Chemtrails. It's in the jetfuel.

So, I figured it has to be well hidden from pilots, mechanics and others could not easily detect the substance being used in the fuels (specifically type a / a1)

However, I am still convinced that pilots can turn it (chemtrails) off and on by switching tanks.

So, I have been looking for exhaust contaminations for some time to prove my theory. I have found stuff, but nothing that I would consider potential proof that the fuel is contaminated.

Now, I have found something. The fuel filters.

"Both EASA and FAA indicated that fuel is to be free of contamination," says an industry source close to the study who also works as an engineer with a major U.S. airline. "Now, there is not such a thing [as] fuel free of contamination."

articles.directorym.net...

And this was in recent news.

An Eurofly Airbus A320-200, registration I-EEZG performing flight GJ-1844 from Milan/Bergamo Al Serio (Italy) to Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt) with 179 passengers and 6 crew, diverted to Rome Fiumicino (Italy) after the crew received "fuel filter clogged" indications for both engines. The airplane landed safely on runway 16R about one hour after departure from Milan/Bergamo.

avherald.com...

And remember when they ditched the plane in the Hudson. Both engines flamed out. I found an FAA report that said 1 in about 5500 flight actually get a dual bird hit on both engines, and they had no record of dual flame-out.

Jet-fuel fungus was found to be the culprit after the US Federal Aviation Authority, for example, issued a bulletin recently to principal maintenance inspectors describing how a major carrier had several incidents in which as many as four take-offs were aborted on one aircraft. Responding to these incidents, along with filter clog warnings, laboratory evaluations were made of the filters.



The cause in each case was determined to be fuel filter fouling caused by microbial contamination. Using microbe-testing kits, an inspection of 27 aircraft in the carrier's fleet resulted in similar instances of fuel contamination.

www.aviationnews.com.au...


And finally, if you are not convinced.

In February 2004, the CAA received notification that some aircraft were experiencing fuel filter bypass indications on medium-large transport aircraft using Jet A1 fuel. Subsequent inspections found that the filters contained a black sludge/film. Inspection of other aircraft found similar results to varying degrees.

www.caa.govt.nz...

There is plenty more evidence, but I thing I have directed people to the source. Hopefully, we can work on this together.

Now, think about how witness explained the recent Montana plane crash. It seems to me that that is how a plane would react if it was sputtering, not getting enough fuel.

So, to convince folks even further.

Analysis of the fuel tank samples indicated that the microbiological (fungi and bacteria) contamination was very slight. One sample showed a 'very heavy' concentration of yeast.

A further fuel tank sample was independently tested and found to contain copper, sodium and iron.

Note: The December 2003 fuel filter blockages indicated that there was a high concentration of carbon in the fuel samples. The February 2004 samples do not have similar indications.

www.caa.govt.nz...

They found 'very heavy' yeast concentrations?

Sodium? =silver iodide (silver salt)

high concentration of carbon? Before the fuel was burned.

Be concerned. Be very concerned.

well, since i work at an airport, i think this is completely bogus. the jet fuel we sell is Jet A. it is pre-mixed with prist, an anti icing agent. and when i refuel the plane, there are only 2 wing tanks and a center tank on CRJs. if they get chemicals every time they land, i would know about it. i see the fuel from when it gets off the semi trailer, to when we put it in the fueling truck to when its sent into the plane via single point or over wing nozzles.

just my $.02

[edit on 24-3-2009 by gerktron01]

reply to post by gerktron01


Doesn't stop them mixing it at the refinery as a 'performance additive'.

In Auckland, New Zealand we have a single fuel type imported for each grade. Yet they are all sold as having different additives at different fuel stations: 'cleaner burning', 'more economy' etc etc. Often, generic tankers working for a distribution company (for example Kauri tankers) who fill up multiple types of stations. Yet we're supposed to believe all the marketing hype about additives and better fuel?

It's all the same fuel....


A chemtrail additive being put in as an octane/performance booster/whatever could be easily done.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hybrid compound blends

* Combustion catalyst: an organo-metallic compound which lowers the ignition point of fuel in the combustion chamber reducing the temperature burn from 1200 degrees to 800 degree F
* Burn rate modifier increases the fuel burn time, resulting in an increased fuel efficiency
* Polymerization increases fuel ignition surface area resulting in increased power from ignition
* Stabilizer/Demulsifier/Dispersant: prolongs life of fuel and prevents water contamination
* Corrosion inhibitor prevents corrosion of tank and fuel system
* Catalyst additives prolongs engine life and increases fuel economy
* Detergents clean the engine

at school, were told not to use wikipedia as a primary source. reason being that people can change the info.

Fuel gets contaminated by various means. Dirty tanks, dirty tankers, and yes, stuff grows in kerosene (jet fuel).

That's the reason for fuel filters, to keep the contaminants from reaching the engines. A clogged filter means it's doing its job and preventing damage to the engine.

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by GhostR1der


Jet fuel is not the same as gasoline but there are additives.

Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications.

www.csgnetwork.com...

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Phage]

It's so much fun when people that don't know aviation try to talk like they know more than they do.

Flight 1549 had organic material and feathers in BOTH engines. I don't care what the statistics show, 2+ geese to the engines will shut ANY engine down. Both engines were still running at impact, just not enough to keep the plane in the air. One engine was at 15%, the other at 35%.

Jet fuel filters are like any other filter. Sooner or later they get clogged. You simply can NOT have fuel that is free of contamination, because the tanks that it gets stored in before it goes onto the plane can't be kept 100% perfectly free of contamination. Some of the things in the tank, get into the fuel.

You do realize that jet fuel can get water into it right? Water lets little things like yeast, and other fun microbes grow. Which is the cause of yeast in the fuel tanks.

Sulfur:

n the U.S., sulfur content of highway diesel fuel will go from 500 ppm S (wt/wt) to 15 ppm S (wt/wt) by mid 2006. The average sulfur content of gasoline will be limited to 30 ppm S (wt/wt) beginning early 2006. Off-road, marine, and locomotive diesel fuel will contain 500 ppm S (wt/wt) to approximately 3000 ppm S (wt/wt). Jet fuel will also contain several-thousand-ppm sulfur for the near future.

www.isa.org.../ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=44478

As mentioned above, surveys show that the sulfur content of most fuels is well below specified limits. All of the surveys show that about 90% of fuels have sulfur content less than 0.1%. Figure 7-36 shows the historical trends for the U.S. and UK surveys. In the UK, average sulfur level has remained relatively constant since 1988 (Rickard and Fulker, 1997); in the United States, however, the average sulfur content in the NIPER survey has been increasing. This trend conflicts with reports (Hadaller and Momenthy, 1993) based on projections of increased hydro-treatment to reduce sulfur in gasoline and diesel fuel. However, changes in gasoline production have not significantly affected jet fuel because there is very little overlap in the boiling range.

The impact of the trend to use low-sulfur diesel fuels is not clear. Many refineries worldwide do not have the hydro-treating capability to make low-sulfur fuels. The API/NPRA survey for 1996 reported that 46% of the jet fuel blendstock in the United States was straight-run material that was not hydro-treated (API/NPRA, 1997). For many of these refineries with limited hydro-treating capability, the most economical approach may be to shift blending stocks with higher sulfur content to jet fuel, saving streams with lower sulfur for diesel fuel.

www.grida.no.../climate/ipcc/aviation/111.htm

Environmental advocates also point to links between high-sulfur jet fuel combustion and local air pollution, while others claim "excessive" cirrus cloud formation (linked to global warming) might be caused in part by jet-engine sulfate particles. These issues might prompt some jet-fuel sellers to tout "green" ultra-low-sulfur jet fuels.

findarticles.com...

Copper:

Metal de-activators suppress the catalytic effect which some metals, particularly copper, have on fuel oxidation.

www.csgnetwork.com...

Depending on how the fuel is stored, you can also get copper into the fuel, which gets into the tanks.

Iron:

Page 4 (Metals PPM)
www.etc-cte.ec.gc.ca...

Jet fuel is kerosene based.. just like diesel fuel. each day we sump our trucks to keep contaminates out of the aircraft.. it is filtered each time it moves from truck to plane and visa versa if needed. avgas still has some lead it in.. we pump 100LL.. its a blue color. its a universal fuel for all reciprocating engine planes.

so for the line professionals dont know about the chemtrail additive.. then idk how we would add it to the fuel..

Originally posted by gerktron01
well, since i work at an airport, i think this is completely bogus. the jet fuel we sell is Jet A. it is pre-mixed with prist, an anti icing agent. and when i refuel the plane, there are only 2 wing tanks and a center tank on CRJs. if they get chemicals every time they land, i would know about it. i see the fuel from when it gets off the semi trailer, to when we put it in the fueling truck to when its sent into the plane via single point or over wing nozzles.

just my $.02

[edit on 24-3-2009 by gerktron01]

Thanks for showing up just for this thread. We have hundreds of post concerning JP-8, but when I mention A1 or type A fuel, we get and "expert". Welcome.

Since you, and I have worked around aircraft, we should come to the same conclusion. This is alarming. You, however, seem to brush it off.

How many times has "brushing it off", cost lives?

www.csgnetwork.com...

Consequently, a NOTAM was issued on 23 February 2004 advising aircraft operators to monitor Jet A-1 aircraft fuel filters with extra vigilance.

www.caa.govt.nz...

Although i am not a chemtrail believer i must admit this is an intriguing thread. I respect the fact thet there is a chance that suposed fuel mixture is altered one way or another for any number of reasons at any time of the process. I had imagined that fuel sampling and control was a practice maintained much the same way as in normal fuel stations but i now have some ground that this may well not be the case.

On the other hand as Phage has suggested cloged filters do not necessarily mean that the collected slime is suspect. If it were for no slime there wouldn't be any filters around either. I gues this is a matter that could easily be addresed by some sampling and analysis.

Other than that i do not claim to be an aviation expert and i would expect some expert insight while monioring this thread hereon.

Flywell and clean,
GTG

i dont consider my an expert by any means. how is this alarming? i dont believe in chemtrails anyway.. i was just simply sharing my knowledge and ideas..

reply to post by gerktron01


Maybe you don't understand aircraft systems, I don't know.
They are very sophisticated. Redundant system after redundant system.


I pulled this off of a pilots tech blog.

LEM
29th October 2005, 16:58
Recently we've had a high speed abort because of the FILTER BYPASS light illuminating during T/O. (734)

Of course the Captain was called by the boss for a coffee no biscuits meeting.

Besides that, your thoughts would be appreciated on the following:

is it right to say that if the fuel is really contaminated, the first thing to be clogged will be the booster pumps filter?

That illumination of the Filter Bypass light alone is virtually impossible?

We've had several false cautions last year with this problem, and it always was a faulty indication.

How the dirt in the fuel could block the filter in the MEC without accumulating first at the booster pumps filters?

www.pprune.org...

Many more out there.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by doctordoom]

reply to post by doctordoom


Did you even read the replies to what you linked? Once again, the filters are doing their jobs.

You claim contaminated fuel has something to do with "chemtrails" how can that be if the contaminants never make it to the engines?

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by doctordoom

 

Did you even read the replies to what you linked? Once again, the filters are doing their jobs.

You claim contaminated fuel has something to do with "chemtrails" how can that be if the contaminants never make it to the engines?

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Phage]

Are you kidding me! Chemtrails are produce by contaminated fuel. Of course fuel filters are doing their job. They are collecting evindence.

I have been an A&P technician on Jet Transport category aircraft for 30 years.

I have never seen a dual failure on any redundant system . (i.e # 2 FMS fails and #2 or #3 fail at same time?)

Are you reading what the mechs are saying. The filter clogging is unusual, and it showed up around 1997.

reply to post by doctordoom


That post has absolutely nothing to do with fuel filters.

FAEDC has been used on many many Airplanes and Helicopters for many years. The redundancy built in to these precludes such a failure. I have been an A&P technician on Jet Transport category aircraft for 30 years. I have never seen a dual failure on any redundant system . (i.e # 2 FMS fails and #2 or #3 fail at same time?)

blogs.law.harvard.edu...

An FAEDC is a computer which controls the engine, just like the one in a car. The poster is saying that a dual engine failure is highly unlikely to be caused by the computers. It is now confirmed that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The discussion was about a dual engine failure due to clogged filters caused by water contaminated fuel. Again, filters prevent the contamination from getting to the engines. When they get clogged, they also prevent fuel from getting to the engines. The computer can't do much about that.

The magic word again is China. The subject of the dead Boeing777 is showing early signs of fuel contamination as to primarily fuel/water ingestion. The flight originated in China.

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Phage]

What is happening in the meantime is that the fuel moving from the refinery to the airports does not have any regulatory oversight except at the supply to the aircraft wing, which is currently required to be free of contamination, the industry source says.

The pipelines are so old and dirty that the fuel inspected at the refinery is not necessarily in the same condition when it is delivered to the airplane, says the source. Oil companies do, however, have checks and quality assurance procedures within the company.

articles.directorym.net...

There is no global set of rules regarding fuels. With the increase in air travel, there is an increase in fuel purchases, which means that there is more fuel contamination going on. The dirt in the fuel builds up on the filter, which turns on the bypass light. Filters at one point were being changed at 7500 hours, now they're being changed at 2000.

Filters frequently encounter unknown contaminants or harsh operating conditions, resulting in filter failure. The SwRI aviation filtration facility can simulate a wide range of conditions to duplicate the problem and determine the causes of the difficulty. SwRI staff can also visit the site to assess conditions that may contribute to filter or component failure.

www.swri.org...

I HAVE seen redundant systems fail. When the KC-135E changed to a digital fuel system, it gave everyone fits. It was constantly failing, despite having a redundant system built in. We had an SR-71 land in New Hampshire because their INS was so far off, and their stellar nav system failed. They couldn't even find New Hampshire without a KC-135 to guide them in.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by doctordoom



It is now confirmed that you have no idea what you are talking about.

If I made that kind of attack, my post would be removed.

Chemical #1

Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) is an additive to aviation fuels that prevents the formation of ice in fuel lines.
...
Chemically, FSII is an almost pure (99.9%) ethylene glycol monomethyl ether (EGMME, 2-methoxy ethanol, APISOLVE 76, CAS number [109-86-4]), or glycol monomethyl ether]] since 1994

www.answers.com...

What is ethylene glycol monomethyl ether?

2-Methoxyethanol is used as a solvent for many different purposes such as varnishes, dyes, and resins. It is also used as an additive jet deicing solutions.

2-Methoxyethanol is toxic to the bone marrow and testicles. Workers exposed to high levels are at risk for granulocytopenia, macrocytic anemia, oligospermia, and azoospermia.[1]

www.answers.com...

Ahh, the world of big business in aviation, and the sale of fuels to them. Pathetic!

[edit on 24-3-2009 by doctordoom]

reply to post by doctordoom


You're right! We'll stop using icing inhibitors in fuel!

They'll just have to take their chances on the water in the fuel icing up and causing an engine failure. Of course, the only reason they can FLY that high is because of the icing inhibitor. The British Airways 777 that crashed got into temps that were extraordinarily low, even for that altitude. Without the icing inhibitor you're looking at the potential for a LOT more icing in fuel, which means no more engines.

Or they start flying so low that they can't carry enough fuel to go long distances anymore.

I really would like to see an actual picture of a sky with chemtrails with a plane producing contrails.

Maybe it´s my fault by not finding any, but my question is:
If we are to believe chemtrails are deliberately spread into the sky by some planes and not an atmospheric phenomena, then there must be pictures of planes producing contrails while others chemtrails, in the same weather conditions above in the sky.

If we see some planes throwing "normal" contrails, and we see some planes that spread chemtrails which after a while can become a cloud of it´s own, then why can´t i find pics where a "normal" plane and an evil one are flying together in the same weather conditions?


Many thx