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.

 

a look into what is going on with our government.

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


No, because, they inject it PRIOR to the combustion stage of the engine. That means that it would have to survive going through the combustion chamber. And water injection only has enough water in the system to cover take off, and climb out. It's a very small tank, as it has a very limited use. It's also that huge black trail that people have posted pictures of previously.

As AtG said, it hasn't been used in years, because the new engines (such as the TF33 on the H model B-52)have enough power, that they don't need the extra power to get airborne. The F and G model B-52s used 8 J57-P-43W engines, that produced 13,750 pounds of thrust each (the A-E models used earlier model J57s). The H model uses the TF33-P-3 turbofan. It has 8, producing 17,000 pounds of thrust each.




posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mactheaxe
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Do you realize the amount of power the base commanders hold? We let blackwater have the run of our base, no questions asked. we let them pick from random weapons that they could use. You know why? because Instructions were given to us to do so.

Once again, do have you served in the military?


How did the contractors go from being unknown to being Blackwater in just 2 posts?


Get your story together before trying to pull the wool over our eyes



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


You have the right to your opinion and say you dont believe me and this could not have happened because you have never seen or heard of a B52 doing this, but sorry ,I was there and it was so strange that I will never forget it and if you study history of military experimentation you will find THEY DONT WANT YOU TO KNOW.
Thats why its called covert.I have no interest in making up a story just to make some conversation, I just had hoped someone had seen this or could explain why it occurred.But none of you info can explain away what I seen.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 





Thats why its called covert


Just wondering how covert you think a B52 is gonna be at tree top level?

But,look I may have good news, as I may have found what you saw flying.....



Could have had an oil leak and that could be the white smoke you saw...

You never know...



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Yea thaaaaaaats what happened ,I just seen a toy model and not a real B52.....NOT.
Make jokes all you want ,I think it is a serious issue and you should care more about you're country and be vigilant in defending it from out of control researchers bent on taking over the environment.
So tell me what is in these tanks ,cloud brighteners or something to make us sleep better.lol
edit on 17-4-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Water. That's anything but a chemtrail plane. I'm on my phone so i can't tell exactly which one until I Getty back to my computer. Those tanks transfer water around to alter the center of gravity in flight. The A380, 777-200, and 787, all used them and have pictures of them installed.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So they load thousands of pounds of water onto the plane lowering fuel milage ....to just move it back and forth??????reeealy.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Stay with me here.... Its called, wait for it, "flight testing". The barrels are there when they are TESTING the plane, and then are removed when they're done with that portion of testing. Yes really.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 





Yea thaaaaaaats what happened ,I just seen a toy model and not a real B52.....NOT.


Easy now, I was just trying to lighten the mood which is why I put this at the end...


I can't say you did or didn't see one, but did anyone else hear or see this thing?

I ask because a plane that size at tree top level is bound to cause a stir... and the news would surely have been notified... Although I could be wrong....



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


There's water in them thar tanks. Pumping it around allows for the flight characteristics of a new model to be thoroughly tested under different load conditions, nobody wants nasty surprises with a load of fare paying passengers on board a brand new type.

There are several images of this type doing the rounds because the Airbus A380, Being 747-8 and Boeing 787 are all quite new models. Expect to see similar images from the Airbus A350 when it starts flying later this year.
edit on 17-4-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 





So they load thousands of pounds of water onto the plane lowering fuel milage ....to just move it back and forth??????reeealy.


Yes just to move it back and forth...

Here this should explain it for you...



Sorry no chemtrails there, just water...
edit on 17-4-2013 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
The last few replies to your posted image are what debunking is about. Revealing the truth behind the lie that Chemtrail promoters have adopted.

What's it called when the Chemtrail believer just ignores all of that and carries believing and using such images?



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 





,I think it is a serious issue and you should care more about you're country and be vigilant in defending it from out of control researchers bent on taking over the environment.


And did I say you thought otherwise?

Wow, so serious people don't enjoy a chuckle once in a while?

And who says I don't care about my country?

Not to sure about your environment, but mine is fine because I understand that weather changes and why it changes...

Which is a useful tool when trying to find the reason contrails can persist for long periods of time, or dissipate fairly quickly.

And it helps to understand that geoengineering is far from actually being done, because it could hurt more than it helps.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Airbus A380:



Boeing 777-200LR:



Boeing 747-8:



Boeing 787 (look, it's even at an airshow, so not a super secret chemtrail plane):




posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The last few replies to your posted image are what debunking is about. Revealing the truth behind the lie that Chemtrail promoters have adopted.

What's it called when the Chemtrail believer just ignores all of that and carries believing and using such images?


Normal believer behavior.
See it all the time.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So they load thousands of pounds of water onto the plane lowering fuel milage ....to just move it back and forth??????reeealy.


no, not at all.

they do it to test the loading limits of the aircraft - particularly how assymetric fore- and aft-loads screwing up the centre of gravity will affect flight safety.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


The day The B52 was spraying I was fishing alone on the current river in south mo, it is a very remote area next to the mark twain national forest and sparsely populated ,perfect for testing what ever they want and not many people, so I dont think many seen it on TV.
As for the TANKS ON A PLANE , What you guys say does seem to make sense but it would also be perfectly plausible that this setup could be used for alterior motives,so again these things are hard to prove if you dont have access to vital info that the public should know.
The comment that it was just an oil leak sounds good but oil smoke is black or blue not billowing thick white substance , and all eight eng's turned off the white substance SIMULTANIOSLY for about 100yards then TURNED BACK ON SIMULTAINIOSLY. This is a vital clue ,timing is every thing in engineering.
What make more sense is a delay in switching one empty spray tank to a full one,SOMEONE SKREWED UP IN THE PROGRAMING CONTROLL CIRCUIT.
edit on 18-4-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


So what is your theory about what the B52 was doing? All of the chemtrail photos and videos I've seen have been from planes around 7 miles up. I've seen claims about trails being left too low to be contrails but never any photographic or video evidence to support these claims apart from pictures of trails near the horizon which are obviously still high up just a long way away.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


The day The B52 was spraying I was fishing alone on the current river in south mo, it is a very remote area next to the mark twain national forest and sparsely populated ,perfect for testing what ever they want and not many people, so I dont think many seen it on TV.


Pretty much anywhere on land is likely to have someone within a km or 2 or it - not matter how "remote" it seems.

for real isolation go to the middle of the Pacific Ocean - B-52's can actualy fly that far - or antactica or somewher that is not actually contiguous with habitation!



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Well tanks could theoretically be installed in a plane and used for chemical spraying IF there was also an apparatus to get the contents outside during flight, yes, absolutely.

BUT, the inescapable fact is that these images are presented as defacto evidence of chemplane interiors by the sites that carry them, not as representative what ifs, and those claims are a lie.

When you look at it logically all claims of actual evidence of spraying operations such as these are a lie. For instance here the images arent actually chemplanes, elsewhere the GE reports are about theories, not operations, the patents are paper ideas, not photos of equipment. etc etc, any subsequent claim of "ah well, it's possible that it might be" is simply straw clutching. You would think that if so many people and so many website "knew" about chemtrailing after 20 years of the claim something tangible would have appeared by now.

This is where Chemtrail theory falls on its arse for me. All that guff about contrails not persisting or there being far more trails than before etc etc are just red herrings that are easily explained, it's the lack of real evidence PLUS the preponderance of obvious fakery and pure supposition in its place that's the killer.


edit on 18-4-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join