Airline Mechanic Speaks Out - Chemtrails

reply to post by defcon5

First off, “Nano” does not mean that the product itself is necessarily that small, in this instance it means that the weave of the material is constructed out of particles that were of that size.

Nano does indeed mean that the product is that small. Nano particles can be put on anything and in anything and with anything and they get into everything.

ec.europa.eu...

At the nanoscale, the properties of particles may change in unpredictable ways…Nanoparticles exhibit increased diffusivity with decreasing size and therefore show delayed sedimentation in the earth’s gravitational field, which translates into potentially increased lifetimes for nanoparticulate impurities at low concentration. In the presence of larger microparticles, as with the wide size distribution in aerosols such as smoke, the highly diffusive character of nanoparticles may lead to faster agglomeration or impaction on the larger particles. Furthermore, many particles, including metallic particles, are highly pyrophoric and there is a considerable risk of dust explosions.

There is no effort required to inhale nano particles. And the dangers are only now, after the fact, being explored.

www.gizmag.com...

A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter and nanotechnology deals with particles that measure 1-100 nanometers in size. At this incredibly tiny scale, chemistry is different and nanoparticles do not behave like normal particles. Because the proportion of surface atoms increases as the size of a particle decreases nanoscale particles tend to be more chemically reactive than ordinary-sized particles of the same material. This makes it hard to predict how these tiny, tiny particles will act under different conditions, and it is this unpredictability that poses some very big questions…However, a series of experiments by researchers at the University of Connecticut’s Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering has suggested that silver nanoparticles can also materially alter a person’s immunity, in some instances taking away the immune system’s ability to deal with pathogens. To date these effects have only been witnessed in a test tube, not in a human body, but researcher Christopher Perkins is stating the obvious when he says “more work needs to be done” before silver nanoparticles can be considered benign.

The three photos you presented are a bit misleading in the context of our discussion. The chaff and chaff cartridges represent one delivery system out of a number of possible options just for chaff alone. I'm assuming that you chose chaff to dialogue on as a more familiar item to you than obscuration, weather modification, climate mitigation, rainmaking and cirrus aviaticus. All are part of the chemtrail system with chaff just one item. But the important point to note here is that all of these delivery systems employ nano particles which have made the use of tanks obsolete; the point of my point being that looking for tanks today will not find the chemtrail delivery system. That was yesterday's technology. The photo of chaff in its' ancient familiar form is also fast becoming history but in the meantime let us dwell there and explore the innocent amounts you claim as incapable of obscuring the sky to the extent that can be seen.

www.lasvegassun.com...

"I was disappointed that the study was not as conclusive as I thought it should be," said U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who requested the study last year after hearing complaints about chaff from state officials, rural Nevada residents and the Rural Alliance for Military Accountability…Chaff, made of tiny fibers of aluminum-covered fiberglass, is dropped by military aircraft to confuse enemy radar systems. Tons of the stuff have been dropped over Nevada, mostly by jets from the Fallon Naval Air Station…Once it reaches the ground, chaff breaks down into particles small enough to inhale. Rural Nevadans complain it's frequently dropped over their homes, but they have no idea if it's safe…The GAO report revealed that the military used 2 million 6- to 7-ounce bundles of chaff in 1996 and 1.8 million bundles in 1997.

The technology the people of Nevada were complaining about in 1998 has come a long ways since then. But still on chaff, the chaff-flare countermeasures picture and the photo of the incredible fireworks display may be shock and awe for an air show but it is not what people describe seeing. Rather than put forth a lot of dry documents on delivery systems, I'll just say that chaff can be delivered...(see next post)

reply to post by defcon5


(continued...) with or without visible flare. Here again is the link I put on earlier from an Idao family as reported in the Idaho Observer.

www.americanchronicle.com...

The Idaho Observer reported with considerable skepticism that the General Accounting Office admitted that chemtrails exist but that they are merely fiberglass particles coated with aluminum whose health effects are unknown but whose existence is now acknowledged after decades of official denial.

These people were reporting chemtrails to their Senator and not pyrotechnics. Stock photos for public consumption I don't need. I have plenty of photos of chemtrails as do many of the people I know. The Idaho family complained sometime in the mid 2000's and were told that the chemtrails were caused by chaff.

Last but not least, your weather radar chaff picture. I've seen chaff on radar. Chaff on news reports has been pointed out on radar. It doesn't look like your representation so no thanks. Chaff and radar and reporting of chaff ahead of time due to radar anomalies is well documented. I don't think that needs to be covered again here.

As far as filing flight plans...you've said nothing new on that. DOD is not in touch with me. As far as pilot forums...I probably spend more time there than you do. It's where I get some of my best material.

As far as the thread and the topic which was the mechanics' find of tubes etc. and the mob rule on hoax...there are old planes fitted with tanks - Evergreen and their spraying in the Gulf after the oil spill. They even bragged in a promotional video about being able to start-stop-start-stop like morse code in the air for specific coverage. It's all real, was reas but we've moved on.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

This 'old' article is from Aug. 31, 2011.

Funny but the picture in the story you linked is from 2009, so how does this make it new?

Here is the link that says what it is and where it's at. Read caption under picture..

abcnews.go.com...

The article is about the (current, just released) FAA report on pilot automation addiction. The study was conducted based on reports from a number of years. That's why the picture is from 2009. The report itself is new and that was the substance of my post i.e. pilots cannot know everything anymore. It was to show that this is real behavior and that automation gets away from everyone.

Why the hell is a HOAX thread still getting replies?

reply to post by luxordelphi


This is nonsense.

The report itself is new and that was the substance of my post i.e. pilots cannot know everything anymore. It was to show that this is real behavior and that automation gets away from everyone.

The bolded and underlined part, above.

Complete rubbish. I explained in great detail how you misinterpret the automation article. IN any event, it (automation) is about the AUTOPILOT and related systems.

Also, merely (as a layperson) spending a "great deal of time" on pilot-oriented forums does not make one an "expert" by any stretch of the imagination.

IF you want t begin to have even a semblance of comprehension, then go take flying lessons. Spend the next several years getting practical, hands-on experience.

Only then will understanding begin to dawn...........


(Adding.....I see some well-known "pilot mills" advertising the going rate for their programs, at around USD $50,000 - $60,000. This to take you from rank know-nothing, I presume, all the way through the Commercial and then a CFI so you can then instruct --- and continue to build hours --- at their company. Getting to the Airline Transport Pilot Airman's certificates is a long haul....minimum of 1,500 hours just to qualify. As a Certified Flight Instructor, you learn by teaching, and get "paid" to build hours as well).

This place, for one example: www.atpflightschool.com...

reply to post by ProudBird


As usual, you ignore substance in order to take things personally.

Complete rubbish. I explained in great detail how you misinterpret the automation article. IN any event, it (automation) is about the AUTOPILOT and related systems.

This was not my study. This was a study by the FAA. Argue with them about it. It is irrational to assume that one can know everything about technology. Take an android as an example. It's not a plane; it's a cell phone with internet. It is impossible for a person to know the ramifications of all of its' systems.

Also, merely (as a layperson) spending a "great deal of time" on pilot-oriented forums does not make one an "expert" by any stretch of the imagination.

I was responding to defcon5 who suggested I spend time on pilot forums. I'm not an expert anymore than you are an expert on chemtrails or an expert on what should be relegated to 'HOAX.' No one is trying to take away from you any area of expertise you may claim. No one, by observing chemtrails, is setting themselves against pilots. I have a friend of the family that I've known all of my life and she is a pilot and I do not blame her for chemtrails anymore than I blame any pilot for them. I also have a friend of the family whose kids I used to babysit who was a mechanic for a major airline. I sat through deregulation with him and saw first-hand the heartache and ulcers and eventual early death that it brought. There is no equation that says that advocacy for chemtrail-free skies is automatically advocacy against pilots and mechanics. We are all, everyone, responsible for chemical skies. While we slept, ill-considered moves were made.

reply to post by luxordelphi

This was not my study. This was a study by the FAA.

And, what was attempted to explain was, the interpretation by a layperson as such, as to the POINT of that study is difficult to explain properly, to people who simply cannot understand the real implications.

The study was ONLY about automation as it pertains to the autoflight systems. The attempt to imply that, based on the software programming protocols that are a part of those systems, with the incredible (and terribly incorrect) leap to "pilots don't know what they are doing" was incredibly mis-representative, and flat-out wrong.

Take an android as an example. It's not a plane; it's a cell phone with internet. It is impossible for a person to know the ramifications of all of its' systems.

Huh? The "Android" platform in the "SmartPhone" technology that you are referring to is merely an Operating System for that computing device. It is only a similar thing to "Windows" (by MicroSoft) for a PC or laptop...or, the Apple software for Macs....or, Linux, another sort of PC user software Operating System, etc.

I own a Huawei M860C SmartPhone, using the Android platform....I understand it completely. Perhaps those that think the "Android" system is something that is "impossible" to understand is, at the core, somewhat "technophobic" at his/her core, and lack of comprehension of technology is likely the culprit.

Originally posted by ProudBird
It is only a similar thing to "Windows" (by MicroSoft) for a PC or laptop...or, the Apple software for Macs....or, Linux, another sort of PC user software Operating System, etc.

I own a Huawei M860C SmartPhone, using the Android platform....I understand it completely. Perhaps those that think the "Android" system is something that is "impossible" to understand is, at the core, somewhat "technophobic" at his/her core, and lack of comprehension of technology is likely the culprit.

As a person who's using Linux professionally, on daily basis, I would say I understand a lot of what's going on. The software stack that runs on top of it can be rather complex, of course, but to portray technology as something beyond human capacity to understand is woefully incorrect.

reply to post by ProudBird

And, what was attempted to explain was, the interpretation by a layperson as such, as to the POINT of that study is difficult to explain properly, to people who simply cannot understand the real implications.

There is nothing to explain beyond the title of the article:

'Automation Addiction': Are Pilots Forgetting How to Fly?

Automated flight systems and auto-pilot features on commercial aircraft are causing "automation addiction" among today's airline pilots and weakening their response time to mechanical failures and emergencies, according to a new study by safety officials.

This dangerous trend has cost the lives of hundreds of passengers in some 51 "loss of control" accidents over the past five years, the report found.

A new study by the FAA found that in two thirds of such accidents, pilots had trouble manually flying the plane, or made mistakes with automated flight controls.

abcnews.go.com...

What do you think 'made mistakes with automated flight controls' means? Does it mean they understood the program? And the whole point of it is that if the autopilot operation is not fully understood, how real is it then to believe that the autowaste system is fully understood? Not very real except, of course, in your virtual world.

I own a Huawei M860C SmartPhone, using the Android platform....I understand it completely. Perhaps those that think the "Android" system is something that is "impossible" to understand is, at the core, somewhat "technophobic" at his/her core, and lack of comprehension of technology is likely the culprit.

Here's a link for you about one of the built-ins for the android:

thehackernews.com...

That's one that is known. Care to guess how many unknowns that leaves? And it's all legal because if you download just one app., you give your permission.

reply to post by buddhasystem

The software stack that runs on top of it can be rather complex, of course, but to portray technology as something beyond human capacity to understand is woefully incorrect.

Even if you work for one of the clandestine peeping tom industries, it is impossible for you to know all of the ramifications of the systems. Only the designer knows because compartmentalization takes care of assembly. And even the designer doesn't know about redundant systems. The designers of those systems know about those.

Presupposing know-it-allness makes it difficult to locate systems like that. Because one isn't looking for them until late in the day.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Look...it's simple.

YOU go and learn to fly. Amass several thousand hours of experience.

And then come back here, to ATS, and "debate".

OK??

reply to post by luxordelphi


Automation addiction have nothing to do with not understanding the autoflight system.
It's all about lack of training and experience in manual flight and operating the airplane on raw data.

My experience is that most pilots nowadays have very good system knowledge.

reply to post by buddhasystem


This is fascinating to learn:

As a person who's using Linux professionally, on daily basis, I would say I understand a lot of what's going on. The software stack that runs on top of it can be rather complex, of course, but to portray technology as something beyond human capacity to understand is woefully incorrect.

But, it connects to the topic HOW?

As I have said, repeatedly.....the "user" (pilot) does not have to know, nor understand, the basic programming of the system they use.