Are these “Chemtrail” Planes? No.
December 9th, 2009
|
| Share |
One thing that has been pointed out about “Chemtrail” conspiracy theories is that if there actually were planes spraying chemicals for some evil purpose, they would surely be seen on the ground during maintenance, refueling or topping off the chemical tanks. It’s a bit difficult, after all, to hide a massive fleet of jumbo jets that are constantly out doing evil bidding (mass vaccination, mass poisoning, causing global warming, attempting to counteract global warming, mind control, poisoning or whatever other story is out there – the chemtrail crowd still doesn’t seem to be in agreement as to what the chemicals are for.)
Unfortunately, the chemtrail community has managed to address this point by producing a lot of photos of what they report are chemtrail planes, spotted in flight, on the tarmac, in hangers and occasionally photographed from the inside, presumably leaked by the murderous henchmen of the evil plots.
The reality of these claims: Most of these pictures are real, but they’re not what they are claimed to be. Airplanes are used for a lot more than transporting passengers, and if you look hard enough, you’re bound to find military and civillian aircraft with all kinds of attachments and equipment on them. These include antennas, refueling booms, air samplers, fuel dump ports, anti-missile systems and other hardware.
Now, lets take a look at some of the image claims and the reality of things…
The Claim: These photos show an aircraft from a top secret French Air Force department which has mysterious pods that are used for spraying some kind of chemical
The Reality: If you believe the website where the first photograph is posted, the insignia may indeed be from a French Air Force aircraft. The second photo does not show any insignia or lettering that would indicate country, so it could be American, French or from some other country. The photos show the same basic device. It’s a refueling pod. The pod is attached to a transport aircraft and allows it to act as an aerial refueled. The small propeller in the front is actually a ram-air turbine. It provides power to the pumps and other equipment in the pod from the air flow generated by the aircraft moving forward. This is done to simplify the setup of the system. It avoids having to run wiring or hydraulics to the pod by allowing it to generate its own power internally.
There are several reasons why a removable pod like this might be added to an aircraft. It could be used to allow a transport aircraft to provide refueling capabilities. It may also be added to US Air Force tankers, such as the US KC-135 or French KC-135FR aircraft to provide them with the ability to act as “Probe and Drogue” refuelers without compromising their ability to provide for “boom and receptical” refueling. The boom system is preferred by the US Air Force and is better suited to refueling large aircraft for it’s higher operating speeds and high flow rate. It gives the refueling technician control of a boom that is guided into a reception on the receiving aircraft. The probe and drogue system is simpler and more compact, making it better for use with smaller carrier-based refueling aircraft. It is also can be used for refueling of certain helicopters.
The addition of refueling pods to boom-equipped refueling aircraft allows for refueling of Naval aircraft, as well as refueling of aircraft from allied countries such as the UK, which exclusively use the probe and drogue configuration and would not have aircraft equipped for the boom and receptical method. That appears to be the case in the above pictures. These pods appear to have been attached to air to air refueling aircraft to allow them to provide for probe and drogue refueling, in addition to the boom system.
The Claim: This image shows an aircraft being modified or maintained for chemtrail spraying
The Reality: Just as mentioned above, this is a conversion adapter for a boom refueler to refuel probe and drogue aircraft. In this case, it’s a very simple addition of a drogue adapter to the existing refueling boom. This type of adapter is simple and can be quickly installed or removed. The disadvantage of this type of system over the pod system is that it does not allow the aircraft to act as both a boom and drogue refueler at the same time. By installing the adapter, the boom is no longer functional for refueling aircraft equipped for that system. Of course, this may not always be a concern, depending on the type of aircraft being supported.
The Claim: This photo shows the spraying assembly of an aircraft used to produce chemtrails. Air Force personnel admit that they exist, but say that they’re “not supposed to talk about that.”
The Reality: Well, it does show a spray assembly that is used for spraying a chemical out of an aircraft, but the only chemical it sprays is dihydrogen monoxide (water). This is actually a modified KC-135, which has had the refueling probe replaced with a sprayer that is designed to create a fine mist of water droplets. This one of a kind aircraft is known as the “KC-135 R Airborne Icing Tanker” The purpose of this aircraft is to replicate the conditions that cause ice buildup on aircraft for in flight testing. When flying through “icing conditions” an aircraft can build up a layer of ice on the wings and control surfaces. The ice can present a danger due to increased turbulence and disruption of the airfoil shape of the wings. For the military, there are additional concerns, as even a very thin layer of ice can compromise the stealth properties of low observability aircraft, even if the ice is not severe enough to endanger the aircraft’s flight profile.
The Air Force has used this aircraft to test the severity of ice buildup on various aircraft, the effects on flight and stealth and to test the effectiveness of various methods of reducing ice buildup or removing ice accumulations. The aircraft is not secret nor is its mission. Research has been used by NASA and other civilian agencies in applications related to commercial and civil aircraft icing. Reports indicate that the aircraft would be used by the FAA for research and airframe testing, but the current status is not known, as the report is several years old.
The current aircraft is not the first of this kind. It replaced an older KC-135A which had preformed similar testing until its retirement in 1996. Icing has been a concern since the earliest days of aviation and the use of an aircraft like the KC-135R Airborne Icing Tanker makes it possible to study the effects of differing conditions without having to seek out locations where these conditions exist. As the spray can be controlled and turned off, it is much safer to measure icing in this manner.
The Claim: This photo shows a large chemtrail aircraft dumping massive amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere
The Reality: It’s the Evergreen Supertanker, a uniquely modified 747-200 designed for fighting wild fires. Air drops of water and retardant on fires is a well established and highly effective technique, but many of the aircraft used for this task are quite old airframes, some going back all the way to World War II. The Tanker 910, a DC-10 based “water bomber” demonstrated the feasibility of using jet powered, passenger plane-derived aircraft for the purpose. The supertaker takes it to the next level, with twice the capacity of the Tanker 910, more than any other fire-fighting aircraft.
The aircraft is a former passenger 747, which was acquired by Evergreen International Aviation and modified for this unique mission. The aircraft has been highly successful in fighting fires in the United States and Spain. The large capacity means that fewer aircraft and fewer flights are required and that large ares can be saturated in a single pass. Due to the uniquely large capacity, Evergreen has begun to explore other applications for the Supertanker, including oil spill dispersal, chemical decontamination possibly weather modification – although this would only be a local effect, similar to cloud seeding.
The Claim: It’s a pod that releases chemicals as part of the chemtrail program
The reality: It’s a radome. Structures like this are used to cover antennas to protect them and maintain aerodynamics. They’re made of materials like plastic or fiberglass, which allows radio signals to pass through relatively unimpeded. This one is on an E-6B Mercury aircraft and likely contains satellite communications antennas. The E-6 has antennas on the end of each wing and on other points on the aircraft, thus assuring a continuous connection, regardless of how the aircraft is oriented.
The Claim: These images show a chemtrail aircraft at an airport, with nozzles and other spraying equipment visible.
The Reality: It may seem a bit odd that a chemtrail aircraft would need so many different types of nozzles and sprayers, especially the ones that are apparently facing the wrong direction for discharging a spray into the atmosphere. Of course, this is not a chemtrail aircraft at all. It’s an atmospheric research aircraft and those probes and other protrusions are air samplers along with various sensors for things like particle concentration, moisture and other measurements.
The plane is actually operated by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and its primary purpose is monitoring and measuring levels of various pollutants in the atmosphere. The plane is a Gulfstream G-1 and has been used to measure everything from CO2 levels to various aerosols. It has also flown missions in cooperation with the Argone National Laboratory and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The Reality: This is actually a fuel dump port, and if you’re never seen one in operation during a flight, then that’s a good thing. Not all commercial aircraft have these, but they are commonly found on aircraft which are intended for long duration flights, such as trans-continental passenger service.
Aircraft which fly such routes carry thousands of gallons of fuel, thus making fuel load a significant portion of the aircraft’s weight at takeoff. For many aircraft, the maximum takeoff weight is higher than the maximum landing weight, and when carrying a full load, these aircraft may take off at a total weight higher than the weight they are certified to land at. This is not a problem if the aircraft lands at its planned destination. By the time the aircraft lands, most of the fuel on board will have been used and the reduction in weight means that the aircraft will be well within its maximum landing weight.
However, on occasion, an aircraft may be forced to abort the flight shortly after takeoff and return to the airport it had taken off from or land at another air port, much closer than had been planned. This could be because of a mechanical problem on the aircraft, such as an engine failure or a problem retracting the landing gear. It could also be due to a medical emergency on board the aircraft or because the destination airport is unable to accept the aircraft for unforeseen reasons, such as a radar system failure, a disabled aircraft on the runway or because Greenpeace is pulling a stunt on the tarmac and the entire airport has to be evacuated and everyone re-screened and all aircraft inspected due to a grotesque and astronomically expensive breach of security.
In such circumstances, the aircraft needs to reduce weight to bring it back into the safety margins for landing. Thus, the aircraft must dump fuel. It is directed to an altitude which will assure the fuel disperses before reaching the ground and to an area away from other air traffic or ground development, often out at sea and it jettisons a portion of the fuel through ports which are located away from control surfaces and engines. The enviornmental impacts are relatively low, because this is not done as a matter of routine, and most of the fuel will break down in the atmosphere relatively rapidly. Airlines obviously try to avoid having to do fuel dumps, as it’s a waste of expensive fuel.
On some occasions, a pilot may elect to dump fuel even if the aircraft does not exceed the maximum landing weight, if a non-routine and high risk landing is required. For example, if the landing gear cannot be extended, the aircraft will have to make a “belly landing.” In such circumstances, landing with the fuel tanks nearly empty reduces risk of fire. The majority of fuel would be dumped and the plane would then circle the airport to burn off the remainder of the fuel and land with just barely enough fuel to keep the engines running. Aircraft which are intended for shorter duration travel or which have a maximum take off weight similar to the maximum landing weight, such as the Boeing 757, generally do not have fuel dump systems, and therefore if it is necessary to land the aircraft with nearly empty fuel tanks, such as in the case of a landing gear failure, it may take many hours of circling to burn off fuel.
The Claim: These photos show the interior of a chemtrail sprayer aircraft including a sign clearly indicating the spray unit.
The Reality: The above photos are some of the most common ones on the internet, claiming to show an aircraft equipped to spray chemicals on the population. One might wonder why such an aircraft would have so many small tanks, roughly the size of a keg and not larger tanks. The reason is that this is not a chemtrail sprayer at all, and those tanks are full of water and serve no purpose other than to act as ballast.
The photo actually shows flight testing of a new aircraft type, in this case, the Boeing 777. The tanks of water are placed to simulate the total load and mass distribution of a fully loaded passenger aircraft. In addition to the load tanks, there are several racks of instruments used to monitor and assess the flight characteristics and systems on the aircraft. A few airline-style seats are installed to give the technicians a place to sit for take off and landing. An identical photo can be found here, with the proper description.
It’s not entirely clear what is written in the area that supposedly says “sprayer” but the ones that show a closeup of the area look very suspicious and may very well have been Photoshopped. Those units are not sprayers at all. They’re lavatory units. If you look closely at the one on the left side of the photo, you can even see the latch on the door and the little sign that says “vacant” or “occupied.”
There are other websites claiming to show the interior of chemtrail aircraft which show similar photos of aircraft flight tests. Some websites have photos of an aircraft test, also with rows of ballast tanks. This photo has also shown up on a few chemtrail websites. It shows an Airbus aircraft undergoing flight tests, it also has tanks for ballast, but in this case, the tanks look more like big milk jugs than kegs. It’s the same idea, just a different style of tank being used.
In one, workers are shown during the process of installing the tanks. The site states “Here are the accomplices to murder, on the job, operating the chemtrail spraying machine.”
The Claim: These photos show spraying equipment on aircraft used to create chemtrails.
The Reality: Of all the claims of chemtrail aircraft, this is the only one that has even the slightest shred of truth to it. (that is not to say it’s true, just that it has some truth to it.) These devices do indeed release materials into the atmosphere and they are for the purpose of weather modification, they’re just not as sinister as they’re made out to be. They’re cloud-seeders.
There has been quite a bit of debate over the effectiveness of cloud seeding. The theory behind it is that releasing particles into a can increase the rate of condensation of water vapor and create large enough droplets to trigger precipitation. Materials like salts, silver iodine and dry ice chips have been used. The theory behind this is sound, as it is well documented that sources of dust or other particles can have effects on the rate of precipitation, but evidence for cloud seeding’s effectiveness is limited. Based on current data, it appears that cloud seeding does indeed have some (relatively small) effect on precipitation, but only under very narrow circumstances and within a relatively small locality. The effects are fleeting. While seeding a cloud formation may produce results, it only does so for that formation and thus the results are fleeting.
Cloud seeding cannot produce rain from an otherwise dry sky. It can’t stop a rain storm from happening and it can’t do very much to the weather of a large region. About all it can do is attempt to cause clouds which would produce precipitation anyway to produce the precipitation a little bit sooner than they otherwise would. This could theoretically be of some use in areas of drought, by causing clouds that would otherwise pass by without producing precipitation to instead rain. Unfortunately, in practice, and if it works at all, the results are often disappointing. Another potential use is to “rain out” clouds before they reach a given location. The Chinese government did this during the 2008, and indeed the Olympics did have good weather, but this may have had more to do with luck than the cloud seeding program.
If cloud seeding has any chance at all of producing results like those claimed during the 2008 Olympics, the program has to be absolutely massive. In many cases, the need for continuous seeding precludes the use of aircraft, which would be too expensive. That’s not necessarily an issue, however, because cloud seeding is just as likely to be conducted using ground-based seeding methods, like flare-based seed generators or modified anti-aircraft guns.
Occasionally local governments hire private cloud seeders. Ski resorts and large agricultural operations also have hired cloud seeders. Whether this is actually a worthwhile investment is questionable.
Conclusion: To a paranoid mind, all things seem suspicious and sinister. None of these photographs actually are.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, Good Science, Just LAME, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
December 10th, 2009 at 5:17 am
drbuzz0 said:
I have been on two airplanes that had to return to airport, first one was a two hours domestic one with stuck landing gear it landed at once. Second was a trans Atlantic one had to return after one hour because of problem with secondary navigation system, it burned fuel fast to get rid of it before landing, know because they told us it was the reason for the loud engine noise.
This is probably standard practice, you circle and burn if you has time; arrival airport closed, instrument failure and similar. You dump in emergencies mostly engine problems or failure.
The aircraft company would often prefer to dump to get the airplane faster on ground to fix problem and reduce delays, this is the only conflict I see.
Quote Comment
December 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am
There is actually a lot of thought that goes into fuel planning for airline flights. There are many (and somewhat contradictory) requirements. You must (obviously) carry enough fuel to fly the route (route fuel) plus extra to allow for headwinds, plus a reserve to allow holding over the arrival airport (waiting for your turn to land or waiting for weather to clear), plus a reserve to allow diverting to an alternate airport if you are unable to land at your planned destination. All of this has to be met within the max take-off weight at departure, the planned landing weight (vs. allowable), and the fuel capacity of the aircraft. One trick that was used in the propliner days for long range flights (I don’t know whether modern aircraft use this technique) is to plann the flight for an airport several hundred miles short of the destination. The real planned destination is used as the alternate. Toward the end of the flight, the pilot evaluates remaining fuel (which may be less than he had planned for due to head winds) and if he has enough (including a holding reserve), he “diverts” the airport that he intended to land at to begin with. If not, he lands ant the closer airport to refuel.
Quote Comment
December 10th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
These pictures remind me of a conspiracy theorist’s post once showing pictures of the Space Shuttle Orbiter’s belly during postflight inspection. It particularly showed a lens in the Orbiter’s belly — obviously a secret camera! OMG! The Shuttle is SPYING on us!
Which is ridiculous on so many levels, really.
The pictures were taken by NASA and posted publicly; it wasn’t exactly hidden. The originals were even clearly identified: the camera is the one that takes the post-launch pictures of the ET right after it separates, to capture valuable engineering and safety data. Interestingly, that claim has died away since the Columbia accident, now that folks understand just why NASA might want pictures of the ET.
Still, it has one thing in common: the pictures that sparked the conspiracy whackiness were not secret, were published on the Web the very people supposedly keeping them secret, and were correctly identified when first published. I think there must be people out there who grab these pictures and redistribute them with wrong data in order to mess around with conspiracy theorists.
Quote Comment
December 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Calli Arcale said:
That doesn’t even make sense! If the government wanted to spy on us from high altitudes or from space, they would use the existing *spy satellites* and other reconicense systems. There would be no need to fit the shuttle to do the job, when they already have the capability and readilly admit to it. Hell, you don’t even need to be the government to do it. There are plenty of privately operated satellites with sensory capabilities down to less than 2 meters.
Chuck P. said:
I very much doubt that would be current practice. If a flight is supposed to be London to Los Angeles, it flies from London to Los Angeles, and does not land somewhere else unless something major happens to force it to. If you have passengers flying from London to Los Angeles and they get dropped off at Denver or Kansas City, simply because the head winds were very slightly stronger than anticipated, you’re going to have some pretty angry passengers.
When I flew to London recently, I would have been VERY angry with the airline if I found out that they fudged the fuel estimates and got me stuck in Iceland or even Ireland because their estimates for london assumed the most favorable conditions.
If I ended up in Iceland because of a real unforseen problem, like an engine flaming out or something, well, that would not bother me. Or rather, it would bother me, but I would not consider it an unforgivable event for the airline.
Quote Comment
December 10th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Again, excellent debunking Steve. Good ‘ole mundane facts and reality checks show this is a lot less than it seems to some.
I’ve seen a number of chemtrail videos and sites (god it’s so lame, when I first found out I was sure it was a joke). Like most of this made up stuff, even the big followers of the theories don’t seem to have any consistency about exactly how the chemicals are being sprayed. They don’t seem to bother noting that they have several theories going at once.
I have heard the following claims made:
1. It’s done by the military with special chemtrail spraying planes
2. It’s done primarily by regular passenger and/or cargo aircraft which are dual-purpose and have been fitted with sprayers. The airlines are in on it, so when you fly for buisiness or vacation, you might be sitting on a chemtrail airplane and at some point the pilot just switches on the “spray” switch.
3. There are no sprayers, there are no chemical tanks. The chemicals are from the exhaust of the engines, but they’re not the “normal” exhaust. The fuel has had toxic chemicals added to it and the airlines willingly use it to cause evil.
4. Same as above except the airlines DON’T know about it. The government is covertly adding it at the refineries.
Oh yeah, also, what is in the chemtrails? I’ve heard barium, depleted uranium, bacteria and virus cultures, human blood plasma, nano-technology machines, nerve gas, tiny particles of aluminum, mercury…. what else? Pretty much you name it, I’m sure someone has claimed it.
BTW: Before someone goes and explains to me all the problems with these theories, by telling me how strict the quality controls are on fuel or how many people inspect airplanes at one time or another, I know. I know there are a million and one reasons this is bull****, but I’m not the one making the claim.
Quote Comment
December 10th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
For the record commercial aircraft carry fuel to destination plus reserve. I have never heard of the practice of fueling to to some waypoint then recalculating. If it was past practice, it done well before the advent of jets like the 707 and DC-8, which entered service in the early 60’s.
The only type of flying that might use this sort of profile is long distance ferry flying of light aircraft, the clowns that fly single engine airplanes over the ocean. Those guys used to have pay their own fuel, and this might be a stunt they would pull in the hope they would get good winds.
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2009 at 12:53 am
DV82XL said:
There was actually a news story on this that I read not too long ago. A couple of years ago, when fuel prices were very high, and the airlines were doing whatever they could do reduce fuel consumption, there was a news story about the airlines being accused of pressuring pilots to fly with less reserve.
Apparently, according to the story, it’s standard practice to have the fuel to get to a given destination plus at least enough reserve to account for head winds or a holding pattern or something. Having a little more reserve beyond the minimum requirement is at the pilots discretion, and there was some news item floating a while back that the airlines were supposedly pressuring their pilots to only fly with the minimum required reserve and no extra.
Of course, it came with the claims that this was endangering everyone and how there would be a danger of the tanks running bone dry and falling from the sky or something like that. The kind of stuff that gets ratings and sells papers.
DV82XL said:
Well, you really can’t compare the commercial aviation sector to the general aviation sector where you have Sunday pilots who go out for fun in a Piper Cub or a Cessna 172. That’s a world away. Yes, general aviation does have safety standards and practices, but it’s so much more informal and less scripted and there’s nowhere near the same oversight. So much is left to the responsibility of the individual pilot.
I’ve been up in a single-engine plane on a few occasions. The fuel procedure involves first walking the plane to the fuel pump (as in, one of us walking behind each wing, pushing on it to propel the aircraft with human muscle power). Then, it’s self-service with a card that is swiped for the billing, and aside from the hose being much longer and the fuel being avgas and not regular unleaded, it operates more or less like a regular gas pump.
Then the message to the tower is “We’re just going up for a little sight seeing, about an hour or so, we’ll be returning here.”
Of course, I’m sure different airports have a slightly different fueling service (some have trucks that come to the plane instead)
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2009 at 4:59 am
“A couple hundred tons of finger nails on a quarter mile chalkboard???”
That sounds like a horribly unpleasant way to land. I can’t even imagine that. If they have to land a plane without the landing gear, does it usually manage to pull it off without injuring or killing anyone? Does it mean the aircraft is totaled?
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2009 at 7:39 am
RBR1978 said:
Most times, yes
RBR1978 said:
Surprisingly enough, no
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
More proof that conspiracy theorists have no concern for others or what they do to slander them. In addition to people who died during 9/11 or were involved in the rescue efforts and so on, there you have a few honest, competent and completely innocent flight engineers or certification inspectors who were more than willing to smile for the camera during the setup of a plane for a test and they never would have had the slightest idea that years later that photo would be used out of context to insinuate something as dumb and ridiculous as their participation in a murderous plot to spray the world with poison.
I would bet that the men in that picture probably take a measure of pride in their work, and that the flight test was an event of some excitement, being the culmination of work and something that they don’t get to do every day. I know have people who have worked on big items like planes, and when the first one in a production series rolls out of the factory or has some other event, everyone of the hard working stiffs gets excited over it.
It makes me wonder. If I put a picture of myself online some time, I’m not really the kind that gets all nuts about intellectual property if someone else takes it and used part of it for a background or something, but if I had my likeness used as an example of a murder, I’d be pretty pissed, with or without a black bar on my eyes.
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
@Goldberg: Yeah, they don’t really care about honesty, or who knows, maybe they found the picture and really think it is a chemtrail plane and don’t care enough to verify it before assuming?
That’s one thing about the internet, with photos and media. If it were me, I’d be more than happy to let people exchange my photo and use it as an example of what kind of things are done to evaluate aircraft. If it were used in that circumstance, I’d be all for it. It’s the whole thing of taking it and using it to advance a lie, which is probably something far from the mind of the photographer at the time.
It reminds me of how those pictures of deformed and stillborn infants are used by the depleted uranium liars without any concern for the fact that they’re showing a real photo of a human. It is all a game to them.
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Footage of a Fokker 100 landing in Germany with gear jammed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pUPbwjaFUk
73 people on board, all got out okay. However, from the look of it, I bet being onboard, it made one hell of a screech and was probably not the most comfortable landing. Metal dragged across pavement and throwing up sparks… yeah, that’s gotta just about make your teeth crack.
If that plane was not totaled, I’m sure it spent some time in the shop at least.
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Q said:
I can tell you just from watching that the airframe was reparable. He had his nose-gear down, so most of the damage was aft of the wingbox. he rubbed some of the keel off, but some new stringers and some skin and the bird is back in business inside a month.
Some years ago I was involved with not one, but two collapsed nose-gear landing repairs on B757’s inside of six months. The customer (who shall remain nameless) had managed to twice overhaul the gear with the same component, a locking mechanism, improperly installed. Fortunately for all concerned the planes had slowed considerably before it let go.
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
My understanding is that these are usually fixable – unless the aircraft is just so close to the end of its useful life to begin with that it’s not worth any major repairs, of course. I believe it’s more common to have a failure of one of the gear assemblies that fails and not all three.
I still have to think this must have made one hell of a nasty, grinding, dry, scraping, SCREEEEEEEEEEAACH
Quote Comment
December 12th, 2009 at 3:39 am
It never fails to amaze me how stupid people can be.
Just about all of these pictures I would have been able to guess what they were with pretty good accuracy. The are sampling aircraft is pretty obviously a research plane, the cloud seeder is obvious, I’ve seen refueling equipment before. Anyone who knows the first damned thing should recognize this stuff.
The only one that would have left me wondering is the ice formation spray plane. That I would have had to hit up goggle for, to figure out why that would be there, but the explanation is entirely reasonable, especially given that it’s not a secret that they do this.
Quote Comment
December 12th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Hi,
I’m glad I found this site. This is an excellent resource for debunking these. Some of these same planes are also found on the site http://www.contrailscience.com, which seconds everything seen here. These are normal aircraft that do normal, sometimes boring things, like refuel military planes or fly passengers and on rare occasions need to dumb some of the fuel.
I’m adding this site, along with contrailscience to my list of recommended reading for a reality check for anyone in the chemtrail club and I’ll be sure those I know who are interested in trying to get the truth out there get a copy to help if they’re encountering a chemtrail person.
Let me tell you though, from the other side of the airport fence, literally and figuratively, that these conspiracy theorists do cause some unease from time to time. They have staged protests and pickets at airports and they only get a few people to show up, so it’s pathetic, but it is also a little concerning because, at the smaller airports, where you can go right up to the fence by the ramps, they’ll get nasty at everyone they see. It is nothing more than giving the finger and screaming murderers or something, so you could ignore it and it’s not ever hurt anyone. It usually gets them escorted off the property by security and a threat of arrest if they come back and that shuts them up.
From the other side though, it gets people very nervous. It’s a little concerning to turn your back to them, because, even if they seem harmless, you know they’re just not playing with a full deck and they think the guys out there are part of a murdering conspiracy. It’s something that people think about when they’re getting accused of that kind of thing. It has only happened a few times, so it’s not a big problem, but boy, it makes you think twice about rolling down your windows to get some fresh air when you’re driving out of the parking lot at the end of a shift.
Anyone who works outside at an airport knows it is a hazardous job and you have to keep yourself very alert, because there are always jet engines and props spinning and there are vehicles in a hurry to get to the plane and there has always been concern over sabotage or terrorism, that your life could be in danger if someone tries to jump the fence and get to one of the aircraft or something like that, and this is all the more potent in the past few years. Anyone working there is concerned of both the hazards of the job and the possibility that someone with bad intentions.
You can look at some of these sites on the chemtrail stories, and they have things like names of companies that do cloud seeding and where they fly out of and they have pictures of things like tail numbers. You can see above, there are men working on a plane in some of the pictures. If you see this online and it’s you or someone you know, your stomach sinks in you.
Stay safe and keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Fred J.
Quote Comment
December 13th, 2009 at 4:06 am
Fred: Often times there are groups who are harmed by this non-science that I don’t even think of until they’re mentioned. I can entirely see how flight support guys would get nervous about the level of insanity on this issue.
Quote Comment
December 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I respectfully disagree on your assessment of cloud seeding. It actually is effective when applied to the right circumstances. It’s just that most people don’t have a real understanding of the whole concept.
The common belief is that cloud seeding is simply going up into a cloud and making it rain. Okay, cloud seeding can trigger raining in a cloud, but usually only a small amount and for a short time.
There are places where cloud seeding works well because of the local climate and topography and in those circumstances, it’s not about getting one given weather system to produce precipitation but to increase the overall precipitation. For example, in the Western US, there are areas where you approach the Rocky Mountains and a lot of clouds and moisture collects in an area, but it usually does not cause precipitation there, but it will keep being pushed east by the prevailing southwesterlies and after being forced up over the mountains, it starts to produce precipitation. If those clouds are seeded, it will increase droplet size and reduce the altitude of the cloud. It does not reduce it by a whole lot, but it keeps it in the valley area for a while longer and potentially will cause it to produce some local precipitation.
It is not 100% effective in that circumstance. Without seeding, some clouds rain anyway and most do not. Each cloud seeded will not rain, but that’s not the point. The point is increasing the probability that it will, so over a season you get more rain or snow.
Because you can’t send a plane to all of the formations, usually there are ground-based flare stations that are activated by weather reports.
There are different types of seeding with different goals. Dry ice seeding, salt seeding, smoke seeding. The best known is probably silver-iodine, but there are many compounds that have shown usefulness.
There are times when seeding from a plane can cause nearly immediate results, but the conditions have to be almost perfect for that to happen. If you have low hanging nimbus clouds that are near the point of saturation, seeding can push them over the edge. If the clouds are not so close, seeding may trigger some precipitation, but for a short time (usually). Dry ice seeding works for that pretty well, because it will force condensation, but only for a very short time.
It’s not just producing precipitation though, because a lot of the time, in areas that are very dry, the droplets will evaporate or partially evaporate before even getting to the ground. Therefore, if the altitude is lowered just a little bit or the droplets are made ever so slightly larger, it can actually have a major effect.
The perception is that seeding has the ability to do something like “make it rain at 2:00 on Tuesday” which it does not. If you are looking for something to “increase the average snow cover on this side of the mountain” then it very well might work extremely well. You have to know the limits and the strengths.
Quote Comment
December 21st, 2009 at 5:00 am
They have been spraying for years, but only started doing it on a big scale around the time 9/11 was pulled off, or actually a little bit beforehand in preparation. Military planes don’t do much spraying except for special targeted stuff. Airliners are the best way to spray because nobody notices them, so that’s why they do most of it over populated areas. According to a lot of research that they did at infowars, about a quarter of airliners are fitted for spraying and they spray almost every flight. They carry passengers too. That’s the creepy thing, because it’s dual use.
The tanks and sprayers are different depending on the purpose. There is no one chemical. Some are for weather control, but others are for spreading virus material. Does anyone really think swine flu was natural? It sprays infected plasma. Sometimes they spray aluminum to try to keep down the immune system and dumb down the people. Also they spray mercury and barium and all kinds of other things. Sometimes it’s agent orange or has depleted uranium mixed in to increase cancer rates.
Some pilots know but they buy the story that it’s for good, to stop global warming and not to talk about it. It makes me sick though. The reasons are not so nice nice.
Mind control is the next thing they’re working on. Look up HAARP. They are working on making chemtrails to work like antennas. The traisn form long antennas to broadcast down to everyone. The place where the signals come from is called HARP and it’s up hidden in Alaska.
It is all very sickening, but people are finally fighting back and getting the truth out and really that is the one thing the feds never planned on. They have already had to delay some of the internments because people were wising up to it.
They had two tests so far which are obviously Huricane Katrina and the Tsunami. These are small compared to what is planned, but they need to keep seeding for a while to try to groom the sheeple to accept it all when it comes.
Quote Comment
December 21st, 2009 at 7:45 am
4Truth88 said:
Does it ever occur to you death-camp-government-monitors-everything types that if there really was a conspiracy, your websites would be closed down and you ‘disapeared’ so fast your head would spin? I mean its not like any one of you is so special they would be missed more than the people that do vanish all the time without a trace.
The only sickening thing here, is that people live you are running around loose and unmedicated. You are clearly a danger to yourself, I hope you don’t become a danger to others.
Quote Comment
December 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
That first plane in the series is indeed French- it is a Boeing KC-135FR, originally purchased for refueling Mirage IV nuclear bombers. They were re-engined with GE/Snecma CFM-56 engines, basically the same as on Boeing 737s, in the 90’s. The giveaway is the outline-style code letters. Those refueling baskets are used for nearly all NATO-standard aircraft and US Navy/Marine planes. The USAF is the only force using boom and socket. Even the Russians use probe and drogue- look up Il-78 Midas tankers on Airliners.net and you will see a similar pod installation. One thing I have been noticing is there is a pattern to these chemtrail people- they know virtually nothing about aviation.
Quote Comment
December 21st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I’d like to see you try to explain all of these!
http://www.projectearth.com/Images/2Plane.jpg
http://www.missouriskywatch.com/files/Chemtrail-Spraying-equipment/Chemtrail-DISPERSER-ATTACHMENT.jpg
http://www.projectearth.com/Images/CT-wingtips.jpg
http://www.presenting.net/cts/nozzlestn.jpg
http://northshorejournal.org/LinkedImages/2008/10/Spray060516-F-4098K-240a.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/power/b737-apu.jpg
Quote Comment
December 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Jimatkins said:
Thanks for filling in the gaps. I was not 100% sure about the identity of the KC-135 in the photos so I didn’t want to give the wrong impression. Also, regarding the boom and socket – I also didn’t want to say the wrong thing if I was not 100% sure. As far as I knew, the USAF is the only major force that uses it, but I wasn’t entirely certain about that and I do know that the Russians (and maybe Chinese) have at least experimented with it at one time or another. Of course, there are other kinds of refueling methods that have been experimented with at one time or another but were not adopted.
Man, guiding a TU-95 into a refueling drogue basket can’t be much fun
Quote Comment
December 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
4Truth88 said:
1.) contrails
2.) refueling boom
3.) contrails
4.) cloud seeding iodine ’smoke pots’
5.) end of a JATO burn
6.) an APU, the small turboshaft engine that most large aircraft use to supply auxiliary power.
Jimatkins is right: your stupidity is only exceeded by your ignorance. Stop wasting out time.
Quote Comment
December 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
4Truth88 said:
Fairly normal contrails
4Truth88 said:
KC-135 icing test aircraft (see above)
4Truth88 said:
Wingtip contrail (not unusual) and it looks like it also might be a fuel dump
4Truth88 said:
Hard to tell, but looks like an air sampler
4Truth88 said:
JATO – mostly burned out and just smoking. They shoot out a lot more when they’re first lit up. Really cool to see, by the way. They do it quite a bit at airshows. If you can get to one, check it out. That big-ass C-130 will take off damn near vertical when those things light up!
4Truth88 said:
Auxiliary Power Unit
Quote Comment
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:40 am
Okay all you government-feed **** ****faced idiots. You ever even look up in the sky? HMMMM WHAT THE **** IS THAT? THAT LOOKS A BIT WEIRD EH? WHATS WITH ALL THESE ****ED UP CLOUDS! NOTICE THAT THEY”RE NOT ****ING CONTRAILS.
YOU ARE ALL PERVERTS.
EXPLAIN THIS? WHAT IS WITH ALL THE PLANES SUDDENLY AND FOR NO REASON HAVING NOZELS ON THE ENGINE? WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO COME OUT OF THERE? DO YOU BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT THAT ITS JUST HARMLESS RAINBOWS AND SUNSHINE?
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3855/jetnozels.jpg
DONT EVEN BOTHER TRUSTING THE PICS IF YOU DO NOT WANT AND TRUST YOUR ****IN EYES AND STUPID BRAINS> NEXT TIME YOU GO TO AN AIRPORT CHECK OUT THE PLANES AND SEE A LOT HAVE NOZELS ON THE BACK OF THE ENGINES. SOME DONT/ WHY DO SOME NEED IT AND NOT OTHERS? BECAUSE IT”S A ****IN SPRAYER, DOUCHEBAG PERVERT
Quote Comment
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:02 am
There is much I don’t understand about 4truth88’s ravings, but one of them is why exactly refuting the chemtrail stuff makes anyone a **pervert.** This is only a guess on my part, but I bet if you looked at all the chemtrail believers and all the chemtrail skeptics, you’d find the believers had them beat out on how many were actually convicted of sexual molestation or some other pervy kind of thing. They seem like the more disturbed type
When I first saw stuff about this, I really thought it had to be a joke or at least that it had to be limited to only a very few people, because it’s just so bonkers. Who hasn’t seen jet trails all their life? It’s amazing that it is actually taken seriously.
Quote Comment
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Bah. Nothing but wacky claims and a picture of a standard jet engine with a protruding exhaust cone, which many have and compared with an older engine that doesn’t (looks like a turbojet and not turbofan, maybe?) Anyway, that little vent on the exhaust cone is not for chemtrails. I believe it is to let out unburned fuel or anything that would get into the exhaust cone, but I could be wrong.
Quote Comment
December 30th, 2009 at 2:09 am
It astonishes me how crazy this is. Good job debunking though. Nothing here but some pretty mundane aircraft, but that’s always the case eh? Won’t change anyone’s mind.
Quote Comment
February 21st, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I am uncertain how showing a collection of aircraft and parts that are not designed for germ or chemical warfare, proves anything at all. It is similar to showing a few pictures of birds which are not eagles and then claiming there are no eagles.
This is not debunking but rather disinformation. Whether any agency is spraying the population or not, only a complete idiot would imagine that the capability for chemical and germ warfare do not exist. You live in denial of reality.
Quote Comment
February 21st, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Wiser than You said:
I’m just showing how all the images put up by the chemtrail nut-bags and conspiracy theorists are lying and putting up pictures of things that are not what they say.
All you have to do is show me ONE SINGLE SOLITARY picture of a chemtrail plane.
This isn’t arguing that there are no eagles, this is arguing that there are no unicorns when someone claims that there are and all they can produce are pictures of horses with rods stuck on their heads. The burden of proof is not on me, I’m just destroying the “proof” someone else claimed.
Wiser than You said:
Of course chemical and biological warfare exist. Biological warfare, however, is really only so-so in effectiveness. The British and Soviet Union spent enormous amounts of money studying it and they did manage to produce weaponized anthrax spores, but the potency on the battlefield is iffy.
Chemical warfare is absolutely possible, but the delivery mechanism would never be a high altitude aircraft spraying. That just will disperse it too much. Chemical weapons are usually delivered in artillery shells and occasionally cluster bombs.
Read a book, please!
Quote Comment
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Firstly, you are using a rather wide brush when you talk of “nutbags and conspiracy theorists”. There are numerous instances where “conspiracy theories” have turned out not to be theory but fact.
Secondly, I am certain I have “read more books” than you could ever possible imagine, many of which you would not be permitted to read.
Thirdly, reading speculative webpages based upon the first 60 years or so of the twentieth century military capabilities in these theatres of warfare may be entertaining but has absolutely no bearing on current capabilities.
Fourthly, even you with your limited resources should be able to look into admitted instances of the military testing bio/chem-warfare delivery systems on Americans through the use of specially equipped aircraft. I would suggest you start with San Francisco, read the admissions, look a the period covered by those admissions, imagine how all other technology has improved since that time and reconsider what it is you think you know.
Spreading the flu or toxic agents by aerial means is actually a very well developed and almost boring area of capability. Shells just happen to be cheaper but cannot be deployed covertly. Whether any agency is actively exercising this capability for unknown reasons is another question. It is doubtful that this is happening on any regular basis. It is much simpler and far more profitable to rely on disinformation techniques, propaganda and outright fear mongering to achieve goals that may be desirable to some parties. Most people will line up and be injected directly, or go to the supermarket and drink it willingly. People who use a similar logic process to that which you are displaying in this “debunking”. Did you get your flu shot? If so, why? If not, why?
Sometimes it is useful to examine your own thought processes. This article you wrote is well presented and researched but in the end result could lead the gullible to believe that these types of programs are not possible or do not exist. In fact these types of programs and many far worse are fully funded and promoted by their own tax dollars.
Admittedly, it seems apparent that many have difficulties separating propaganda and disinformation from reality. It would be reaching to imagine that many are capable of deprograming themselves or even recognizing they are programed.
You would be wise to consider there are many technologies which you will never see a picture of. This I can assure you of. The lack of photographic evidence available to the general public does not prove or refute any speculation, theory or fact.
Now that you have shown many pictures of what isn’t aerial disbursement equipment maybe you should look into some real aerial systems. Although you will never see the real current state of the art, with a little digging you will find some older technology and then you can imagine what now exists. Posting this type of information might actually have a positive effect.
These are terrifying technologies which any sane person would be frightened of. To dismiss that such technology exists is in itself an act which emboldens those who design such monstrous machines.
You Sir, appear very naive. I believe you are not aware of who is really in charge of these types of affairs in the world today and what their philosophy entails. However, there is no doubt that they would appreciate your work if they really cared what the plebeians thought at all. They are far past these types of concerns. They have seized absolute power. It is doubtful they would even take the time to throw you a biscuit.
Quote Comment
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Wiser than You said:
Yep. A bunch of Whitehouse operatives bungled an attempt at an office burglary.
The governor of Connecticut helped fix construction bidding in exchange for free work done on his home and a number of “gifts”
The governor of New York saw several prostitutes and then had them paid hush money.
The office workers for a senator conspired to hide embezzlement of funds from a post office program.
Enron execs made deceptive entries in finance records to imply the company was making money when it was really losing it.
That’s what real conspiracies are like, pretty basic and boring.
Wiser than You said:
I got my flu shot because I don’t want to get the flu. Now lets consider that it is possible that something could be sprayed from an aircraft. That doesn’t mean anything. I’m not the one with the burden of proof.
Anyone can make up a statement which is untrue, but physically possible and that means nothing without evidence.
Here, I’ll do it right now:
There is currently a multi-national conspiracy involving many different agencies: The Canadian Soybean Growers Association, the British Dental Association, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan, the Egyptian Antiquities Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles of the state of Colorado.
These agencies have been working together on a plan that involves the use of spacecraft to land rovers on the moon which would dig trenches and rearrange rocks. They would also use super-high power lasers to ablate or vaporize soil from the lunar surface.
Their goal: To destroy the current face of the moon and create an image of Cornell Harland Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame.
Is this impossible? No. Is it ridiculous? Yes. Is it happening? It’s valid to presume that it is not unless there is some evidence presented to show it is.
Sometimes it is useful to examine your own thought processes. This article you wrote is well presented and researched but in the end result could lead the gullible to believe that these types of programs are not possible or do not exist. In fact these types of programs and many far worse are fully funded and promoted by their own tax dollars.
Wiser than You said:
Okay, let me tell you the real seceret of the government, and I have learned this through a lot of personal experience and the experience of others I know well who are involved in high level government affairs: There is nobody running things or at least no single person or group.
Yes, the government does have a president and a legislature, but with agencies and programs, it’s so compartmentalized, so disorganized, so disconnected that there never is any single unified goal or purpose nor is there ever a big inter-agency program that does not involve a huge amount of stuff being done twice or not at all, because nobody is organized.
Programs constantly are started and then cut short before they show results and then started again at twice the cost. Programs are ordered to do one thing and then never given funds for it. They get funds for things they don’t do. Procedures are changed mid-process and then changed again before the first changes get completed.
That is the big secret: There is much less organization and cooperation than you could ever imagine.
Quote Comment
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Wiser than You said:
Oh boy, I can now see the light because some azzhole claims he has read more books than the rest of us.
The clear evidence of classic paranoia is breathtaking with a perfect combination of self-aggrandizement coupled with a persecution complex. Absolutely textbook.
But don’t worry, moron. Soon they will come for you. They will take off the top of your head, scoop out all the cottage cheese and pour in nice cool yogurt. Then you will be just fine.
Quote Comment
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:55 pm
DV82XL said:
I should have specified which books to read. Yes, reading is generally thought of as being the kind of thing you get smarter from doing, but that’s not universally true. If you read books like Kevin Trudeau’s “Natural Cures *They* Don’t Want You To Know About” or any of the several rambling books that David Ike wrote.
Quote Comment
March 15th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Since when is water a hazard material? (HazMat)
Quote Comment
March 15th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Brad said:
Aren’t you familiar with the evils of DMHO?
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Quote Comment
March 15th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Brad said:
The “sprayer 05″ and “Hazmat Inside” were Photoshopped onto the picture – poorly, I may add.
Here’s the original: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-777-240-LR/0855967/L/
And as is evident in the other photo of the same aircraft, nothing is written on the lavatory unit.
Specifically that is the flight test of unit one of the Boeing 777-240 LR, extended range version of the 777-2xx series.
Quote Comment
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:24 am
@drbuzzo The conspiracies you stated do seem pretty boring, especially when you compare them to congressional hearings (two which I don’t even think you are aware of) on JFK’s assassination, or MK Ultra (CIA mind control little per project)… I don’t think even a thick person like you and your nodding buddies here can dispute something that was debated in such a manner and with so much evidence. As far as 9/11 is concerned, there is also so many unanswered facts (from NORAD being on a prolonged tea break to physical evidence of nanothermite in the rubble so I will not bother with that too). Thanks for the piccies of these current planes, it actually gives people idea what is in use for the spraying of the chemicals, and your moaning about nutters making your alpha-primate’s life hard with their protests makes my heart rejoice, as there are more and more people that do bother thinking with their own head. I do assume due to your testosterone lingo and technical term and number volleyball that you are or were employed by the government or military, so I don’t hold your attitude against you . After all, soldiers do get brainwashed to kill strangers in their own homes and beds far away from their own country and get killed or maimed themselves, defending politicians and private contractors right to pillage another person’s homeland. Such is life ): Hope you have a nice one, at least unbothered by any inconvenient truths…
Quote Comment
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:53 am
Awaiku said:
At least get your terms right. It was not a single hearing, you’re talking about the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations. By the way, since you probably don’t know anything about it, let me tell you that their conclusion was that the Assassination of Kennedy was carried out by Lee Harvey Oswald. The only statement made was that it “may have been part of a conspiracy” without naming the conspiracy. This was based entirely on acoustic evidence which was rejected by a review by the National Academy of Sciences.
G. Robert Blakey was the real hold-out for conspiracy theorists.
The committee also found no evidence of government involvement in the King assassination and reaffirmed James Earl Ray as the shooter.
In other words, I do know what I’m talking about
Awaiku said:
That’s not quite how it works. The idea of a “Manchurian candidate” or brainwashed sleeper is pure fantasy. You can’t program a human brain to override all other things and do a command. There’s no such thing as mind control per see.
Yes, it is possible to convince someone of things through “brain washing” which includes very intensive psycological conditioning for a long period of time, but it’s not like you can control their actions and make them do things against their will as you seem to think. Even conventional indoctrination has limits of effectiveness per subject.
Yes, I’m totally aware of MKULTRA. It was a failure – which is exactly what modern medicine would expect it to be. They tried hypnosis and failed miserably.
They tried LSD, and as, would be expected, it gave no useful results. It made some people think they were turning into turtles and others think they were in a room full of giant candy canes with Coronel Sanders – random stuff like that. Not exactly tactically useful.
Get a grip on reality, seriously.
The government also did experiments with remote viewing and “psychic spies” it was equally fruitless.
Quote Comment
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:55 am
yea, yea *yawn* The fact these programs were a failure does not excuse the fact what they were trying to do. Same as studying Afro American patients for decades falling apart from syphilis under pretext they were treating them, while no treatment was done and all they did was data gathering on how fast and much the body deteriorates, and how does it function when mothers which are not treated deliver babies with same disease. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment. Or how about this http://www.boydgraves.com/timeline/ and the AIDS flowchart… There are numerous examples of “projects” like this. I don’t need to tell you to get a grip on reality, I’m sure you’re aware of it but decided to work for the dogs that do not give a damn about the ordinary people. Hence this site and your blog is actually trying to cover up for another example of government action versus common people… But it will not work
Quote Comment
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Of course, both MKUltra and The Tuskegee Experiment were criminal acts that are shameful examples of government corruption. In both cases, the greatest tragety is that they were not fully rooted out until most of those in charge were dead and could not be sent to prison as they deserved.
This does not mean that there are conspiracies that can effectively circumvent the laws of science. They can’t.
Quote Comment
March 24th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Interesting. I know there are pictures on the web showing airplanes spraying massive amounts of chemicals behind it. It would be interesting for this site to debunk that.
Quote Comment
March 24th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
evangelios said:
Would you care to provide a link to these supposed pictures? It’s a bit hard to provide any information without one.
Quote Comment
March 24th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Who’s got the depleted cranium? Disinformation blog. Here’s proof that chemtrails exist and they are being sprayed
to make people sick and ratched up the healthcare and insurance $$$.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSbmIOSrM3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8
Quote Comment
March 24th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Mike S said:
Insurance companies lose money when people get sick, idiot.
Mike S said:
They found 0.0688 ppm, which is considerably under the standards for water safety, idiot. This is also consistant with the levels naturally found in soil, idiot. Barium is a naturally occuring element, idiot. They only tested for elemental levels and not even the chemical form anyway.
Read something useful for a change: http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/
Mike S said:
dramatically different altitudes, idiot. One is up in relatively dry air, probably a cross country or international flight at 40,000+ feet, the other is at a low altitude in moist air.
Use the site search. Everything that is supposedly indicative of a “Chemtrail” including multiple aircraft leaving different contrails in the same area has been debunked and they’ve existed and been documented since the heyday of aviation.
http://depletedcranium.com/the-realities-of-contrails/
Quote Comment
March 24th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
COINTELPRO ALERT!!! AGENT PROVOCATEUR ALERT! DISINFORMATION ALERT! CIA BLOG ALERT!!!
Quote Comment
March 24th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Mike S said:
Jackass alert!!!
Quote Comment
March 24th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Mike S said:
That’s right Mike, we already have you traced…wait for the knock on the door. Once we put you on the brain-suck you will turned into a mindless but useful slave.
Quote Comment
March 24th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
DV82XL said:
It’s really too bad, you know. If Mike S had just made the one comment and not responded, we could have let it go and just let it look like he was proven wrong. He could have left well enough alone and he would have been classified as a low priority target and probably never bothered.
He just had to go issue that alert and move himself up to the top of the list!
The helicopters should be on their way as soon as nightfall.
Quote Comment