Chemtrails May Be Banned in Tennessee

[barnhart]

Geo engineering may pre-exist the industrial revolution. Some think farming and herding practices may have triggered the Sahara desert.

[Ken]

Geo engineering may pre-exist the industrial revolution. Some think farming and herding practices may have triggered the Sahara desert.

Same with Mesopotamia. Millenia of irrigated agriculture has gradually increased the salt content of the soils (since they irrigate with river water that contains dissolved salts from erosion). Which has made what were once lush fertile plains during Bronze Age time into the deserts we see in Iraq today. Once soils become too salty, ordinary crops won't grow because it reverses the osmotic pressure in the roots and plants are unable to take up water from the soil. The Romans knew this which is why they destroyed Carthage at the end of the Punic wars by sowing the fields with salt (or so the legend goes).

[Soloist]

Perhaps these pictures are poor evidence as a few quickly are disproven to be used for creating these things. Perhaps John you can post pictures of ones you have researched and can provide proof?

I’m not taking any stance, but it might be helpful to use ones you have researched out instead of someone else’s work that apparently is inaccurate.

[RZehr]

My town is the base for Erickson Aero Tanker. They are converting used passenger jet planes into flying tankers for fighting fires. Erickson contracts all over the west and the world to fight fires with these jets. South America, Canada, California, Australia. To say that there is no reason jet aircraft to have tanks for fighting fires is to spread conspiracy theories from a pulpit of misinformation.

Take a look at their website:

Erickson Aero Tanker MD87 Fire Bomber
The Erickson Aero Tanker is the most versatile fire bomber available.

FAA certified standard category
900 miles loaded strike range
5000 foot runway capability loaded
Interagency Tanker Board approved
450 knot cruise
3000 gallon capacity in all environments up to 40 degree C
Take off and land fully loaded

http://www.eatanker.com/

FAQ:
How many gallons of retardant do you carry ?
3000 gallons

What is your runway requirement loaded ?
With a full load of retardant we can dispatch off a 5200 ft runway, at 1000 ft elevation or less and 30 C OAT.

Can you take off and land with a full load of retardant onboard ?
Yes, in all circumstances including engine failure

Can you carry foam ?
Yes

How quickly can you load and turn ?
The MD-87 fire tanker is loaded using one or two(individual or simultaneously) 3” coupled loading ports on each side of the fuselage, just forward of the wing. These ports can sustain up to 600 gallons per minute flow maximum. Few, if any tanker bases utilize both ports, loading using a single port at an average flow rate of 450 gallons per minute, giving the load time of under 7 minutes. Hot loading is permitted and can be accomplished on request.

Do you fly pressurized ?
Yes, the MD-87 can pressurize with the dispersant tank empty. The MD-87 holds a significant advantage over other Large Air Tankers of being able to drop a load of retardant and climb to cruise altitude to return to base for another load, saving time and fuel.

What are your drop speeds ?
We drop at speeds between 135 and 140 knots

Are you Interagency tanker board approved ?
Yes

Who is Aero Air LLC. ?
Aero Air LLC. is the parent company that wholly owns Erickson Aero Tanker

Do you need to reconfigure or unload for reposition ?
The MD-87 fire bomber can land loaded and also carry all of its support equipment and spares without reconfiguring or unloading retardant. We are always "Fire Ready"

What is your fleet size ?
Erickson Aero Tanker currently has 5 MD-87 3000 gallon tankers and 3 DC-7 3000 gallons tankers. In addition we have two more MD-87's ready to convert.

https://aerialfiremag.com/2023/12/11/er ... re-season/
An Erickson Aero Tanker MD-87T landed in Santiago de Chile on December 1st, 2023, to join the fleet of Chilean company Ecocopter to provide services to the National Forestry Corporation (Conaf) to combat fires projected in Chile. The Aero Tanker has a cargo capacity of 11,356 liters (3000 Gallons) of water or retardant and reaches a maximum speed of 788 km/489MPH. With ports on the side of the fuselage, it can discharge up to 2,271 liters/600 Gal per minute.

Do I believe in cloud seeding? Sure, it is a thing - rarely used, mixed success. But “chemtrails” isn’t it.

[Ken]

Do I believe in cloud seeding? Sure, it is a thing - rarely used, mixed success. But “chemtrails” isn’t it.

Yep, and a bunch of those pics of smaller planes above are of cloud seeding and crop dusting setups. Which one can discover by more reverse image searches.

Both cloud seeding and crop dusting have been around since the commercialization of the airplane.

Now crop dusting planes are indeed leaving "chemtrails" in the sky. But I doubt that is what anyone is thinking about when they are talking about chemtrail conspiracies. Unless we are talking about a certain strain of environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest who think aerial spraying of crops and forests (for things like pine beetles) is a giant conspiracy.

[RZehr]

Planes that pick up water from a lake and drop it on a fire, these are usually slow planes and propeller driven. The same slow propeller driven planes are used for spraying flame retardants. They are slow so they can fly low to hit the fires with precision.

Why would anyone need a jet plane the size of a commercial jet liner to drop flame retardants on fires? It would be too costly and inaccurate, unless, the plane serves a dual purpose.

And, with this dual purpose, companies like "Biegert Aviation" can spray wildfires for a "cover" and use the same plane to spray aluminum into the upper atmosphere when needed for that role.

Otherwise, why do they need jet planes that can go up to 30,000 feet in altitude to spray a wildfire on the ground? Why would anyone use those types of jet planes to spray wildfires only, since operating them is much more expensive?

Someone from Tennessee probably can’t understand the size and scope of western forests fires, and the logistic necessary to fight them. These fires are absolutely massive. That is why the smoke can travel thousands of miles away, and still cause air quality and visibility problems a thousand miles away.

Jet vs. small prop plane that scoops a bit of lake water?
The west is mountainous and dry. Imagine smoke hindering visibility, and mountains to avoid being flown into, heat causing havoc with wind, and small mountain lakes found in the canyons rimmed with mountains and towering 200’ tall trees.

The danger involved here for a small plane to fly through the turbulence, through thick smoke, avoid hitting mountain sides or trees, find the lake, scoop about a sneeze worth of lake water, is not worth the risk.

Anyone who has ever operated heavy equipment such as excavator, bulldozer, or farm tractors, knows that there is no such thing as too much power. Look at the grin on an operators face when he grabs the controls of a new, more powerful piece of equipment.

I imagine (I’m not a pilot) that it is similar with fighting huge wildfires. Give me the biggest capacity and the most horsepower available. Don’t make me monkey around with small equipment.

These jets seem to use fire retardant more than water. This retardant is not something you can scoop out of a lake, but is kept at the airport base. So the jets are refilled a hundred miles away. Let’s not mess around with putting back and forth at low speeds for refills. The west is vast. A hundred miles is probably similar to 25 miles back east.

It is costly to operate these jets. But ever since we went from putting out fires asap, to letting them burn and only protecting infrastructure, the fires have been allowed to get way bigger. And this has caused a whole industry of for profit wild fighting companies, who then bill the government for their services. And the government and environmentalist rather pay the big bucks, and lose the forest, and pollute the air, instead of managing the forest how they did 50 years ago.

To be sure, jets are not used very often locally because there are better ways to fight smaller fires. Some places are able to be accessed by road and trucks. Sometimes a helicopter does dip out of a lake when that makes sense. But these are international companies, and go all over for the biggest, hardest to fight fires.

[Ken]

Planes that pick up water from a lake and drop it on a fire, these are usually slow planes and propeller driven. The same slow propeller driven planes are used for spraying flame retardants. They are slow so they can fly low to hit the fires with precision.

Why would anyone need a jet plane the size of a commercial jet liner to drop flame retardants on fires? It would be too costly and inaccurate, unless, the plane serves a dual purpose.

And, with this dual purpose, companies like "Biegert Aviation" can spray wildfires for a "cover" and use the same plane to spray aluminum into the upper atmosphere when needed for that role.

Otherwise, why do they need jet planes that can go up to 30,000 feet in altitude to spray a wildfire on the ground? Why would anyone use those types of jet planes to spray wildfires only, since operating them is much more expensive?

Someone from Tennessee probably can’t understand the size and scope of western forests fires, and the logistic necessary to fight them. These fires are absolutely massive. That is why the smoke can travel thousands of miles away, and still cause air quality and visibility problems a thousand miles away.

Jet vs. small prop plane that scoops a bit of lake water?
The west is mountainous and dry. Imagine smoke hindering visibility, and mountains to avoid being flown into, heat causing havoc with wind, and small mountain lakes found in the canyons rimmed with mountains and towering 200’ tall trees. The danger involved here for a small plane to scoop about a sneeze worth of lake water, is not worth the risk.

Anyone who has ever operated heavy equipment such as excavator, bulldozer, or farm tractors, knows that there is no such thing as too much power. Look at the grin on an operators face when he grabs the controls of a new, more powerful piece of equipment.

I imagine (I’m not a pilot) that it is similar with fighting huge wildfires. Give me the biggest capacity and the most horsepower available. Don’t make me monkey around with small equipment.

These jets seem to use fire retardant more than water. This retardant is not something you can scoop out of a lake, but is kept at the airport base. So the jets are refilled a hundred miles away. Let’s not mess around with putting back and forth at low speeds for refills. The west is vast. A hundred miles is probably similar to 25 miles back east.

It is costly to operate these jets. But ever since we went from putting out fires asap, to letting them burn and only protecting infrastructure, the fires have been allowed to get way bigger. And this has caused a whole industry of for profit wild fighting companies, who then bill the government for their services. And the government and environmentalist rather pay the big bucks, and lose the forest, and pollute the air, instead of managing the forest how they did 50 years ago.

They are also converting old airframes (747s and such) into new uses once they have outlived their useful life as passenger planes. It isn't like Boeing is manufacturing brand new 747 supertanker planes from the factory. These are all conversions of older planes. And so the economics does pencil out. According to Wikipedia, the plane in those photos first went into passenger service for Delta Airlines in 1971 and was converted to tanker service in 2009 after having spent the first 38 years of its life as a passenger plane. It was nearly 40 years old by the time they converted it to forest fire use.

[NedFlanders]

Here is another one. What is this scary looking tank contraption that you posted a picture of?



Another reverse image search brings us here to this CNet story. It's a Boeing 787 test plane: https://www.cnet.com/pictures/on-board-boeings-787-10/

What are those mysterious black tanks? I'll screen shot them to include the descriptive captions. Oh....

You honestly believe they would spend extra of millions of dollars on all that complex wiring and electrical devices for water tanks that weigh like humans?! That sounds more like a crack pot conspiracy theory than chemtrails. At least share some counter evidence that has a little bit of convincing evidence because your making John look more convincing with pictures and counter arguments like this.

[Ken]

You honestly believe they would spend extra of millions of dollars on all that complex wiring and electrical devices for water tanks that weigh like humans?! That sounds more like a crack pot conspiracy theory than chemtrails. At least share some counter evidence that has a little bit of convincing evidence because your making John look more convincing with pictures and counter arguments like this.

Yes, I believe it and I'm not sure why you find it difficult to believe. And those photos from the C-Net site I found were just one example. Here's another example from a different news source showing water ballast tanks in use on a test plane. This is standard: https://www.wired.com/2010/02/peek-inside-boeing-747-8/

Testing and certification of a new passenger aircraft DESIGN (they are testing an entirely new aircraft design, not some random plane off the assembly line) is an exceedingly meticulous process that takes years. They test every aspect of the plane's design.

It makes perfect sense to me that the would put water tanks port and starboard as well as fore and aft on the test plane so that they can distribute and move very specific amounts of mass around on the plane and test how it responds. How else would you do that? Bring 400 people of random sizes on to the test flight and have them walk back and forth on command? That would be ridiculous.

Here is a screen shot from the article above with more text description of what these tanks are actually for

[JohnHurt]

Bring 400 people of random sizes on to the test flight and have them walk back and forth on command? That would be ridiculous.

If it is "ridiculous", then why are they testing for it?