IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
(geoengineering) Eu Carrier Pilot Blows Whistle, Operation HYDRA: Senior Mgr Pilot Turns Whistleblower on Chemtrails

JimMac
post Aug 7 2013, 05:24 PM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



I haven't been posting in P4T for quite some time due to family circumstances which consumed my time, however in the past year I have become more acutely aware of chem-trailing ( originally thanks to lunk and Quest who have never stopped feeding the board info). I began to research the topic aggressively after I started to see the chemtrails, a phenomena now observed daily in my neck of the woods, Simcoe county, Ontario (Canada). The reason I even spotted them at all, is thanks to lunk's persistence on the topic. (thanks lunk, you finally opened my eyes)

One of the more prominent geoengineering activists whose work i follow, a Brit builder living in France named Max Bliss, (some of you are no doubt familiar with Max) is a steadfast researcher of the phenomena. Recently Max Bliss received volumes of data from an anonymous Eu carrier company pilot/manager. This info discloses detailed information on project 'HYDRA' and can be found here on geoengineering watch. Operation HYDRA: Senior Management Pilot Turns Whistleblower on Chemtrails

In following P4T recently again i am surprised this topic is not taken more seriously the community in general, but then I recall how I originally dismissed chemtrails as something too conspiratorial, or for lack of a better word, 'fringe'. My eyes are wide open now, after watching the spraying in my airspace almost daily. Chemtrails are real folks, and i don't think its exaggeration to say that this is the most deadly attack on our biosphere in the history of humankind. I'll leave it there.

All the best,
Jim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Aug 7 2013, 06:11 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



twa 800 and chemtrail tank? no thanks. the hundreds of witnesses witnessing a missile streaking towards the sky does not comport with that theory.

i'm convinced chemtrails are a real and present danger to humanity, but why muddy the picture?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Aug 7 2013, 06:31 PM
Post #3





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Aug 7 2013, 06:11 PM) *
twa 800 and chemtrail tank? no thanks. the hundreds of witnesses witnessing a missile streaking towards the sky does not comport with that theory.

i'm convinced chemtrails are a real and present danger to humanity, but why muddy the picture?


Right, agree. I was with my ex-GF of several years that night, (an ex-NASA employee with a degree of security clearance) watching the news report. There was a local reporter on the beach reporting eyewitness reports of a missile and then an explosion. The GF commented casually, "Well, that's the last we'll hear about that report, and maybe even the reporter...'. Being somewhat naive those days, I replied, 'What do you mean by that!?' Whereupon she filled me in on some facts of life.

Back to the topic at hand, and as they say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Here's the subject material isolated:

(a couple of emails to Max Bliss below)

“……Max

The time has come to come clean. Hopefully what I write here will help end the world-wide atrocity that I have been a part of. I know that what I say will shock many, but seeing that you seem to be almost there with uncovering the truth, the sooner this is out in the open the better.

Do you know, I am a management pilot with one of the carriers that has figured in your videos; I am involved in the regulatory side of things, which is required because since just about everything we do in these spraying programs is illegal according to the CAA and JAA regulations, if a pilot becomes aware of what we are doing he or she will come to me first and I, supposedly, take it from there. Surprisingly very few of our pilots have become aware of the program, but your videos have alarmed the small group of managers I report to, and I fear the cat may soon be out of the bag.

At first I thought you had actually cracked it. From your latest videos you have accurately identified the method of getting the Al2O3 into the atmosphere, but not where it is stored. Right in the middle of most airliners, apart from the very short range ones, is the CWT or centre-wing fuel tank. As aircraft are fuelled, the tanks in the wings are always fuelled first to preserve what is know as favourable wing bending moments. Unless the aircraft is scheduled for a long-range flight, the centre wing tanks are empty and can be isolated if required by the use of shut-off and cross-feed valves.

Doing it this way allows us to accurately load the right amount of the material and avoid overloading the aircraft, which is a safety risk, particularly on take off. You are correct about the TMA. Other methods of delivery required too much in the way of pumps and switches, which meant too many people would notice what was going on. Under the guise of fitting an inerting system, which is automatic and has no cockpit controls, we can pressurize the CWT enough so that once a simple valve is actuated remotely, the TMA is drawn through the lines by the pressure differential and flows into the exhaust where it does its thing. And doing it this way has only one drawback, it limits “spray flights” by us and other airlines to shorter range flights but that is just a matter of scheduling and logistics.

Really the only people who need to be involved are the people who empty the honey-cart who must purge the TMA system after use; they are required to wear protective clothing for the honeycart job which also covers them for accidental exposure to TMA; and the refuellers who must configure the fuel system from a panel under the wing; have you ever wondered why most refuelling systems have two pipes attached to the wings?

Extraneous weight issues are handled by a small team of flight dispatchers, who exclusively handle the spraying flights. Some time before each flight they check the destination, alternate and departure airports, the planned loads and make sure that the prevailing winds will guarantee that the runways most likely to be used have a performance safety “pad” that will compensate for the extra weight that the pilots are unaware of. If there is any doubt then the TMA will not be loaded. Some other safety precautions include adjusting FMC stall margin values so the pilots do not climb too high for their REAL weight which could cause a high altitude stall. One of the ways we realised that was a problem was graphically illustrated back in 2009. Guess what I am talking about…

Under this program, I have personally been subjected to death threats should I ever reveal what is happening. Low level personnel are simply trained to do the job and have no real idea what is happening. Little do people realise that those doing what are considered menial jobs, refuelling and “waste disposal” are paid very handsomely for what they do, and their general ignorance means they don’t ask any questions. I guess that is just as well because they are monitored 24/7.

By doing this I hope to end the fear and guilt I and others have been suffering. Long ago I was spun a tale about how this program was a beneficial thing for the world and I believed with all my heart. Eventually, after much soul searching.. I realised the evil in which I was such an integral part….”

I am sure as a first time reader, you may be questioning is this real…? Well of course the emails are real and genuinely sent from who knows where, the techy people can deduce that.

I have done a great deal of research, the reason the whistleblower contacted me is because of my recent physical investigation when taking a flight, of one of the carriers I have seen spraying. I took photos and remembering much of the likely technical possibilities made assumptions and speculated on the likely system used. I contacted one of the internet radio shows I have been on and they ran a show rendering the pictures and my ideas. I was a little too quick and made mistakes, actually very basic mistakes. However, according to my new source I was actually close.

So onto the next email……I have purposefully left out some of the pictures for obvious reasons….


“……Hello Max

This message contains some graphics which if released, may expose my identity to those in the know. How that is handled by you is critical. I will let you know what you can share and what is for your eyes only. Secrecy is still very essential at this time.

My well being depends on it.

Earlier I told you about the unease regarding the use of TMA. Some of the reasons are obvious. Some not so. At the core of some of the problems is the cost of producing it in worthwhile quantities. Google some of the companies that sell it for an idea about how much just one spray flight must cost the taxpayer.

Europe is a problem because the vast majority of flights flown in the Eurozone are made by smaller aircraft such as the ones my company fly. Intercontinental, and longer range flights are more efficient because they are done by larger jets which can actually carry aluminium oxide in raw form. I will also explain how that is done in this message.

So…. as management, by law, we are not allowed to dictate to our captains how much fuel they carry on any particular flight. As professionals they know that fuel is expensive and they generally do not over-order but we must devise methods to ensure they do not order so much fuel for a particular flight so as to require the unused capacity of the CWT.

Control of this factor is done by using scheduling and logistics as explained earlier, and also by what is called the minimum equipment list, or MEL’s. On every aircraft, this is a list of defects that can be legally carried on a flight. Nowadays, all aircraft have a lot of redundancy built in to all their systems to allow for this. The MEL list allows aircraft to fly with minor defects and then be repaired in scheduled downtime.

Here is a photo of the MEL we use to allow the aircraft to fly, but prohibits using the CWT.

( NOT SHARED)

Earlier I told you how the CWT needs to be isolated so the TMA can be loaded. Reading this MEL you can see that even if one of these valves isn’t working then the CWT cannot be used in normal flight. Every flight that we use to spray carries this bogus MEL. Any suspicion by pilots that we carry this MEL too often is managed by making sure that no captain is rostered for a spray flight more than once a month. Rostering is tightly controlled by management. Every operator of the aircraft we fly has this MEL list so you may release this information.

Now to the larger aircraft. One of the problems with the smaller aircraft is that their cargo compartments are only designed to load passenger baggage and maybe a small amount of parcels via hand and a belt loader. Consequently there is no extra room in them for tanks/pumps etc required for really large scale spraying. Having this restriction means going down the TMA route, with all its attendant problems.

Extra negative factors include the impossibility of hiding the weight of large amounts of aluminium oxide from pilots on the smaller aircraft. “Meth”, as it is known by the few of us intimately involved, weighs less than the equivalent amount of fuel, so there is no real problem there. The extra weight is hidden by the methods explained earlier. Really large scale spraying however requires a bigger solution. Among the other problems of TMA is that aluminium oxide is only one of the byproducts created when TMA combusts, so burning a kilo of it creates much less than a kilo of AL2O3.

Intercontinental sized aircraft have advantages that are the answer to these problems. Like their smaller cousins, they can also carry TMA using the same systems if required, and more of it. Some, like the earlier domestic version of the 767 do not have a CWT, but most do.

High capacity aircraft like the A380, 747, A340, 777, A330 and the ER versions of the 767 all have the two things that make them ideal for large scale spraying. One is a large volume CWT and the other is two large capacity cargo compartments where aluminium oxide, mixed into a slurry with methanol, (for dispersion) can be loaded inside specially converted ULD (Unit Loading Device) containers.

When a spray flight is scheduled, a calculation is made by specially trained flight dispatchers as to the availability of payload weight that can be used for spraying. Early in the process, it is determined if both aluminium oxide and TMA can be used; just TMA for longer flights or if there is no spraying availability; generally this occurs on ULH (ultra long haul) flights.

At all times the weight limitations of the aircraft must be observed. Safety is paramount; the risks of TMA notwithstanding. You can see a loading message below. I cannot allow you to publicly disclose this because it is proprietary and was an actual flight, and may endanger a sympathetic contact I have in another company.

(NOT SHARED)

Some of this is a bit arcane but bear with me. In line 8 you can see a value called the Zero Fuel Weight. This is the key to making sure pilots do not know they are carrying spray material and still keeping the aircraft safe. The ZFW is the weight of the entire aircraft, including passengers and freight, minus the fuel. On the right of the actual value is the regulatory maximum that this value can be, on this particular aircraft type it is 175000 kgs.

For this particular flight, you can see that the ZFW was almost at the maximum value. On this particular day, the weight of the passengers and freight carried, (the total traffic load in line 6), which the pilot has no means to physically check, was altered to reflect the weight of the passengers and cargo PLUS the spray material, in this case both aluminium oxide and TMA.

One major advantage of this system is that it is foolproof from a safety point of view. Landing with spray material still on board, say in the event the remotely operated release valve failed, could mean big trouble if that weight was not accounted for by the pilot on landing. You can see that if the material sprays correctly, the aircraft will actually be much lighter for landing than the pilot realises, but all that means is that the landing is much safer from an operational point of view. On the other hand if the valve failed (rare but it has happened) the weight of the material is procedurally (but unknowingly) accounted for by the pilots in their landing distance calculations that they must carry out, and therefore the risk of a landing over-runs is negated.

Under this system, the critical speeds that are always calculated for a safe take-off are also inherently correct.

Now to look how all this is done in practice. All large aircraft are refuelled from a single point, by convention, usually under the left wing. In the following photos you can see the twin hoses that are used, and if you look very carefully at the CF6 engine in the background and the foreground in the second , you will see the same spray nozzles that are present on the 737 engines.

I took these photos myself at a large European airport, they are not proprietary so you may distribute them, or get your own CF6 photos off the net. Visually, the spray pipes are small but they have high capacity pumps inside the pylon (inside the white access panel on the pylon) which forces out large quantities of material in a small amount of time if required. Energy is diverted from the exhaust gas stream to power these pumps…. they are simple, foolproof, operate continuously when the engine is running and require no flight deck control.

Going with this system means that flexibility is maintained. Using TMA for longer range flights, loading can be done using the second hose. Lines carrying TMA and their access points, are part of just about all airports. Located only at the left hand wing, to keep the operation as simple as possible, they are pressurised to reduce the chance of air getting into them with the inevitable (explosive?) results. In the case of non TMA flights, the second hose is just there for show and is not being actually used.

But in the case of aluminium oxide, the weight and bulk of the material means that this method cannot be used. Loading aluminium is done by the modified ULD container method. Even this method however has its safety considerations which must be followed.

Cargo loading is critical and must take into account the weight and balance restrictions that all aircraft have. Real problems can be caused by mis-loading as the aluminium oxide slurry is very heavy. Every flight, even non spraying flights, must have containers loaded in correct sequences to avoid balance errors.

Duty load dispatchers aren’t required to know what is in the containers, just what each one weighs in order to get the sequence correct. ULDs that are modified for spray purposes are always loaded first at either cargo door (locations pictured below). Loading them this way is essential because they have pipe arrangements which hook into the onboard spray system, and the heaviest containers must go as close as possible to the C of G (Center of Gravity) as you can see from this proprietary diagram… (not to be released.)

(NOT SHARED)

One can see that CPT 2 and 3 have the heaviest allowable weights, 20 and 15 tonnes respectively which is fortunate because they are the areas that must be used by the modified ULD containers. ULD use is ubiquitous and the modified ones can be found at holding areas at airports around the world if one knows what one is looking for. Suffice to say, if you are looking for evidence about how ULDs can be modified, check out “envirotainer” and imagine how simple it would be to do the required modifications.

Using the ADSB system, the inflight position of the aircraft is always known by spray controllers. New ATC procedures mean that the position of spray aircraft are always broadcast to satellite receivers that sites such as FlightRadar24 do not have access to. Spraying, even over oceans, can therefore be targeted very accurately and efficiently.

Knowing all this is a heavy burden I now wish to pass on to others. Every day has become a trial for me. Please us this information wisely. Trust is important..for the reasons we both know so well. I cannot meet you till this is out in the open, hopefully these disclosures will be the tipping point for you. Can you disseminate this as widely as possible, without the info that must remain confidential? All I long for is an end to this guilt.

Leaving it with you now, in hope……”


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Aug 8 2013, 10:23 PM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



Update: (fraud alert)

" ALERT: Max Bliss Has Placed The Alleged Whistleblower Email Comments Section of This Post Under Quarantine as Possibly Originating From an imposter"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 9 2013, 12:27 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Hi Jim...

Welcome back!

Let me start by saying.....

Weather Modification is a fact...

http://www.weathermodification.com


but...

Whether or not such equipment is being used for nefarious purpose remains to be verified in my opinion.

It is very easy to verify this theory. All one has to do is get any airplane capable of flying in the high teens to mid 20's altitudes (where it is claimed the spraying is going on)... and go fly through some of them to get samples. We have more pilots than many airlines have started with.. so finding pilots to fly the missions is not a problem.

I know Alex Jones is big into chemtrails.... people should ask him to organize one of his future "money bombs" to raise the funds for such a fact finding endeavor.

The one thing that makes me skeptical of chemtrails is the fact that aircraft are pressurized which fly at those altitudes. What this means is that the air from outside is compressed and then pushed into the cabin.. .and slowly leaks out through what is called an outflow valve at a desired rate to simulate thicker air at lower altitudes. Oxygen is not added to a pressurized cabin. unless there is a decompression.. .then the masks fall... etc.

If chemtrails were real... the concentration we allegedly get on the ground would be so diluted by the time it reached the ground as compared to when first sprayed at altitude... it would be a fraction of what people would be breathing on the thousands of flights per day at altitude ... in the US alone. They would be getting very high doses of the stuff inside their cabins.... as would the pilots.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Aug 10 2013, 01:18 AM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 9 2013, 12:27 PM) *
Hi Jim...

Welcome back!

Let me start by saying.....

Weather Modification is a fact...

http://www.weathermodification.com


but...

Whether or not such equipment is being used for nefarious purpose remains to be verified in my opinion.

It is very easy to verify this theory. All one has to do is get any airplane capable of flying in the high teens to mid 20's altitudes (where it is claimed the spraying is going on)... and go fly through some of them to get samples. We have more pilots than many airlines have started with.. so finding pilots to fly the missions is not a problem.

I know Alex Jones is big into chemtrails.... people should ask him to organize one of his future "money bombs" to raise the funds for such a fact finding endeavor.

The one thing that makes me skeptical of chemtrails is the fact that aircraft are pressurized which fly at those altitudes. What this means is that the air from outside is compressed and then pushed into the cabin.. .and slowly leaks out through what is called an outflow valve at a desired rate to simulate thicker air at lower altitudes. Oxygen is not added to a pressurized cabin. unless there is a decompression.. .then the masks fall... etc.

If chemtrails were real... the concentration we allegedly get on the ground would be so diluted by the time it reached the ground as compared to when first sprayed at altitude... it would be a fraction of what people would be breathing on the thousands of flights per day at altitude ... in the US alone. They would be getting very high doses of the stuff inside their cabins.... as would the pilots.


Hi Rob, and thanks for the welcome back. You raise very good points as always. Interesting idea, recruiting Jones to undertake a verification and raise the funds via moneybomb. This page will probably be on his desk by noon tomorrow. (said jokingly, but maybe it will). Would a flight plan be an issue?

I have chemtrails on my horizon and overhead daily. Its a continual spraying program going on almost everyday. Seems they skip a day now and again, but pretty much daily in the morning, afternoon, evening and also i've seen them by full moonlight after 1AM. Parallel tracks of spray, north to south, stretching off into the east horizon. I've thought about photographing, and making journal entries. I see normal contrails also, more-or-less same altitude. The ON and OFF characteristics of the spray is also often visible, and can be vividly seen, say 10% of the time. I watch it occur in real time. One day last week at sunset i witnessed a layer of cirrus clouds, bumper-to-bumper small clouds in a line behaving like nothing i have ever seen, dropping what can be described as big handfuls, globs of particles dropping in string-like manner, as if the cloud was dangling roots hanging down. Rain? I don't think so. A bizarre sight indeed. The cloud pattern was about 30km in length.

They chemtrail, and then it rains. There are often unusual temperature swings, drops of 10C deg just after the rain, as if they just instantly manufactured a mini-cold front, and then it warms again. The rains are breaking records in volume. The largest rainfall Toronto (to the south of me) has ever recorded was about three weeks ago, just after Calgary's unprecedented floods which tore up the city. Its my opinion that very little of the climate/weather we are experiencing in my backyard is ordinary or natural at present; its just plain abnormal weather, to include very noticeable increase in tornadoes (previously rare) and other violence.

In conclusion, there is absolutely no question in my mind they are spraying here and that the sky and weather is heavily modified. Its beyond skepticism for me because i see it every day. And this is not some kind of testing, this is a full-on program, horizon to horizon where i live. As to what is actually at the root of it, i can't offer more than that. I'll just keep researching the phenomena until i fully understand it.

(Note to anyone living in Ontario: this website http://www.holmestead.ca/index-ct.html is loaded with info from a Georgian Bay fellow Mr. Brian Holmes who has been documenting Chemtrails in his area since 2002, and doing soils tests etc.)

Thanks for your time and input Rob and nice to talk to you again!

Cheers!
Jim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Aug 10 2013, 02:12 AM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



Here is a pdf on 12 contrail tests done in Germany. The methodology could be useful.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/...-12713-2010.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 12 2013, 01:24 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Jim...

The atmosphere in terms of content/composition is uniform throughout.. .until one reaches space.

What this means is that the atmosphere is "78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide" from the ground all the way up till you hit space. - source - wiki (just a quick search I did).

This is why O2 does not need to be introduced into a pressurized cabin. The jet engines (or a turbine)... compresses the thin air at altitude... pushing it into the cabin... simulating thicker air at a lower altitude... which is how people breathe on an airliner. An airline cabin is NOT a sealed unit.

So... now let us introduce "chemtrails".

By the time "chemtrails" reach the ground.. lets hypothetically say that the atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen... 20% O2... and 2% "chemtrails".

At altitude where the spraying is going on... it will be much more concentrated... which means the composition of the air at altitude is no longer "78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide"... but rather (hypothetically) 60% Nitrogen.. 15% O2... and perhaps 25% "chemtrails".

If one were to fly directly through a "chemtrail"... the concentration inside the cabin would be 90% chems and 10% Nitrogen/Oxygen.


Passengers, Pilots, and Cabin crew would be experiencing this daily in the US alone. "Chemtrail" pilots who "criss-cross" other "chemtrails" would be breathing nearly a 100% dose of "chemtrails" inside their cabins. Of course. .they could be wearing their O2 masks... but how exactly would they see the instruments with a cockpit full of chemicals?

In other words Jim... if you believe in chemtrails... you should never get on another airplane as the doses of "chems" you will receive at altitude will be exponentially greater... if in fact chemtrails are real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Aug 12 2013, 03:20 PM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



just saying, every time i hear compressor, i think 'filter'.

these two links claim filtration:

http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers...in-air-quality/

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/cabinair/index.page

HEPA filters are 99.97% efficient at the 0.3 micron particle size (which is pretty small). some smokes, fumes and metallurgical dusts are smaller, but....

my two cents (pre-82 are more valuable).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 12 2013, 03:28 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Aug 12 2013, 03:20 PM) *
just saying, every time i hear compressor, i think 'filter'.

these two links claim filtration:

http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers...in-air-quality/

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/cabinair/index.page

HEPA filters are 99.97% efficient at the 0.3 micron particle size (which is pretty small). some smokes, fumes and metallurgical dusts are smaller, but....

my two cents (pre-82 are more valuable).



A compressor is a compressor. A filter is a filter.

Jet engines are essentially a 4 stroke engine... all happening simultaneously.

Are you familiar with a 4 stroke engine? Do you consider the "compression stroke" on your car engine as filtering the air which has been sucked into your engine?

In fact...you have what is called an "Air Filter" during the intake stroke...

Jet engines do not have an "intake air filter"... they are wide open in the front.... but they do have have "filter" before the compressed [bleed] air gets to the cabin (not to mention a heat exchanger and other components). Imagine if it were all gunked up with compressed "chemtrails" while climbing to altitude. .

Not only would mechanics be changing the filters at every gate/turn.... but it is possible such "filters" and components would become so gunked with "chemicals" that no air would get through to the cabin on just one short flight.

Are you familiar with a pressurization system?

Here.... do this test... shake some Baking Soda over your engine with the air filter off and someone goosing the throttle... you will then understand what aircraft engines have to deal with when climbing through any type of "chemtrail"... and what passengers and cabin crew will experience.


Now do the same test with a spray bottle of water...

If you give an honest test regarding concentration.... the engine will choke with baking soda... yet continue to operate with the same concentration of water.

This is how millions of people fly each year around the world... and are never harmed by "chemtrails" choking their jet engines... nor their cabins... nor their lungs...

If "chemtrails" were real... and were a harm to the people on the ground.... 'Frequent Flyers' (including Cabin Crew and Pilots) should be dropping dead all over the world in exponentially greater numbers.

And that's the bottom line....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Aug 12 2013, 04:37 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 10 2013, 06:28 PM) *
A compressor is a compressor. A filter is a filter.

Jet engines are essentially a 4 stroke engine... all happening simultaneously.

Are you familiar with a 4 stroke engine? Do you consider the "compression stroke" on your car engine as filtering the air which has been sucked into your engine?

as familiar as the next guy, i have worked on them some. long before the the air hits the combustion chamber it has to go through the intake manifold. usually there is an air filter that leads to a a carb, tbi, or fuel injection unit. so the analogy between a jet engine and a piston driven engine doesn't work for me.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 10 2013, 06:28 PM) *
In fact...you have what is called an "Air Filter" during the intake stroke...

Jet engines do not have an "intake air filter"... they are wide open in the front.... but they do have have "filter" before the compressed [bleed] air gets to the cabin (not to mention a heat exchanger and other components). Imagine if it were all gunked up with compressed "chemtrails" while climbing to altitude. .


so, how often do you change an air cleaner in a car under normal conditions vs severe conditions?

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 10 2013, 06:28 PM) *
Not only would mechanics be changing the filters at every gate/turn.... but it is possible such "filters" and components would become so gunked with "chemicals" that no air would get through to the cabin on just one short flight.


interesting idea.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 10 2013, 06:28 PM) *
Are you familiar with a pressurization system?


not an aircraft one. no.


everybody has a blind spot. everybody. nobody has total knowledge. if i had an unlimited budget, well, i just don't know rob. you are passionate about this topic clearly. i just hope my blind spot isn't not seeing yours smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 12 2013, 04:46 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Aug 12 2013, 04:37 PM) *
so, how often do you change an air cleaner in a car under normal conditions vs severe conditions?



How often would you change an intake air filter on a Pratt and Whitney vs a Chevy 350?


And can you please point to where the intake air filter is located on any Jet Engine?

(here's a hint... you would never change an intake air filter on a Jet Engine.. because it doesnt exist... because it is breathing in fresh air at altitude... and not chemtrails).

Secondly... how often are the components of cabin bleed air changed?

Do you feel that aircraft climbing through or flying at the level of a "chemtrail" are subject to more... less ... or equal... to the concentration of chemicals than those on the ground?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Aug 12 2013, 05:07 PM
Post #13





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



i would argue that as long as the fuel/air ratio is 'acceptable', the engine will run. i've had cheap mexican gas and yeah, it still runs. it's a really big sky, stuff in it falls to the ground if it's heavier than air. what happens to the ground may be incidental to the actual purpose, but i would be speculating nevertheless.

on a side note as long as the oxygen concentration is kept up, combustion will occur. even at sea level 78% nitrogen, as inert as it is, still allows us to tool around. mind you, even aluminum oxide had more oxygen molecules than aluminum molecules. just saying.

i can't speak to concentrations of anything. i haven't taken samples and i haven't done any quantitative analysis on them.

what i do know is this: the government lies. the powerz lie. the agenda is old and well thought out. 'they' do not make geo-engineering treaties for non-existent technology.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 12 2013, 05:13 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Aug 12 2013, 05:07 PM) *
i would argue that as long as the fuel/air ratio is 'acceptable', the engine will run.



So.. .you think flying at altitude through this air.... compressed and then driven into cabins for people to breathe on thousands of flights per day...



... is the same as driving through air on the ground? And that when such "chemtrails" reach the ground.. .they are somehow more dangerous than those actually flying through it?

Would you agree that those who fly through the above "chemtrail-hell" are getting a much larger dose of chemicals than you on the ground?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Aug 12 2013, 05:23 PM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 10 2013, 08:13 PM) *
So.. .you think flying at altitude through this air.... compressed and then driven into cabins for people to breathe on thousands of flights per day...



... is the same as driving through air on the ground? And that when such "chemtrails" reach the ground.. .they are somehow more dangerous than those actually flying through it?


and filtered....

even the boeing documentation speaks about a hepa filter. i'm not altogether sure, what we are debating here?
are you saying that your confidence level is 100% that no 'extraneous' matter is being introduced at altitude?

edit: nice pic btw
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 12 2013, 05:34 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Aug 12 2013, 05:23 PM) *
and filtered....

even the boeing documentation speaks about a hepa filter. i'm not altogether sure, what we are debating here?
are you saying that your confidence level is 100% that no 'extraneous' matter is being introduced at altitude?

edit: nice pic btw


I am saying that if the above pic were actually "chemtrails"... not only would it snuff out the engines in perhaps a few minutes... but it would also snuff out everyone on board who flew through it...

Imagine driving your car through fog on the ground... I'm am sure you have done it may times... but instead of fog... it was chemicals.

Now imagine doing it at 500 mph.

Would your engine choke? Would you choke?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Aug 12 2013, 06:14 PM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Aug 10 2013, 08:34 PM) *
I am saying that if the above pic were actually "chemtrails"... not only would it snuff out the engines in perhaps a few minutes... but it would also snuff out everyone on board who flew through it...

Imagine driving your car through fog on the ground... I'm am sure you have done it may times... but instead of fog... it was chemicals.

Now imagine doing it at 500 mph.

Would your engine choke? Would you choke?


and i'm not saying it's al2o3 since that is the coating on sandpaper and has a strong tendency towards abrasion. if i had deep pockets and lots of think tanks working for me..and i had major corporations on board...just saying.

years ago they added tetraethyl-lead to gasoline, ostensibly to prevent the valves from fouling. is it such a stretch to imagine some further chemical 'enhancements'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 12 2013, 06:19 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Aug 12 2013, 06:14 PM) *
and i'm not saying it's al2o3 since that is the coating on sandpaper and has a strong tendency towards abrasion. if i had deep pockets and lots of think tanks working for me..and i had major corporations on board...just saying.

years ago they added tetraethyl-lead to gasoline, ostensibly to prevent the valves from fouling. is it such a stretch to imagine some further chemical 'enhancements'?



As I said above...

It is very easy to verify this theory. All one has to do is get any airplane capable of flying in the high teens to mid 20's altitudes (where it is claimed the spraying is going on)... and go fly through some of them to get samples. We have more pilots than many airlines have started with.. so finding pilots to fly the missions is not a problem.

I know Alex Jones is big into chemtrails.... people should ask him to organize one of his future "money bombs" to raise the funds for such a fact finding endeavor.



I will expand by saying... this is not like asking for a new 9/11 Investigation where we need subpoena power to gather data.

All one has to do (in the case of "chemtrails") is get an airplane and fly through the stuff... and we are willing to do it if one will supply the airplane.

Are you willing to call into Alex Jones and other shows to ask and raise the funding for concrete proof?

Or do you wish to argue about it on the web?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Aug 12 2013, 06:25 PM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



i don't trust much anymore.

in you professional opinion, what would be required to get a good air sample?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 12 2013, 06:27 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Aug 12 2013, 06:25 PM) *
i don't trust much anymore.

in you professional opinion, what would be required to get a good air sample?


For the third time...


"All one has to do is get any airplane capable of flying in the high teens to mid 20's altitudes (where it is claimed the spraying is going on)... and go fly through some of them..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th January 2022 - 09:11 PM