Omega, who have no link to the military!!
No, its owned by Omega air refuelling. Its a refuelling company.

But there are links to a company seen to be doing spraying!!
Of course, that company is a cloud seeding/firefighting company.

But here's a video showing easyfly Omega operate out of India!!
No, you didnt listen the first time - the correct company is Omega air refuelling.

But its the same trademark!!
No, its just a similarity due to its use of the Greek letter Omega.

But it must have had a secret venting system!!
No, the crashed aircraft was investigated by the NTSB, who found nothing evil.

But Omega not actually having been caught in the act, they have the same connection to this mysterious weather modification project!!
No, you've shown no evidence for this at all.

But if it was a plane crash it would leave a "big crater" because aviation gas is more volatile and explosive!!
No, Jet fuel is definitely NOT more volatile than gasoline.

But Omega Air and Evergreen International teamed up. Its a conspiracy!!
No, that was just an old proposal to make refuelling tankers that never went forward.

But what about the secret unmarked planes with blacked out windows that fly from Mcarren International Airport.
No, they arent sprayers, they are not unmarked, they're passenger flights to area 51.

What about the proof in this link!!
Thats ordinary cloud seeding with small planes that has nothing to do with supposed big jet contrails.

But witnesses say the firefighters didnt spray water on the burning aircraft crash!!
No, you dont spray water onto a fuel fire. Thats bad practise.

But if it was refuelling plane it has to have an extended boom!!
No, not all refuelling planes do. Not this type.

But the plane is second hand and was cheap to buy!!
So what?

But theres still something sinister here!! I'm not ready to let this rest!! There are still questions!!
There is no way to explain away whats in these links and videos!!
The government is involved!!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Initial witness reports included statements like 'no boom' and '148" diameter fuselage' and 'I didn't know refueling was contracted out.'

This part of my post is pure conjecture because I haven't personally talked to any witnesses who were there but here's what I think...I think that some people thought this was a K135 because that's what has done the refueling and that's why there was surprise about the fuselage and the boom and because, apparently, private contract refueling for the military is not really out on the boulevard.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join