Potential chemtrails evidence?

Source : www.globalpost.com...

2nd Source : www.bbc.co.uk...

First let me state my case, I am unsure about chemtrails, I tend to flip-flop a bit on believing their existance are a deliberate polution or just a natural byproduct of flying airplanes.

However, this case of a plane being forced to land because of a "strange smell" seems odd. Its mainly the language that grabs my attention. A plane by its very nature is very carefully designed, weight is only where it is needed so you dont get extra stuff in there unexpectedly. So a "strange smell" should be almost instantly identifiable by its location and by taking a quick look at the designed contents of the plane. If it was an air con leak, or a gas leak from an onboard oven (Ok I don't like flying and so have no real idea what is actually on these planes, I imagine they have ovens/warmers for food but I could be wrong) or similar they would have said by now. The language being used and the fact that they havent even attempted to identify the smell in the reports just makes me suspicious.

*IF* chemtrails are a secret extra system in planes as has been suggested, then it stands to reason that eventually one will leak / break. *IF* one did leak, it would likely be handled/reported in the exact way this is, no assertations as to what leaked, respitory problems (chemtrails and respitory problems seem to go hand in hand), and "everyone was perfectly safe" but also some were kept in hospital under observation.

Its a bit flimsy I will admit, and I am in no way claiming this to be proof of anything, I just think it may be deserving of some ATS attention, or maybe not. Anyway my first ever thread post so if I have made a cock up - please be nice.

PGRacer

reply to post by PGRacer

A strange smell coming from the kitchen of a Lufthansa flight forced the plane to make an unscheduled landing, and left three crew complaining of respiratory problems.

Smell came from the kitchen, which is located in the rear of those planes, no?
Respiratory problems from bad food? Perhaps mold?

Let's say this plane does have "secret" chemtrail juices somewhere.... the cabin is pressurized and what's on the outside stays outside. I don't think this is much more than a bad food issue, but maybe more will come from this story if there is more to tell.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

I don't think this is much more than a bad food issue

So the plane was supposed to land in Madrid and got diverted to Zurich because of moldy food?
You trying to have me on?


ETA: Interesting article btw.

reply to post by PGRacer


no evidence of " chemtrails " what so ever it sounds more like a galley fault or contamination in one of the trolleys - [ which are pre-loaded on the ground ]

further - unless you are reading a 3rd source which you have not cite - you are embelishing the tail

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

I don't think this is much more than a bad food issue

So the plane was supposed to land in Madrid and got diverted to Zurich because of moldy food?
You trying to have me on?


ETA: Interesting article btw.

edit on 22-10-2011 by Dr Cosma because: (no reason given)

I call them like I see them, and I believe TPTB would spray us like rats in a maze and not lose any sleep over it. I've been looking for solid proof of chemtrails for years and all there seems to be are ground tests that can be argued. I can't stand the condition of our skies past 15+ yrs and would love to find the smoking gun, but this ain't it.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


That's partly my point though, any smell should be almost instantly identifiable because its preloaded with only what it needs and there are manifests showing exactly what was on the plane. Unidentified anything on a plane is highly suspicious.

And I did say potential evidence, I made it clear I was making no ascertations about anything. If its something of note its in the right place, if it turns out to be something perfectly normal then job done, nothing to see.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


I respect your opinion, mine are more or less the same.
But still, even if this has nothing to do with 'chemtrails', still am pretty sure they didn't divert a plane which was going to land in Madrid Spain to Zurich Switzerland.

Has to be something else.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by PGRacer

 

A strange smell coming from the kitchen of a Lufthansa flight forced the plane to make an unscheduled landing, and left three crew complaining of respiratory problems.

Smell came from the kitchen, which is located in the rear of those planes, no?
Respiratory problems from bad food? Perhaps mold?

Let's say this plane does have "secret" chemtrail juices somewhere.... the cabin is pressurized and what's on the outside stays outside. I don't think this is much more than a bad food issue, but maybe more will come from this story if there is more to tell.

What is outside can come inside through the air con system (I may hate flying but Ive seen enough air crash investigations to know that external smoke (gases) can indeed enter the cabin under certain circumstances).

And whilst so far the news reports are saying it came from the kicthen, until they identify the smell I don't see how they can claim to know where it came from, unless they already know and need a cover story.

This is certainly no smoking gun, until further reports come out its nothing at all really, something with the story just doesn't add up to me and I thought it was worth a mention.

Interesting article OP.

The strange odor could have been anything from faulty wiring to burnt toast, and I find it reassuring that in the interest of safety the plane landed.

It's been floating around on the internet for years that some 'employee' had witnessed the covert storage, onboard a civilian flight, of some noxious chemicals with the malicious intent of spraying them on the unwitting public. It was contained somewhere near the toilets if I remember the article correctly. Either way I always found the idea that, with all of the safety protocols involved in civilian flight, that they(insert acronym) would manage to get away with loading, storing and containing obviously toxic and/or dangerous chemicals so close to cabin crew and the public, without anybody noticing, without any accidental spillage, without any witnesses(other than our shady 'employee who doesn't want to be named').

It would seem ridiculous that any agency involved in such nefarious activity would take such risks of being exposed or caught, and yes people, there are good guys out there who do have the publics' safety in mind.

But of course there will always people who believe that (insert acronym) are omniscient and have everybody else, besides themselves, duped, brainwashed, hypnotized, or under some form of mind control etc.

PS, I do fly a lot, and the air on board is recycled as far as I know, it is usually unpleasant and very dry, I would imagine any noisome smells or odors to be magnified and very noticeable to crew and public.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


I know the article you mean I remember reading it when I did some light research on the subject when I first "discovered" chemtrails. It does sound very far fetched as stories go but Implausible should not be confused with impossible.

I also agree that it could be anything from a small electrical fire to burnt toast, but anything of that nature would be fairly recognisable. What I find interesting is I can find no witness accounts anywhere (yet) where someone even equates the smell to something. You would think at least one person would say "it smelt like...x" but so far I have been unable to find anywhere which even attempts to describe the smell as something other than "strange" or "bad".

What was also interesting is that the rescue personnell felt unwell having entered the plane but for the most part passengers on the plane were unaffected.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
But still, even if this has nothing to do with 'chemtrails', still am pretty sure they didn't divert a plane which was going to land in Madrid Spain to Zurich Switzerland.

When a plane needs to land in an emergency, they just land in the the nearest available airport

This is no different from a plane from Philadelphia to Zurich landing in Boston, which also happened yesterday:

www.bostonherald.com...=home&position=recent

BOSTON -- US Airways says it is investigating after a flight bound for Europe was diverted to Boston when crew members noticed an unusual electrical smell in the back of the plane.

Flight 710 from Philadelphia to Zurich landed safely at Logan International Airport Thursday night. No emergency was declared.

None of the 192 passengers on board were injured, but four crew members who reported feeling ill were taken to a Boston hospital as a precaution.

The passengers were later put on another plane to Switzerland.

Hard to say in this case. Several possibilities that could explain this. But the chemtrail vs. contrail debate is certainly a heated one.

I have no hard evidence to go on besides what my own eyes have seen, but from what I have seen, something is being "sprayed" in particular areas of the world. That much is obvious to me. What it may be and for what purpose, I have no idea. I can only trust what I observe, and I know for certain that something is going on. This is real.

Any odd smell on a plane is almost always cause for diversion to the nearest airport unless the source can be positively identified as not actually a danger - the risk of fire is just too much - there are vital systems almost everywhere around the plane, and the example of Swiss Air 111 just off Canada, where they didn't declare an emergency and returned in a fairly leisurely fashion is well known.

It is a safety issue.

Originally posted by VariableConstant
I can only trust what I observe,

I presume yuo see white lines in hte sky?

and I know for certain that something is going on. This is real.

Indeed - air transport by jet aircraft at high altitude is both going on and real.

reply to post by VariableConstant

.....but from what I have seen, something is being "sprayed" in particular areas of the world.

What is "spraying" is the jet engine exhaust. Which contains a lot of water vapor. When the ambient conditions of the surrounding air have enough humidity already present, then that hot water vapor chills and condenses in the very cold conditions.

Result of what you say is "sprayed"? Ice crystals that actually form clouds. Contrails are a form of cloud....artificial clouds, no argument, but mere clouds nonetheless.

That much is obvious to me.

Apparently, not so obvious that you drew the incorrect conclusion from the observation, based on the ignorance of the topic and science.

What it may be and for what purpose....[]/quote]

What it is explained on top. No "purpose", just an effect from our technology, and the reality of our physical environment.

reply to post by PGRacer


As to this story, it is quite a non-event. Though, odd smells emanating from a galley could be just about anything, as already pointed out. Having no description of the odors makes it hard to even hazard a guess, though.

One thing that is absolutely certain, is this has nothing to do with so-called "chem"trails, as they just do not exist.

However, this case of a plane being forced to land because of a "strange smell" seems odd.

Not really.

If it was an air con leak, or a gas leak from an onboard oven (Ok I don't like flying and so have no real idea what is actually on these planes, I imagine they have ovens/warmers for food but I could be wrong) ....

Conditioned air comes from nothing other than the compressed air tapped off from the engines (called "bleed air") that is processed by a mechanical method in the "packs" (or, Air Cycle Machine). Hot compressed air is sent through some air-to-air heat exchangers, cooled by the ambient outside airflow. It can be chilled to just above 32°F/0°C by a process of rapid expansion, using specially designed expansion turbines, inside these ACMs ("packs"). This air is then pumped into the cabin to provide the pressurization needed for flights at high altitude. There are no chemical agents needed, no freon, etc. (Although, the newest Boeing, the 787, is going to be using a different system that does resemble an electric air conditioner....this is to increase fuel efficiency from the engines, by not taxing them to draw the hot compressed air).

Link to some images from Google:


The ovens in the galleys are all electric. NO, no "gas" for them...not only would that be cumbersome, it would be a tremendous fire risk!

*IF* chemtrails are a secret extra system in planes as has been suggested......

There are so such systems, secret or otherwise.

reply to post by ProudBird

There are so such systems, secret or otherwise.

Too late to edit...


Should have written, "There are no such systems........."


/end

I see the same gang of "debunkers" are entering into pretty much every thread regarding the "conspiracy of geo-engineering"

Let's see if I can simplify things a little for everyone.

First of all, we need to stop focusing on what we call this "phenomena".

The point isn't whether it's a contrail or a chemtrail, or an unidentified substance eminating from Santas ass as he streaks across the sky.

The focus should be on the COMPOSITION of [insert description here] and WHY the operation exists.

To that end, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that much of what these "debunkers" propose to be completely normal and benign behaviours and phenomena, are actually developed, and PATENTED plans to alter the earth.

Why has Monsanto developed, and patented, an ALUMINUM RESISTANT SEED??

patft.uspto.gov... 2809.PN.&OS=PN/7582809&RS=PN/7582809

www.scribd.com...< br />
See sec. 65 where it discusses METALLIC PARTICULATE SPRAYED INTO THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE VIA ADDITIVE TO AVIATION FUEL, WHICH MAY REMAIN SUSPENDED IN THE ATMOSPHERE FOR UP TO A YEAR

Also note the date. MARCH 1991

Do you know how toxic aluminum is to plant life? Although naturally occurring in soil, as little as 0.5ppm is enough to stunt growth, and more than that will impede it entirely.
The mid 90's have been generally bandied about as the "institution of the program". Considering that plan was proposed in 1991 this makes a pretty good case does it not?
And if we can assume they were accurate in stating that particulate may stay suspended for up to a year - well, it's safe to say we've had this CHEMICAL CONCOCTION falling onto us for possibly 15 year now.

"Well there must be some environmental evidence of that ...", you suggest...
Right. Let's look into that then shall we?

Let's look at Mt. Shasta:

www.mtshastanews.com... s/x1950206316/Citizens-seeking-answers-to-aluminum-contamination-concerns=

36 tests were submitted from the snow pack with results as follows:
"Snow pack sampled at Ski Bowl on Mt. Shasta tested for aluminum at 61,000 ug/L or 61 TIMES the MCL (max contaminate level)"
"After 1-½ years of exposure to the atmosphere, a Shasta County pond (rubber lined) tested for aluminum at 375,000 ug/l or 375 TIMES the MCL. This came as a surprise to the property owner because the pond tested “0” for aluminum when it was first filled and is in a “filtered location” (forested hilltop away from highway or industry)"
"The Pit River sample tested at 4,610,000 ug/L, which is 4,610 TIMES the MCL."

See a pattern yet?
How about people? Have they been affected?

Let's see a few test results from folks who were curious too:

theintelhub.com...

mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...
mohavecountyconstitution.com...

There is more than a little evidence out there to suggest there is a very LARGE agenda being played out.
This is just a sniff of it, but it is 100% indisputable as evidenced by their own PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS
How much proof do you need? They ADMIT to it for ***** sake.

That's all I have to say about it.

Originally posted by HIWATT

The focus should be on the COMPOSITION of [insert description here]

Absolutely - that would be good.

and WHY the operation exists.

It would be better to establish that "an operation" actually exists in the fist place before leaping to why it exists!!

Why has Monsanto developed, and patented, an ALUMINUM RESISTANT SEED??

Because aluminium poisoning in acid spoils is a BIG problem worldwide - and has been known about since at least the 1920's.

There is aluminium in all soil - the crust of the earth is roughly 7% aluminium, and the most common soils are feldspars - which are part aluminium.

In acid soil the aluminium can form Al3+ ions - which do poison plants.

Somewhere between 40-70% of arable land suffers some loss of productivity from acid soil causing aluminium poisoning, so there is a LOT of money to be made by developing aluminium resistant crops.

And Monsanto is not the only one doing it - if you do google searches for aluminium resistant beans and aluminium resistant rice you will find results from all around the world.

[quot]Do you know how toxic aluminum is to plant life? Although naturally occurring in soil, as little as 0.5ppm is enough to stunt growth, and more than that will impede it entirely.

Not true - aluminium IONs are toxic to plant life - Al2O3 and Al in various other combinations as part of soils are completely harmless. And it is the acidic soil that makes Al ions - nothing else.

And if we can assume they were accurate in stating that particulate may stay suspended for up to a year - well, it's safe to say we've had this CHEMICAL CONCOCTION falling onto us for possibly 15 year now.

The it should be safe to say we would be able to find it in air samples - and yet it simply isn't there.

Let's look at Mt. Shasta:

www.mtshastanews.com... s/x1950206316/Citizens-seeking-answers-to-aluminum-contamination-concerns=

36 tests were submitted from the snow pack with results as follows:
"Snow pack sampled at Ski Bowl on Mt. Shasta tested for aluminum at 61,000 ug/L or 61 TIMES the MCL (max contaminate level)"

Completely debunked - they measured the aluminium in sludge - soil - and then applied the limit for water - so they lied about it being too high!!

Also when proper scientific tests were carried out, and tested at he same labs, guess what - race or no aluminium found AT ALL!!

More discussion of Shasta snow tests - again they test soil - "dirty snow", and misleadingly say the results are for water.

See a pattern yet?

Yep - bad science and possible dishonesty from chemtrail believers.

How about people? Have they been affected?

Let's see a few test results from folks who were curious too:

theintelhub.com...

Wrong again - the levels reported were well within the norm - normal blood levels for Barium are 30-400 mcg/l - all the levels found in Mohave were well within that - and poisoning would not be expected until levels reached at least 2000mcg/l (see page 1435 of the publication)

More discussoin of Mohave barium levels, and why they are now dishonest - their mistakes have been pointed out, and they have not corrected the errors

Sadly it it all just more examples of scaremongering by chemtrail believers, and refusal to countenance the actual science and facts.

reply to post by HIWATT


If the patents are publicly available, why is there no trace at all that any operation is actually happening?

Surely IF needs to answered before you can even contemplate a WHY?

Which aircraft are being used, where from, how frequently, are they operating globally and again, where from with which aircraft.

If Area 51 cannot hide the existence of its pair of unmarked "secret" 737's that fly staff in and out how can an operation of this magnitude be so completely hidden?

If this has been happening for 15 plus years why are the samples in your links misrepresented to fit he argument? Surely that shouldn't be necessary?

And are we saying that Aluminium spraying is what Chemtrailing actually IS, because even that seems to be undecided generally?