Fact-USAF Has Spray Capable KC-135's

[altitudelou]

Well what do you know, I actually found some information that clearly proves the Air Force liars.

After all of the double talk and rhetoric that has come our way via the United States Air Force with regard to there NOT having any jets that spray ANYTHING into our sky's, what do I find this evening but the very thing that they say that DOES NOT EXIST, note "number of DOD aircraft" and in particular the "Federal Aviation Administration certification testing on COMMERICIAL AIRCRAFT with regard to this type of spraying. Commercial aircraft, now why would they want to make commercial aircraft spray capable since they tell us that there is no spraying going on ?


The U.S.A.F. has had the capability at least since 1999 to use KC-135 Statotanker tanker aircraft(s), that simulates rain and ice via SPRAYING.

Keep in mind this information only speaks of testing but it clearly shows that the Air Force does have spray capable tanker aircraft that they have not been forthcoming or truthful about, and then there is that reference to the Federal Aviation Administration certification testing on COMMERICIA AIRCRAFT which is clear evidence that the DOD and Air Force along with the FAA wanted to equip civilian commercial aircraft with this spraying technology as of 1999 on, for what purpose I wonder.

This information only alludes to ice and water being used but it surely is no stretch of the imagination in thinking that this spraying technology has evolved to a state that dry materials such as Aluminum Oxide can also be sprayed at altitude.

We have suspected and speculated for some time that they had this capability, now it is known fact.

At least now we know for certain that the Air Force has lied about having this capability when questioned about any spraying projects that they might be involved in, if this ATI system project was so innocent and not more, why then did the Air Force not speak to it's existence, perhaps because they knew it would lead to more questions about spraying that they do not want to answer ?
___________________________________________________

"The AIT system is expected to be operational by October, and will be ready to conduct ice-spray testing on a NUMBER OF DOD AIRCRAFT, as well as the Federal Aviation Administration certification testing on COMMERICIAL aircraft.
While the base here has lead responsibilities for the project, the Army is participating by providing system and user requirements and the Navy is heading up a team to design and build the spray array system. The Air Force is responsible for the instrumentation, water, boom and bleed air systems, as well as integration of all of the components onto the airframe."

Read the whole page at,....

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-135r-ait.htm

[socrates]

Thanks for finding this document Lou. I just found another geoengineering document which may help explain why there would be a spraying operation in effect.

Global Analysis, Interpretation, and Modelling Task Force

(excerpts)
Volume Five, Number One
Summer 2002

20. What is the optimal mix of adaptation and mitigation measures to respond to global change?

Mitigation measures are directed to reducing the impact of human activities on the Earth system, while adaptation measures are directed to reducing the impacts of global change on human society. There has been a significant focus recently on adaptation side of the climate policy debate. However, some observers fear that advancing our understanding of how to cope with exposure and sensitivity to climate change and to climate variability will diminish our will to alleviate the sources of climate related stress on our social, economic, political and ecological systems. They fear, in short, that adaptation will be used as a large-scale substitute for mitigation in the policy continuum...

22. What are the options and caveats for technologic fixes like geoengineering and genetic modification?

Description and justification
As anthropogenic perturbations lead to changes in global environmental conditions, many have been led to consider "fixing" the problems caused by emissions and land use by the burgeoning human population. Severe or catastrophic change in Earth’s climate system could potentially be averted by intentional modification of Earth’s radiation balance, for instance. Various methods have been proposed to effect this modification including placing scattering particles (such as sulfates) or small reflective objects (such as micro-balloons) in the stratosphere or low-earth orbit, coating the ocean surface with reflective films or objects, placing sun-blocking satellites in space, or producing whiter roads, rooftops, and other land surfaces.

Optimistically, such strategies could be an emergency backup system that would be used only to avoid catastrophic global change that might occur despite our best efforts to diminish CO2 emissions. Indeed, some have proposed researching these geoengineering options as an emergency climate catastrophe response system. Pessimistically, deployment of such schemes could constitute reckless interference in the Earth system, merely compounding problems produced by reckless release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Research into such systems could diminish the pressure to reduce fossil-fuel CO2 emissions (see Question #20, above). Indeed, many of these geoengineering schemes may be cheaper than weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, and have been proposed by some as an alternative to reducing fossil-fuel emissions.

Genetic modification has also been proposed as a means of diminishing the climate impacts of human activities. For example, it is possible that more reflective forests could be engineered, or that plankton could be developed that would more effectively export carbon to the deep sea. Some fear that such organisms released into the environment could dangerously spread and multiply, irreversibly altering the Earth in unforeseen ways. Others suggest that such organisms would not compete well in a Darwinian sense, as nature has not already selected for such organisms on its own. The least controversial of these proposals is the idea that we should make roads and rooftops more reflective. Such an approach is unlikely to have significant adverse effects and could slightly diminish global climate change. However, this would only very partially offset the large areas of high-albedo desert that are being irrigated to grow low-albedo crops.

In a preliminary study of geoengineering Earth’s radiation balance, it was found that geoengineering schemes could potentially ameliorate not only global mean temperature change, but regional and seasonal temperature change as well. This is despite the fact that the radiative forcing from a change in solar flux differs both spatially and seasonally from the radiative forcing from a change in atmospheric CO2 content. This seems to be the case because feedbacks in Earth’s climate system are strong relative to the forcing factors being applied to that system. For example, a doubling of CO2 provides a radiative forcing of about 4 W m–2, whereas the presence or absence of sea-ice can affect the air-sea heat flux by 50 W m–2 or more. Hence, the character of the climate response is largely (but not exclusively) governed by feedbacks in the climate system.

For each proposed geoengineering scheme, several issues must be addressed:


* What are the direct climate effects?What are the unintended consequences?
* How would we engineer it?
* What are the consequences of failure?
* What are the political and ethical implications research, development, and deployment?
* How can we properly evaluate risks and potential benefits?
* Will the scheme be a permanent solution or merely delay the negative impacts of climate change until increasing population pressure catches up?

The political, social, and ethical questions may be the most difficult. What would happen if several countries implemented a geoengineering scheme over the objection of other nations? Would the existence of these schemes result in additional anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions? What is the ethical (and legal) difference between knowingly altering climate (as through fossil-fuel burning) and intentionally altering climate (as through geoengineering schemes)? How do we make cost-benefit analysis of the scheme when the value systems of various affected parties differ, and costs and benefits are not easily monetarized? How do we assess the risks associated with our uncertainties? Is it ethical to research such systems, or is geoengineering research a Frankensteinian program from the start? (end)


Me: I think the aerosol mitigation going on presently cannot be accelerated or fully implemented until the social and legal aspects are addressed. It comes as no surprise that debunkers fall back on the argument that these are only proposals. If so, then why do so many frankenscientists talk about how quickly such a strategy could be put in place, as if they have been using our skies the last years to see how their frankensteinian ideas would work in reality. Finally, why does the military have exemptions from laws limiting the sulfate content in jet fuels? And why is there such an effort at chemtrail forums to suppress awareness of all these geoengineering documents?

[socrates]

From what I posted above:

"Indeed, many of these geoengineering schemes may be cheaper than weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, and have been proposed by some as an alternative to reducing fossil-fuel emissions."

Maybe they are thinking why worry about Co2 emissions. They take centuries to resolve themselves anyway, this is the mmmmbarium "runaway effect" argument about Co2, that it can't be fixed right away, so let's go forward with the frankenstein science, no rush then to implement draconian emission cuts, just go to the aerosol mitigation plan, it's cheaper than having an upheaval of the social structure.



"Would the existence of these schemes result in additional anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?"

A question for many of us is why has it gotten hotter. Does their program even do what the theories say. I believe that because at present it is illegal to spray the skies for geoengineering, "they" can only do so much spraying. Also, in order to enhance their chances of legalising the frankenstein science, they may be simply abandoning the global warming debunker strategy. To legalise geoengineering in their minds might signify the need to heat things up. This would make the marketing of their pollution easier. Kind of like with Shrub using 9/11 to get his anti-constitutional practices rubberstamped by torture supporting attorney generals and the Republican dominated congress and senate. This would explain the night time flights much reported these last years, which has coincided with there being more global warming stories in the mainstream media forcing debunkers to drop the outdated corporate propaganda which no longer serve their long term agendas.

[altitudelou]

Socrates,

I have to say that I'm sorry right out of the gate, I had been writing a reply to your prior post using Outlook Express and I was really getting into it and had quite a reply going, then our computer went down, we lost power due to high winds we are having, I lost everything that I had written, piss me off or what, I'm not even going to try to rewrite it all I'm so pissed right now.

I don't think I can rely on the computer staying up long enough to respond to your post tonight, our power right now is flickering as I write this, maybe tomorrow I'll be able to stay on long enough to write something appropriate.

What the hell good is all this tech crap if you don't have the juice to run it ?

Later !

[altitudelou]

Socrates,

Sorry for the long delay in getting back to this thread, our weather here has been windy to say the least, lots of outages over the past two day's, not long ones, just enough to knock you offline, a huge pain in the ass when your trying to write for a posting.

I was finally able to get back online late last night, 11:30 PM or so and I was not going to attempt ant writing but I saw this "Kill-da-mon" post on Morgellions Disease at CTC, why I even looked at CTC I don't know as I haven't been there for some time, anyway, I made a rare post there in response to Kill-da-mon's, you might find the thread interesting as it speaks to a number of the issues that we have been discussing here at Gastro, like hoe the spraying has no future on it's present course, geo-engineering, bogus sulfur theories to muddy the waters and more, it's a pretty good thread, honest and so familiar to me, you should have a look.

I think that someone is cloning our thoughts over there.


chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread11391.html?sid=e2f9760f3769e940cce4cce217c4e5f8


Response to Kill-da-mon,

"Ha,...your thoughts sound so familiar to me, perhaps because like yourself there are literally hundreds of thousands of people out there just like us who feel the same as we do with regard to the corner these brain trust have painted themselves into, much like what's his name, XXXXXXX XXXXXX the Arkansas onion farmer, the only difference between the two being that no one gives a crap about the blow hard debunker anymore, the real villains here are the ones hiding behind the National Security Act, they are evil and dangerous even if they are somewhat hamstrung right now with regard to their spraying operations, you can bet the farm that they are hard at work trying to fine a way counter the growing numbers of people that see the spraying for what it is, "Spraying" plain and simple.

That said, we can not afford to let our guard down for one second, I'm sure that they will be trying some new tactics now that the "sulfur" crap being pushed by the scientoids has proven to be a dead end for them, they need to be watched 24/7 for the next set of smoke and mirrors tricks.

Indeed, I agree that "Morgollens Disease" is most definitely a very real and physically debilitating disease that can drive those suffering from it to suicide, it is most definitely not some form of mental illness, these doctors that have dismissed Morgellions Disease off hand as Delusional parasitosis without so much as looking at the physical evidence and mounting research need to get their heads out of their asses and catch up with twentieth century medicine instead of the 1950's era "It's all in your head" bullshit.

I don't post much anymore at this forum since the MOD REBELLION but I saw your post on Morgellions Disease and thought I'd just add my two cents on it, I've read a number of your post and I believe that we think quite a bit alike with regard to the spraying / Morgellions Disease, etc,...it's good to see an honest poster like yourself here at CTC which seems to have turned into something other than a Chemtrail site, that's not necessarily a bad thing but it seems to have gotten way off message with regard to the spraying, anyway, look forward to seeing more of your post,............Take care,............Lou:"

[altitudelou]

I'd like to clarify a point on my KC-135 AIT Ice / water Spraying post, I did not post that information with the intention of it being what I think that they are presently spraying with, I got a couple of e-mails questioning that so I just want to make it clear that I believe that the Air Force AIT System has little to do with the real time spraying that we see today.

I do believe that the Air Force / DOD is hiding more about their Aerosol Spraying capabilities than anyone knows, they obviously had this high pressure, high altitude spraying system technology online in the late 90's so what other spraying systems did the Air Force / DOD have at the time that they are not divulging, I don't think for one second that we will find any information on the internet that speaks to an Air Force / DOD secret high altitude spraying technology and or programs, these guys don't exactly hand out classified information to the public until it's declassified, redacted, washed and hung out to dry and by then it's about as useful as a box of rocks.

As Socrates and many others, myself included, believe that there is no question as to the spraying any more, it's pretty much assumed fact by hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions around the planet that what we are seeing is positively spraying, we all know by now that atmospheric conditions must be quite exact for the production of the persistent contrail's and those particular atmospheric conditions are rare as clearly shown in the Mark Steadham "Trail Research Report" which can be seen at Chemtrail Central, www.chemtrailcentral.com/report.shtml

Summary of Results Trail Research Report

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

The goal of this research was to determine if there was a type of trail that was inconsistent with normal contrails, especially with regard to increased persistence. What was found is that highly persistent trails that last for many hours were seen above Houston, TX on a majority (60%) of observable days during the data collection period. However during this time period none of the 46 Flight Explorer confirmed contrails observed persisted for over 30 minutes and most contrails were under 30 seconds of persistence. Additionally it was discovered that the jets that were responsible for leaving highly persistent trails that last for hours did not ever appear on Flight Explorer and were documented for 8 separate instances, including one instance with two jets in formation. These unidentifiable jets were found to produce a contrail that was consistent with confirmed contrails during the periods when they weren't leaving highly persistent trails. Highly persistent trails are often seen in the form of isolated relatively short strips, as well as large areas of cirrus aviaticus clouds, but on rare occasions have been seen in totally unique grid and wheel formations.

It is hoped that others will endeavor to repeat these observations and publish their results. By repeating the basic observations for persistence length and whether the flight appears on Flight Explorer, it will be seen whether or not a trend emerges confirming the existence of a unique category of trail. Atmospheric differences due to higher moisture and colder temperatures in different locations will produce greater maximum persistence observed for identifiable traffic. For those in locations with greatest contrailing potential, the task of collecting data on highly persistent trails from unidentifiable flights will be hardest.

In this research I have gone to great lengths to measure and characterize my observations as accurately as possible in order to provide the clearest representation possible given the resources available. ( Mark Steadham )

_____________________________________________________________________

Mark Steadham's careful and precise research clearly points out just how rare and difficult is for persistent contrail's to form, even when the humidity is relatively high at altitude contrail's tend not to last very long and a majority of persistent contrail's that formed did so with the help of unidentified aircraft which left abnormal contrail's.

One need not be a rocket scientist to understand that the persistent contrail production was the product of spraying and not the usual effect of jet engine exhaust mixing with cold air to form ice crystals, so much points to a spraying program worldwide now that even children are pointing out the chemtrail's to their parents, so, how obvious is that ?

The debate over whether or not Chemtrail's are the result of deliberate spraying or not are over, there is no question but that there is and has been since the mid 1990's deliberate spraying going on but it has come to a point that those responsible for it's implementation are faced with ever growing numbers of people who are demanding answers and culpability from those responsible for this illegal and undoubtedly unhealthy spraying activity

As Socrates points out, they are in an untenable situation, if they can not somehow legalize what they are doing through the guise of Weather Modification legislation it is unlikely that they will be able to continue their spraying programs unabated with an irate public demanding answers that they can no longer fabricate lies to fit.

What is going to bring an end to this outrageous spraying of our sky's and force those responsible for it to come clean as to why they have been and are still doing it will be our voices speaking to the issue in unison, in numbers so large we can not be silenced by those in power who keep secrets.

It is said that an angry mob has the ability to make even a politician tell the truth, It's time we formed that mob I think.

[kola]

Here in the Eastern Colorado Plains we have been getting nailed with aerosal sprayings and the intensity has been turned up as of Oct 1, 2006.

I read Mark Steadhoms study and was impressed. It shows strong evidence that persistant contrails in Texas in a period of three months in 2001 may very well be chemtrails from 8 military flights.

My only questions are these: Does anyone know if some military jet engines when using for instance the afterburner may produce more exhaust, soot and particles, making more persistant chem-/con-trails?

Were the military jets traveling at a higher altitude?

Do they use a different type fuel?

The solution to all the chemtrail questions remain in acquiring air/content samples. These samples must be taken directly from a freshly laid trail. One would need someone with a private plane and the equipment to attain samples. It is not that far-fetched.

Kola

[Swamp Gas]

Welcome to Gastronamus kola!

Hope your stay is long and healthy.

As an old CTC person, this question has been asked many times.

Expensive!

[kola]

Someone out there has to either own or know someone who owns a small plane.

There has to be a few science gurus that would love to tackle the task of taking air samples.

I believe more effort should be put at this level. There has to be a list or database of private pilots where we could send our requests. Colleges/Universities would be a great place to search out people who could conduct these kinds of experiments.

Once we had the samples and proved what the actual composition was we could swing the process into full swing. We could then track down these planes and their origins and find out who is responsible.

Thoughts? Am I dreaming?

Kola

[kola]

for example:

www.pulseplanet.com/archive/Jun06/3727.html

[altitudelou]

Response to Kola's questions.

"My only questions are these: Does anyone know if some military jet engines when using for instance the afterburner may produce more exhaust, soot and particles, making more persistent chem-/con-trails?'

*Large body type tanker military jets such as KC-135's and KC-110A's are not capable of using afterburners as they are not equipped with engines that utilize afterburners, they rely on there multiple engines for maximum thrust rather than the use of afterburners for short burst of speed that is often required with attack aircraft.

"Were the military jets traveling at a higher altitude?"

*I believe the Stedham research showed that the altitudes of both commercial aircraft and those that may have been military where flying at relatively the same altitudes.

"Do they use a different type fuel?"

*All jet aviation fuel is basically the same, a high grade kerosene which is a constant, what may vary with the fuel is only what additives have been introduced to it, I should point out that today's aircraft engines have been designed to be as efficient and clean burning as possible to meet or exceed the strict air quality standards of most countries, today's commercial jet engines by industry standards produce little in the way of particle pollution which begs the question again, if persistent contrail's are just that, mer contrail's, then why are these state of the art clean burning engines nucleating so much ice crystals, that does not make any sense unless the persistent contrail's are something else entirely,.....such as material being sprayed.


"The solution to all the chemtrail questions remain in acquiring air/content samples. These samples must be taken directly from a freshly laid trail. One would need someone with a private plane and the equipment to attain samples. It is not that far-fetched."

*I agree that air sampling is urgently needed for testing, that has been talked to death over the years but there are some major drawbacks to accomplishing this, ( just who do you think could be trusted to do this sampling ), the first being that it is very costly if you could find someone with the technology and aircraft to do it, secondly, it is against federal law and FAA regulations to engage in air sampling of any aircraft at high altitudes within U.S. air space without government and FAA permits to do so.

Even if someone were willing to do air sampling illegally, you just don't clime into a Cessna 150 and fly up behind a jet at 34-35 thousand feet and stick a jelly jar out the window and collect an air sample, the science and technology required is quite complex and most of us do not have access to this kind of elaborate scientific equipment.

We can not rely on government agencies such as NASA, NOAA or government meteorologist to be truthful as to any testing that might be done.

I Hope this helps in answering your questions.
______________________________________________

"Near the day of the Great Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
................................................... Hopi prophecy.

[socrates]

I've heard that a lot if not all of the chemtrails are created through the jet fuel. Also, I heard that emissions can be run dirty.

posted by Lou:

"All jet aviation fuel is basically the same..."

The military has exemptions from low sulfate specifications. All jet fuel is not the same.

"Even if someone were willing to do air sampling illegally, you just don't climb into a Cessna 150 and fly up behind a jet at 34-35 thousand feet and stick a jelly jar out the window and collect an air sample..."

I bet it could be done. Finding a rich person with a soul to finance this would be the problematic.

"...you might find the thread interesting as it speaks to a number of the issues that we have been discussing here at Gastro, like how the spraying has no future on it's present course, geo-engineering, bogus sulfur theories to muddy the waters and more, it's a pretty good thread, honest and so familiar to me, you should have a look. I think that someone is cloning our thoughts over there."

Lou, sorry, that must have been strange. I posted at CTC as FUIwon'tDoWhatUTellMe. 90% of the people posting there are crazy. That's why I am here. Swampgas clued me in, explained what was going on.

Well, I think that one study makes many of us not give up on Thermit. He may be wishy washy and have no clue how to run a forum, well let's hope that's what happened, and it wasn't a deliberate meltdown under his authorization answering some puppet master. Let's hope not.

[altitudelou]

Hi Socrates,

You wrote,

"I've heard that a lot if not all of the chemtrails are created through the jet fuel. Also, I heard that emissions can be run dirty".

*I've heard all kinds of things over the past nine years or so as to what Chemtrail's are and are not, by what means they are made, I must speculate just like everyone else on this as we just don't know how they are being made, I've suspected for some time that the material that they are spraying is done via high pressure pumps through a system that can operate at high altitudes.

*We have all seen the jets turn it on and off and I have my doubts that they are doing this by injecting material into the fuel during flight, there are just to many obstacles to overcome in an in-flight fuel mix via high pressure pumps, I personally believe that the material being sprayed is done via separate pressurized containment tanks, the material pumped through piping to nozzles placed most likely along or under the wing edges or lower ailerons of the tail section.

*I got a pretty good shot of a big military bird spraying back in 02 and it was clear that the spray was coming directly from the lower ailerons, how do I know that for a fact, the aircraft was a KC-110A, they have three engines, one under each wing and one tail mounted, if this aircraft was leaving normal contrail's then there should have been three distinct trail's visible behind the aircraft, there were only two trails that blended into one huge trail, nothing from the tail mounted engine at all, to me that's pretty convincing evidence that the aircraft was spraying.

*That photo was posted at CTC until the photo section got all screwed up and it's no longer available there, I could go through my photos but it would take some time to find it, maybe I'll look for it this weekend and post it at one of the photo sites, I'll see if I can find it.

The point is, I have seen more evidence over the years that they spray via a separate system from the fuel than evidence for an in-flight fuel mixing of material, spraying, etc., that's not to say that they are not using an in-fight fuel mixture, for all we know they could be using multiple spraying systems rather than just one.

"All jet aviation fuel is basically the same..."

"The military has exemptions from low sulfate specifications. All jet fuel is not the same."

Socrates, I'm not going to debate about jet fuel, it's pointless, I've been down this road to many time to count, Kerosene is kerosene is kerosene and that does not change, it's the additives to the kerosene that make some difference in how it burns and may produce more pollution to some degree.

Your right in that engines can be made to run so that they do not burn as cleanly and therefore would create more pollution but that increases fuel use and it's very hard on today's expensive to replace engines.

Here is a little about jet fuel,...

www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html

AVIATION TURBINE FUEL (JET FUEL)

CIVIL JET FUELS

Aviation turbine fuels are used for powering jet and turbo-prop engine aircraft and are not to be confused with Avgas. Outside former communist areas, there are currently two main grades of turbine fuel in use in civil commercial aviation : Jet A-1 and Jet A, both are kerosine type fuels. There is another grade of jet fuel, Jet B which is a wide cut kerosine (a blend of gasoline and kerosine) but it is rarely used except in very cold climates.

JET A-1

Jet A-1 is a kerosine grade of fuel suitable for most turbine engined aircraft. It is produced to a stringent internationally agreed standard, has a flash point above 38°C (100°F) and a freeze point maximum of -47°C. It is widely available outside the U.S.A. Jet A-1 meets the requirements of British specification DEF STAN 91-91 (Jet A-1), (formerly DERD 2494 (AVTUR)), ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A-1) and IATA Guidance Material (Kerosine Type), NATO Code F-35.

JET A

Jet A is a similar kerosine type of fuel, produced to an ASTM specification and normally only available in the U.S.A. It has the same flash point as Jet A-1 but a higher freeze point maximum (-40°C). It is supplied against the ASTM D1655 (Jet A) specification.

JET B

Jet B is a distillate covering the naphtha and kerosine fractions. It can be used as an alternative to Jet A-1 but because it is more difficult to handle (higher flammability), there is only significant demand in very cold climates where its better cold weather performance is important. In Canada it is supplied against the Canadian Specification CAN/CGSB 3.23

MILITARY

JP-4

JP-4 is the military equivalent of Jet B with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-PRF-5624S Grade JP-4. JP-4 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-88 AVTAG/FSII (formerly DERD 2454),where FSII stands for Fuel Systems Icing Inhibitor. NATO Code F-40.

JP-5

JP-5 is a high flash point kerosine meeting the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-PRF-5624S Grade JP-5. JP-5 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-86 AVCAT/FSII (formerly DERD 2452). NATO Code F-44.

JP-8

JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-T-83188D. JP-8 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453). NATO Code F-34.

AVIATION FUEL ADDITIVES

Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications.

A few additives in common use are as follows:

1. Anti-knock additives reduce the tendency of gasoline to detonate. Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) is the only approved anti-knock additive for aviation use and has been used in motor and aviation gasolines since the early 1930s.

2. Anti-oxidants prevent the formation of gum deposits on fuel system components caused by oxidation of the fuel in storage and also inhibit the formation of peroxide compounds in certain jet fuels.

3. Static dissipator additives reduce the hazardous effects of static electricity generated by movement of fuel through modern high flow-rate fuel transfer systems. Static dissipator additives do not reduce the need for `bonding' to ensure electrical continuity between metal components (e.g. aircraft and fuelling equipment) nor do they influence hazards from lightning strikes.

4. Corrosion inhibitors protect ferrous metals in fuel handling systems, such as pipelines and fuel storage tanks, from corrosion. Some corrosion inhibitors also improve the lubricating properties (lubricity) of certain jet fuels.

5. Fuel System Icing Inhibitors (Anti-icing additives) reduce the freezing point of water precipitated from jet fuels due to cooling at high altitudes and prevent the formation of ice crystals which restrict the flow of fuel to the engine. This type of additive does not affect the freezing point of the fuel itself. Anti-icing additives can also provide some protection against microbiological growth in jet fuel.

6. Metal de-activators suppress the catalytic effect which some metals, particularly copper, have on fuel oxidation.

7. Biocide additives are sometimes used to combat microbiological growths in jet fuel, often by direct addition to aircraft tanks; as indicated above some anti-icing additives appear to possess biocidal properties.

8. Thermal Stability Improver additives are sometimes used in military JP-8 fuel, to produce a grade referred to as JP-8+100, to inhibit deposit formation in the high temperature areas of the aircraft fuel system.

POWER BOOSTING FLUIDS

It used to be commonplace for large piston engines to require special fluids to increase their take-off power. Similar injection systems are also incorporated in some turbo-jet and turbo-prop engines. The power increase is achieved by cooling the air consumed, to raise its density and thereby increase the weight of air available for combustion. This effect can be obtained by using water alone but it is usual to inject a mixture of methanol and water to produce a greater degree of evaporative cooling and also to provide additional fuel energy.

For piston engines, methanol/water mixtures are used and these may have 1 percent of a corrosion inhibiting oil added. The injection system may be used to compensate for the power lost when operating under high temperature and/or high altitude conditions (i.e. with low air densities) or to obtain increased take-off power under normal atmospheric conditions, by permitting higher boost pressure for a short period.

Both water alone and methanol/water mixtures are used in gas turbine engines, principally to restore the take-off power (or thrust) lost when operating under low air density conditions. Use of a corrosion inhibitor in power boost fluids supplied for these engines is not permitted.

The methanol and water used must be of very high quality to avoid formation of engine deposits. The water must be either demineralised or distilled and the only adulterant permitted in the methanol is up to 0.5 per cent of pyridine if required by local regulations as a de-naturant. In the past there were several different grades of water/methanol mixtures, e.g. 45/55/0 for turbine engines, 50/50/0 for piston engines (this was also available with 1% corrosion inhibiting oil and was designated 50/50/1) and 60/40/0, however, with decreasing demand Shell now only supplies 45/55/0. The table shows the principal characteristics of Shell demineralised water and of the commonly used methanol/water blend.
________________________________________________


[ Even if someone were willing to do air sampling illegally, you just don't climb into a Cessna 150 and fly up behind a jet at 34-35 thousand feet and stick a jelly jar out the window and collect an air sample...]

"I bet it could be done. Finding a rich person with a soul to finance this would be the problematic."

Well, I think we are getting back into the area of what iff's and could bee's here with regard to getting air samples from an aircraft(s) that are suspects of spraying, I have been talking with people for years about the subject and so far no one with a private jet has come forward who might be willing to do it and that's what it would take, that and lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[..you might find the thread interesting as it speaks to a number of the issues that we have been discussing here at Gastro, like how the spraying has no future on it's present course, geo-engineering, bogus sulfur theories to muddy the waters and more, it's a pretty good thread, honest and so familiar to me, you should have a look. I think that someone is cloning our thoughts over there. ]

"Lou, sorry, that must have been strange. I posted at CTC as FUIwon'tDoWhatUTellMe. 90% of the people posting there are crazy. That's why I am here. Swampgas clued me in, explained what was going on."

*I sent you a private message with regard to CTC and other stuff....etc., did you get it ?

"Well, I think that one study makes many of us not give up on Thermit. He may be wishy washy and have no clue how to run a forum, well let's hope that's what happened, and it wasn't a deliberate meltdown under his authorization answering some puppet master. Let's hope not."

I don't know what Thermit's politics are with regard to chemtrail's, I really don't think it matters much anymore as CTC has morfed into something other than a Chemtrail site today, The Mark Stedham research is what it is and speaks for itself which is pretty convincing evidence of spraying by anyones standard.

[kola]

Thanks everyone for bringing me up to speed.


We need an old-fashioned whistle-blower. ( or 2 or 3)

Every pilot up there must be observing what is happening. What about the people who refuel the spray tanks? These guys must be trained not to mix up the jet fuel with the spray fuel. How about the chemists who have formulated the mixtures and the factories that produce it? Think how many people have access to pop the cork off this nonsense.
SOMETHING HAS GOT TO GIVE.

kola

[socrates]

Hey Lou, I admit I don't completely understand chemtrails. Who could? Yet, I think there is an exemption to high sulfate jet fuel for the military only.

Perhaps you might want to look at Chem11's take on this. Personally I have hit the wall in posting at chemtrail forums. There is a lot I could say, but I don't think I have the freedom to express it or as with CTC, I agree with others that it is no longer a chemtrail website but has evolved into just another far out conspiracy website.

The problem for the far out websites is that their acceptance of tinfoil detracts from conspiracy theories that make sense, that are plausible. E.G. 9/11, focus on the serious questions, and I can see how it looks like an inside job. Allow goofy links, and the topic becomes toast. Same with chemtrails in my honest opinion.

Well, yourself and Chem11 are not in agreement over the jet fuel. For myself, this is not a subject I am too knowledgable about. This link helps explain what the other side of the debate is saying as regards to the jet fuel. This takes place in the second half of the page.

[altitudelou]

Hi Socrates,

I don't keep up with Chem11 or what's going on over there, I barely have time to write seriously here at Gastro let alone other forums, If Chem11 is on some sulfur military binge there that's his thing, there is plenty of unbiased material on jet fuel sulfur content that anyone can bring up with just a click.

However, if you want to talk about jet fuel emissions the emissions that you get from aviation (kerosene) jet fuel primarily produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). Other major emissions are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen oxide (NO2), which together are called NOx, sulfur oxides (SO2), and soot, all of which register in part per billion, the high end emission elements that would most likely produce an abundance of ice crystal nucleation would be the water vapor (H2O). and the sulfur oxides (SO2) and Soot. I have read and studied enough about normal contrail formation over the years to know that it's not an exact science, there are many variables that affect the production of normal contrail's and the creation of contrail forming persistent contrail's.

It can be a bit more than mind numbing at times and then if and when you write on the subject you have the Trolls like what's his name knocking every word your writing with his Right Wingnut babble, it gets to you after awhile or you grow real thick skin and keep on keeping on regardless of what the stinking Trolls say.

Normal contrail produced persistent contrail's Vs. Chemtrail's / Spraying artificially produced Persistent contrail's.

It is when we see large areas of the sky being systematically and deliberately crosshatched with the persistent type contrail's that normally can not form because meteorological conditions have to be just right thus those conditions are rare at best within the atmosphere to allow the production of persistent contrail's, especially in the northern latitudes where there is less humidity at 25 to 35 thousand feet, persistent contrail's can and do form at these altitudes occasionally but it is not an everyday or every other day occurrence as we have been observing with regard to the Chemtrail / Spraying that's obviously taking place and being called "normal persistent contrail's" by our government officials, scientoids and agencies even though it's quite clear that what we are seeing is not normal persistent contrail's, that is the spin that they are putting out to quell all of the questions coming from an concerned and angry public.

If you go back and look at material starting around 1970 on to date with regard to the role that contrail produced persistent contrail's have played in raditive forcing it becomes obvious that the commercial airline industry has been aware of the negative environmental effects that the industry has had while expanding and growing in numbers of aircraft flying by as much as 3 to 5 % with each successive year, much has been done and more is being done by the industry to curb commercial aircraft engine emissions thus cutting the amount of annual commercial aviation pollution, so it is not the commercial air carriers that are responsible for the Chemtrail's / Spraying that we are seeing worldwide which leaves only one option, the spraying must be being done by an international intergovernmental agency with an international agenda bent on bringing about artificially induced raditive forcing for some reason.

We can sit around and discuss jet fuel and it's sulfur content until we go blind but what is the real meat of the issue here, are we being distracted from the spraying issue and who is doing it by the effects that airline pollution is having with regard to Global Warming, Ozone depletion, etc, how far off track have we got?

[socrates]

posted by Altitude Lou:

"We can sit around and discuss jet fuel and it's sulfur content until we go blind but what is the real meat of the issue here, are we being distracted from the spraying issue and who is doing it by the effects that airline pollution is having with regard to Global Warming, Ozone depletion, etc, how far off track have we got?"

It's not a distraction to us know-it-alls. Unfortunately the sheeple seem to be buying into chemtrails as air pollution.

Maybe "they" will slowly try to bring it in over fifty years along with the subliminals. It is disgusting they are doing this with no accountability or legalness.

I read the military has exemptions from the high sulfate jet fuel. It's not the commercial aviation. Some things look fairly obvious to me.

They can't get away with it. They will need maybe a bought Al Gore to say we need to do this aerosol mitigation. But what about what they are doing now? This is not democracy, govt. for the people. Chemtrails make me very angry. Contrails, well, they are not the big problem. You could fly lower, and cut out all the night flights. Get rid of all sulfates, get full disclosure of this clandestine, fascist program.

[socrates]

This administration is the worst ever for the environment. Gore would have been normal. Bush/Cheney have been a real bummer. Yes, we need to bring in green energy. Less flying isn't a bad idea either.

[altitudelou]

Socrates wrote,

"It's not a distraction to us know-it-alls, but perhaps the sheeple will buy into it, Maybe they will slowly try to bring it in over fifty years. It is disgusting they are doing that with no accountability.

I read the military has exemptions from the high sulfate jet fuel. It's not the xommercial aviation. Some things look fairly obvious to me.

They can't get away with it. They will need maybe a bought Al Gore to say we need to do this aerosol mitigation. But what about what they are doing now? This is not democracy, govt. for the people. Chemtrails make me very angry. Contrails, well, they are not the big problem. You could fly lower, and cut out all the night flights. Get rid of all sulfates, get full disclosure of this clandestine, fascist program."
____________________________________________________________

God, I hope Wayne goes the hell back to DBS, he's really f#*king up my contrail's thread with his bullshit and he's pissing me off, I know Swamp is cutting him some slack but he's acting like a two year old, Ok, enough of that in the open.

Ha,.....Know it all's, that's a good one, the older that I get the more I realize just how much there is that I don't know, as that goes, I'm just a sheeple that happened to look up one day and I got angry too, still am, this spraying is so obvious to me, I just want to run screaming through town at times and wake everyone up but then they would come and take me away to a quiet room someplace and feed me little white pills, ah, the pills.

Take it easy Socrates, think of how your namesake might observe what we have been seeing over the past nearly ten years now, the poor old guy would really be confused I think, so should it be any easier for us to mentally process, I don't think so.

I don't think for a second that I will personally uncover the truth behind this spraying but I have been hopeful that perhaps through a collective we might break through the hard secret shell that is protecting this spraying business, I'm still hopeful but my enthusiasm has been beaten down considerably, nonetheless, I am still here, still writing, still hoping for that big break that will come eventually.

I don't blame you for wanting to back off but can you, I have tried several times with little luck, I'm drawn back to the subject as soon as I see the jets spraying and that anger wells up inside me, I can't stay away from it for very long, I feel that it's to important not to be involved with and the best way that I can think of is running my mouth about it. ( Just venting here. )

We each must decide for ourselves how we are going to deal with this spraying, I have no doubt that your choice will be the right one for you,.........Take care Socrates, your post are good addition to any forum as you are.

[socrates]

Thanks. Same to you.

[altitudelou]

Hi Socrates,

I don't remember which thread I had talked about taking the photo of the KC-10A Extender in so I'm just going to continue with it here.

I fished around and found that photo I was telling you about that I took of that Air Force KC-10A Extender that was spraying directly overhead here in Parsonsfield but it was not back in 2002 as I had thought, I took the photo back on 9/7/01 with a Cannon 35mm with a 70 x 900 mm lens.

Note: I listed it as a KC-110A Extender and that's not correct, it's a KC-10A Extender, I don't know why I call it a 110A but that's an error on my part, sorry about that.

The KC-10A Extender's altitude was up around 34-35 thousand feet and I maxed the lens right out getting the shot, as you can see by the original photo in the first link it appears quite high even at the 900 mm setting.

Original photo:

s122.photobucket.com/albums/o245/Lou_A/?action=view¤t=October2820064.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch2

I played around with our Cannon printer today and enlarged the photo as much as I could without distorting it and you can clearly see that this three engine Air Force KC-10A Extender is not leaving any visible contrail's from it's two wing mounted engines or it's tail mounted engine, what is leaving is obviously something that is being sprayed from the lower ailerons of the tail section of the aircraft.

Cropped, cut and enlargement of original:

s122.photobucket.com/albums/o245/Lou_A/?action=view¤t=October2820062.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch1

The photo speaks for itself.

If you want to compare the aircraft in my photo to the specs of a KC-10A Extender here is a link to it,....

www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/kc-10.htm

[socrates]

Hi Lou, are you saying that photo is a smoking gun,
that the stream of crap coming out of the plane is
not coming out from where it's supposed to?

I mean, it is your photo. We know it wasn't photo-
shopped, just as my friends' photos that mysteriously
disappeared weren't either.

This is where a "real" pilot might help.

[altitudelou]

Socrates wrote,

"Hi Lou, are you saying that photo is a smoking gun,
that the stream of crap coming out of the plane is
not coming out from where it's supposed to?

I mean, it is your photo. We know it wasn't photo-
shopped, just as my friends' photos that mysteriously
disappeared weren't either.

This is where a "real" pilot might help."
________________________________________


Hi Socrates,

As I said, a KC-10A Extender has three engines, if this one was only producing two contrail's it must have only been under the power of it's two under wing engines and had the engine mounted in the tail section turned off as there is clearly not producing any contrail, the likelihood of this aircraft running on only two engines is little to none, In my opinion what you are seeing coming off those lower tail section ailerons is in no way related to a normally forming contrail.

People can judge just what it is for themselves, what I'm saying is, when was the last time that you saw an aircraft, any aircraft producing a supposedly normal contrail out of the tips and trailing edges of it's tail section ailerons, that isn't a wispy water vapor trail coming off those ailerons, whatever it is, it's tick and there is a lot of it, normal contrail's do not form that precisely right at the tips of the lower tail section ailerons of an aircraft, usually when contrail's do form they do so slightly behind the aircraft.

The only thing I did to my photo was crop, cut and enlarge it with a Cannon printer program, I do not have PhotoShop or any program like it.

The photo was taken with a Cannon SLR 35mm camera so I have the negative as proof that this photo is genuine and not some digitally enhanced forgery.

For comparison here is a photo of an aircraft making a normal contrail, you will note that the contrail forms behind the aircraft and not directly at the lower ailerons of the tail section.

Aircraft producing normal contrail:

images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static.flickr.com/2/3714823_72c1358c0c_s.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/gustavog/sets/1378050/&h=75&w=75&sz=1&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=JEXRIWhFzbBTkM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=71&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djet%2Bcontrails%2Bclose%2Bup%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

[altitudelou]

Sorry, that link does not seem to want to work, here is another showing an aircraft producing a normal contrail.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aircraft.in.cruise.arp.jpg

[altitudelou]

WTF !!!!!!!!!

Every time I try to post a link to a normal contrail it goes bad, what the hell is going on?

Is someone in my machine?

[altitudelou]

Well this link works, I tested it through my mail.

Note how the normal contrail forms behind the aircraft.

www.flickr.com/photos/gustavog/3714823/in/set-1378050/

[socrates]

Thanks for clarifying. I see your point then. If the plane
has three exhaust areas, why are only two of them creating
supercontrails. Maybe that course on "chemtrails" back in the
early 90s at the USAF is related to this.

Personally, I don't remember contrails ever lingering, dripping, and expanding
into fake cloud cover until this last decade.

We had rain and wind today. I haven't seen much chemtrailing lately.
I do remember the Memorial Day Weekend. Now that was a white out of
epic proportions.

[socrates]

Hey Lou, I'm just like you. I say I am taking a
break from posting, but then it's like I never left.

"They" seem very desperate to legalise the
activities. Yet, I'll repeat again, there are
these pesky legal and social problematics in
their way, kind of like with Shrub having
difficulty with that god damned piece of paper.

Off topic, I don't think Shrub even said that.
It wouldn't matter if he did. His actions show
that it is how he feels anyway.

[altitudelou]

the Air Force says that "Chemtrail's" are a hoax that started circulating on the internet around 1997.

They claim no knowledge of that term yet here we have a chemistry course taught at the Air Force Academy back in 1991 strangely enough titled "CHEMTRAIL'S".

s122.photobucket.com/albums/o245/Lou_A/?action=view¤t=February820062.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch5

[altitudelou]

George W. Bush looking for his Iraq policy.

s122.photobucket.com/albums/o245/Lou_A/?action=view¤t=September52005.jpg&refPage=&imgAnch=imgAnch1