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: 6
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwell
HR 2977 This bill clearly speaks of “Chemtrails” eventhough much of our government puts on an act of plausible denial.
PDF Copy of Section 7 of the HR2977 Bill H.R.2977 Section 7 PDF
www.rense.com...
www.dailymotion.com...
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

HR 2977 was proposed and written by an outside organization, and they added all kinds of weird crap to it that they considered possible future space weapons (including UFO technology). Even the lady who was one of the authors admitted that chemtrails were only included as a possible future weapon, not that they currently exist in any capacity today. The rep who presented it, pulled it in embarrassment after he discovered what was contained within it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by kwell
 

Wow. Did you find all those by yourself?
Oh. I guess not.
www.rense.com...

I'm sure you've read them all, especially your favorite one. I'm not sure what it has to do with "chemtrails" or HAARP though. It's pretty much nothing but a fuel air bomb.

A method for producing a high yield explosion without radioactive fallout comprising filling an expendible structure with an explosive mixture of a combustible gas (e.g. methane) and an oxidizer gas (e.g. oxygen) and then detonating said mixture.

4873928

Maybe you can point out which of those patents has anything to do with "chemtrails". I can't seem to find the connection.

edit on 10/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
If these persistent contrails were really just that, then it would have been debunked long ago and less and less people would tend to believe it. But the opposite is true.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Its pretty much impossible to prove a negative, so how do we go about proving something that does not exist? Its doubly hard when you have staunch believers, who disregard the facts, keep repeating the same incorrect information in thread after thread, and some who will even intentionally use false data to prove the existence of their beloved theory. The worst of this group are the folks who are actually making money selling snake oil in relation to this topic. You can bet they make up accounts on web forums and start spamming false information when someone starts to hit them in the pocket book.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Lets just look at this topic from pros and cons:

Cons:
1)There is no logistics structure for the transport of vast quantities of chemicals in secret.
2)There is no tankage for storage of these chemicals at any airports.
3)There are no secret storage tanks on aircraft.
4)There is no pumping equipment for these chemicals on the ramp.
5)The ramp crews do not sign any non-disclosure documentation.
6)The ramp crews would have to be aware of the pumping of any chemical into aircraft.
7)Ramp crew people say its not happening.
8)The pilots would have to aware of any chemicals being sprayed.
9)Pilots have stated its not happening.
10)ATC would have to be aware of any chemicals being sprayed.
11)ATC personnel have stated its not happening.
12)It would show up in the weight and balance of the aircraft if there were chemicals in the aircraft.
13)NOTAMS would have to be filed for aerial visibility hazards at spray points.
14)TFR's would have to be filed for spraying activity areas.
15)The US would have to have unrestricted access to other countries airspace.
16)JP is commonly available for testing to show there are no secret additives in it.
17)The additives that are in JP can be bought online, and tested.
18)The specific weight of JP has not changed any since forever.
19)VOR, Jet routes, and ATC routing account for the patterns seen in the sky.
20)Aircraft fly in banks with weekly, and seasonal scheduling variations.
21)Thermal drafts cause the trails to sometimes stop for sections.
22)Contrails are the same thing as clouds and can persist just as log as clouds, in the same areas.
23) Wingtip vortexes cause fingertip contrails.
24) Ice causes rainbow colored contrails.
25) Chaff, cloud seeding, fire fighting water drops, crop dusting, etc are not chemtrails.
26)The engines have been updated causing them to create more contrails at a wider temperature range.

Pros:
1)We see lines in the sky.
2)Sometimes they make weird patterns.
3)They form clouds.
4)Sometimes they are rainbow colored.
5)They have fingers spreading down sometimes.
6)They start and stop sometimes.
7)I found barium and aluminum in the soil next to my house that has a red brick facade and aluminum siding.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 10/3/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Did you even take a look at the video?

You always flame OP's without providing much substance, why is this?


Probably because everything the OP posts has no substance



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 





Its pretty much impossible to prove a negative, so how do we go about proving something that does not exist?


First off we all know that what people call chemtrails do exist. For the sake of argument I will appease you and call them "persistent spreading contrails". Now you can admit that "persistent spreading contrails" do exist right?

Now if we agree that "persistent spreading contrails" aka "chemtrails" exist. Then we are no longer trying to prove a negative. So your theory that we're trying to prove a negative is bunk.

Hypothetically, let's create a testing scenario. Suppose we have a jet flying at a consistent fuel/air ratio during two test flights. During the first flight they fly to an area and altitude known to be conducive for normal contrails to form. During the second flight they fly to an area and altitude conducive to persistent contrails to form. In theory the exhaust should be the same during both test flights, yes?

Can you prove that the amount of jet exhaust from a normal contrail is the same as in the persistent spreading contrail?



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
First off we all know that what people call chemtrails do exist. For the sake of argument I will appease you and call them "persistent spreading contrails". Now you can admit that "persistent spreading contrails" do exist right?

Now if we agree that "persistent spreading contrails" aka "chemtrails" exist. Then we are no longer trying to prove a negative. So your theory that we're trying to prove a negative is bunk.

The negative is not that the contrails exist, its that they are caused by chemicals being sprayed from aircraft.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Hypothetically, let's create a testing scenario. Suppose we have a jet flying at a consistent fuel/air ratio during two test flights. During the first flight they fly to an area and altitude known to be conducive for normal contrails to form. During the second flight they fly to an area and altitude conducive to persistent contrails to form. In theory the exhaust should be the same during both test flights, yes?

Can you prove that the amount of jet exhaust from a normal contrail is the same as in the persistent spreading contrail?

The amount of exhaust is going to be the same, what is different is the length of time that the cloud lingers. Here, play with this and you'll see what I mean:
Contrail Simulator

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
I'm not really sure whether I believe in chemtrails or not but i'm with the moderator on this one. Even if someone really is spraying something into the air, doing it using civilian commercial aircraft seems ridiculous. Besides the whole fuel distribution issue in airports, just consider how much chemical could really be distributed via the planes exhaust. My guess would be very, very little. You would also then have to assume that whatever chemicals/materials being sprayed are compatible with the combustion going on in the engines. Wouldn't it make a ton more sense to use a tanker plane that could just spray the stuff? I mean really, putting tiny amounts of chemicals into the fuel in the tiny fuel tanks of an airliner vs. filling the holding tanks of a tanker plane to take off capacity. I would liken it to using hatchbacks instead of dump trucks in a mining operation. Also, wouldn't it seem safer to use privately owned, contracted aircraft rather than commercial airliners if you were trying to keep this a secret? Maybe that's just what they want me to believe.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
I'd just like to point out that the picture is fake.

The plane in question is an Airbus A380. Easyjet do not own an A380.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



Lets just look at this topic from pros and cons:

Cons:
1)There is no logistics structure for the transport of vast quantities of chemicals in secret.

False, there is a vast quantity of logistical structure for the transport of chemicals in secret. The amount of drugs that make it into this country by airplane is proof of that.



2)There is no tankage for storage of these chemicals at any airports.

False, chemical storage tankers that are stored at military bases or private airfields are under lock and key.



3)There are no secret storage tanks on aircraft.

False, they do not need "secret" storage tanks. All large jet aircraft have more than one fuel tank and are able to be switched on and off.



4)There is no pumping equipment for these chemicals on the ramp.

Again false, if the equipment is located on a private airfield or military base they would again be under lock and key. Also why would this be necessary? It isn't. There are many different storage tanks for different kinds of fuel.



5)The ramp crews do not sign any non-disclosure documentation.

When a ramp crew is refueling an aircraft do they check the chemical make-up of the fuel? No, so the ramp crew has no idea what kind of fuel they are loading a plane with except for the fact that they trust what the label on the storage tanker says.



6)The ramp crews would have to be aware of the pumping of any chemical into aircraft.

False, what ramp crew tests the fuel they are pumping? None



7)Ramp crew people say its not happening.

I don't believe you have the authority to make this claim. Where are the signed statements made by all ramp crews?



8)The pilots would have to aware of any chemicals being sprayed.

False, how many pilots test the fuel in their tanks before flying? None



9)Pilots have stated its not happening.

Some have said that it is happening.



10)ATC would have to be aware of any chemicals being sprayed.

False, but perhaps they do know and are bound by disclosure agreements.



11)ATC personnel have stated its not happening.

Some have stated that it is happening



12)It would show up in the weight and balance of the aircraft if there were chemicals in the aircraft.

Not if it is mixed into the fuel



13)NOTAMS would have to be filed for aerial visibility hazards at spray points.

Do they have to notify ATC when flying through airspace that is conducive to persistent contrails? No

Do they have to notify ATC when their craft begins to make persistent contrails? No



14)TFR's would have to be filed for spraying activity areas.

Not true, you're under the assumption that these planes are operating under the normal rules of commercial A/C



15)The US would have to have unrestricted access to other countries airspace.

False, no one has said that the USA is the only one with chem-planes



16)JP is commonly available for testing to show there are no secret additives in it.

JP8 + 100 and other fuel additives are military grade fuels and are not readily available to the public for testing



17)The additives that are in JP can be bought online, and tested.

Not all fuel additives are available for purchase by the public. They are also strictly regulated. Especially military grade fuel and fuel additives.



18)The specific weight of JP has not changed any since forever.

Normal JP fuel is not the issue



19)VOR and Jet routes account for the patterns seen in the sky.

In your opinion they do



20)Aircraft fly in banks.

So what ????



21)Thermal drafts cause the trails to sometimes stop for sections.

Proof ???



22)Contrails are the same thing as clouds and can persist just as log as clouds, in the same areas.

False, contrails are not the same as clouds.



23) Wingtip vortexes cause fingertip contrails.

Never has a wingtip contrail persisted and spread



24) Ice causes rainbow colored contrails.

No its actually the sunlight that causes them



25) Chaff, cloud seeding, fire fighting water drops, crop dusting, etc are not chemtrails.

Chaff is a type of chemtrail, they have developed new forms and methods of nano chaff fog



26)The engines have been updated causing them to create more contrails at a wider temperature range.

The only statement you made that i can somewhat agree with



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



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by LondonerBLV
 


Thank you!!!


The plane in question is an Airbus A380. Easyjet do not own an A380.



I was close to running out of characters, in my post regarding the video and photo that started this thread......wasn't able to mention that. Obviously, it's a whimsical look at a "what if" for EasyJet. Rather horrid thought, actually...the possibility of such a company acquiring such equipment, based on the appalling business model that they represent, in the airline industry overall. Know this from personal experience. Reminds me of that perfectly awful "PeopleExpress" in the States, back in the early 1980s......

Of course, the A380 is ill-suited to their route structure....unless (gasp) they decide to attempt some long-haul routes!! Yikes. Still, we can rest assured that the A380 is limited to very few airports, at present, due to its size.

EasyJet is based out of Luton Airport. A lesser-used London alternative airport. Far smaller than Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted. Certainly unsuitable for that type of airplane.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by LondonerBLV
 





The plane in question is an Airbus A380. Easyjet do not own an A380.


Perhaps some planes have been designed to look like existing commercial vehicles but are not actually part of that companies normal operations and are only used for the specific purpose of making chemtrails.

A simple paint job for the purpose of disguise

EDIT:
Easy Jet's track record makes them a perfect scapegoat
edit on 3-10-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
False, there is a vast quantity of logistical structure for the transport of chemicals in secret. The amount of drugs that make it into this country by airplane is proof of that.

The amount of infrastructure required to transport aviation fuel extends to fuel tanker ships, port tank farms, pipelines, airport tank farms, and literally hundreds of thousands of private tanker trucks. No such infrastructure exists for movement of these supposed chemicals, and if there were someone would leak it to the public.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
False, chemical storage tankers that are stored at military bases or private airfields are under lock and key.

The fuel used on both military bases and private airfields comes from the same distribution port as all the other fuel for an area. If you had read any of what I have written, you would understand this. The distribution point is going to be where a tanker port is located. So for example, my company ran the distribution point for more then 50% of the state of Florida, as there are only two major ports with tankage facilities to offload aviation fuel. My company would then distribute that fuel to everyone throughout the state, including the military bases.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
False, they do not need "secret" storage tanks. All large jet aircraft have more than one fuel tank and are able to be switched on and off.

If you read both what myself and others posted above, the fuel is exactly the same in all aircraft tanks as it comes from the same lines. In order to change fuel types the entire underground pipeline (hydrant system) of an airport must be shut down, the lines discharged of their present fuel, and recharged with the new fuel. Its a HUGE process to do this, and shuts down all fueling within the airport when its done. It cannot be done in secret because it causes flight delays to other aircraft who have to wait for the proper fuel to be switched back for them to top off.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Again false, if the equipment is located on a private airfield or military base they would again be under lock and key. Also why would this be necessary? It isn't. There are many different storage tanks for different kinds of fuel.

Again, if you have been reading along then you would know that a ramp lead agent or supervisor has control of what equipment is allowed on his ramp space. This is to prevent someone unqualified from approaching an damaging your aircraft that you have signed responsibility for. There is not secret pumping equipment stored on the ramp, nor is there any allowed to approach an aircraft without the direct supervision of the person running that ramp area.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
When a ramp crew is refueling an aircraft do they check the chemical make-up of the fuel? No, so the ramp crew has no idea what kind of fuel they are loading a plane with except for the fact that they trust what the label on the storage tanker says.

Again, already explained, but the fuel is pumped in gallons on the truck and by weight on the aircraft's fuel panel. The two numbers must justify according to the specific weight of the fuel. Any difference in the fuels weight would reek havoc when you went to justify your fuel load. Additionally, as all the aircraft are tanked from the same hydrant lines, they are all receiving the same gas.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
False, what ramp crew tests the fuel they are pumping? None

The ramp crew has to justify the weight to gallons.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I don't believe you have the authority to make this claim. Where are the signed statements made by all ramp crews?

All the ramp crew personnel that are on this site have all told the same story, same with all the pilots on this site. That's not even to mention the large number of such people I know from outside ATS.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew]
False, how many pilots test the fuel in their tanks before flying? None

They would have to know if you are expecting them to turn on and off the spray such as chemtrail supporters believe they do. They would have to know if they switched tanks as you claimed they do. They would have to know when they fly the patterns that they are accused of making. Etc...


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew]
Some have said that it is happening.

Go look chemtrails up on a pilots forum, and you'll quickly find out they are making fun of you.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
False, but perhaps they do know and are bound by disclosure agreements.

Outside security issues, everything else is public record, which is why you can pull almost everything up online.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/3/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Some have stated that it is happening

Show me one that says they are spraying chemtrails. Not doing in flight refueling, or using chaff, etc. But actually spraying chemtrails. If you don't understand why its not possible, I suggest you look up, NOTAMS, TFR's, MOA's, Flight Plans, Airspace usage, etc...


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Not if it is mixed into the fuel

Yes, it changes the specific gravity of the fuel.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Do they have to notify ATC when flying through airspace that is conducive to persistent contrails? No

It's considered part of their weather briefing and they do have to be aware of visibility restrictions, especially if you're flying VFR.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Do they have to notify ATC when their craft begins to make persistent contrails? No

But according to chemtrail supporters these aircraft linger in the area going back and forth, which creates an aerial hazard to other aircraft. So NOTAMS would have to be filed for someone intentionally doing this type of spraying.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Not true, you're under the assumption that these planes are operating under the normal rules of commercial A/C

ALL AIRCRAFT have to operate under the normal rules of the FAA. That is why the ultra-topsecret “Janet Flights” into area 51 have to fly under 18K feet until they are inside the MOA. This is why Flight restrictions and TFR's are filed both when the Space Shuttles take off and land. Even Airforce One has to abide by the rules of ATC, which is why ATC was involved with secretly handing them off to each other during 911 when they went off their flight plan in an attempt to hide.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
False, no one has said that the USA is the only one with chem-planes

Okay, then multiply the number of people involved in keeping this secret by each country now involved in it.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
JP8 + 100 and other fuel additives are military grade fuels and are not readily available to the public for testing

NO THEY ARE NOT. They are used by the military, but they are the same exact gas used by civilian aviation, and they come from the same distribution port as all the other gas in the area. You can even find JP5, which is specifically engineered for Navy carrier ops at many normal civilian stations, for use with airshows, and in case of emergency landings.

JP-8+100 (F-37) is a version of JP-8 with an additive that increases its thermal stability by 56°C (a difference of 100°F). The additive is a combination of a surfactant, metal deactivator, and an antioxidant, and was introduced in 1994 to reduce choking and fouling in engine fuel systems. Commercially, this additive is used in Boeing aircraft operated by KLM, and in police helicopters in Tampa, Florida.[citation needed] JP-8+100 is also used for Canadian Forces CP-140 Aurora & CC-130 Hercules aircraft.

BTW, Tampa police helicopters are flown out of Vandenberg airport which is a small civilian airport near Brandon FL where you can go take flight lessons. Their fuel comes from the same supply that is used at Macdill AFB, Clearwater Airport, and TPA. Kind of blows your theory out of the water, eh?


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Not all fuel additives are available for purchase by the public. They are also strictly regulated. Especially military grade fuel and fuel additives.

The military has a few secret additives which are used for things such as contrail suppression, but all the additives in normal JP can be bought online as I linked above.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
So what ????

Thats why they group up and appear at VOR intersections in spurts.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Proof ???

Common sense.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
False, contrails are not the same as clouds.

Yes they are, both are water vapor and sometimes ice.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Never has a wingtip contrail persisted and spread

I guess you don't know what a fingertip contrail is.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
No its actually the sunlight that causes them

Now your just being argumentative.


Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Chaff is a type of chemtrail, they have developed new forms and methods of nano chaff fog

Chaff is strips of aluminum dropped in very small quantities to confuse radar, it does not make a visible cloud.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/3/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
A couple of points:

The plane in the video is not an A380

The plane in the picture is an A380, and EasyJet does not have A380's, so it should be easy to conclude that it is fake. Now talking about disguised A380's is ridiculous, if they wanted to disguise a plane, they would disguise one that doesn't attract so much attention ("they" are smart, aren't they ?), like a B737

I really don't understand the fuss about chemtrails, where I live they have always looked like normal CONTRAILS, and there has been nothing odd about them that can't be explained.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, the pilot in command has every right to inspect the fuel (or have it tested) if he / she sees the need to do so, and has the right to cancel the flight if he / she suspects that the fuel quality is compromised in any way.

Ask your pilot friends, or your ATC friends, or if there are any commercial pilots here, please correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 




I guess you don't know what a fingertip contrail is.

I guess if you guys keep on making up new names for contrails then it's kinda impossible to know. There are no definitions that exist for fingertip contrail. So please enlighten me with the definition of your slang term. Also please provide a picture of these so called fingertip contrails made by a wingtip that are persisting and spreading.



Chaff is strips of aluminum dropped in very small quantities to confuse radar, it does not make a visible cloud.




I don't wish to spend hours debating these semantics with you.

With all your answers, you're just being argumentative as well.

Every point you have tried to make has an easy solution to work around the problems you suggest.

It may be your opinion that these are impossible to work around. But IMO not very convincing at all.


edit on 3-10-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text

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



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Please provide context and source to that pic

you claim to be avoiding semantics

yet thats exactly what you are doing

" fog " is a common term to describe the effect of a wide variety of jamming equipment to degrade enemy radar system

as stated previously - chaff is invisible to the naked eye from the ground

an out of context pic does not change that , so stop dancing



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


First, that pic is taken from a brochure put out by the Raytheon corporation. If you want the link it's among the posts in the thread in my signature. Go find it.

Second, this technology isn't that new so you're really showing your dated background of knowledge. You can get this type of equipment on private jets . A newer Lear Jet which is small in it's chaff capacity has the ability to spray chaff non-stop for 15 minutes.

Mod Note--Courtesy Is Mandatory

EDIT:

Here's the link found in this post Chemtrail Debunkers
edit on 3-10-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add link

edit on Mon Oct 3 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT OR REMOVE MOD ACTIONS...THANKS...



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Also please provide a picture of these so called fingertip contrails made by a wingtip that are persisting and spreading.




Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Right, the similarities abound:



Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Every point you have tried to make has an easy solution to work around the problems you suggest.

So whats your work around for the fact that fuel you claim is only available to the military is commonly available at a small civil airport? Yeah, I have a work around for that, generally involves someone not having the slightest idea of what they are going on about.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join