Dear Zak and others,
Just recently there was a debate on chemtrails. Back then I supported the
view that those trails left by airplanes were not to worry about. In the
last week I did some further research on this subject and found out that
there is indeed something very strange going on.
For those who can read Dutch or wish to try just visit the site:
http://www.niburu.nl
On the left you will see a scroll frame. Scroll down to "Artikelen", then
click Chemtrails 1 2 3. Just look at the third picture. BINGO! No
enginetrails but chemtrails!
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
18 Mar 2005 10:00:19 AM |
|
|
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:423af990$0$20679$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
Dear Zak and others,
Just recently there was a debate on chemtrails. Back then I supported the
view that those trails left by airplanes were not to worry about. In the
last week I did some further research on this subject and found out that
there is indeed something very strange going on.
Yep, a load of kooks are being scared by a phenomenon that has existed for
at least the last 60 years. Very strange.
For those who can read Dutch or wish to try just visit the site:
Bulshit is *****, no matter what language it's written in.
http://www.niburu.nl
On the left you will see a scroll frame. Scroll down to "Artikelen", then
click Chemtrails 1 2 3. Just look at the third picture.
Uh huh...
BINGO! No enginetrails but chemtrails!
Discussed before. It's dumping fuel, those trails are coming from the
location of the fuel dump vents.
see <111anojghcula82@corp.supernews.com>
NEXT!
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbarossa" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
18 Mar 2005 11:48:36 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> schreef in bericht
news:d1etlh$p3a$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:423af990$0$20679$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
Dear Zak and others,
Just recently there was a debate on chemtrails. Back then I supported
the
view that those trails left by airplanes were not to worry about. In the
last week I did some further research on this subject and found out that
there is indeed something very strange going on.
Yep, a load of kooks are being scared by a phenomenon that has existed for
at least the last 60 years. Very strange.
For those who can read Dutch or wish to try just visit the site:
Bulshit is *****, no matter what language it's written in.
http://www.niburu.nl
On the left you will see a scroll frame. Scroll down to "Artikelen",
then
click Chemtrails 1 2 3. Just look at the third picture.
Uh huh...
BINGO! No enginetrails but chemtrails!
Discussed before. It's dumping fuel, those trails are coming from the
location of the fuel dump vents.
see <111anojghcula82@corp.supernews.com>
BS! Kersosine is a hydrocarbonatemix with no water in it; it will not
freeze to a white line, it would freeze to a brown line.
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
21 Mar 2005 01:42:18 AM |
|
|
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<423bbe41$0$30176$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>...
"tw" <no@no.com> schreef in bericht
news:d1etlh$p3a$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:423af990$0$20679$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
Dear Zak and others,
Just recently there was a debate on chemtrails. Back then I supported
the
view that those trails left by airplanes were not to worry about. In the
last week I did some further research on this subject and found out that
there is indeed something very strange going on.
Yep, a load of kooks are being scared by a phenomenon that has existed for
at least the last 60 years. Very strange.
For those who can read Dutch or wish to try just visit the site:
Bulshit is *****, no matter what language it's written in.
http://www.niburu.nl
On the left you will see a scroll frame. Scroll down to "Artikelen",
then
click Chemtrails 1 2 3. Just look at the third picture.
Uh huh...
BINGO! No enginetrails but chemtrails!
Discussed before. It's dumping fuel, those trails are coming from the
location of the fuel dump vents.
see <111anojghcula82@corp.supernews.com>
BS! Kersosine is a hydrocarbonatemix with no water in it; it will not
freeze to a white line, it would freeze to a brown line.
Freeze?! Barbie that is liquid fuel coming out, and it's coming out of
the area known to be the fuel dump chutes....
Ever heard of Occam's raazor?
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
20 Mar 2005 07:39:09 PM |
|
|
In article <423bbe41$0$30176$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, fa073505
@skynet.be says...
BS!
No not at all.
Kersosine is a hydrocarbonatemix with no water in it;
Agree. If you want to get really picky, make it *almost* no water in it.
Interestingly, jet fuel is a chemical. As you quite correctly point
out, it's a complex hydrocarbon which fits the definition of 'chemical'
pretty well actually. :^)
So realistically, you *can* call that a 'chemtrail' if you like,
though I don't concede it has any mind controlling properties.... ;^)
it will not
freeze to a white line, it would freeze to a brown line.
Actually it doesn't normally freeze at all, it disperses to
microdroplets which create a visible trail. Jet-A1 freezes at around
-47c and the temps at dump altitudes are much lower. I've never seen
frozen jet fuel so I can't say what colour it is offhand.
Jet-A1 is usually colourless to pale yellow.
Probably more information than you want to know about it can be
found at :-
http://www.bp.co.za/opencms/opencms/portal/Products/Aviation/Fuels/JetA1
_MSDS.html
(watch the wrapping)
That's the Material Safety Data Sheet for Jet-A1
Aircraft sometimes use additives to inhibit the freezing of water in the
fuel system. You tend to get at least some intake of water vapour or
water in flight and on the ground and since some fuels are hygoscopic
and soak it up, which can be a Bad Thing, it's sometimes necessary to
take steps to reduce the impact. Water contamination of fuel can lead
to engine failures in all aircraft and pilots routinely check for the
presence of water contamination in their fuel systems as part of pre
flight inspections.
Jet aircraft operating in very cold conditions sometimes use Jet-B/JP4
which is more flammable and requires more careful handling, but has an
even lower freezing point than Jet-A1, around -72c.
The USAF use Jet-B/JP4 routinely. The USN use JP5 as they don't like the
low flashpoint of JP4 and other fuels such as JP8/JetA1 which flashes as
low as 38c.
You can sometimes get supercooled water freezing onto the microdroplets
of fuel but this usually occurs only in vapour cloud (not CI/CS/CC which
are made up of ice crystals) above the freezing level so it wouldn't be
significant at high altitude. Fuel dumps are normally carried out at
altitude to let it disperse in the atmosphere unless there is an
emergency of some kind.
Cheers
The CO
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
18 Mar 2005 07:22:55 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
Yep, a load of kooks are being scared by a phenomenon that has existed for
at least the last 60 years. Very strange.
Not really, they are K00Ks after all....
Bulshit is *****, no matter what language it's written in.
Yup, and this site is full of it.
Discussed before. It's dumping fuel, those trails are coming from the
location of the fuel dump vents.
see <111anojghcula82@corp.supernews.com>
Concur, definitely a fuel dump.
Fuel would fit the definition of a chemical.
So I guess that makes it a 'chemtrail' in that sense.
Dumping fuel is not at all 'strange' however, heavy aircraft that arrive
at their destinations above their maximum landing weight routinely dump
fuel so as not to exceed it. There are also Pavement considerations,
some airports that take heavys can only do so if their Pavement Depth
Factor (reduced to it's simplest level - a formula based on the weight
of the aircraft at touchdown, the 'footprint' (size/no of wheels) and
the strength and depth of the pavement) is below a certain point and
this can be less than the maximum landing weight. USAF C141 Starlifters
used to go into Woomera in the far north when it was a US 'space' base.
The runway there was not that thick or strong and they had to be below a
certain landing weight or they would have damaged it. This was well
below the maximum landing weight for the aircraft and they sometimes had
to dump fuel to meet the PDF restrictions. Like most things, if you had
a good enough reason, you can get a dispensation to do it anyway, but it
was not encouraged as pavement repairs are expensive.
Oh, and Maximum Takeoff Weight for a heavy is much higher than max
landing weight. Attempting to land a 747 at max takeoff weight or even
somewhat below that will cause damage to the gear, burst tyres etc.
If this seems odd remember that when the aircraft is landing the load on
the gear exceeds the weight of the aircraft as there is a downward
component at touchdown. Load on the gear of a departing aircraft never
exceeds the actual weight, but the 'g' magnification produced by the
downward motion component at touchdown increase the apparent weight by a
factor determined by the size of the downward component. In short the
harder the landing, the greater the load on the gear.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
21 Mar 2005 08:13:36 AM |
|
|
The CO <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<423b7ee6_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
tw wrote:
Yep, a load of kooks are being scared by a phenomenon that has existed for
at least the last 60 years. Very strange.
Not really, they are K00Ks after all....
Bulshit is *****, no matter what language it's written in.
Yup, and this site is full of it.
Discussed before. It's dumping fuel, those trails are coming from the
location of the fuel dump vents.
see <111anojghcula82@corp.supernews.com>
Concur, definitely a fuel dump.
Fuel would fit the definition of a chemical.
So I guess that makes it a 'chemtrail' in that sense.
Dumping fuel is not at all 'strange' however, heavy aircraft that arrive
at their destinations above their maximum landing weight routinely dump
fuel so as not to exceed it.
Eh? I would have thought (with commerical aircraft at least) it is a
pretty rare occurence, as they calculate the fuel needed (plus divert
plus 10 mins or whatever it is) VERY finely indeed.. The only scenario
I can think of would be a fully loaded heavy taking off , suffering
some sort of emergency that required a landing fairly quickly having
to dump in order to return whence it came. Of course, the plane in
that pic was identified as one of the E-6 something 707 based USAF
aircraft, and I don't know a great deal about how the military does
things..
There are also Pavement considerations,
some airports that take heavys can only do so if their Pavement Depth
Factor (reduced to it's simplest level - a formula based on the weight
of the aircraft at touchdown, the 'footprint' (size/no of wheels) and
the strength and depth of the pavement) is below a certain point and
this can be less than the maximum landing weight.
Interesting! I'd never thought of that, but it makes sense..
USAF C141 Starlifters
used to go into Woomera in the far north when it was a US 'space' base.
The runway there was not that thick or strong and they had to be below a
certain landing weight or they would have damaged it. This was well
below the maximum landing weight for the aircraft and they sometimes had
to dump fuel to meet the PDF restrictions. Like most things, if you had
a good enough reason, you can get a dispensation to do it anyway, but it
was not encouraged as pavement repairs are expensive.
Oh, and Maximum Takeoff Weight for a heavy is much higher than max
landing weight.
Absolutely. See scenario above.
Attempting to land a 747 at max takeoff weight or even
somewhat below that will cause damage to the gear, burst tyres etc.
If this seems odd remember that when the aircraft is landing the load on
the gear exceeds the weight of the aircraft as there is a downward
component at touchdown. Load on the gear of a departing aircraft never
exceeds the actual weight, but the 'g' magnification produced by the
downward motion component at touchdown increase the apparent weight by a
factor determined by the size of the downward component. In short the
harder the landing, the greater the load on the gear.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
21 Mar 2005 09:30:53 AM |
|
|
Tom wrote:
The CO <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<423b7ee6_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
Eh? I would have thought (with commerical aircraft at least) it is a
pretty rare occurence,as they calculate the fuel needed (plus divert
plus 10 mins or whatever it is) VERY finely indeed..
Not always possible, particularly on long flights, such as transoceanic
legs. They might be carrying holding fuel (which can be up to an hour
for some destinations) or fuel to divert to an alternate if the weather
is dodgy, which can be a fairly long divert if they want one where the
weather is radically different. That plus fixed reserves (at least 45
minutes,) plus a variable reserve of 15% of the total fuel required for
travel to destination and alternate plus any holding at either.
Can get messy. So under some circumstances an aircraft can depart 'fat'
because of holding or weather requirements or even forecast winds, only
to find that the forecast winds are not as bad as they thought, or that
the weather improves dramatically and maybe a slot in the sequence opens
up and they don't need much or any traffic holding. That can lead to
them being heavy, particularly if the aircraft is heavily loaded with
pax and freight as well.
The only scenario I can think of would be a fully loaded heavy taking off
suffering some sort of emergency that required a landing fairly
quickly having
to dump in order to return whence it came.
That can and does happen, but there are also less dramatic situations.
Of course, the plane in
that pic was identified as one of the E-6 something 707 based USAF
aircraft, and I don't know a great deal about how the military does
things..
They have different procedures, generally they carry less reserves than
commercial flights, but it depends on the circumstances. He could have
had a divert for weather, operational or any one of a dozen reasons.
There are also Pavement considerations,
some airports that take heavys can only do so if their Pavement Depth
Factor (reduced to it's simplest level - a formula based on the weight
of the aircraft at touchdown, the 'footprint' (size/no of wheels) and
the strength and depth of the pavement) is below a certain point and
this can be less than the maximum landing weight.
Interesting! I'd never thought of that, but it makes sense..
Can be an issue with some aircraft. Even relatively small aircraft like
the Mystere can need a pavement dispensation as they have 2 single wheel
main gears and they use very high pressure in the tyres which makes for
a high PDF for landing unless the pilot really greases it on, fairly
hard in something that has the sink rate they do.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
21 Mar 2005 10:34:29 AM |
|
|
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:423ee899_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
Tom wrote:
The CO <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<423b7ee6_1@news.iprimus.com.au>...
Eh? I would have thought (with commerical aircraft at least) it is a
pretty rare occurence,as they calculate the fuel needed (plus divert
plus 10 mins or whatever it is) VERY finely indeed..
Not always possible, particularly on long flights, such as transoceanic
legs. They might be carrying holding fuel (which can be up to an hour
for some destinations) or fuel to divert to an alternate if the weather
is dodgy, which can be a fairly long divert if they want one where the
weather is radically different. That plus fixed reserves (at least 45
minutes,) plus a variable reserve of 15% of the total fuel required for
travel to destination and alternate plus any holding at either.
Can get messy. So under some circumstances an aircraft can depart 'fat'
because of holding or weather requirements or even forecast winds, only
to find that the forecast winds are not as bad as they thought, or that
the weather improves dramatically and maybe a slot in the sequence opens
up and they don't need much or any traffic holding. That can lead to
them being heavy, particularly if the aircraft is heavily loaded with
pax and freight as well.
The only scenario I can think of would be a fully loaded heavy taking
off
suffering some sort of emergency that required a landing fairly
quickly having
to dump in order to return whence it came.
That can and does happen, but there are also less dramatic situations.
Of course, the plane in
that pic was identified as one of the E-6 something 707 based USAF
aircraft, and I don't know a great deal about how the military does
things..
They have different procedures, generally they carry less reserves than
commercial flights, but it depends on the circumstances. He could have
had a divert for weather, operational or any one of a dozen reasons.
There are also Pavement considerations,
some airports that take heavys can only do so if their Pavement Depth
Factor (reduced to it's simplest level - a formula based on the weight
of the aircraft at touchdown, the 'footprint' (size/no of wheels) and
the strength and depth of the pavement) is below a certain point and
this can be less than the maximum landing weight.
Interesting! I'd never thought of that, but it makes sense..
Can be an issue with some aircraft. Even relatively small aircraft like
the Mystere can need a pavement dispensation as they have 2 single wheel
main gears and they use very high pressure in the tyres which makes for
a high PDF for landing unless the pilot really greases it on, fairly
hard in something that has the sink rate they do.
Cheers! I take it you're talking the Mystere business jet rather than the
50's strike fighter? ;-)
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
21 Mar 2005 04:00:08 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"The CO" <the_xo@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:423ee899_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
Can be an issue with some aircraft. Even relatively small aircraft like
the Mystere can need a pavement dispensation as they have 2 single wheel
main gears and they use very high pressure in the tyres which makes for
a high PDF for landing unless the pilot really greases it on, fairly
hard in something that has the sink rate they do.
Cheers! I take it you're talking the Mystere business jet rather than the
50's strike fighter? ;-)
Yes. It was one that the RAAF operated and it required pavement
dispensations for some airports because of the high pressure/small
footprint to MLW ratio.
The CO
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
18 Mar 2005 01:22:44 PM |
|
|
Barbarossa wrote:
Dear Zak and others,
Just recently there was a debate on chemtrails. Back then I supported the
view that those trails left by airplanes were not to worry about. In the
last week I did some further research on this subject and found out that
there is indeed something very strange going on.
For those who can read Dutch or wish to try just visit the site:
http://www.niburu.nl
On the left you will see a scroll frame. Scroll down to "Artikelen", then
click Chemtrails 1 2 3. Just look at the third picture. BINGO! No
enginetrails but chemtrails!
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
Fuel from the inboard dumps. Of course, Jet-A can be 'not all that healthy'
in large quantities. I wouldn't want to bathe in it.
Charly
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
18 Mar 2005 07:28:53 PM |
|
|
Charly the ***** wrote:
Fuel from the inboard dumps. Of course, Jet-A can be 'not all that healthy'
in large quantities. I wouldn't want to bathe in it.
Yep, aircraft generally dump over the ocean if possible, or over areas
of the land designated for that purpose. If done high enough, very
little reaches the ground. I can't recall offhand if this is a
greenhouse contributing agent, however the actual quantity on a global
scale is a small fraction of other sources so it's probably not
significant. But it's a waste and a pollution source none the less.
Unfortunately even precise fuel planning doesn't help as aircraft need
to carry fuel for holding or diversion to alternates due to traffic/wx
etc or in case of adverse winds, so they always have to carry more than
they need to be safe. Anyone that figures out a better way will likely
become a billionaire...
The CO
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: To ZAK and whom it concerns - Chemtrails |
21 Mar 2005 01:50:00 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:22:44 GMT, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Barbarossa wrote:
Dear Zak and others,
Just recently there was a debate on chemtrails. Back then I supported the
view that those trails left by airplanes were not to worry about. In the
last week I did some further research on this subject and found out that
there is indeed something very strange going on.
For those who can read Dutch or wish to try just visit the site:
http://www.niburu.nl
On the left you will see a scroll frame. Scroll down to "Artikelen", then
click Chemtrails 1 2 3. Just look at the third picture. BINGO! No
enginetrails but chemtrails!
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
Fuel from the inboard dumps. Of course, Jet-A can be 'not all that healthy'
in large quantities. I wouldn't want to bathe in it.
Charly
Guess it's time to educate the people once again on Chemtrails as well
as the NWO Eh?
"Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one,some bigger than others"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
