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.

 

BUSTED Easy Jet Airlines Caught Aersol Spraying in Europe.

page: 11
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So turbo fan engines cause lots of water vapor but not gasoline or diesel engines? Why so? Is it the composition of the jet fuel or something else?


No. Gasoline and diesel engine produce about the same amount of water. You just don't see it unless it's a very cold day.

Jet fuel: (Kerosene)
C12H26 + 37/2 O2 → 12 CO2 + 13 H2O

Gasoline:
2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O

Even burning dry wood or paper produces a lot of water. Any hydrocarbon has the same result. It's pretty obvious why when you think about the reactions involved.
edit on 3-10-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
[
So turbo fan engines cause lots of water vapor but not gasoline or diesel engines? Why so? Is it the composition of the jet fuel or something else?


Gas and diesel engines crtainly make a lot of water vapour too - that's the white "smoke" that comes out the back of your car on a cold morning.

But usually these engines are operating at low altitude and moderate temperatures - so it doesn't last long if it lasts at all.


The last time I was pumping white smoke out the tailpipe was from loosing oil into the cyclinders and ended up destroying my head gasket. I guess oil has more hydro-carbons per molecule than 95 octane gasoline....


Anyway yes white smoke can come out occassionaly on cold, damp mornings during the winter without any mechanical problems....just not so often where I live....so I forget about it!



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
OP, your video is a fraud. Nothing in the video shows chemtrails, only contrails.

How do I know? Because there is a gap between the aircraft and the beginning of the trail. The gap is caused by heat. It is too hot for the contrail to form that close to the aircraft, so the contrail forms several feet behind the aircraft where the air is much cooler.

If it was a chemical being sprayed there wouldn't be a gap, it would be visible right when it leaves the aircraft.

That is how you can tell what is a chemtrail and what is a contrail. In all my years of watching and being in the sky, I have never EVER seen a chemtrail, only contrails. I do not believe there is a chemtrail conspiracy.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

The last time I was pumping white smoke out the tailpipe was from loosing oil into the cyclinders and ended up destroying my head gasket. I guess oil has more hydro-carbons per molecule than 95 octane gasoline....


Anyway yes white smoke can come out occassionaly on cold, damp mornings during the winter without any mechanical problems....just not so often where I live....so I forget about it!



Smoke and water are very different though. Smoke from burning oil is small particles of soot and unburnt hydrocarbons - the combination of these two things determines how white or dark the smoke is. When you are burning oil you won't see any more water than when burning gasoline. Just more smoke, as oil is less volatile than gasoline, so does not burn very well.

When it's cold, the white cloud is actually condense water vapor - just like your breath on a cold day. It's not smoke.

Here's some good examples of water vapor at ground level:
contrailscience.com...


edit on 3-10-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
20000 ex airline employees see nothing. It's like your mechanic not seeing a stange canister attached to your engine, or your Doctor missing a huge lump on your face even if you fail to see it (which most ATS'ers would).



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I have read numerous posts on "chemtrails". To tell you the truth the jurys still out for me.

Now I live realitively close to an airport, I get alot of traffic over head. Somedays the trails are bad, others not at all. I attribute it to climate and humidity most times, but I do have a question.

On days that the trails are bad. I can see them from horizon to horizon. Even if they are "Aersol Spraying ". What size tank would they need to cover miles with trails? To me the amount that apears to be pumped out is thick, wide and incredibly long.

Thats assuming they are cruising at 30k plus feet, i'm seeing it from almost 5 miles away. Thats if they are flying directly over head.

I'm no expert by any means. But to "me", it would seem they would have to fill the entire fuselage. To create trails that are that long, that thick and that wide.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


lol - yeah I've had smoke like that occasionally too!
But clearly you know what I mean - I wish I lived somewhere it was warm enough for it to be rare!



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by HooHaa
 


Indeed, and the reason that contrails can create something so big is that most of the water in a persistent contrail comes from the surrounding air. Notice when a contrail is not persisting, the trail is quite thin. But when it does persist it gets very wide, while still being very dense.

That's because, when the air is ice-supersaturated, the initial contrail acts a big cloud of seed ice crystals that then accrete more ice - way more water than came from the engine.

ETA: Classic paper on the subject:

cires.colorado.edu...

The paper notes that you don't get more ice crystals as the trail grows, just that they get a lot bigger, some more optically dense.

edit on 3-10-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HooHaa

On days that the trails are bad. I can see them from horizon to horizon. Even if they are "Aersol Spraying ". What size tank would they need to cover miles with trails? To me the amount that apears to be pumped out is thick, wide and incredibly long.

Thats assuming they are cruising at 30k plus feet, i'm seeing it from almost 5 miles away. Thats if they are flying directly over head.


don't know eth answer to your question - but at 30,000, assuming no interveening terrain, the horizon is about 220 miles away - so you can potentialy see and a/c for up to 440 miles of its flight if everything is "flat" - jsut to give some idea of the distances involved.....



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Here is an original idea..........

What if they used crop dusters with the nozzles pointed upwards rather than downwards?

Ok on a serious note it is impossible to know what chemicals are being injected into the atmosphere or how many and when. If the agenda is to make people and animals get sick I am sure no one in their right mind would go around advertising it. It would be covert and probably a military project!

But even commerical planes pollute to a certain degree due to toxic gas emissions from the engine combustion process, regardless how efficient they may be. You will always get unintended by-products from chemical transactions!



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


another thread with zero evidence - and wild claims

Human alien posted the video of the jet spraying chemtrails and yet you cliam that he has zero evidence - and wild claims eh? sorry to brust your bvubble but the chemtrails are real, i have seen them been sprayed in Toronto larger residential areas only.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by daggyz
 





20000 ex airline employees see nothing.


Oh really supposed 20000 ex airline employees see nothing? i guess they dont know that the chemtrails are been sprayed into residential populated areas.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


lol - yeah I've had smoke like that occasionally too!
But clearly you know what I mean - I wish I lived somewhere it was warm enough for it to be rare!


Yeah I know. I was just being funny. Too much seriousness kills ATS with constant doom and gloom on the proverbial menu.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The picture is faked up, probably from this one,

www.cardatabase.net...

of which it seems that Easyjet is in line for a A380, ahead of Quantas, Tut tut. In any case the picture is of no import, and I'm afraid neither is the video.

Quite simply, there is no way to make a visual distinction from what might be considered a contrail or a Chemtrail, at least in that view in the video, as a contrail itself is an ongoing series of chemical reactions, both inside the engine and outside as the exhaust contacts the air, which has as much to do with sacrificial redundancy of engine parts as it has to with unknown, (secret) additives that may be present in the fuel for efficient operation, so there is a concern over jet fuel exhausts on their very own. All of these have all the usual suspects like heavy metals which are toxic and Barium, (in which form at the point of exhaust is not well known) and aluminium in a fine form which can be considered as toxic as far as the human body is concerned.

Ther have also been comments about Barium use in both the atmosphere and above, and in a word it has been done for years,

web.me.com...

The actual use of a sulphate aerosol to combat 'Global warming' (that term is also very current) is very much on the cards, you can look at CFR, (you will have to log in) and UCAR for that info and try elsewhere.

Alien has though highlighted the case for dangerous fumes in the cabin, and it has a high profile in the UK, and the subject of mainstream TV docus' and the research into that could ultimately be definitive as to what exactly is going on with high flying jet exhausts.

BTW, Credit to Uncinus for the way information has been given, pretty rare in this particular topic
edit on 3-10-2011 by smurfy because: Link.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I just don't get this at all. Just so i'm straight, the cemtrail believers think that regular airlines (not military jets) are spewing some kind of secret chemical into the atmosphere and that is what those streaks in the sky are?

Geese, do you know how much testing goes into insuring that fuel is safe to use before it is even distributed to the undergound piping that connects to the airport from the fuel farm? There was a time a few years ago that I remember (I have been in internatioal aviation for 30 years) when the person who was suppose to sign off on the fuel inspection sheet at the fuel farm, where went home without signing off. The result was that there was no gas for any aircraft at the airport, none, many flights were cancelled as a result, just because the fuel was not certified. Fuel inspection to insure it is up to snuff is a requrement, not an option. EVERYTHING is tested in the fuel to make sure that there are no contaminents in it, because what happens if fuel is contanimated? Well it seems the engines just don't like running anymore, we had an aircraft divert and make an emergency landing once because of this exact reason.

As for those claims of auxilarilly tanks or secret nozels and storage areas those are all garbage. Were talking about civil aviation here, anyone who can get a drivers licence and doesn't have anything shady that comes up on a back ground check for security can get right up and close and see everything there is to see on an airplane. There are no secrets, not to mention that weight and fuel are two of the most critical things that are condidered in a flight, more weight, burns more fuel which costs more money. Airlines are aware of pretty much every pound that is on board.

I have read comments from others who are also experienced in aviation, the MOD for one (sorry cant remember name) and I can back his comments and the others completely. I have spent more of my life at an airport and on airplanes than I have not... you learn a lot spending that much time in one vocation.

If people were saying the military are loading up C-130's or B-52's or something and spraying stuff into the air then I would have no argument, but to say that it is happening with commercial air travel... no way.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HooHaa---->>What size tank would they need to cover miles with trails?


Well




Let's forget op specs and SOPs and such and get down to the job of designing an aircraft to fit the mission profile that fits witness statements. WEIGHT CARRYING CAPACITY. Photos show trails that are about the same size as one half of one horizontal stabilizer on a Boeing 757. Full span of the horizontal stab on a 757 is 49'. So we have a trail 12.5' in diameter. So the cross section area is 6.25^2 * pi, or 123 square feet, or 11.4 square meters. Witnesses describe trails that go from horizon to horizon. Line of sight from 40,000' is 265 miles each way, or 530 miles, or 853,000 meters. So the volume of the trail is 9,724,000 cubic meters. To get enough opacity to be clearly visable from 40,000' away, you would need on the order of 20% by volume of the sprayed substance. Since most claim it's aluminum (Al), let's use that. So you need 1,944,800 cubic meters of aerosolized Al. For ease of doing this stuff in my head, let's round to 2 million m^3. Since density is given in grams/cubic centimeter, we multiply 2.8 g/cm^3 times the volume of the Al and get 5,600,000 grams or 56,000 kg. Now pictures of "chemtrails" often show four trails being left, so to leave 4 visible trails of Al from horizon to horizon, you would need to haul 224,000 kg. Since cost is always an object in aircraft design, we would like to use something already flying as a starting point. Oh-Oh - big problem. Nothing flying today can haul that payload. A 757 maxes out at 114,000 kg. The C-5, although much bigger, is limited to 118,000 kg. The king of the heavy lifters, the Russian Antanov An-124, can go a hefty 136,000 kg. Houston, we have a problem. SIZE. We need to carry 8 million cubic meters of the stuff. That is, if the particles are compressed to a solid, a block measuring 200 meters on each side. Drat! Another problem. the 757 interior is only 36 meters long and 3.5 meters wide. And we need an aircraft cabin 200 meters long and 200 meters wide. Maybe we should talk to the Russians. Nope, no help there. The Antanov cabin interior is also only 36 meters long. WING LOADING. To be able to fly and not have the wings fall off, we need to keep wing loading, that is the total weight of the beast divided by the wing area, at about the 700 kg/m^2 level. The 757 is 661 kg/m^2. If the empty aircraft is really light, let's say it can carry its own weight, and the only thing I've ever flown that could do that was the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, gross weight would be about 450,000 kg, so we need about 650 square meters of wing area. In order to operate at altitude we will need an aspect ratio (span/chord) length of 8 or so. So we use the formula 8x*x=650, and see that we need a wing span of 200 meters and a chord of 25 meters. Holy embiggenate Batman! That's 600 feet plus change. That's four 757s wingtip to wingtip. Or maybe I should say winglet to winglet if we're talking the 757-200WL or 757-300 aircraft. Has anybody noticed a 600 foot long, 1200 foot wide(including cabin), and 600 foot tall behemoth cruising the friendly skies lately? Living an empirically based reality is such a buzz kill.


Quote from this post.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Easy jet havent been busted doing anything, show me the arrest warrants and court papers, you cant so dont make pathetic fantasys up.

I work for Jet 2 and have worked for Easy jet, in fact ive worked in the business for 25 years. And trust me it would be impossible to cover up such a thing from the ground crew. The scale of the cover up would be to big to even think about. Most of the ground crew that turn flights around and refuel are employed by the Airport not the airline. So it would take a cover up that coverd the whole planet and tens of thousands of airport staff. With those sort of figures there would hundreds of people comming forward and speaking out, can you name any that have solid evidence ?.

You would then have to bribe all the aviation authorities, in every country, to turn a blind eye to spot checks and yearly overhauls, the more you rationaly think about what it would take to chem spray the more absured it becomes to even try on a commercial basis.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misterlondon
im no expert but the picture you use in your post lokks fake...


Let's see:

• 4 engines, 2 contrails
• Both contrails are identical

Fake? You bet.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


Ha ha, that's some funny stuff, but totally accurate. I think people are under the impression that it would be easy for a fully loaded passenger jet to carry these extra bottles of cemtrail making goodies, fact of the matter is that there usually isn't much payload or space left. LOL at the 600 x 1200 foot aircraft, hey maybe that's the triangle shaped UFO that everyone keeps seeing, that' s the culperate that's making them cemtrails!



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by gman1972
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 
I think people are under the impression that it would be easy for a fully loaded passenger jet to carry these extra bottles of cemtrail making goodies,


In fact the bean counters would be very unhappy if i made the habit of uploading an extra ton of "just in case fuel" on a windy day. So flying around with lots of chemtrail fluid is way out of the question.

Being a low cost airline we're also close to MTOW most days, so unless the pax carry bottles with chemtrail stuff that they pour in the lavatory sink it can't be done.




top topics



 
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join