Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 202

Thread: Chemtrails: holiday update

  1. #21
    Registered Aviator C425Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    357
    Flown:
    A-320, CL65, P180, C425, E120
    Civ/Mil:
    Civilian
    Ratings:
    A-320, CL-65, ATP, CFI, CFII, MEI
    Listen up, people! Chemtrails are nothing new and are not just used as a conspiracy by the U.S. government. The history of Chemtrails and Chemgoo goes back to WWII and it is a worldwide conspiracy. Check out the link below. It clearly shows B-17's and their fighter escorts spreading massive amounts of Chemgoo over Europe and disguising the whole operation as a bombing mission. Can you imagine if Hitler had this technology?

    And who wouldda believed that the Marianas Turkey Shoot wasn't really a dogfight? Nope, just a joint American/Japanese chemgoo dispersal operation.

    http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/gallery.html

  2. #22
    Registered Aviator mizzouguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    67
    Flown:
    pa28,c414,be400/mu300, pa44,pa12,pa34,c-310, c210,c150,c152, c172,c172rg, c175,pa24,c172xp, be36,b35
    Civ/Mil:
    civilian
    Ratings:
    atp be400/mu300,cfii(gold seal) mei, dpe
    Well thats about 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back reading all that crap

  3. #23
    Not-too-Junior Big Duke Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    544
    Flown:
    A318/319, T-43, SA-227/226, T-38, T-37, T-34A
    Civ/Mil:
    Mutt case
    Ratings:
    ATP

    Brett...

    Brett - I think you've been pucked in the head a few too many times.
    Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.

  4. #24
    Skirts Will Rise ShawnC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,483
    Flown:
    Great Lakes, C152, C172R, C172SP, T-28, Epsilon, Glassair III, Zlin, P-3, PA-32R-301T Piper Saratoga II TC, J-3 Cub
    Civ/Mil:
    Civvie
    Ratings:
    Enough to make me dangerous like my CFIG once said.
    You guys give the word and Denver130 is gone. We at the FAA already have his address.

    We can't have a trouble maker like Denver scaring our spray pilots.
    Last edited by ShawnC; 12-08-2003 at 14:32.
    As an old Australian proverb says:

    WYBMABIITY?

  5. #25
    Outlasted two companies
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    2,261
    Flown:
    Citations, Lears, and CRJs (oh my)
    Civ/Mil:
    Civil
    Ratings:
    ATP
    Originally posted by Flying Illini
    One question Denver...
    If us pilots ARE dumping chemicals in the sky, why isn't the pilot population getting sick, ill, whatever?
    Well, I can't speak for everyone, but on the Dornier 328 the chemical hopper and sprayer is in the tail and I make sure to never go near the tail while the rampers are loading and/or servicing it.


    www.s-a-f-e.org

    www.fairtax.org

    For America's Future.

  6. #26
    Remember this one? mar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,929
    Flown:
    C172 C207 C208 SC7 SA227 DC6 B747
    Civ/Mil:
    Civilian
    Ratings:
    ATP CFI-AIM FE SA227 DC6/7 B747

    Two things....

    1) I feel dirty for participating in this thread. I'll be taking a shower when I'm finished here.

    2) Super80, my fine feathered friend, I believe you're truly hypoxic. You wrote, <<The truth is that chemical pollution is being spread daily by our burning of semi-refined petrol-chemical fossil fuels in the upper reaches of our atmosphere.

    And it's really not a secret...and when the green movement gets a hold of this, their potential campaign against aviation will make their war against fur and meat seem benign.>>

    There is no question that large transport category aircraft are the most efficient users of fossil fuel.

    I won't insult your intelligence with a dissertation on the concept of economies of scale but if anyone else doubts it that's where they should start their investigation.

    I just had a conversation with a 747-400 Capt who told me he calculated his "mileage" to be about 3 miles per gallon.

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the most wasteful application fossil fuel burners is the big-assed SUV which may manage a cool 12 miles per gallon.

    Now you tell me. If you really wanted to do something about air pollution where would you start?

    Please do us a favor and tone down the rhetoric and tune up the rational thinking.

    Thanks a million.
    Familiarity breeds contempt--and children. ~Mark Twain.

  7. #27
    Pastafarian Brett Hull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    972
    Flown:
    Lear 24, 25, 31, 35, 55, 60
    Civ/Mil:
    Civ
    Ratings:
    ATP, LR-JET, LR-60
    Originally posted by mizzouguy
    Well thats about 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back reading all that crap
    You look new around here so you probably missed this
    and this.

    See you in a few hours.
    Last edited by Brett Hull; 12-08-2003 at 14:11.
    All I ask for is a chance to prove that money can't buy happiness.

  8. #28
    Member is: ready flywithastick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Age
    53
    Posts
    684
    Flown:
    More than most, less than some
    Civ/Mil:
    -
    Ratings:
    many

    Re: Two things....

    Originally posted by mar
    There is no question that large transport category aircraft are the most efficient users of fossil fuel.
    as compared to what?! A ship? A tractor trailer rig? Bus? auto?

    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the most wasteful application fossil fuel burners is the big-assed SUV which may manage a cool 12 miles per gallon.
    Again, as compared to what?! That city mass transit bus? A motorcycle? A LearJet? 737? A Geo Metro?!

    As for the EEE-vil SUV's, my wife drives the kids around in a Chevy Suburban. Get's 15 mpg every day around town. My big ol' 1/2 ton pickup truck get about 16 with AC, 17 without.

    The Toyota Camry we used to have got about 22-24 mpg in the city.

    What matters to me is: 1. safety (family protection), with reliability, purchase cost, operating cost following up.

    Thr Suburban weighs about 2.3 times more than the Camry. This translates into a vehicle that's 2.3 times as safe, from a kinetic energy standpoint. Not to mention it has 9 seats, versus the camry's 5.

    Decision - Suburban, based on:

    1. safety - hands down (outright weight, and mileage-weight comparison), and

    2. mileage-seat comparisons.

    Ain't it great in the US one is still free (so far) to buy and use whatever vehicle is made and sold!!!

    Now you tell me. If you really wanted to do something about air pollution where would you start?
    I say we ban all volcanic eruptions!!!

    and ban all airborne polution from illegally crossing the US's southern border!!
    Last edited by flywithastick; 12-08-2003 at 14:34.
    "Death is a small price to pay to look good in the overhead break"

  9. #29
    Remember this one? mar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,929
    Flown:
    C172 C207 C208 SC7 SA227 DC6 B747
    Civ/Mil:
    Civilian
    Ratings:
    ATP CFI-AIM FE SA227 DC6/7 B747

    You're not gonna like my answer so....

    Why bother?

    The question is really "How do we plan our society to make the most out of mass transit?"

    But I know this reeks of communist-style Central Planning.

    Whatever man.

    Go ahead and drive your Suburban. It really makes no difference in my quality of life.

    I just happen to react when I read a train of thought taken to absurd lengths. You know, like banning volcanic eruptions.

    Have a nice day. If you can.
    Familiarity breeds contempt--and children. ~Mark Twain.

  10. #30
    Are we there yet? EagleRJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,491
    Flown:
    SF-340, ERJ, assorted singles and twins
    Civ/Mil:
    Civilian
    Ratings:
    ATP, CFI-AIM, SF-340, TIE Fighter

    Re: Re: Two things....

    Originally posted by flywithastick
    as compared to what?! A ship? A tractor trailer rig? Bus? auto?

    Again, as compared to what?! That city mass transit bus? A motorcycle? A LearJet? 737? A Geo Metro?!

    SUV- 9 people at 70 mph- 15 MPG
    car- 4 people at 70 mph- 24 MPG
    airliner- 350 people at 500 mph- 3 MPG

    I'd say that airplanes are pretty efficient.

    I've always wondered how much jet engines pollute, compared to a modern car with a catalytic converter. Diesels are fairly dirty as far as particulates, but usually have lower smog outputs. I wonder if Jet-A is comperable, since it's similar to diesel fuel, but burns at a much higher temperature in jets.
    Older Stage II jets leave a noticable smoke trail, but newer jets appear to run without a noticible exhaust.
    "If Osama Bin Laden is recovering from shrapnel wounds, hearing about the TSA must be cheering on his recuperation..." - FAA official

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •