G. Edward Griffin Goes On Record in Video About Chemtrails Conspiracy

reply to post by Americanist


Without knowing what type of aircraft that is, what flight it is, what the situation is, all that video is good for is, well, nothing.

If we knew what type of aircraft it is, we can then find out where the fuel dump location is. That way we can know what that is coming out. Most likely in this case, a fuel dump.

Oh guess what? I found the original video of that first aircraft: It was a fuel dump on board a Boeing 777 that was landing in Alaska:

AAL flight #61 Dallas to Narita on September 19, 2006



Another fuel dump for an emergency landing:

Boeing 777



Boy oh boy, a video of "chemtrails" turns out to be misleading its viewers. AGAIN. Fuel dumps, contrails, and vapor trails, all set to scary music and POOF! Chemtrail video! And then we have a few more suckers, I mean, "believers", added to the "chemtrail" wagon. Lordy lordy. This is not denying ignorance! Its embracing ignorance!

EDIT TO add:

Info on fuel dump locations on the wings!
www.absoluteastronomy.com...

[edit on 4/15/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by weedwhacker



You would go and make me dig them up... Fine, just realize we're talking about two different arrays of tanks. What you posted is not what I saved. You mention using sprayers, yet it's been fairly common to reverse an image to look like air intakes.


A more likely scenario is to use fuel dumps anyhow. It's a who's who of added compounds.

reply to post by GenRadek


To the contrary... It proves how easy and common place it is to dump a load from an airliner (commercial or covert).




Pick up something new everyday, and that's just one piece of the puzzle.

Debunkers duck and cover after pages of evidence, and start posting videos?

On Off aerosol at 6000 feet

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by GenRadek

 

To the contrary... It proves how easy and common place it is to dump a load from an airliner (commercial or covert).




Pick up something new everyday, and that's just one piece of the puzzle.

No it does not. A fuel tank is a fuel tank. You cannot have a fuel tank "spew" special chemicals without room for the fuel. That would require an entire jury-rigged system of tanks inside the aircraft to be able to do anything of the sort.

Also did you notice: ALL of those aircraft in the videos were CIVIL PASSENGER CRAFT. You mean to tell me that Lufthansa, AAL, UAL, Korean Air, Air China, Air France, British Airways, LOT, are all actively chemtrailing without the knowledge of ANYONE? You cannot hide a system like that on board a passenger craft. Do you realize just how big or how many tanks it would be needed to even do something like that? The fuel dump nozzle is just that, a fuel dump nozzle. You cannot rig it to spew anything else, without someone noticing (ie ground crew, pilots, etc).

reply to post by burntheships


Really? 6,000ft? How did he come to that observation? Looks to me like its more above 30,000ft.

but wait, could it also mean that the aircraft itself is flying through pockets of air that are more conducive to contrails? Ask Oz on that. You'd be surprised how complicated the upper atmosphere is.

So this does not get buried in the thread, and hosed over by
ad hominem attacks and cliche slightly off mark rabbit trails.

Originally posted by burntheships

VTRPE (variable terrain radio parabolic equation) computer model. It is designed to provide the reader with a summary of the physics and numerical methods used in the VTRPE model, along with detailed instructions on the model's use and operation. The VTRPE computer program is a range-dependent, tropospheric microwave propagation model that is based upon the split-step Fourier parabolic wave equation algorithm. The nominal applicable frequency range of the model is VHF to K-band. The VTRPE program is able to make predictions for microwave propagation over both land and water. The VTRPE code is a full-wave propagation model that solves the electromagnetic wave equations for the complex electric and magnetic radiation fields. The model accounts for the effects of nonuniform atmospheric refractivity fields, variable surface terrain, and varying surface dielectric properties on microwave propagation. The code is written in ANSI-77 FORTRAN with MILSPEC-1753 FORTRAN language extensions

www.abstractstorm.com...

So what would VTRPE have to do with aerosols?

This computer radio frequency propagation program deals with radio waves and enables the RFMP system to visually see the terrain of a battlefield in three dimensions on a television-type screen.

The RFMP system also depends on a satellites to supplement the images of a battlefield picture obtained from the ground, thus producing the 3-dimensional images. In providing an interactive picture portraying in the radar screen, the RFMP system allows the computer operator to develop familiarity with the "environment" before a war mission occurs by playing a variety of "what if?" virtual warfare scenarios on his computer screen. Since all major modes of radio frequency propagation are modeled in his computer (the RFMP system), special, sometimes counter-intuitive, cases can be examined in detail and exploited during a battle. Initially, the VTRPE computer program only worked accurately over water and along coastal areas but not over land masses because the system's radar waves required an atmospheric condition known as "ducting," over land, to operate accurately.


This "ducting" problem was solved by releasing an aerosol, a mixture of barium salts into the atmosphere over the United States. Thus, they can make an atmospheric radio frequency "duct" with a base of barium aerosol released from aircraft.

One of the researchers, the physicist from Brookhaven, explained how the process works: The chemical and electrical characteristics of the mixture cause moisture to stay in the clouds. The aerosol sets up an electrical and chemical environmental that supports RF ducting for the RFMP/VTRPE warfare system."The mixture of barium salt from the aerosol when sprayed in a straight line will also provide a ducting path form point A to point B and will enable high frequency communications along that path, even over the curvature of the Earth, in both directions," he said. "Enemy high frequency communications can be monitored easier with the straight line A to B ducting medium."

www.libertylobby.org...


[edit on 15-4-2010 by burntheships]

reply to post by burntheships


I think these guys will now argue they're dumping fuel at high altitude. Of no concern really... Even though I could go back at least a decade, and pull up studies on harmful jet fuel additives we were at least made aware.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by GenRadek

 

To the contrary... It proves how easy and common place it is to dump a load from an airliner (commercial or covert).




Pick up something new everyday, and that's just one piece of the puzzle.

No it does not. A fuel tank is a fuel tank. You cannot have a fuel tank "spew" special chemicals without room for the fuel. That would require an entire jury-rigged system of tanks inside the aircraft to be able to do anything of the sort.

Also did you notice: ALL of those aircraft in the videos were CIVIL PASSENGER CRAFT. You mean to tell me that Lufthansa, AAL, UAL, Korean Air, Air China, Air France, British Airways, LOT, are all actively chemtrailing without the knowledge of ANYONE? You cannot hide a system like that on board a passenger craft. Do you realize just how big or how many tanks it would be needed to even do something like that? The fuel dump nozzle is just that, a fuel dump nozzle. You cannot rig it to spew anything else, without someone noticing (ie ground crew, pilots, etc).

Turn your thought pattern around. It's not a complicated process. You alter the fuel supply. It's been done in the past, so I'm not sure why you'd have such a hard time putting two and two together.

reply to post by burntheships

Please provide the source for the second external quote. It is not contained in the abstract for which you provided a link.

reply to post by Americanist

A more likely scenario is to use fuel dumps anyhow.

Now, the claim is that commercial passenger airliners are using their dump nozzles to spray very expensive (and somewhat necessary) Jet-A fuel overboard? How do these flights manage to reach their destinations, if they're dumping fuel??

Take a note also, please, of these commercial passenger jets in common use today that do NOT have fuel dump capability:

Boeing 737 (all versions)

"Boeing' MD-80 (all versions)

Boeing 757 (all versions)

Airbus A-319

Airbus A-320


Also, NONE of the smaller commuter-sized jets (we call them "Barbie Jets")...the ones of the 50-80 seat capacity, such as the Canadair or Embraer jets. AND, certainly not the turboprop commuter airplanes, either.

Airplanes that DO have dump capability will generally be your wide-bodies, B-747, B-767, B-777 (B-787 when introduced), A-330, A-340, A-380...etc.

If don't believe what I write (from knowledge and experience) then believe this:

www.boeing.com...


Now, for a Boeing 767 (since I am most familiar with that type) the fuel jettison ('dump') rate, with BOTH nozzle valves open, and BOTH CENTER tank pumps operating (fuel can only be jettisoned from the CTR tank) the rate overboard is about 2,500-2,700 pounds per minute. Total CTR tank capacity (B-767) is about 80,000 pounds. (Jet-A is usually considered to weigh, on average, 6.7 pounds per gallon. These are ALL US measures).

WHY would airliners be spraying the very much needed (and rather expensive) Jet-A overboard?

reply to post by weedwhacker

WHY would airliners be spraying the very much needed (and rather expensive) Jet-A overboard?

Because they're good at losing money? All kidding aside... I would ask kindly that you task yourself with researching who is tied in with supplying fuel to most major airlines. I'd also refer you to plasma weaponry and HAARP. The common denominator being saturating our atmosphere to the desired effect.




btw, one of the first names to pop up under "current research" is... You might have guessed it... Boeing. Getting from point A to point B quite possibly.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Americanist]

reply to post by burntheships


Oh, no.....that tidbit wasn't missed.

It is just more alarmist nonsense, spouted by the "chemtrail" sites, which is where you likely got it from.

You see, you CANNOT have it both ways (but that is exactly what these "chemtrail" sites, the ones that get gullible people so worked up, try to do...)


Those sites take rather benign incidents, such as the VRTPE concept, and expand that in a completely unscientific manner, and scare the bejeesus out of people who don't take the time to reason it out, with logic and maths.

BUT, those SAME sites also make dire allegations of the "poisoning" of the skies...

CANNOT have both!

The above, about using some refelctivity enhancements, by adding to ALREADY EXISTING clouds, for communications and 'battlefield enhancement visualization' (or whatever technology) involves the addition of such miniscule amounts as to be barely noticeable, especially many hours, or days later, as it disperses and is diluted, by the normal atmospheric effects that occur high in the stratosphere.

Do the necessary math. Calculate the VOLUME of atmosphere affected, and then dived in the AMOUNTS that can be feasibly "sprayed". Airplanes aren't magical, mythical creatures, they are subject to laws of physics, and payload restrictions.

THEN, calculate the Parts-per-million density of these 'aerosols'.
\
Compare to the ppm of OTHER, man-made (or natural---volcanic---) pollutants that are ground-based.

reply to post by Americanist


This is exactly the sort of nonsense that is self-fulfilling, and self-perpetuating since it usually can be traced BACK to the original sources, of the "chemtrail" sites, or their kissing cousins, the "HAARP" people....

I'd also refer you to plasma weaponry and HAARP. The common denominator being saturating our atmosphere to the desired effect.

What? Read just about any thread here at ATS about HAARP, of late, and you'll see that it actually is --- get this! "causing earthquakes"!!

I kid you not! This is the level if intellectual discourse, lately.

Still, back a few months ago, there were tangential attempts to demonize HAARP and lump it with so-called "chemtrails" too.

Most hilarious, and lacking in any science or merit.

...task yourself with researching who is tied in with supplying fuel to most major airlines.

Ummm...oil companies?

Surely, they are at the root of all evil?

The sheeple are offered a youtube video, or a hundred scientific papers published over the past 60 years. Which do they chose to believe?

And you wonder why I'm a cynic


Chemtrails: the first internet viral hoax. And still they fall for it. But who needs brains when the internet tell you what to think?


[edit on 15-4-2010 by Essan]

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that is self-fulfilling, and self-perpetuating since it usually can be traced BACK to the original sources, of the "chemtrail" sites, or their kissing cousins, the "HAARP" people.... I'd also refer you to plasma weaponry and HAARP. The common denominator being saturating our atmosphere to the desired effect. What? Read just about any thread here at ATS about HAARP, of late, and you'll see that it actually is --- get this! "causing earthquakes"!! I kid you not! This is the level if intellectual discourse, lately. Still, back a few months ago, there were tangential attempts to demonize HAARP and lump it with so-called "chemtrails" too. Most hilarious, and lacking in any science or merit. ...task yourself with researching who is tied in with supplying fuel to most major airlines. Ummm...oil companies? Surely, they are at the root of all evil?

You go off on a complete tangent. I cite a common thread. I guess next you'll want to note we don't have weapons that cause vertigo, blind an entire battlefield, or anything to do with directed energy?

Tell me exactly, what model of the Universe do you subscribe to? Do you know how the antenna array is constructed at HAARP? Do you know the difference between resonance and modulation? Let's keep at this... What has been added to jet fuel in the last 15 years? Where is the scientific evidence you provide it's been even the slightest bit safe? I'm not on the hook here. I provide patterns to start with while evidence is forthcoming.


Big oil has stifled progress, so your question is fulfilling enough. And in case you require another heads up... We don't create energy. We draw energy by way of dipoles. It's a basic principle, but unfortunately, big oil and big money have called the shots for far too long. If you're still a fan of intellectual dialogue, I'll be sure to elevate your "conventional" wisdom.

btw, what all have you done for work? Just wondering...

Chemtrails: the first internet viral hoax. And still they fall for it. But who needs brains when the internet tell you what to think?

If only brains would fall from the sky, perhaps one would land perfectly inside your head. Stick to the corporate owned media fest then. Wrestling is up next... Come on, you know you believe it!

This "ducting" problem was solved by releasing an aerosol, a mixture of barium salts into the atmosphere over the United States. Thus, they can make an atmospheric radio frequency "duct" with a base of barium aerosol released from aircraft. One of the researchers, the physicist from Brookhaven, explained how the process works: The chemical and electrical characteristics of the mixture cause moisture to stay in the clouds. The aerosol sets up an electrical and chemical environmental that supports RF ducting for the RFMP/VTRPE warfare system."The mixture of barium salt from the aerosol when sprayed in a straight line will also provide a ducting path form point A to point B and will enable high frequency communications along that path, even over the curvature of the Earth, in both directions," he said. "Enemy high frequency communications can be monitored easier with the straight line A to B ducting medium."

Yet another application... Glad someone's doing their homework.

If someone wants to propose chemtrails as a credible theory then:

a) show how the decades old scientific explanation for waht you claim are chemtrails is flawed.

b) show how your hypothesis provides a much better explantion for all observations.

Simple.



Notwithstanding which, chemtrails may be real - it's just that you can't see them Or, alternatively, people want you to mistake contrails for chemtrails in order to divert your attenton away from the real issue. Smoke and mirrors. But the sheeple never think that - they only listen to what youtube videos tell them. And so the human race fell