Chemtrail Central
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive

Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
Gotta Rant!!!! Please forgive me.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Chemtrails

Author Thread

Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA
PostWed Feb 05, 2003 4:33 am  Reply with quote  

"Dozens? would that be 24, 36 or 48 of your so called buddies?"

Well, let's see....about 20 or so pilots I used to fly with in the 1-244th Aviation Regiment, about 15 pilots I flew with while flying for the 812th Medical Company, about 2-3 I still keep in touch with from my Army flight school class (IERW class 96-17), the 20 or so people I attended Air Force pilot training with (class 01-12, most of whom fly various types throughout the Air Force), the 20 or so pilots I've flown with here in my current unit (54 Airlift Flight), about 20-30 other pilots I know in various other units that I met while working with their aircrews. So yeah, a few dozen.

" Oh and Pacer if you must know I believe he flew a beech jayhawk if memory serves me

I also flew the Jayhawk. It's the T-1A, used to train airlift and tanker pilots.

I've flown the TH-67A Creek, UH-1H and UH-1V Huey, T-37B Tweet, and T-1A Jayhawk, as well as the C-21A Learjet. My next assignment, in 2004, I'll fly some variant of the C-130. As for civilian aircraft I've flown Cessna 152/172/310, and Piper PA-28 and PA-38 aircraft. I've flown on board C-130s, KC-135s, UH-60A and OH-58 aircraft.

"All you need is two 3/8s line with two minature inline pumps, wired to a switch,
I'm betting I could do just that, plus
being small you could even install outside
of the wing without problems. Why does
this seem so haed?"

It's hard because you have no idea if your idea would work in a slipstream of 400-500 knots, nor if it would freeze/crack/fail in the extreme cold of the upper atmosphere.

"How would that be any different from a fuel tank emptying during flight? You would also
want to locate the tank in the center of the craft for better weight stability would
that also be part of the case?"

Most aircraft fuel tanks are located in the wing, or in close proximity to the CG in the fuselage. In theory you could put a holding tank in the center of the fuselage, but in practice I think you'll find that place already jam packed with other equipment for the fuel system and the landing gear/hydraulic servos.

"Another question I just thought of, are most
jet fuel tanks pressurized with a releif
valve system or vented?"

Depends on the airplane...but most have a static air vent system.

"How about the planes that dump gallons of water over forest fires?"

As I addressed in an earlier post, modifications of that sort are thoroughly designed and tested before an aircraft can engage in such an activity. All of the water tankers used to fight fires have received an FAA-approved STC to operate the equipment on board. They didn't simply just load up a bunch of water tanks and take off into the wild blue.

"not to mention what about the kc 135s?
How could they refuel?"

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, so I'll address it to both scenarios. First, KC-135s do not themselves refuel. They do transfer gas to other aircraft, but are not capable of receiving fuel in-flight.

To address the other scenario (the KC-135 giving fuel), you need to know that there aren't any special seperate fuel tanks on the KC-135. All of the fuel on board a KC-135 is stored in the normal wing and fuselage tanks that any other C-135 variant (or even 720/707 variant) has. There are no special fuel cells designed to hold fuel exclusively to transfer to other aircraft.

That being said, the KC-135 can use every drop of fuel on board, as it all feeds into the four engines.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 13
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
PostWed Feb 05, 2003 6:20 am  Reply with quote  

Professor why are you arguing with these "highly educated, extremely well informed" fools?

Don't you know Professor that they are briefed daily on the latest and greatest advancement that science community produces.

Nothing and I mean nothing is beyond them. I even bet God himself relies relies on thier fabulous insite on the inner workings everything at least anything regarding aviation.
Their "certified"! lmao

People please don't feed the monkeys! It is annoying wadding thru the meaningless techno BS that doesn't bring you or me any close to understanding the "chemtrails".

You can't tell the pseudo-informed that they are ignorant.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 05 Jan 2003
Posts: 800
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
PostWed Feb 05, 2003 6:41 am  Reply with quote  


Your just afraid that if people start doing research into contrails and aviation and the technical aspects of them, they might wake up. So you hope that by calling it "technical BS" people will ignore scientific facts and instead imagine seeing things they arent. Maybe a good use of your time would be formulating a logical response* to arguments placed before you.

*Calling me a fool is not a logical response

[Edited 1 times, lastly by PHXPilot on 02-04-2003]
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA
PostWed Feb 05, 2003 3:24 pm  Reply with quote  

Mr. Adonis:

It truly boggles my mind why you feel that pilots *aren't* considered experts in their own field.

I never said we knew everything about aviation, nor do we know all of the latest and greatest advances in aviation. But it only makes sense that a pilot is probably alot more qualified to comment on flying, aviation weather and other related subjects than the casual non-pilot.

I have no idea what you do for a living, but I'm pretty sure you'd be irritated if I insisted that despite the fact you have many years of experience in your field, you're not any more qualified to comment on that subject than I am. You know as well as I do that I probably don't know more about your job than you do.

If you brought your computer in to get fixed, you wouldn't argue every point with the tech rep and claim you know more about computers than he does.

If you were a patient, you wouldn't think that your doctor was being a know-it-all for suggesting medical treatment.

If your car was broke, and you knew very little about cars, you wouldn't dismiss your mechanic's knowledge as trivial.

The point is, I went through nearly 2 years of formal training and education in the subject of flying. This education included a wide range of subjects, including aviation weather and whole classes devoted to the national airspace system and IFR flight rules. I grew up in a family dominated by pilots, and I regularly flew with my father since the day I was a young boy.

So, while NOT professing to know everything about flying, I do admit that yes, I think I may know more about the subject than you do.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 13
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
PostWed Feb 05, 2003 3:48 pm  Reply with quote  

I am so pleased you completely understand my point Mr. Pacer.

I am completely aware that your 2 years of "formal" training DOES NOT qualify you in CRAP in regards to anything that a mult-trillion dollar worldest most technilogically advanced civilization in the know history of mankind would do and try to keep it a secret.

Your superior avaition knowledge and vast fly experience amount to a pile of bug s!@# on a mountain.

I am sure you would have been well qualified to debunk reports of non-prop driven incredibly fast aeroplanes by ignorant german peons during world war II as you flew around swatting flys in your circa world war I bi-plane; and of course you would have debunked non-radar confirmed visual reports of large flying wings over various place in the us during the 80's because you have so many great friends in the radar watching business.

Mr. Pacer I am so grateful to God that we all have people like you and your incredibly dedicated team of fellow debunkers, what would the delusionally ignorant peons do without your informed benevolence.

Truly from the bottom of my shallow avaitionally challenged heart!

Mr. Adonis

[Edited 1 times, lastly by adonis777 on 02-05-2003]
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 456
Location: Millbrook, AL, USA
PostWed Feb 05, 2003 4:36 pm  Reply with quote  

Certainly I'm not privy to the black projects out at the Tonopah test range. But I CAN see a photo of two airliners and notice that what's being claimed as a daredevil "formation flying" stunt by two "unmarked" jets is actually just a photo of two normal airliners abiding by normal seperation standards.
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
the professor

Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1164
Location: heartland USA
PostThu Feb 06, 2003 5:56 am  Reply with quote  

Well I appreciate the time Pacer and PHX took to educate me on some jet matters,
and I think we all came to the conclusion
of yes this can be done to jets. On the other hand they still believe what they want
and I'll believe what I want. Like I said
before I could only hope to be delusional.
Adonis the monkey comment was indeed silly
but can say as long as they are civil I
have no problems conversing with them.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 13
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
PostThu Feb 06, 2003 6:43 am  Reply with quote  

Get ya groove on professor. I can tell yall appreciate the mental masturbation. Most conspiracy theorists love a good circle jerk.

Its all less than zero....
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  
1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are GMT.
The time now is Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:18 am

  Display posts from previous:      

© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base