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
What To Expect If Your Airplane Flys Through A "chemtrail"

rob balsamo
post Mar 13 2014, 03:23 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

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



If any one of the airplanes in the below link (or your airplane) fly through a visible "chemtrail"....

http://flightradar24.com

....you can expect this to occur...

- Visibility in the cabin to go to zero as the cabin will be filled with compressed visible "chemicals". Aircraft cabins are not a sealed container. The air you breathe in the cabin comes directly from outside the airplane regardless of altitude. The air (and any possible "chemicals"), are sucked into the engines, compressed, and then dumped into the cabin.
- Passengers and crew suffocating from high concentrations of chemicals
- If the O2 masks were not deployed within 1-3 mins, incapacitation of the entire crew and passengers shortly followed by death.
- If the O2 masks were deployed, the crew would be reading erroneous instrument data...
- airspeed readings would now act like an altimeter due to the pitot tubes being clogged with chemicals.
- Fire in both/all engines due to chemicals igniting within the combustion chambers
- If the engines did not catch fire, engine surges/flame-outs/compressor stalls due to FADEC probes clogged with chemicals... compressor fans clogged with chemicals.
- AOA vanes providing erroneous data, erroneous stall warnings.. due to AOA vanes caked with chemicals.
- Failure of AP systems due to Air data computer logics not adding up
- Stall due to leading edges of wings/empennage caked with chemicals.

And this is just off the top of my head...

Again.. this theory is very easily proven. All one needs to do is get us an airplane and we will go fly through some of the "chemicals", despite the many hazards to flight safety if in fact they are "chemtrails". Anyone who believes in "chemtrails" is welcome to ride along.... Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse "Chemtrail" theories for the very reasons stated above.. and the fact that thousands of aircraft are airborne right now while you read this, and are flying merrily on their way....

But for those who do believe in "chemtrails", you might want to think twice about taking your next flight to your dream vacation, because if your airplane flies through one, you may not survive, if in fact "chemtrails" are true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TampaDave
post Mar 13 2014, 07:38 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



Please, I have to leave the house... can someone pick up an aircraft for me and let me know what it does?

http://www.flightradar24.com/BLOCKED/2e29479

thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Mar 13 2014, 09:21 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 14 2014, 07:23 AM) *
If any one of the airplanes in the below link (or your airplane) fly through a visible "chemtrail"....

http://flightradar24.com

....you can expect this to occur...

- Visibility in the cabin to go to zero as the cabin will be filled with compressed visible "chemicals". Aircraft cabins are not a sealed container. The air you breathe in the cabin comes directly from outside the airplane regardless of altitude. The air (and any possible "chemicals"), are sucked into the engines, compressed, and then dumped into the cabin.
- Passengers and crew suffocating from high concentrations of chemicals
- If the O2 masks were not deployed within 1-3 mins, incapacitation of the entire crew and passengers shortly followed by death.
- If the O2 masks were deployed, the crew would be reading erroneous instrument data...
- airspeed readings would now act like an altimeter due to the pitot tubes being clogged with chemicals.
- Fire in both/all engines due to chemicals igniting within the combustion chambers
- If the engines did not catch fire, engine surges/flame-outs/compressor stalls due to FADEC probes clogged with chemicals... compressor fans clogged with chemicals.
- AOA vanes providing erroneous data, erroneous stall warnings.. due to AOA vanes caked with chemicals.
- Failure of AP systems due to Air data computer logics not adding up
- Stall due to leading edges of wings/empennage caked with chemicals.

And this is just off the top of my head...

Again.. this theory is very easily proven. All one needs to do is get us an airplane and we will go fly through some of the "chemicals", despite the many hazards to flight safety if in fact they are "chemtrails". Anyone who believes in "chemtrails" is welcome to ride along.... Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse "Chemtrail" theories for the very reasons stated above.. and the fact that thousands of aircraft are airborne right now while you read this, and are flying merrily on their way....

But for those who do believe in "chemtrails", you might want to think twice about taking your next flight to your dream vacation, because if your airplane flies through one, you may not survive, if in fact "chemtrails" are true.


You are grossly misleading (I do not say "intentionally" misleading, I accept you type in metaphor to make your points as we all do)... okay, you are exaggerating just slightly by an irrelevant if not grossly inaccurate statement (an extract not from the above, but from your similar post on Facebook)
"so many aircraft allowed to fly through high concentrations of chemicals, carrying thousands of people when they get their air supply from directly outside the airplane, sucked into the engines, compressed and then dumped into the cabin?"

You should be shown your own forum door for such a blatant terminological inexactitude, sir.

NOT ONCE has any chemtrail researcher EVER spoken of any situation where you, sit, are advised, let alone required, to "fly through high concentrations of chemicals" ... not once.

ANY such high concentrations of chemicals always, inevitably and tautologically-invariably disperse down to low concentrations....much as (y)our chemtrailing control cretins would prefer the concentration to be maintained at all altitudes, the better to infest conditions down at ground level. Your typical pilot in pursuit is never going to be performing the concentrated chem-collection mission unless YOU can bribe a funder. You're on your own there I suggest.

The rest of the real aviation world on your 24-hour screen watch, we are now forced to flying in whatever levels of toxicity in the air the military and its obscene chemspray program allows.

The unpronouncable Iceland volcano and its ensuing no-fly zone eliminate any serious consideration of your nonscience from this august and learned forum, surely. Sir?

MikeR

This post has been edited by MikeR: Mar 13 2014, 09:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Mar 14 2014, 09:30 AM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



QUOTE (MikeR @ Mar 13 2014, 08:21 PM) *
ANY such high concentrations of chemicals always, inevitably and tautologically-invariably disperse down to low concentrations....much as (y)our chemtrailing control cretins would prefer the concentration to be maintained at all altitudes, the better to infest conditions down at ground level. Your typical pilot in pursuit is never going to be performing the concentrated chem-collection mission unless YOU can bribe a funder. You're on your own there I suggest.


Chemtrails may be highly diluted to begin with, but this will not preclude ultimate, significant concentrations accumulating at ground level.

Additionally, for every real chemtrail up there, there may be 10 or more decoys.

It's interesting to note that in the last two weeks or so, I have not witnessed much in the way of chemtrail activities in the sky above me. Most of the past 14 days have been very clear to perfectly clear, if this is relevant somehow. It seems to me to be a "now you see it, now you don't" kind of thing.

P.M.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Mar 14 2014, 10:37 AM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 14 2014, 07:23 AM) *
this theory is very easily proven. All one needs to do is get us an airplane and we will go fly through some of the "chemicals", despite the many hazards to flight safety if in fact they are "chemtrails". Anyone who believes in "chemtrails" is welcome to ride along.


Rob... what acceptable scientific practice/procedure that would you accept, that would prove
that the increases in concentrations of inground chemicals came from an airplane?

Tell us what would convince you/them ... and at the same time, tell us what you have in mind to PROVE
the link between the observed increases in concentrations of inground chemicals and the chem samples to be
collected, by your chase-plane crew, from some airliner or military transport plane spraying dense clouds
of **** (being whatever unprintable material the scientific study does indeed discover).

Otherwise you're forced to agree with arch chem-denier Mick West. Mick would (also unprintably)
reject any possible link between aerial and ground chem residues, come hell or rise in sea level?

We (they) have done ground testing till elephants are tramping all over us in every room.

You already recirculated the fatuous line that "it has never been proven that alleged ground samples
tested came from an airplane.

Collect all the samples from the cabin-filling volumes emitted from hidden phony pylon drains
unknown to the perfectly-innocent crew who have no idea that their kite is belching out trails at all....
get the stuff analised at 14 labs in 7 American Universities, establish the exact proportions of
Aluminum, Barium, Strontium, Cadmium, Tungsten not to mention blood and bacteria ...
and it's a sure bet you deniers will then say

"Okay, we've sampled and yes it is does seem to be more chemical than condensate......
but , hey, hot air rises: the stuff obviously floats out of the earth's atmosphere altogether,
can't possibly have anything to do with your ground conditions, you're dreamin' Mike."

and

"Nah, still doesn't prove any link whatever with any of the Aluminum, Barium, Strontium,
Cadmium, Tungsten not to mention blood and bacteria that you guys found in the ground.

"Your toxic ground stuff came from flatulent buffalo.

"And who's to say it didn't also come from NRA members passing. IYCWIM"

Mike
rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 14 2014, 12:21 PM
Post #6





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Rob, you bring up this same strawman argument over and over. Granted this would be good evidence but there are lots of other ways to demonstrate the facts.

Maybe it's because as a pilot you see everything through your own knowledge of aircraft. (Or maybe you are trying to get some free left seat time in a small jet --I'd like that myself)

Here's a question for you: What happens when a jet aircraft flies though normal clouds -- do the engines catch fire, do the planes fall out of the air, are the cabins filled with smoke and fog, do the various pitot tubes and ports plug and malfunction, do the O2 masks deploy ?

Based on my several millions of miles flying commercially through lots of IMC (including a snow storm with lightning and thunder going into ERI in February a few years back) the negative events you postulate in your post don't happen.


But there are other disciplines other than aeronautics

As a chemist that has worked in analytical labs for 40 years (now retired), I know what can be found with modern instrumentation

Typically the samples (soils, rain, snow) are analyzed by ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry) or iCAP (inductively Coupled emission spectrometry) These state of the art instruments are very precise and very accurate

Aluminum and Barium are not "normal" contamination of rain or snow

Even here is Wisconsin there have been samples of dust, rain water and melted snow that test off the charts for these contaminants. I have seen over 7000 ppb recorded of aluminum and 100's of ppb (that is parts per billion) for Barium


We have at least one witness (Kirsten Meghasn) that processed US Air Force paperwork for purchase of Aluminum and Barium salts.

I have observed persistent clouds produced from jet airplanes. I have witnessed these at the same time and the same altitude as regular contrails that dissipate quickly while the persistent clouds stays for hours.
I have observed this from the air as a passenger and from the ground


I have observed abnormal weather patterns that correlate 100% with these persistent cloud formations from these jets

The fact of weather modification is well established. Here in WI it is under these codes

http://statutes.laws.com/wisconsin/93/93.35

In every state that I have looked into statutes such as these exist.

Why ?





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 14 2014, 01:19 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (bill @ Mar 14 2014, 12:21 PM) *
Rob, you bring up this same strawman argument over and over. Granted this would be good evidence but there are lots of other ways to demonstrate the facts.


I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is... because this isn't a strawman. It is fact.

QUOTE
Maybe it's because as a pilot you see everything through your own knowledge of aircraft. (Or maybe you are trying to get some free left seat time in a small jet --I'd like that myself)


Ha! That's funny. I have thousands of hours PIC Turbine.... and I got/get paid for it all. I am willing to do this for free. Or, you can pay someone else to do it. Until then, you have nothing but an unproven theory which can be easily proven with relatively very little funding. Instead, it seems proponents of "chemtrails" don't even want to try and get proof. Why is that?

QUOTE
What happens when a jet aircraft flies though normal clouds --


The aircraft accumulates water or ice depending on temp.

QUOTE
do the engines catch fire,


They can, depending on how much accumulation is present. They can/will also flame out/compressor stalls etc. That is why engines have anti-ice systems.


QUOTE
do the planes fall out of the air,


Yes, many have. Would you like examples? Try this one for starters....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184




QUOTE
are the cabins filled with smoke and fog,


If the airplane is flying through a cloud, how would the cabin be filled with smoke? But if the engines catch fire due to icing, and the smoke reaches the bleed air ports to the cabin... yes, the cabin will rapidly fill with smoke. I have had a few cabins fill with smoke due to oil leaks within the engine. One of which we had to deploy the masks for the passengers. Some even went to the hospital. This happened while we were still on the ground in perhaps a 2 min duration. We evacuated on the taxiway.

Fog will not fill the cabin when flying through clouds due to the increase in temp when the air is compressed before entering the cabin. The resultant condensation is drained overboard through the pylon drains in which people like you have claimed were "spray nozzles"... and/or evaporates through the heat/air exchangers or packs. With that said, if a rapid decompression occurs (drop in temp), fog will fill the cabin. For example, see the Payne Stewart incident. The windows were coated in frost.



QUOTE
do the various pitot tubes and ports plug and malfunction


Yes, this is why they have anti-ice systems as well.

QUOTE
Based on my several millions of miles flying commercially through lots of IMC (including a snow storm with lightning and thunder going into ERI in February a few years back) the negative events you postulate in your post don't happen.


That is because the Pilots utilized the aircraft anti-ice systems. If they did not, your aircraft would have fell out of the sky.

Again Bill, we went over this many times. Flying through visible particles will accumulate on the aircraft.. period. Airplanes are equipped to shed particles such as Ice if the aircraft is certified to fly in known icing, they are not equipped to shed "chemtrails" or other solid visible particles. That is why the North Atlantic Routes were shut down for days after the Iceland Volcano eruption.

The rest of your post does not prove aircraft are spraying solid particles/chemicals at altitude on a wide/global scale. Yes, Weather Modification is a fact, we went over this many times, but until you gather such evidence that aircraft are spraying chemicals on a wide/global scale (and I have a proposed a way to do it), again, you won't get much support from the aviation community on "chemtrails". The OP post explains why....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 14 2014, 03:20 PM
Post #8





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 13 2014, 02:23 PM) *
If any one of the airplanes in the below link (or your airplane) fly through a visible "chemtrail"....

http://flightradar24.com

....you can expect this to occur...

- Visibility in the cabin to go to zero as the cabin will be filled with compressed visible "chemicals". Aircraft cabins are not a sealed container. The air you breathe in the cabin comes directly from outside the airplane regardless of altitude. The air (and any possible "chemicals"), are sucked into the engines, compressed, and then dumped into the cabin.
- Passengers and crew suffocating from high concentrations of chemicals
- If the O2 masks were not deployed within 1-3 mins, incapacitation of the entire crew and passengers shortly followed by death.
- If the O2 masks were deployed, the crew would be reading erroneous instrument data...
- airspeed readings would now act like an altimeter due to the pitot tubes being clogged with chemicals.
- Fire in both/all engines due to chemicals igniting within the combustion chambers
- If the engines did not catch fire, engine surges/flame-outs/compressor stalls due to FADEC probes clogged with chemicals... compressor fans clogged with chemicals.
- AOA vanes providing erroneous data, erroneous stall warnings.. due to AOA vanes caked with chemicals.
- Failure of AP systems due to Air data computer logics not adding up
- Stall due to leading edges of wings/empennage caked with chemicals.

And this is just off the top of my head...

Again.. this theory is very easily proven. All one needs to do is get us an airplane and we will go fly through some of the "chemicals", despite the many hazards to flight safety if in fact they are "chemtrails". Anyone who believes in "chemtrails" is welcome to ride along.... Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse "Chemtrail" theories for the very reasons stated above.. and the fact that thousands of aircraft are airborne right now while you read this, and are flying merrily on their way....

But for those who do believe in "chemtrails", you might want to think twice about taking your next flight to your dream vacation, because if your airplane flies through one, you may not survive, if in fact "chemtrails" are true.





You are simply ignorant of what the persistent cloud formation spewed from the aircraft are:


I have flown as a passenger through these artificial clouds and I far as I could discern it was no different than flying through a thin cloud layer. Because that is what they are, artificial clouds.

You have clearly been mind f**d by the title of the phenomenon, "chemtrails". A label made up, no doubt, by the same types of people that would call you a 'conspiracy theorist' to simply derail, confuse and make the phenomenon look silly because it has a silly non-scientific name.

Search terms like geoengineering instead

You assume you know what they are because of they "must be made up of chemical particles" -- a fact not proven by you or anyone else that I know of.

You don't want to comment on the rest of my post because you are ignorant of basic chemistry, physical chemistry an a host of other hard sciences that can prove what we are seeing.


we don't need to conduct a special flight to 'sample' the air at flight levels. A sample taken from an aircraft's air filters would explain it -- after all where else would these Aluminum and Barium salts at flight levels come from but other aircraft.

And that is why your 'argument' is a 'strawman' -- it is, according to you, the only way to prove it and you can knock that straw man right over because no one, so far, has ponied up $100,000 so you could take a joy ride -- "game over", crows Rob.

But really it just makes you look stupid and ignorant of other scientific methods of tackling this issue.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 14 2014, 03:38 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (bill @ Mar 14 2014, 03:20 PM) *
You are simply ignorant



QUOTE
You have clearly been mind f**d



QUOTE
You assume you know what they are because of they "must be made up of chemical particles" -- a fact not proven by you or anyone else that I know of.


QUOTE
after all where else would these Aluminum and Barium salts at flight levels come from but other aircraft.



QUOTE
you are ignorant




QUOTE
you look stupid and ignorant


And these people wonder why there isn't a "Pilots For Chemtrail Truth"?

laughing1.gif

Clearly you are unable to debate without slinging personal attacks and insults while contradicting yourself.... See ya bill!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Mar 14 2014, 07:09 PM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 15 2014, 07:38 AM) *
And these people wonder why there isn't a "Pilots For Chemtrail Truth"?

laughing1.gif

Clearly you are unable to debate without slinging personal attacks and insults while contradicting yourself.... See ya bill!


Who wonders why there isn't a "Pilots For Chemtrail Truth", Rob?

Is there some reason why Pilots might be less-qualified than the rest of us to debate "Chemtrail Truth"?

If none, we're looking forward to your analysis of the issues raised in #5

... assuming MikeR is still PC at P4T.... blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 14 2014, 08:32 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (MikeR @ Mar 14 2014, 07:09 PM) *
Who wonders why there isn't a "Pilots For Chemtrail Truth", Rob?


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22598

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22626



QUOTE
Is there some reason why Pilots might be less-qualified than the rest of us to debate "Chemtrail Truth"?


"less-qualified"? I think you meant more qualified.... but whatever...

This is not a "debate", it is a mud slinging attack from "chemtrail" proponents who don't like what they hear from qualified pilots, while refusing proposals to gather actual evidence for their claims. And as most people know.... when one starts to attack their opponent personally during a debate, you lose the debate.

QUOTE
If none, we're looking forward to your analysis of the issues raised in #5

... assuming MikeR is still PC at P4T.... blink.gif


Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? You've done that a few times on this forum... very strange... blink.gif

But I digress....

Do you think it is "PC" when you state -


"You should be shown your own forum door for such a blatant terminological inexactitude..."


... when you would not even be able to make such a statement if it weren't for me?

Do you allow people in your house who tell you that you should be "shown the door" of your own house? Do you allow people to come in your house only to shit on your floor and call you ignorant? Perhaps you do. We don't.

Keep it up and you will be joining bill. I remind you, this is Pilots For 9/11 Truth... and as fast as I created this forum section for people to discuss "chemtrails", I can take it away... It seems people are less inclined to actually discuss the topic, and more inclined to attack others when questioned or share legitimate concerns regarding "chemtrail" theories.

To top it off, people who are willing to help gather conclusive proof for such alleged "chemtrial" activity, are also attacked!

Hey, maybe you should start a "Pilots For Chemtrail Truth" with "bill"...?

With that said, I have spoken to a few of our pilots, and they are willing to spend some time on this research.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Mar 14 2014, 09:38 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (bill @ Mar 15 2014, 07:20 AM) *
We don't need to conduct a special flight to 'sample' the air at flight levels.

A sample taken from an aircraft's air filters would explain it --


"People for Chemtrail Truth"

If Rob doesn't accept that a "sample taken from an aircraft's air filters would explain"
anything ... let's get some air samples from cabin-air intake filters
taken at various/typical flight altitudes and check what is collected, at what
densities, and what chemical composition and collate the information....

But hold onto your helmets ... it's already being done as we type....and preliminary results
are available here, even before the movie "Overcast" is released.
Listen to this extremely-revealing interview

Russ Tanner talks with Swiss Filmmaker Matthias Hancke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPiBNH8I86g (Matthias comes online at 16.20)

Matthias talks at length about their air sampling techniques... and
discloses the extremely-disturbing results ....

Russ relates how his own near-death experience in hospital
coincided with the one night he could not get desperately-needed
life-saving response to his constant bedside calls for attention....
the very night the hospital staff were completely overwhelmed
with a vast insurgence of patients all needing immediate emergency care.

The immediate area had been bombarded with persistent contrails the day before.

The stuff is killing us all, Rob .... what makes you think you're immune?

Listen to what Russ reveals: your life depends on it.... believe it or Ripley not

MikeR


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 14 2014, 09:45 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (MikeR @ Mar 14 2014, 09:38 PM) *
"People for Chemtrail Truth"

If Rob doesn't accept that a "sample taken from an aircraft's air filters would explain"
anything ... let's get some air samples from cabin-air intake filters
taken at various/typical flight altitudes and check what is collected, at what
densities, and what chemical composition and collate the information....


bill's filter idea is absurd, because if one filter comes back negative, what then? How many filters do we need to get until the results are deemed conclusive? Do we keep going until one is positive? What if it never happens? Not to mention the fact that bill seems to think getting ECS filters from an airline are somehow easy to get? Every part is tracked and I would bet those filters are recycled. I'm sure they aint cheap.... One could easily rack up a 100k bill testing multiple filters across a several month time period and receive negative results. What then?

Furthermore, do you think a Maintenance Supervisor is just going to let us take such filters or even samples from a filter and just trust us to do what we want with it? What if it does come back positive? What is stopping the airline from saying we/you/"bill"... planted the materials and decide to take us/you/"bill" to court? Do you have those kind of legal fees to fight an airline and cover any losses the airline may incur by a positive test result published to the public? does "bill"? Forget about 100k... now we are talking in the millions....

The easiest way to gain conclusive proof while minimizing liability is to get an airplane, gather a list of some "chemtrail" spotters on the ground across the country, and then when people claim "they been spraying over my house all day!" (as I have seen many times on FB and elsewhere).... we go fly through it and video tape the whole thing...


QUOTE
Russ Tanner talks with Swiss Filmmaker Matthias Hancke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPiBNH8I86g (Matthias comes online at 16.20)


You want me to sit through a 2 hour interview that hasn't gained more than 350 views in nearly a year?

laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Mar 14 2014, 10:49 PM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 15 2014, 01:45 PM) *
bill's filter idea is absurd, because if one filter comes back negative, what then? How many filters do we need to get until the results are deemed conclusive? Do we keep going until one is positive? What if it never happens? Not to mention the fact that bill seems to think getting ECS filters from an airline are somehow easy to get? Every part is tracked and I would bet those filters are recycled. I'm sure they aint cheap.... One could easily rack up a 100k bill testing multiple filters across a several month time period and receive negative results. What then?

Furthermore, do you think a Maintenance Supervisor is just going to let us take such filters or even samples from a filter and just trust us to do what we want with it? What if it does come back positive? What is stopping the airline from saying we/you/"bill"... planted the materials and decide to take us/you/"bill" to court? Do you have those kind of legal fees to fight an airline and cover any losses the airline may incur by a positive test result published to the public? does "bill"? Forget about 100k... now we are talking in the millions....

The easiest way to gain conclusive proof while minimizing liability is to get an airplane, gather a list of some "chemtrail" spotters on the ground across the country, and then when people claim "they been spraying over my house all day!" (as I have seen many times on FB and elsewhere).... we go fly through it and video tape the whole thing...

You want me to sit through a 2 hour interview that hasn't gained more than 350 views in nearly a year?

laughing1.gif



Get your laughs however you want, Rob.

Russ Tanner's interview lasts even lot longer actually 2hrs 40mins I believe, but
why would YT views be any indicator of the value of any information to an intelligent viewer?

The guy being interviewed here however does deserve full attention from anybody wanting scientific samples
to provide objective analysis of actual chemtrails. Matthias is adopting smart technology to establish
chemical compositions to ascertain the reality of chemtrails.

No hint of cabin pressures and life-saving oxygen supply, no need to avoid real-or-imagined near-death experiences,
nothing so needlessly dire is mentioned anywhere in this account of actual aerial sampling and testing.

It's all been done. Results in a movie called "Overcast" ... and no, I have no affiliation rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by MikeR: Mar 14 2014, 10:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 14 2014, 11:08 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (MikeR @ Mar 14 2014, 10:49 PM) *
Russ Tanner's interview lasts even lot longer actually 2hrs 40mins I believe, but
why would YT views be any indicator of the value of any information to an intelligent viewer?


The view stats indicate public interest. You have not shown me anything with which I would decide to invest (or perhaps waste) two hours (and 40 mins) of my life.

Crew names of those who collected the samples, at what flight level/location/date, and tail number of aircraft. If such information is not included in the above interview you mention, I have no interest in viewing/listening to it...

QUOTE
The guy being interviewed here however does deserve full attention from anybody wanting scientific samples


I couldn't care less about "scientific samples" if you are unable to provide a solid chain of custody as mentioned above. You still don't seem to get it Mike. If you want any support for your claims, YOU are going to have to provide conclusive evidence. So far you have not, but I have offered a way in which you can. Instead, we are attacked for it... and the views on the above YT video reflect such public interest in this topic , due to the fact the evidence is inconclusive and is nothing but a theory.

To give you an idea of how pilots feel about "chemtrails" based on their aeronautical knowledge and a good portion of their lives flying amongst the "chemtrails", here is a reply I received from one of our Pilots after asking him if he was interested in helping with the research....

"Ok, I think I'm in. When I come across some of the chemtrails cases, am pretty flabbergasted at their beliefs."


Keep in mind this is one of our top pilots who has contributed to much of our 9/11 Research. I will not give his name at this time...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paulmichael
post Mar 15 2014, 07:19 AM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 365
Joined: 6-July 12
Member No.: 6,923



MikeR, tell me what you think of this:

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Mar 15 2014, 06:12 AM) *
Yesterday, 3/14/2014, On Wolf Blitzer's CNN show, "The Situation Room," (5PM Eastern time), a commentator stated that, thus far, all theories about the fate of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 can have holes punched in them.

Not so for my theory of demolecularization that has yet to be aired on the news.

Some may say that my theory of demolecularization of MH370 into dust is pure speculation on my part.

Not quite.

Let us review certain things:

The WTC and its occupants apparently were demolecularized to dust with far less in the way of remains than would be expected from a gravitational collapse of the two towers.

WTC 7 was in freefall for the equivalent of 100 feet. For this to have occurred, TEN STORIES near ground level would have to instantaneously DISAPPEAR! Physicists said that 10 stories of a building don't just disappear, but demolecularization to dust is the next best thing as an explanation.

Evidence of thermite (made with aluminum) was found in the dust of the WTC.

So were cesium and strontium, both of which are associated with nuclear activity.

Aluminum, cesium and strontium, and more have all been associated with chemtrails.

Someone said that combining the airborne nuclear fallout from the Fukushima disaster with the components of chemtrails will be a total catastrophe because the reaction of all those elements in the air will result in radioactivity that will have a short half-life but will be much stronger that what you have started out with. My point, you ask? Well, this goes to show that chemtrails can take part in nuclear activity.

Nuclear activity is what is responsible for demolecularization of solid objects.

Someone who knows someone involved with chemtrails came to learn that the topic of chemtrails is of super high top secret security.

If chemtrails, as suspected, were for weather modification, would this be of top secret security? Maybe.

If chemtrails, as suspected, were for poisoning the world's soil so that only genetically modified seeds from a certain big-time supplier can be used to grow food crops, would this be of top secret security? Maybe.

If the purpose of chemtrails is that they be used in conjunction with some top secret new weaponry that can demolecularize enemy resources, would this be of top secret security? YOU BETCHA!

Draw your own conclusions.

P.M.


This post has been edited by paulmichael: Mar 15 2014, 07:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Mar 15 2014, 08:15 AM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 15 2014, 03:08 PM) *
The view stats indicate public interest. You have not shown me anything with which I would decide to invest (or perhaps waste) two hours (and 40 mins) of my life.

Crew names of those who collected the samples, at what flight level/location/date, and tail number of aircraft. If such information is not included in the above interview you mention, I have no interest in viewing/listening to it...


I posted the link simply hoping that it's still within P4T written or unwritten rules to suggest that
some of (y)our more intrepid (dare I say it?) non-pilot readers might well have some curious interest in viewing/listening to it.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 15 2014, 03:08 PM) *
I couldn't care less about "scientific samples" if you are unable to provide a solid chain of custody as mentioned above. You still don't seem to get it Mike. If you want any support for your claims, YOU are going to have to provide conclusive evidence. So far you have not, but I have offered a way in which you can. Instead, we are attacked for it... and the views on the above YT video reflect such public interest in this topic, due to the fact the evidence is inconclusive and is nothing but a theory.


Don't include me in alleging you are attacked, Rob. As an Londontown gentleman, I share e.g.
Arthur "Minder" Daly's hatred of violence. If somebody wants to fly you in lethal cabin air pressures
and toxic air content for zero obvious benefit, might I suggest you bear with me while
gentler alternative methods of collecting data are considered, as per the example which follows?

Now that we learn that data has indeed been intelligently collected, (Matthias Hancke et al 2007 to date)
I would present here (especially but not exclusively or the benefit of any P4T or any NP who values their health)
a summary of the data which was also described in the 2 hours and 40 minutes of valuable video that
apparently bored your chem-denial into insensibility laughing1.gif(jk).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Flight in October 2009 was made into a "man-made cloud"
(Kindly observe that we adopt Politically Correct terminology in conducting these high-flying scientific studies)

An airplane was prepared for high-altitude reconnaissance, such preparation included, but were
not limited to, the provision of specimen vacuum flasks containing no air.
These flasks were to be deployed to collect gas samples on flying into any persistent contrail aka "man-made cloud".
A tube attached to a forward-facing pitot entry tube was installed in the starboard wing.
A device was arranged such that the tube could be connected to a flask, one flask per instance
of gas-sample collection.

A typical sample was analised under laboratory conditions and yielded the following results:

12 mg of barium, and 5 mg of alumin(i)um per 1000 ml of sample gas.


Contemporaneously with collection of the abovementioned aerial samples, an empty vacuum flask
was opened to collect an ambient comparison sample at ground level.

A typical sample taken at ground level was analised under laboratory conditions and yielded
the following results:

5 mg of barium, and 2 mg of alumin(i)um per 1000 ml of sample gas.


Interim Conclusion (pending publication of results of ongoing testing)
A 240% to 250% difference in toxic heavy-metal content between a so-called "Man made cloud"
and (only-relatively) "normal" air at ground level, is considered to be a significant indication
that this so-called man-made cloud may well have been, indeed very probably in fact was,
what has been popularly to some, unpopular to others, known as a chemtrail.

The experimental scientists named in the attached research paper have examined all
published documents pertaining to the composition of airplane jet-turbine-propulsion
engines exhaust emissions: on investigating trails arising in meteorological conditions
typically causing visible trails following airpanes in such atmospheric weather conditions,
they were able to find absolutely zero evidence of aluminum or barium nanoparticulates
constituting any of the condensation residue

The conducting of further studies is considered to be of the greatest importance.

It is recommended that particular attention be accorded to investigating the possibly-significant
risks of adverse health effects on all flora and fauna exposed in the atmospheric conditions
likely to arise from the presence in such high concentrations of the toxic material revealed herein.

NB Results of the many other particulates discovered in the experimental flasks described,
will be published following further analysis.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To be continued whistle.gif

MikeR pilotfly.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Mar 15 2014, 08:35 AM
Post #18





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Mar 15 2014, 11:19 PM) *
MikeR, tell me what you think of this:

<<Draw your own conclusions.>>


Persistent Contrails are more than enough problem for all of us in the WWW to get our
serious undergrad heads round, without get sidetracked by post-doctoral consideration of
military-issue Directed Energy Weaponry

I would point out the degree (sic) of incompetence, revealed by the undercover village idiots
employed by or for the 9/11 perpeTRAITOR, doesn't bode well for the sheer of complexification
hinted at in what you type.

However, I have to admit that in the case of Flight 370 I wasn't there.

Chemtrailia 101 overwhelmingly concerns me (as it should interest all of US)
precisely for one very good reason.

Unlike 9/11 or 7/7 or 3/11 or Aurora or Shady Hoax or Boston Bummery or any of
the other false flag events the perpeTRAITOR pulls off while most of US are asleep at the wheel,
the last time our sky was chem-bombed.... I was in the thick of it.

So were my grandkids


It is my duty to keep shaking the others till they wake up
to the toxic aerial danger so blatantly-hidden in plane sight.

MikeR rolleyes.gif

PS jimstonefreelance.com does have an EXCELLENT article on the Malaysian jet

This post has been edited by MikeR: Mar 15 2014, 08:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almerie
post Mar 15 2014, 09:56 AM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 96
Joined: 13-March 10
Member No.: 4,959



QUOTE (MikeR @ Mar 15 2014, 08:15 AM) *
A Flight in October 2009 was made into a "man-made cloud"


Do you have any documentation or reference to that flight?

QUOTE
The experimental scientists named in the attached research paper...


What attached research paper are you talking about?

This post has been edited by almerie: Mar 15 2014, 09:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 15 2014, 10:00 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (MikeR @ Mar 15 2014, 08:15 AM) *
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Flight in October 2009 was made into a "man-made cloud"


Finally you post something which has caught my interest instead of making me sit through a 2 hr 40 min interview which took place more than a year ago... Thank you!

I have done some *invesiti-googling* on Hancke, his last update was 9 months ago (as of the date of this post) and he was unable to reach his financial goals for the film....

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/overcast?c=activity

His last update at Facebook was Jan 15, with very sporadic updates prior...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/OVERCAST/142678639222057

Any more current updates as to when and if the film is going to be released? Or did he just take the 13k and run off with it?

I did some brief research on the alleged flight testing he performed. If true, I would think he should have collected much higher concentrations of Al and Ba at altitude while flying in and directly below "man-made persistent clouds formations".

But this information is good to know... it has saved me time and effort putting together my proposal, not to mention the fact clearly there isn't much interest in gaining/funding the research.. so I will no longer waste my time trying.. So I thank you for posting it MikeR.

I guess what we do now is sit back and wait for the film to be released.... if ever....
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: 16th September 2019 - 03:02 AM