Busting a hoax before it happens... - Fake ash cloud created for new plane equipment tests

Fake ash cloud created for new plane equipment tests

www.bbc.co.uk...


Pic shows a clip from the BBC video of the Airbus 400 taking part in the experiment

I'm flagging this up here because I know that sooner or later it will appear as a claim of proof of chemtrails, given the propensity of certain elements to twist videos, and attempt to usurp footage, I think this one is worth noting.

What the video shows is an Airbus 400M involved in creating a fake ash cloud (1 tonne of volcanic ash was ejected out of the back of the plane) over the Bay of Biscay so that a camera system for detecting them can be tested - in the wake of the Icelandic volcano in 2010.

I am certain we'll see this video on the forum in a few months as "proof" of chemtrails/geoengineering - but all it proves is that Airbus and Easyjet tested a camera system.

reply to post by neformore


I saw this on the news earlier today and thought the same thing as you Nef!

The new tech aside, I was surprised they had a flying A-400M - I thought they were having problems with the engines last I heard and it's seriously behind schedule.

reply to post by neformore


You claim it was ash cloud but do you have the chemical analysis of whatever it was they were dropping for us to see along with the chain of custody? lol See how easy it is whenever someone claims 100% proof of anything?

reply to post by neformore


Wow she really looks nice in the air, here's hoping they get the kinks worked out.

The Bot

I so appreciate the context of this thread…..

head 'em off at the pass.

S/F

superman2012
reply to post by neformore

 

You claim it was ash cloud but do you have the chemical analysis of whatever it was they were dropping for us to see along with the chain of custody?

You mean something like a publication by Airbus with lots of people willing to give their names and saying where the ash came from, like this:

The ash used in the test was from the 2010 Eyjafjallajokul eruption. It was collected and dried by the Institute of Earth Sciences in Reykjavik. easyJet then collected it and flew it to Toulouse.

The ash, which was the consistency of fine talc, recreated accurately the conditions of 2010. Creating an ash cloud provided the team with an advantage because they knew exactly how much ash was in the atmosphere.

-

lol See how easy it is whenever someone claims 100% proof of anything?

didn't seem to hard to come up with some pretty credible documentation - how hard did you look??

reply to post by neformore


did you know that the very same 2010 iceland volcano eruption undid more than half of all human co2 reduction effort in

history?

and now they're spreading more around?

how is this any different from the POS eco-terrorist that dumped tons of iron oxide [actually from industrial scrap] into the pacific?

one wonders if all the recent dead fish and cetaceans in the pacific died as a result from neurotoxins in the water from excesive algae blooms?

sheeple will of course blame it on the non-existent fukushima, much easier and appeals to the xenophobic.

this is the same diseased mentality that saw nothing wrong with detonating nukes in the van allen belt.

who gave these vandals leave to play with the weather? of course it won't be their hands burned when inevitable consequences come home to roost,
no-oh, they'll be nice and snug in their DUMBS they'll be.

howmuch4another
I so appreciate the context of this thread…..

head 'em off at the pass.

S/F

indeed it's much easier to move the goalposts and change/control the definitions
if you get there 1st.

reply to post by Metaphysique


Exactly the opposite I would have thought - the OP remains to highlight exactly where the goalposts aer for this thread.

[SNIP]

Metaphysique

howmuch4another
I so appreciate the context of this thread…..

head 'em off at the pass.

S/F

indeed it's much easier to move the goalposts and change/control the definitions
if you get there 1st.

edit on 13-11-2013 by Metaphysique because: (no reason given)

indeed if moving the goalposts means posting facts ahead of the chemie's using youtube videos and ignorance for arguments….

reply to post by stumason


It was a problem more with the FADEC more than the engines, although a couple problems did crop up that were solved pretty quickly. They began deliveries last month or so.

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Metaphysique

 

Exactly the opposite I would have thought - the OP remains to highlight exactly where the goalposts aer for this thread.

Did you mean to offer some actual evidence or comment on the content?

really? and since when is the OP the authority beyond all appeal and dispute here?

or you for that matter?

the op is [re]setting the goalposts and defining the terms.

that's not how it works, except for religious fanatics of course.

and no, you did not think gaul, you lapped up unquestioning.


no surprise there, as I'll bet this thread makes you all nostalgic for the sixties doesn't it?

didn't think or question then either...


though of course for people with their heads stuck in the whole world looks upside-down


[SNIP]

howmuch4another

Metaphysique

howmuch4another
I so appreciate the context of this thread…..

head 'em off at the pass.

S/F

indeed it's much easier to move the goalposts and change/control the definitions
if you get there 1st.

edit on 13-11-2013 by Metaphysique because: (no reason given)

indeed if moving the goalposts means posting facts ahead of the chemie's using youtube videos and ignorance for arguments….

ROFL as if playing word games and being a master debater gives you a direct connection to truth and knowledge.
alas your using the term chemmie shows you up for the fundamentalist fanatic you are.

but that's much easier than showing me these so called FACTS I keep hearing about...

Metaphysique

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Metaphysique

 

Exactly the opposite I would have thought - the OP remains to highlight exactly where the goalposts aer for this thread.

Did you mean to offer some actual evidence or comment on the content?

really? and since when is the OP the authority beyond all appeal and dispute here?

Sorry not sure where I said that.

However the topic of the post is het OP, and the OP is there for all to see so that makes it difficult to shift any goalposts in this thread.

sorry you misunderstood.

did you mean to provide any additional evidence or comments on the content?

Only as much as you.

[other than the usual pusillanimity and sniping, perhaps a link to contrailscience?]

I'll leave that to you

neformore
Fake ash cloud created for new plane equipment tests

Strictly speaking it isn't a fake ash cloud I reckon - the ash is actual, honest-to-goodness, real volcanic ash!!

It is, however, definitely an ARTIFICAL ash cloud

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I didn't actually believe it *eyeroll*, just playing devils advocate, and for all you know, a chemical could have been added at the last minute.

Again, just playing devils advocate for people that haven't heard of that.

You could pour yourself a cup of coffee that you made yourself, however, I could put any number of chemicals into it when you are not paying attention. Nothing is infallible.

Edit: I didn't look hard at all, or even a little! My ideas don't come to me like other peoples ideas do, Google.

reply to post by superman2012


Sorry - some times it is too hard to spot the irony!!

Zaphod58
reply to post by stumason

 

It was a problem more with the FADEC more than the engines, although a couple problems did crop up that were solved pretty quickly. They began deliveries last month or so.

gee zaph,
why bring up FADEC and not explain what it is

True full authority digital engine controls have no form of manual override available, placing full authority over the operating parameters of the engine in the hands of the computer. If a total FADEC failure occurs, the engine fails. If the engine is controlled digitally and electronically but allows for manual override, it is considered solely an EEC or ECU. An EEC, though a component of a FADEC, is not by itself FADEC. When standing alone, the EEC makes all of the decisions until the pilot wishes to intervene.

FADEC works by receiving multiple input variables of the current flight condition including air density, throttle lever position, engine temperatures, engine pressures, and many other parameters. The inputs are received by the EEC and analyzed up to 70 times per second. Engine operating parameters such as fuel flow, stator vane position, bleed valve position, and others are computed from this data and applied as appropriate. FADEC also controls engine starting and restarting. The FADEC's basic purpose is to provide optimum engine efficiency for a given flight condition.

FADEC not only provides for efficient engine operation, it also allows the manufacturer to program engine limitations and receive engine health and maintenance reports. For example, to avoid exceeding a certain engine temperature, the FADEC can be programmed to automatically take the necessary measures without pilot intervention.

I do hope you're not playing games here

but I'll bite, were the problems software related and fixed by some patch?
valve control perhaps?

[runs off cackling]

reply to post by Metaphysique


It had nothing to do with any "valve problem". The software took longer then expected like any aircraft program. Software is always the sticking point.

The engine itself had metal shavings fund after a flight from a cracked cover.

Metaphysique
gee zaph,
why bring up FADEC and not explain what it is

Obviously to give you an opportunity to learn something factual