|
|
3T3L1

Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
Dumped JP-8 cannot possibly reach the ground!
Tue Feb 12, 2002 6:42 pm
|
|
|
Dumped JP-8 cannot possibly reach the ground!
This is true because:
--An FAA regulation which doesn't exist says so!
--The technical term is really jettisoning fuel!
--Jay Reynolds can smell kerosene!
--Some chemtrail activists think that contrails are chemtrails!
What was I thinking?
|
| |
|
|
Chem11

Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:03 pm
|
|
|
I confess that I haven't the faintest idea what you are thinking, 3T3L1. All I know is that you claimed to have found the 'smoking gun' in one of your posts and directed readers to the JP8+100 thread in your Science forum.
I, personally, have a hard time seeing a connection between what I have observed occurring in our atmosphere for the last three years and the jettisoning of excess jet fuel. I'll resit the urge to post a few dozen pictures of chemtrails vs. fuel dumps for comparitive analysis.
Again speaking strictly for myself, I don't believe that contrails are chemtrails. I believe that these unusually persitent trails that are being methodically dispersed over urban population centers, that spread out into a giant canopy of artificially-created cloud cover, that cause illness and a great deal of psychological distress for people caught in their path, and that turn up in congressional bills under the heading 'exotic weapons', are something more than contrails.
And certainly something more than the occasional fuel dump.
Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps someone will start a Fuel Dump Central site and lay all our concerns to rest...
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 02-12-2002] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1

Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:30 pm
|
|
|
Chem11, what I'm thinking is that I may not have found the whole explanation for all of the chemtrails, but that I have found a very plausible explanation for some of them. So far, even the astute Jay Reynolds has not been able to refute these findings.
1. The jet fuel currently in use is JP-8 (military) or Jet-A (commercial).
2. This jet fuel is occasionally dumped, at a minimum altitude of 5000 feet above ground level.
3. There is good reason to believe that a large amount of dumped Jet-A or JP-8 jet fuel does not evaporate before it reaches the lungs of people standing in the path of the fuel dump.
Yes, there are many other things that could be happening in our skies, but so far we haven't been able to take irrefutable samples or to get the people involved to allow their names to be used in an exposé. What I'm suggesting is that we finally have something we can point to as a verifiable example of material being sprayed in the skies and hurting people who are standing on the ground. If we could advocate investigation into a proven aspect of chemtrails, it could subsequently open avenues into investigation of other aspects of chemtrails.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 02-13-2002] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1

Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
Tue Feb 12, 2002 9:38 pm
|
|
|
This is from Maverick. The highlighting is mine.
quote: MaverickGoose
ezOP
Posts: 136
(2/4/02 9:45:15 pm)
Reply
Re: Just a slight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...When I was in college, I worked part-time at an FBO at the local airport doing line service. My primary duty was to pump Avgas 100LL and Jet-A2M into civilian planes that stopped by on their way across the country. One of the things I remembered was that I was told the Jet-A was esentially kerosene, and the AVGAS was little more than high-octane gasoline. For me, the biggest difference was that the AVGAS would evaporate if it got on your clothes, while the JET A would stick and irritate the hell out of your skin. Thankfully, that didn't happen very often.
Now, fast-forwarding to the present, I only assumed that jet fuel was jet fuel was jet fuel, and they were all kerosene-based. I am blissfully unaware nowadays.......I don't ever want to have to deal with fuel spills again!
http://pub31.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessage?topicID=282.topic
It doesn't take much to imagine what would happen if droplets of this stuff got into your lungs instead of just on your skin. Especially if you were an older person, or already had some sort of health problem.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 02-12-2002] |
| |
|
|
Chem11

Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:02 pm
|
|
|
Well, I suppose the question becomes;
Would the dumping of JP8+100 (or any other jet fuel variant) cause the appearance of persitent chemtrail-style plumes?
I think there are some real stumbling blocks with this approach in general, but it's pointless to bring them up unless the first question can be answered with an authoritative 'yes' or 'no'.
I have noticed a tendency for the average concernced citizen to grasp for a simple answer to this issue. I doubt the truth will somehow magically 'uncomplicate' itself for this particlar phenomena and making an instant connection between "they're just dumping fuel" and covert atmospheric engineering for John Q Public seems ill-advised, given what I am personally observing on a day-to-day basis...
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Chem11 on 02-12-2002] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1

Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:06 pm
|
|
|
Would the dumping of JP8+100 (or any other jet fuel variant) cause the appearance of persitent chemtrail-style plumes?
Are these good enough?
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/ |
| |
|
|
Chem11

Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:25 pm
|
|
|
Quote from Wisequakker's narrative:
Case in Point: How ’bout an EA-6B Prowler from NAS Whidbey Island that was caught trailing “wingtip vortices” at no more than 10,000 feet above Mount Vernon, Washington, on February 20, 2001...??? Not smoke; not fuel being dumped; but a pair of trails that persisted almost ten minutes before they finally disappeared into the mid-winter sky.
This series of pictures has always puzzled me. Not your average chemjet is it? But then again, these days, what is ? What makes you suspect that this was a fuel dump?
In any case it's not what I would call a typical example, e.g.;
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/GridLock_640x429.jpg
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 02-12-2002] |
| |
|
|
David
Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 1381
|
Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:34 pm
|
|
|
3T3, if fuel dumping is the answer, then we have by count in the past 3 hours, over 75 fuel dumps over Lake County, Calif. That's 25 per hour. Now if we multiply that figure for the past 4 days of non stop spraying, that comes to 2400 fuel dumps. Even cutting that figure in 1/2 or 1200, or even further, by 3/4 it still comes out to 600 "fuel dumps" in 4 days.
That to me would seem unlikely, as it would represent some pretty poor planning and a huge waste of fuel by the airlines and the airforce or anyone else flying multi-engined jets.
I do know that most airlines only give themselves enough fuel to reach the next destination with a small reserve in case of problems with weather or air traffic.
Just my two cents worth. David |
| |
|
|
3T3L1

Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:41 pm
|
|
|
Chem11 and David--I'm not saying that all chemtrails are fuel dumps. I'm saying that some chemtrails are fuel dumps. It would be worth our while to look into it because for fuel dumps we have black and white evidence on our side, not just speculation. But if you feel that we have to solve the whole chemtrail conundrum all at once, that's up to you. |
| |
|
|
Chem11

Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:47 pm
|
|
|
No need to be defensive, 3T3L1. You asked a question and I answered it sincerely and to the best of my ability.
You claimed that the photos in question were representative of a fuel dump (or so it would appear, correct me if that was not your implication).
I posted the photographer's assertion that these were not fuel dumps and asked why it was that you thought he was mistaken.
It seemed like a fair question, but I apologize if you were somehow offended by it...?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 02-12-2002] |
| |
|
|
3T3L1

Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:08 pm
|
|
|
Thanks, Chem. I was being defensive. Wisequakker says he knows what a fuel dump in progress looks like. From his account, I'd have to ask him to reconsider his assessment:
quote: Then, on Saturday, October 16, 1999, I witnessed something that quite literally stopped me in my tracks. If I harbored any prior skepticism about the existence of “funny” contrails, they were laid to rest just before 13:30 PDT as I was about to enter the local Fidalgo Bay Coffee shop in Mount Vernon, Washington. Looking up after hearing the roar of one of NAS Whidbey’s EA-6B’s, I watched as the jet aircraft was traveling from east to west about 30° above the southern horizon. From its angular size and velocity, I could easily tell that it was flying at no more than 10,000 feet above ground level. With that in mind, what made absolutely no sense was what appeared to be a vapor condensation trail that was being left behind. It was not smoke, nor was it a fuel dump in progress. I know the difference. This fluffy plume was only beginning to dissipate some ten minutes later, also ruling out any visual effects of wing-tip vortices. (Although I did not have a camera with me that day, I was carrying my brand new Minolta STsi Maxxum four months later when I saw the same thing again.)...
...on October 23rd, I was interviewed for 20 minutes by Hilly Rose on live national radio. Having only recently become aware of “chemtrail paranoia”, himself, he had me describe to the audience what I had seen in the sky over Mount Vernon, as well as my little chat with the On-Duty Navy Officer. There was also time for me to speak about the “drunken ship captains’ party” of June 30th, where I was allowed to summarize most of what I had submitted to the newspaper a month ago.
While out on my heated back deck not more than two hours later, I received the first hint that not everyone was appreciative of my attention to detail or of my willingness to rock the boat whenever I think it is called for. About half past midnight, my eyes started burning, followed by uncontrollable watering. Before I knew it, the lenses on my glasses were covered with the saline solution of my own spattered tears. Once my sinuses began draining as well, it became increasingly clear that I was under some kind of physical attack. My first reactions were denial and disbelief, that there had to be another more “rational” explanation for what was happening to me. Those thoughts departed just as quickly while I was inside cleaning up myself. Suddenly, I heard a loud crash and ran back out to the deck. There on the floor sat my black and white Rex bunny, Peter, not far from where I had been standing a few moments before. The problem was that the rabbit had been inside his cage and somehow managed to jump upward almost two and a half feet, with enough force to pop open the top of his cage and come to land on the deck floor beside it. If I was imagining things, then so was the rabbit...
Three weeks later, it became evident that the assault was not over. Jack, my other rabbit, a three-year-old mini-Rex, died unexpectedly from a lung hemorrhage. He was a perfectly healthy animal, exhibiting absolutely no signs of distress of any kind. And yet, within a 36 hour period, he had stopped eating, huddled himself into a corner of his cage, and was dead before I could even get him to see the vet. I woke up to find Jack stiff as a board on Veterans Day. Not even a $160 necropsy would reveal what virus or bacteria brought on the pneumonia that had led to the hemorrhage...
Nine days after that on November 20th, Clifford Carnicom was being interviewed by Hilly Rose on the Saturday edition of Coast to Coast AM. Incredibly, it was a little past midnight when I was again hit in the eyes with something that began to burn, just as it had soon after I had been heard on the radio, only a month earlier. This time, however, a neighborhood 120-pound black lab mix was running around loose out back and started barking at something. Almost immediately, his barking turned into whimpering and then — silence. With Jack now gone and my having been physically attacked twice, I wasted no time in confining all of my pets to the inside of the house. By the time I had sneaked out the garage and was in the backyard myself, there was nothing and no one anywhere. Still, the local police were anything but patronizing toward me when I filed a report this time around. Fortunately, the dog showed up unharmed the next morning. But to this day, none of my critters are being allowed to live out on that deck.
http://home1.gte.net/quakker/Documents/Chemtrail_Attack.htm
[Edited 2 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 03-14-2002] |
| |
|
|
Chem11

Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:22 pm
|
|
|
For comparitive analysis:
BAHRAIN: November 13, 2001
A U.S. Marine Corp F/A-18C Hornet fighter-bomber dumps its extra fuel before making a carrier landing on the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea following a strike mission in Afghanistan, November 11, 2001. The fighters routinely dump excess fuel before making carrier landings.
http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/13282
|
| |
|
|
3T3L1

Joined: 08 Mar 2001
Posts: 1344
Location: Lubbock, Texas |
Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:26 pm
|
|
|
More examples of fuel being dumped:
(Just the Hornets, not the B52. What's interesting here is that the upper Hornet is dumping from two ports, while the lower Hornet is dumping from one, similar to picture #3 of Wisequakker's series.)
[Edited 2 times, lastly by 3T3L1 on 02-12-2002] |
| |
|
|
Chem11

Joined: 21 Apr 2001
Posts: 1386
|
Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:27 pm
|
|
|
In the event of a fuel dump, special airspace is assigned to the aircraft, if possible above unpopulated or thinly populated areas (e.g. Odenwald, Eifel, Sauerland, North Sea).
Fuel is usually dumped at altitudes of 4-8 kilometers. A minimum altitude of 1,500 meters and a minimum speed of 500 km/h are required. The aircraft may not fly a fully closed circle. The dumped kerosene forms a fine mist in the turbulence behind the aircraft. During a fuel dump at minimum altitude, 8 percent of the fuel reaches the ground statistically. At an air speed of 500 km/h this means a ground contamination of 0.02 grams per square meter. This is as much as a shotglass-full of kerosene distributed over a surface of 1,000 square meters. Despite the use of sensitive methods of analysis, no contamination has been determined so far in plant or soil samples after fuel dumps.
http://umwelt.lufthansa.com/en/umweltabc2.html
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Chem11 on 02-12-2002] |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:29 pm
|
|
|
Interesting comments David...
quote:
then we have by count in the past 3 hours, over 75 fuel dumps over Lake County, Calif. That's 25 per hour. Now if we multiply that figure for the past 4 days of non stop spraying, that comes to 2400 fuel dumps.
When I was collecting information for my Trail Research Report, while I did observe planes that I think were military leaving the classic Chemtrail, I never saw anything like the volume of CT flights that you just described. It was really a small percentage. If I had, it would have been a fantastic find when coupled with Flight Explorer observations showing these were not normal traffic.
If you are getting Chemjets at that level of intensity it could be an incredible opportunity to collect a formidable amount of evidence, if you endeavoured to repeat my research with Flight Explorer. |
| |
|
|

|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 1:43 am
|
|
|
|
|