posted 06-03-2002 04:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonehead9:
So what phase (liquid, solid, or gas) is the “chemical” in the gap between the plane and the white plume?

---

posted 06-03-2002 04:49 PM            

I guess by their standards... you fly through a rainstorm in a 747, you better bring your umbrella! ROFL. Oh yea, and be ready for clouds to expand within the passenger area too !!! "

Yes, the turbines are large vaccuum cleaners. But do you know what the vaccuum bag is? The cabin. Most of the air that is sucked into a jet engine is either used as cooling air or for cabin pressurization. The rest is used for the combustion process.

And no, rain wont make it into the cabin, because it will become vaporized before it makes it to the mod valve, and a condenser works to remove water from the air.

posted 06-03-2002 04:53 PM            

First of all, your logic and reason are appreciated. Admittedly, I am no expert on the subject. I will concede that you make some valid points. It is my practice to rely more on my intutions then anything. I still don't believe that people on "most" aircraft are succeptible to consumption or intake of these dense chemicals, regardless if the cabin is not "absolutely" air tight.

As that article posted by bonehead mentioned

"Air circulation is continuous. Air is always flowing into and out of the cabin.
The cabin has a high air-change rate. All of the air in the cabin is replaced by the incoming mixture of outside air and filtered air during intervals of only two to three minutes, depending on airplane size. That's 20 to 30 air changes per hour."

I found this to be a relevant contradiction to the basis of your claims.

Also, Yes the turbines are obviously going to suck in a lot of air, but any air not sucked in by those will be pushed outward, away and around the plane. It's the same concept that "aerodynamics" exploit.

posted 06-03-2002 05:00 PM            

If people on the ground are getting sick from this alleged material, after it has been blown around by 70 knot winds during its 6-mile descent to the Earth below, with nothing confining this material, pilots should also be getting sick.

They are flying around THROUGH this stuff daily. The engines, which compresses and provides the cabin air, not only concentrates any airborne pollutants in the cabin, but forces it into a small space. I don't care how fast the air circulates through the cabin...you're going to breathe at least some of it, possibly several times a day.

Point in case: when we fly through a plume of smoke from a fire, we can smell the smoke in the cabin for several minutes until it's purged.

posted 06-03-2002 05:35 PM            

As for them spraying in areas that have no commercial traffic, I don't really believe you could find a place that doesn't have commercial traffic. Also, just because there are published routes doesn't mean that commercial traffic must stick to those routes. On many occasions I have requested "direct" and gotten it. I have also never been denied a request cruise altitude before, either.

Most of the photos of "chemtrails" show very long contrails. These contrails extend for over 300 miles. And try blocking off any airspace for over 300 miles...airplanes would have to fly around a 300 x 300 mile space of sky, and I've never had to do that. The ONLY places that I have ever had to fly around are the restricted areas listed on the aeronautical charts. But be careful in drawing conclusions for those, because most are used for artillery firing ranges, and those guns can lob a shell the size of a small car well above 10,000 feet.

The fact is, while there are published routes, there is nothing that says we have to use them. If we have either GPS or RNAV capability, we can fly straight-line direct from airport to airport. We can choose parts of routes to fly, or whole routes. We can choose our own cruising altitudes as well.

The only guidance from the FAA on cruise altitudes is the hemispherical rule. Eastbound, you fly odd-thousands below 29,000 feet. Westbound, you fly even-thousands below 29,000 feet. Above 29,000 feet, eastbound altitudes are FL290, 330, 370, 410, 450 ad naseum. Westbound above 29,000 feet, you can pick from 310, 350, 390, 430, etc. In case you didn't know, 310 is 31,000 feet.

So, to pick altitudes, we use our own techniques. One common one is the rule of tens. Use ten percent of your total distance to fly. So for an eastbound flight that's 250 miles long, request FL250, or thereabouts. Beyond 400 miles, it's really up to you to determine which altitude has the most favorable winds, fuel consumption and ride reports (ride reports can be smooth, choppy, moderate turbulence, etc).

Once you get to a final cruise altitude, if you don't like the one your at for whatever reason, you can ask to climb or descend, and the controllers will let you so long as you're not going to be a traffic conflict.

The most important thing to take away from this post is there are alot of preconceived notions that abound with the non-flying public. Things like air-tight cabins are just the tip of the iceberg. Most of what I read concerning chemtrails are based in belief in these preconceived notions...that the controllers can "hide" chemtrail activity (they can't), or that pilots get their routing from the FAA (actually, its the other way around), which would keep normal airplanes away from chemtrails.

My advice to anyone: do yourself a favor. Go visit a control tower. Ask them if you can set up a time to visit the ARTCC (Air Route Traffic Control Center). Go visit a company that operates airplanes and ask pilots questions. Go sit in a cockpit and ask what the various dials and switches do. Go talk to pilots about flight planning.

Doing so, you'll learn alot about the subject. And once you do it, I'd be suprised if you still believed in chemtrails.

posted 06-03-2002 10:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alpha-Theta:
If you are suggesting that ultra dense chemicals should be viewable in that picture, that's really funny. Good joke.

---

You did not answer my question. Didn't you understand it? If the "chemical" is being sprayed out of the plane and is forming the "Chemtrail", then the gap between the plane and the start of the white plume indicates that a phase change is taking place. Can you in your knowlege of chemistry and theromdynamics tell me what is going on?

Didn't think so.

By the way, are you saying that the chemicals that are being "sprayed" are invisible to the naked eye? I though that the whole gist of the Chemtrail beleivers argument was that they could see the chemicals in the sky. Which is it, are they visible or not?

posted 06-04-2002 06:09 AM            

I am aware of the phase change that normally takes place in turbines. I do also know the specifics as to the thermodynamics of the chemtrail applications. Allow me to elaborate...

Chemjets use light scattering pigment powder particles, surface treated to minimize inparticle cohesive forces, are dispensed from a jet mill deagglomerator as separate single particles to produce a powder contrail having maximum visibility or radiation scattering ability for a given weight material

go here <-- This is the stuff chemtrails are made of. How much more proof do the ignorant need. I shall continue to lay out the TRUTH for the BLIND. Continue.....

I believe it is done by technologies that are still somewhat classified (or so they "think"). Bernard Eastlund discusses "growing clouds" in this US patent 5,038,664

Reference:
US Patent 3899144 by "The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, DC."

Q "Which is it, are they visible or not?"

Well, it's not an uncommon thing, in science, to say "both".

They are evidently not visible upon being dispensed by the deagglomerator, because they are so dense. However, upon the vaporization of the contrail, they mix with and dipserse within the contrail, somewhat taking the "contrail" along for a ride with them, through a form of fusion. That's how they become more visible as in the initial stage of dispersion (as the fuel changes phases), up until when they start to slowly expand into large cirrus clouds or until they reach the threshold at which they have dispersed so much you lose visibility. We've all seen this happen, if we have actually been "watching", like most of us have.

Also, just to reciprocate your intended antagonism

bonehead antagonised:
"Can you in your knowlege of chemistry and theromdynamics tell me what is going on?"

"Didn't think so."

My response:
As ironic as it may be, perhaps you simply should try not to "think", you may "appear" to be more intelligent this way.

posted 06-04-2002 08:45 PM            

You say this as if these devices are in fact installed on aircraft. What is your proof of such claims? And no, saying that persistant contrails exist is not proof, and neither is the existance of powdered aluminum, nor the existance of any kind of patent.

Speaking of patents, do a search for the number of mousetraps that have seperate patents....you'll see that there are a large variety, but how many of them are actually used (or even actually built)?

posted 06-04-2002 09:29 PM            

P*V = N*R*T

Where P = pressure, V = volume, N= the mass/molecular weight, R = Universal gas constant and K = absolute temperature (expressed in degrees Kelvin). The important thing to remember is that the pressure, volume and temperature are related, If you change one variable, then you will see coresponding changes the others.

Now back to our engine, as the air moves through, fuel is added and ignited. The heat of combustion is what dives the engine. By adding this heat to the air mixture (which now also contains the gaseous components of the combustion reaction) we raise its temperature even more. Since the mass and volume basicly remain the same, the pressure has to increase. This increased pressure causes the gasses to exit the rear of the engine at high velocity. This imparts forward thrust to the engine.

The gas exiting the engine consists of air and combustion byproducts. These byproducts are mainly carbon dioxide and water (steam). As the gasses leave the confines of the engine, the pressure drops down to ambient levels. As the pressure drops, so does the temperature, The volume also increases, but the same time temperature drops even further due to mixing with ambient air.

This happens fairly quickly, but in the meantime the engine has move forward, so that by the time the water vapor starts to condense, the engine has moved away, causing a visible gap between the engines and the contrail.

At this point, the contrail is totally at the mercy of the ambient atmospheric conditions under which they formed. (Relative humidity, temperature etc.)

Sometimes the moisture returns to vapor, sometimes it stays. At this point a contrail is nothing more than a cloud. It is subject to all of the things that can happen to a cloud. Clouds appear and they also go away.

alumina!

posted 06-04-2002 10:01 PM            

Much has been talked about concerning humidity levels required to form contrails. They talk about percentages of humidity. Using this, you need to understand a major concept of relative humidity.

Relative humidity is merely how much water vapor is in a mass of air relative to its capacity for holding water vapor.

For simplicity, let me give the following example, please disregard the numbers, but follow the example.

At 90 degrees, the air can hold 100 units of water per given volume. So, if the air has 50 units of water vapor for a given volume of air at 90 degrees, the relative humidity is 50%.

As the air mass gets colder, it's water retention is severely reduced, and it's not linear. So, at 0 degrees F., let's say the air can now only hold 10 units of water per given volume. And at -50 degrees, it can only hold about .10 units per given volume.

So while an increase of .5 units of water vapor isn't a huge increase at 90 degrees, it's a huge increase at -50 degrees.

And that's why predicting contrails at high altitude is very much at the mercy of nature. If an atmospheric computer model predicts an average relative humidity of 20%, a very very small increase in water vapor can easily make it spike to nearly 100%.

And let's not forget that an air mass is heterogeneous, not homogenous. Homogenous means that throughout the air mass, all conditions stay the same for a give altitude.

Heterogenous air mass means that the OVERALL air mass will reflect similar conditions to those in a forcast or model, but localized conditions may vary, and they may vary enough to form contrails.

posted 06-04-2002 10:45 PM            

^ this is from a US patent US Patent 3899144 by "The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, DC."

Bonehead, I am 100% certain. You may not be. That's okay, you are entitled to your opinion.

Pacer, I know for a fact that these devices are on high altitude, unmarked, orange and white NSA aircraft. Obviously this is classified, hence hard to substantiate. Obviously, you are aware of this and are trying to capitolize on it with your contradictions.

I have shown how they work, what substance they use and provided references for such. You have simply offered a contradictory opinion, with no substance, only skepticism.

BTW if you think these aircraft are based or launched out of civilian airports, that's just ludicrous.

MORE:

Operation Cloverleaf/Raindance
The NSA. Command center for ops located in Pacific Northwest at:

| | | POSITION: ITRF94 (EPOCH 1996.0) | | Computed in June, 1997 using 13 days of data. | | X = -2316901.100 m latitude = 45 46 57.48208 N | | Y = -3806506.850 m longitude = 121 19 39.21908 W | | Z = 4548956.553 m ellipsoid height = 732.427 m | | | | VELOCITY: ITRF94 | | Predicted with HTDP_2.1 in May, 1997. | | VX = -0.0165 m/yr northward = -0.0146 m/yr | | VY = -0.0022 m/yr eastward = -0.0130 m/yr | | VZ = -0.0102 m/yr upward = 0.0000 m/yr | POSITION: NAD 83 (EPOCH 1996.0) | | Computed from ITRF94 value using a 7-parameter transformation. | | X = -2316900.557 m latitude = 45 46 57.46118 N | | Y = -3806508.061 m longitude = 121 19 39.16851 W | | Z = 4548956.400 m ellipsoid height = 732.841 m | | | | VELOCITY: NAD 83 | | Predicted with HTDP_2.1 in May, 1997. | | VX = 0.0000 m/yr northward = 0.0000 m/yr | | VY = 0.0000 m/yr eastward = 0.0000 m/yr | | VZ = 0.0000 m/yr upward = 0.0000 m/yr |

Operations Based out of:
Edwards, AFB;
Point M. Naval Station (UH1H, helicopters);
Nellis, AFB;
Tucker, AFB;
PLATTSBURGH, AFB;
Andrews, AFB;
Hickam, AFB;
Kirtland, AFB;
Langley, AFB
Peterson, AFB;
Osan, AFB

posted 06-05-2002 06:13 PM            

I assume that these orange and white NSA jets operate out of the fields you mention below. Funny, I've never seen one at any of those fields that I've been to:

Edwards, AFB

I've dropped pax off at the main Edwards ramp, and nowhere did I notice an orange and white jet.

Point M. Naval Station (UH1H, helicopters)

Never been there, but from what I understand, they just had an airshow recently. And they do not operate UH-1H helicopters, they operate UH-1N helicopters. And what a slow (120 knots) low-altitude helicopter would do for any kind of spraying operation is beyond me, because I used to fly UH-1H and UH-1V helicopters. They have limited range, they are slow, and the highest they can realistically fly is around 8,000 feet.

Nellis, AFB

Been there too. No orange/white jets, and most of the hangar doors were open so you could see inside...still never remember seeing an orange/white jet.

Tucker AFB

Tucker AFB does not exist. It may have at one time, but I've never heard of it.

PLATTSBURGH, AFB

Plattsburgh AFB was closed in the early 1990s. It was an old SAC base. It is abandoned now, and I got to see it flying back from Maine a few months ago...not a single aircraft on the ramp.

Andrews, AFB

I just got back from Andrews today. I fly there just about weekly. There is only one hangar that's off limits, and it's the same hangar that houses Air Force One. I did see them tow Air Force One out of the hangar once, but again, no orange/white jets inside. Just the backup Air Force One.

Hickam, AFB

Never been there. But from talking to the guy who I flew with today (who has been to Hickam quite often flying C-5s out of Travis AFB), the only aircraft assigned are some C-135s and an EC-137.

Kirtland, AFB

I just spent two weeks there, and I've flown there alot. I've toured the facilities with a special operations instructor. No weird jets. Mostly helicopters and MC-130s. There is one airplane used for testing, and considering that they didn't take the time to hide it from me, I doubt it's the secret-squirrel sprayplane. And it wasn't orange and white either.

Langley, AFB

What a joke! Langley doesn't have a hangar large enough to fit a big airplane...well, they do, but they are full of F-15s and C-21s (the airplane I fly). Our sister squadron is based there, and I've been there a few times myself.

Peterson, AFB

Another joke! Again, I've been in Peterson's facilities...all C-130s and some C-21s. Another Learjet unit like ours.

Osan, AFB

posted 06-05-2002 08:22 PM            

Well anyway, I found some more information concerning the ventilation on commercial jets.

AIRLINERS: HOW SAFE IS THE AIR?

Anyone who has flown on a major airline knows how stale the air can get on a long trip. But bad air is not all you might be breathing. A number of passengers have contracted tuberculosis as a direct result of flying on the same plane with an infective patient. The number of people who have contracted influenza, colds or other respiratory infections on airline flights can only be calculated statistically, but the risk is definitely higher on airlines than in office buildings.

Airline attendants in particular, are statistically more likely to contract a wide variety of respiratory infections, and probably to spread them also.
This wasn't always the case, until the 1980s, airlines provided generous amounts of ventilation and there were no problems. Then major airlines decided to "cut costs", the modern euphemism for "boosting profits", and reduced the fresh ventilation air down to an unpublicizable level.

Current ASHRAE Indoor Air Quality guidelines (Standard 62-89) require 20 cfm of outdoor air be supplied for each and every occupant of a building. Airlines consider themselves exempt from such guidelines and supply far less than this.

The airlines have variously claimed to be providing anywhere from 20% to 50% ouside air without offering proof or formal documentation. Design data from airliners suggest that less than 7 cfm outside air is supplied to the passengers not in first class. They also make the ludicrous claim that since they use a HEPA filter, their air is as safe as that in hospital isolation rooms. Such claims are just PR -- no-one ever caught TB in an isolation room.

Isolation rooms purge with 100% outside air 12 times an hour, airlines recirculate air to the passengers, and only the pilots' cabin gets sufficient fresh air. Airline HEPA filter systems are never tested for filtration efficiency.

For the passengers, any reduction below 100% outside airflow at 12 ACH will result in a consequent increase in the probability of contracting a respiratory infection if there should be any pathogens in the cabin air. Filtering the recirculating air cannot guarantee removal of airborne pathogens, as has been noted in several studies. Traveling by air may be among the safest means of transportation, but breathing the air may be taking a risk.

Considering the incredible potential for the rapid spread, both nationally and internationally, of new respiratory pathogens by airliners, it is incredible that we don't make airliners vehicles of disinfection, instead of veritable flying incubators for diseases. A total accounting of the costs of diseases that are currently spread from city to city, and country to country, by the airlines would surely indicate that the savings of billions in medical costs, lost work time and human morbidity would outweigh the insignificant extra profits the airlines make by cutting back on fresh air.
http://www.engr.psu.edu/www/dept/arc/server/wjk/airlin.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Cabin Fever
By Thomas J. Moore
Washingtonian Magazine
March 2000

Unfortunately, too many of us have had an experience similar to this one:

Florence and Gerald Berman, now retired, were in Florida last February, and boarding a plane to fly home to their condominium in Old Georgetown Village, North Bethesda. Like most flights these days, it was crowded.

"When we sat down," she said, "We heard people hacking and coughing all over the plane. And one of them was very close to us. I turned to my husband and said, 'Guaranteed we're going to get sick.'" Two days later, it was abundantly clear Florence Berman was right. "We both got sick together for the first time in 42 years. We both wanted hot tea while we were sick. But who was going to get it? So it turned out nobody got the tea. When you have a fever over 102 degrees you don't feel very good."

The modern commercial airliner ranks among the most effective instruments available to promote the spread of upper respiratory infections, rivaled only by military barracks and classrooms when school opens.

Every flight involves people from all over the world, packed into the most tightly enclosed space that strangers normally occupy together, and then provided with reduced fresh air ventilation. And if the airline manufacturers and ventilation engineers get their way, the already limited aircraft fresh air supply may be cut still further.
http://www.thomasjmoore.com/pages/cabin.html

quote:

---

Cabin Air.....part 2

While the likely dangers seem modest enough to cause few people to reconsider their flying plans, the transmission of disease through commercial airline flights has received a bare minimum of attention from the medical research establishment. Furthermore, the statements from various aviation authorities suggest that reassuring the passengers may be a higher priority than accurately measuring or reducing the actual risks. For example, a Federal Aviation Administration declared in a fact sheet that pollution from carbon dioxide measured on commercial air flights "were well below the maximum levels recommended by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)." While true, what the FAA statement didn't mention was that those standards were set for breweries and bakeries. Measured carbon dioxide levels on commercial flights suggest ventilation problems, especially before takeoff and after landing, according to studies by air quality specialists.

Jail Cells Are Better
In another case Boeing noted that the air is exchanged in the airliner cabin more often than in some office buildings. This is true, but by the key measure of fresh air per occupant, most Boeing planes provide about one half that recommended for jail cells.

---

quote:

---

Cabin Air Examined
Given these risks of confining approximately 100 strangers in tight quarters for a few hours, what does the cabin ventilating system contribute to raising or lowering those risks? Airliner cabin air is a unique environment, providing something different from what people breathe on the street, at home or in the office.

Once a modern jet aircraft gets to cruising altitude, the air the passengers get is at much lower humidity and somewhat lower pressure than typically seen on the ground. Also, cabin air is 50 percent recirculated, and about 50 percent "fresh" meaning drawn through the jet engine air intakes, compressed, and diverted or "bled" to the cabin. In addition, the fresh and recirculated air is routed through filters that can capture large droplets and small particles of all kinds. The air flows into the cabin from ducts in the ceiling and is sucked out through vents along the floor at the cabin wall.

Humidity Like Phoenix
Compared to conditions on the ground, jet airliner provides lower humidity than practically anywhere except the driest desert cities such as Phoenix, and at a little lower pressure (equivalent of 5,500-7,000 feet) than the highest altitude cities such as Denver and Mexico City. Generally, the 17 percent humidity in aircraft cabins is less than half the 40 per cent or greater that people find most comfortable. On long flights humidity can drop to as low as 3-4 percent.

From a disease transmission perspective the difference is mostly positive: the very dry air is tough on bacteria and fungi and any microbe that rides on tiny air droplets. On the negative side, the low humidity air dries out the nose and throat-especially on long flights--and might render people more vulnerable to infection.

Recylced Air
The main controversy over cabin air surrounds the decision of airlines and manufacturers to reduce the amount of fresh air to save money on fuel, and to rely on the engines to supply it. Older jetliners, such as the Boeing 727, provided 100 percent outside air ventilation and the supply was not obtained from the engines. New Airbus and Boeing aircraft provide only 50 percent "bleed" air from the engines and 50 percent recirculated cabin air.

Furthermore, the 50-50 mix is provided under ideal conditions at cruising altitude. Less fresh air is available while taxiing, descending, taking off or at the gate. Less fresh air is available if the captain turns off one of the two air conditioner packs to save money. Less fresh air is available if the pilot does not turn on the auxiliary power unit in the tail while the aircraft is at the gate, or taxiing.

In fact, most passengers can remember an aircraft flight where the cabin air failed the "sniff test" and smelled stale or unappealing. (What people smell is mainly body odors.) The scientific equivalent of the sniff test is to measure carbon dioxide concentrations. And the evidence shows that for portions of many flights measured carbon dioxide levels are high enough for passengers to notice a ventilation problem.

The Official Standards
According to the standards used by heating and ventilating engineers, most people are quite content with air quality when carbon dioxide levels do not exceed 700 ppm, or parts per million. This is a standard routinely used in the design of office buildings.

These standards are not consistently met on airliners, according to air quality studies. For example a team from Harvard's Department of Environmental Health sampled the quality of the air on an Airbus 320. Carbon dioxide concentrations averaged around 1500 ppm-double the recommended level-and spiked to more than 2000 ppm while the aircraft was on the ground. Another study by heating and ventilation specialists found the average carbon dioxide concentrations on domestic flights was 1,613 ppm, or more that double the level when people begin to find the air unpleasantly stale.

Airliners Don't Meet Standards
Not only do airliner cabins have higher than recommended levels of pollutants such as carbon dioxide, not unexpectedly the cabins have lower than recommended amounts of fresh air. The most straightforward measure is the number cubic feet of fresh air, per person, per minute, or cfm. The current minimum standard for offices, public places, theaters and transportation vehicles is 15 cfm for each person and many buildings provide much more. A few environments, including game rooms, bowling alleys, kitchens and jails require 20 or more cfm.

Commercial jet airliners provide 10 cfm at cruising altitude, but a little less while descending, and sometimes substantially less while taxiing, taking off or at the gate. This is one third less than the 15 cfm recommended for transportation vehicles by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) the professional group that sets ventilation standards.

But given that modern airliners don't meet ASHRAE standards, the solution has not been higher ventilation standards for future aircraft design, but rather to lower ASHREA standards. At least that is where a special ASHRAE panel is headed.

The Experts Consider
Declaring that it was "seeking to improve the comfort of airline passengers," an ASHRAE panel has proposed reducing the aircraft ventilation standard to 5 cfm per minute, or one-third the fresh air ventilation for office buildings. The panel, however, has not yet taken final action on the new proposed standard for aircraft, and the Association of Flight Attendants union complains that the panel is loaded with 10 airline industry members and just 2 with other perspectives.

The reason for reducing fresh air flow is to save money on jet fuel. These savings, depending on how stated, look either substantial or pitifully small. Boeing, for example, stated that 40 million gallons of fuel have been saved by using 50 percent recirculated air in its fleet of 767 airliners since they began flying. However, the Federal Aviation Administration calculated that each passenger would have to pay an extra 10 cents an hour to get 100 percent fresh air.

Does Fresh Air Help?
Can we be sure that more fresh air ventilation on airliners would reduce disease transmission? One office building study of tuberculosis suggests that it might. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health studied the ventilation in an office building in which 40 percent of the workers had been infected with tuberculosis by co-workers. The study estimated that if the ventilation rate had been doubled the number infected would have been cut by 50 percent.

But San Diego research architect Hal Levin noted that the disease transmission problem on aircraft may not be that simple. In a crowded cabin, he said, it would not be practical to provide enough fresh air flow to protect passengers from the cough or sneeze nearby without creating an unacceptable draft.

His thought: instead of blowing air down on passengers and across the seats to the exhaust ducts on the floor at cabin wall, the ventilation pattern should be reversed. If ceiling ducts sucked the air out of the cabin instead of blowing it in, the opportunities for transmission might be reduced because the circulation pattern would immediately pull the contaminated air up and away from people. However, Levin noted that the problem simply had not been studied in enough depth to say with confidence what's wrong with current systems, and what a better design might look like.

---

posted 06-05-2002 08:31 PM            

Yeah, right, then why are the doctors and nurses wearing masks and scrubs?

As much for thier own protection as for the patient.

posted 06-05-2002 09:23 PM            

ROFL. As I said, It's not like their going to have the NSA aircraft sitting out on display for you!! You're Hilarious!!

Just because you don't "see" anything suspicious doesn't mean "____" to me. Also, you say, "well this isn't an AFB", or "this only houseses certain craft", or "that AFB is closed" or "it doesn't exist" etc...

It's apparent to me that you are taking everything at face value. That's fine if that's what you wish to do, but I assure there is a RUDE awakening in your future, and I'm not just talking about 'chemtrails'.

I also stated I know for a fact that these devices are on NSA aircraft, that doesn't limit the possibility that they're still on oter aircraft as well, which i would assume they most likely are.
(btw, they're predominately white and usually have an orange nose or tail/wingtips.)

Also, I never said the UH-1H /1N helicopters were used to spray, but they are used in the operation somehow. There have been numerous accounts of sitings of these while spraying is going on.

Oh and STOP THE PRESS!
Pacer has never heard of TUCKER AFB, therefore, It no longer exists!! OH What power of manifestation you have with your ignorance Pacer!!!

Also, this is a world wide operation. It's not a national or domestic only operation. NATO is involved.

Look at the image database Pacer. Does all this really seem normal to you? Do you really think it is reasonable or rational to deny that these "patterned" "contrails" are abnormal or intentional?

posted 06-06-2002 01:11 PM            

"ROFL. As I said, It's not like their going to have the NSA aircraft sitting out on display for you!! You're Hilarious!! "

Read what I said. At all the fields I've been to, I've been or was able to look into every major hangar on the field. At Andrews, there are about 4-5 major hangars on the Air Force side, one on the AFRC ramp, one on the DC Guard ramp, another one on the "backside" of the AF side, and two on the Navy ramp. I have either seen inside or been inside all of them. Ask me, and I can draw you a map of Andrews without looking, I've been there so often. I've parked on the main SAM ramp, and on the Navy ramp. I can clearly see which hangar houses which aircraft.

Ditto goes for Langley, Peterson, Nellis and Kirtland. I have personally seen every hangar on the field of the above bases. And since Kirtland shares the same airfield with Albuquerque International, why haven't any other pilots seen your NSA jets taking off? What about Colorado Springs Airport, which shares the same facilities with Peterson AFB?

"It's apparent to me that you are taking everything at face value. That's fine if that's what you wish to do, but I assure there is a RUDE awakening in your future, and I'm not just talking about 'chemtrails'."

Really now. Who's taking stuff at face value? Me, or you? Yes, it's possible for you to take things at "face value"...whatever fancy looking conspiracy plot is put before your eyes. Speaking of "Tucker AFB", let me remind you...who has the security clearance? Without getting into OPSEC considerations, let me just say we have a list of airfields we fly to, and "Tucker AFB" isn't on it.

So tell me oh wise one...where is Tucker AFB? And why doesn't it show up in any facility directories, but all the other major fields do? Why is it that no one with a security clearance has ever heard of Tucker AFB, the supposedly secret base you're talking of, but you, without a security clearance, does? Makes you wonder.

posted 06-06-2002 03:49 PM            

TUCKER-GUTHRIE MEMORIAL AIRPORT
HARLAN, KY

AIRPORT INFORMATION AS PUBLISHED ON 18 APRIL 2002

Lat/Long: 36-51-35.317N / 083-21-39.659W
36-51.58862N / 36-51.58862N
36.8598103 / -83.3610164
(estimated)

Elevation: 1551 ft. / 472.7 m (surveyed)

Variation: 04W (1985)

From city: 2 miles NW of HARLAN, KY

Airport Operational Statistics

Aircraft based on the field: 6
Single engine airplanes: 3
Multi engine airplanes: 3

Aircraft operations: average 121/week

posted 06-06-2002 06:06 PM            

Navaids:
Type: ID: Freq: Radial: Distance:
Not Reported

Communication Freqs:

Unicom - 122.8 FSS - 122.45
FSS - 122.65 CTAF - 122.8

Approach Freqs:

FSS: LOUISVILLE 122.45; LOUISVILLE 122.65;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elevation: 1551 MSL

Hours: 8 am to 5 pm
Fees: Parking Fee; Tiedown Fee; Hangar Fee
Charts: CINCINNATI;
Traffic Pattern: All Aircraft: 2500 MSL;

Runways:
8-26: 2700X60; asphalt; ;
Approaches:
(VFR)
Lights:

Notes:
Obstructions: mountainous trrn, psbl turbulence.
Special Operations: Helicopter Ops; Ultralights;
Fuel: 100LL; 80; Jet;
http://data.aopa2.org/airport/detail.cfm?id=12332

I seriously doubt that the military uses this airport as a base for any operations. The military traffic that goes in and out of this airport is likely to be National Guard helicopters. I used to fly for the Army National Guard, and we frequently used small airports to refuel, because we could avoid all the traffic and congestion of large airports.

I KNOW there aren't any military jets flying in or out of this airport, because the runway is 2,700 feet long. I fly Learjets now, and that's about as small as you can get. We need at least a 4,500 foot long runway. The shortest runway length for any military aircraft I've seen is 3,000 feet, and that's for C-130 aircraft.

Length isn't the only factor: weight bearing capacities play a role too. And seeing that the airport reports 121 flight operations a week, that's very paltry.

Go ahead and call them at the above number and ask what the military traffic is...I can almost bet that it's helicopter traffic.

BTW, just tell me what purpose a helicopter would have for any "spray program"? I know you meant that they weren't actually spraying...but it wouldn't make much sense to utilize an aircraft that flies 300 knots slower and more than 20,000 feet lower than the "spray" planes. I know you said you saw them during "spray days", but so what? There are lots of aircraft, and lots of different aircraft in the air at any given time.

posted 06-06-2002 06:15 PM            

First, airlines don't withhold cabin air. It doesn't hurt the engine's efficiency at all. And other than turning the bleed air switches on or off, there isn't any way to regulate the amount of air coming into the cabin. Nearly every cabin-class jet I've flown recirculates air, simply because it makes conditioning the air easier. The air cycles through the cabin at a fast rate, so it really doesn't hurt anything.

Often, the "stale" odor you smell isn't the "bad air", but just the smell of an airplane. Every airplane I've ever flown has a peculiar smell, likely because of a number of things. Everything is plastic, and that gives off odors. It's just that "airplane stink"....the same thing as that "new car smell". You think airliner air is musty, try flying an old 1960's UH-1H Huey...they really smell bad.

Another thing I'd like to address is the author of one of the articles seems to think that all cabin air systems are the same. I have yet to fly an airplane that uses a HEPA filter...but some airliners do have HEPA filters because of the high volume of people that sit in their cabins. Again, the HEPA filter doesn't filter the bleed air, it filters the recirculated air, to catch any bugs that a passenger might exhale.

posted 06-07-2002 11:33 AM            

I have no idea what purpose the helicopters serve. I do know that the only time I see them around here, In north central Indiana, is when there are other craft laying those "contrails" in the air.

posted 06-07-2002 02:23 PM            

Also, if you read in column 2, line 8 on page 3, you'll see feed rate of Titanium Dioxide powder from the pod - a whopping 1.5 pounds per minute. So, say it takes an aircraft 3-5 minutes to go horizon to horizon over your head. So they just dumped, say in 5 minutes, 7.5 lbs of TiO2 came sprinkling down from 30,000 feet up. Seems to me it should be extremely diluted by the time it reaches the ground.... Seems that if they were deliberately "spraying" something, you'd want higher concentrations than that.

If you can't get to the US Patent Office version of the TIFFs ( http://www.uspto.gov ), I've taken the liberty of converting them to JPG format, and you can find them here. Check 'em out for yourself. The text there is similar to what Alpha quoted, but not quite the same.