Chemtrail Aircraft - Pictures/Video Inside View!

Here is a site that claims that these are photos of a Chemtrail Aircraft, also I found a You Tube Video related to the same story.

A CHEMTRAIL EXPOSER AND WHISTLEBLOWER SINCE THE FIRST DAY OF CHEMTRAILING THE SKIES OVER DENVER....MID NOVEMBER 1998.......

Tim White,Viet Nam Vet(USAF),Concerned Citizen

ATS is about denying ignorance, so can anyone tell us what this plane is?

Thanks!

INSIDE A GOVERNMENT CHEMTRAIL AIRCRAFT PICTURE







[edit on 12-2-2008 by Realtruth]

It is an airliner test, or so they say.

The kegs are to test weight dispersion, etc.

What i don't understand is why all the tubes? You can throw some old beer kegs full of water into the back of an airliner to accomplish the needed tests.

Good find. I will star/flag this.

Has been debunked here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by daniel_g


Define "debunked". Do you mean "proven false"? Or do you mean "attempted to prove false"? Or possibly "the presentation made was logical enough so as to not consider it any further"?

I read that thread (i think i posted in it). I don't call that a "debunking" in the sense that i use the word.

But hey, thanks for the one liner. Nothing like a one liner to provide quality content.

They crash airliners don't they.

Just a bigger 9/11 explosion next time.

Is 9/11/01 a dichotomy, no must be a wrong term.

We will soon find out from the 9/11 six how it all went down.

It all in the Illuminati planning and they don't wear sandals.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
What i don't understand is why all the tubes?

So that the water used for ballast can be easily pumped between barrels to simulate different loading conditions.

Much easier (and safer) than manually slinging barrels around

And the rows of servers? Are the ballast simulation algorithms really that complicated?

Yes, it achieves plausible deniability. That is about it, though.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by daniel_g

 

Define "debunked". Do you mean "proven false"? Or do you mean "attempted to prove false"? Or possibly "the presentation made was logical enough so as to not consider it any further"?

But hey, thanks for the one liner.

Nothing like a one liner to provide quality content.

Do I look like an english professor?
Anyways, for those who don't care to do research on their own:
Debunk: To cause to be no longer believed or valued
Source: The New Thesaurus, 3rd edition

If I had meant to say 'proven false', 'attempted to prove false', or 'the presentation made was logical enough so as to not consider it any further' I would not have used the word debunked.

Also, on that last line, is there any sort of hidden sarcasm?
If yes, what did you expect me to do? I personally don't feel that there is need to summarize a 2 page thread.
If no, thank you, that's exactly what I intended to do.


[edit on 13-2-2008 by daniel_g]

I would think if someone or group was going to spray anything it wouldn't be in small containers like these and something much larger if they were spraying the skies.

I would wager the ballast facts are correct on this one.

reply to post by daniel_g


Well stated, and i give you a star.

Yes, that was sarcastic. No insult intended, however. I find the one line rule at ATS kind of silly. Sorry.

I am unsure if you look like an English teacher. I have never seen you. Perhaps you do, as English teachers can have widely varying appearances.

Regarding the word "debunk"...I thought that you might have used a shorter word to be efficient. You DID have a one line post, after all. It would be a safe assumption.

In all seriousness, however, i am unsure that it has been debunked insomuch as evidence was provided for the ballast theory (if we should name a theory for it).