[

Note from Mick West, owner of Metabunk.org:

The following post is NOT by a regular member of Metabunk, as far as I know it is just someone who signed up here simply to announce their hoax. I do not know who it is, and I do not condone or approve of their deception in any way. I am in favor of an honest dialog about verifiable facts. I do not think this hoax has helped that]

1. Max



The time has come to come clean. Hopefully what I write here will help end the world-wide atrocity that I have been a part of. I know that what I say will shock many, but seeing that you seem to be almost there with uncovering the truth, the sooner this is out in the open the better.



So you know, I am a management pilot with one of the low cost carriers that has figured in your videos; I am involved in the regulatory side of things, which is required because since just about everything we do in these spraying programs is illegal according to the CAA and JAA regulations, if a pilot becomes aware of what we are doing he or she will come to me first and I, supposedly, take it from there. Surprisingly very few of our pilots have become aware of the program, but your videos have alarmed the small group of managers I report to, and I fear the cat may soon be out of the bag.



At first I thought you had actually cracked it. From your latest videos you have accurately identified the method of getting the Al2O3 into the atmosphere, but not where it is stored. Right in the middle of most airliners, apart from the very short range ones, is the CWT or centre-wing fuel tank. As aircraft are fuelled, the tanks in the wings are always fuelled first to preserve what is know as favorable wing bending moments. Unless the aircraft is scheduled for a long-range flight, the centre wing tanks are empty and can be isolated if required by the use of shut-off and cross-feed valves.



Doing it this way allows us to accurately load the right amount of the material and avoid overloading the aircraft, which is a safety risk, particularly on takeoff. You are correct about the TMA. Other methods of delivery required too much in the way of pumps and switches, which meant too many people would notice what was going on. Under the guise of fitting an inerting system, which is automatic and has no cockpit controls, we can pressurize the CWT enough so that once a simple valve is actuated remotely, the TMA is drawn through the lines by the pressure differential and flows into the exhaust where it does its thing. And doing it this way has only one drawback, it limits "spray flights" by us and other airlines to shorter range flights but that is just a matter of scheduling and logistics.



Really the only people who need to be involved are the people who empty the honey-cart who must purge the TMA system after use; they are required to wear protective clothing for the honeycart job which also covers them for accidental exposure to TMA; and the refuellers who must configure the fuel system from a panel under the wing; have you ever wondered why most refuelling systems have two pipes attached to the wings?



Extraneous weight issues are handled by a small team of flight dispatchers, who exclusively handle the spraying flights. (mistake here) Some time before each flight they check the destination, alternate and departure airports, the planned loads and make sure that the prevailing winds will guarantee that the runways most likely to be used have a performance safety "pad" that will compensate for the extra weight that the pilots are unaware of; if there is any doubt then the TMA will not be loaded. Some other safety precautions include adjusting FMC stall margin values so the pilots do not climb too high for their REAL weight which could cause a high altitude stall. One of the ways we realised that was a problem was graphically illustrated back in 2009. Guess what I am talking about...



Under this program, I have personally been subjected to death threats should I ever reveal what is happening. Low level personnel are simply trained to do the job and have no real idea what is happening. Little do people realise that those doing what are considered menial jobs, refuelling and "waste disposal" are paid very handsomely for what they do, and their general ignorance means they don't ask any questions. I guess that is just as well because they are monitored 24/7.



By doing this I hope to end the fear and guilt I and others have been suffering. Long ago I was spun a tale about how this program was a beneficial thing for the world and I believed with all my heart. Eventually, after much soul searching.. I realised the evil in which I was such an integral part.



Hornblower



2.



Hello Max,



Following my last message and your publicising of it, I have been waiting to see is any attention is being turned towards myself. At the moment it appears not.

Keen as I am to get you the information you want, you must understand that compartmentalisation means that most of information I have can be identified as being in the possession of only a few people, so I must be very careful.

Eventually I think all will be known; I am sensing there is a lot of unease about using TMA and it wouldn't surprise me to see official acknowledgement of the program sooner rather than later to allow for safer and more efficient means of spraying.

Doing that would be great for people such as myself; but in the meantime I will do what I can to sanitise the information I have and get it to you.... expect something in the next day or so.



Hornblower



P.S. If you want to see why TMA has its problems, look up "Air China Naha" on youtube. Failure to properly purge the CWT tank on arrival.



3.



Hello Max



This message contains some graphics which if released, may expose my identity to those in the know. How that is handled by you is critical. I will let you know what you can share and what is for your eyes only. Secrecy is still essential at the moment.



My well being depends on it.



Earlier I told you about the unease regarding the use of TMA. Some of the reasons are obvious. Some not so. At the core of the problems is the cost of producing it in worthwhile quantities. Google some of the companies that sell it for an idea about how much just one spray flight must cost the taxpayer.



Europe is a problem because the vast majority of flights flown in the Eurozone are made by smaller aircraft such as the ones my company fly. Intercontinental flights are done by larger jets which can carry aluminium oxide in raw form. I will also explain how that is done in this message.



So.... as management, by law, we are not allowed to dictate to our captains how much fuel they carry on any particular flight. As professionals they know that fuel is expensive and they generally do not over-order but we must devise methods to ensure they do not order so much fuel for a particular flight as to require the capacity of the CWT.



Control of this factor is done by using scheduling and logistics as explained earlier, and by what is called the minimum equipment list, or MEL's. On every aircraft, this is a list of defects that can be legally carried on a flight. Nowadays, all aircraft have a lot of redundancy built in to all their systems to allow for this. The MEL list allows aircraft to fly and then be repaired in scheduled downtime.



Here is a photo of the MEL we use to allow the aircraft to fly, but prohibit using the CWT.



deleted.





Earlier I told you how the CWT needs to be isolated so the TMA can be loaded. Reading this MEL you can see that even if one of these valves isn't working then the CWT cannot be used. Every flight that we use to spray carries this MEL. Any suspicion by pilots that we carry this MEL too often is allayed by making sure that no captain is rostered for a spray flight more than once a month. Rostering is tightly controlled by management. Every operator of the aircraft we fly has this MEL list so you may release this information.



Now to the larger aircraft. One of the problems with the smaller aircraft is that their cargo compartments are only designed to load passenger baggage and a small amount of parcels via hand and a belt loader. Consequently there is no extra room in them for tanks/pumps etc required for really large scale spraying. Having this restriction means going down the TMA route, with all its attendant problems.



Extra negative factors include hiding the weight of aluminium oxide from pilots on the smaller aircraft. "Meth", as it is known by the few of us intimately involved, weighs less than the equivalent amount of fuel, so there is no real problem there. The extra weight is hidden by the methods explained earlier. Really large scale spraying however requires a bigger solution. Among the other problems of TMA is that aluminium oxide is only one of the byproducts created when it combusts, so burning a kilo of it creates much less than a kilo of AL2O3.



Intercontinental sized aircraft are the answer to these problems. Like their smaller cousins, they can also carry TMA using the same systems. Some, like the earlier domestic version of the 767 do not have a CWT, but most do.



High capacity aircraft like the A380, 747, A340, 777, A330 and the ER versions of the 767 all have two things that make them ideal for large scale spraying. One is a large volume CWT and the other is two large capacity cargo compartments where aluminium oxide, mixed into a slurry with methanol can be loaded inside specially converted ULD containers.



When a spray flight is scheduled, a calculation is made by specially trained flight dispatchers as to the availability of payload weight that can be used for spraying. Early in the process, it it determined if both aluminium oxide and TMA can be used, just TMA for longer flights or no availability generally for the ULH (ultra long haul) flights.



At all times the weight limitations of the aircraft must be observed. Safety is paramount; the risks of TMA notwithstanding. You can see a loading message below. I cannot allow you to publicly disclose this because it is proprietary, and may endanger a sympathetic contact I have in another company.



deleted



Some of this is a bit arcane but bear with me. In line 8 you can see a value called the Zero Fuel Weight. This is the key to making sure pilots do not know they are carrying spray material and still keeping the aircraft safe. The ZFW is the weight of the entire aircraft, including passengers and freight, minus the fuel. On the right of the actual value is the regulatory maximum that this value can be, on this particular aircraft type it is 175000 kgs.



For this particular flight, a spray flight, you can see that the ZFW was almost at the maximum value. On this particular day, the weight of the freight carried, the total traffic load in line 6, which the pilot has no means to physically check, was altered to reflect the weight of the passengers and cargo PLUS the spray material, whatever it was that was used.



One major advantage of this is that it is foolproof. Landing with spray material still on board, say in the event the remotely operated release valve failed, could mean big trouble if that weight was not accounted for. You can see that if the material sprays correctly, the aircraft will actually be much lighter for landing than the pilot realises, but that actually means it is safer. On the other hand if the valve failed (rare but it has happened) the weight of the material is accounted for in the pilots landing distance calculations and the risk of a landing over-run is negated.



Under this system, the critical speeds that are calculated for a safe take-off are also inherently correct.



Now to look how it is done in practice. All large aircraft are refuelled from a single point, usually by convention, under the left wing. In the following photos you can see the twin hoses that are used, and if you look very carefully at the CF6 engine in the background and the foreground in the second , you will see the same spray nozzles that are present on the 737 engines.



deleted



I took these photos myself at a large European airport, they are not proprietary so you may distribute them. Visually, the spray pipes are small but they have high capacity pumps inside the pylon (inside the white access panel on the pylon) which forces out large quantities of material in a small amount of time if required. Energy is diverted from the exhaust gas stream to power these pumps.... they are simple, foolproof, operate continuously when the engine is running and require no cockpit control.



Going with this system means that flexibility is maintained. Using TMA for longer range flights can be done using the second hose. Lines carrying TMA are part of just about all airports. Located only at the left hand wing, to keep the operation as simple as possible, they are pressurised to reduce the chance of air getting into them with the inevitable results. In the case of non TMA flights, the second hose is just there for show and is not being actually used.



But in the case of aluminium oxide, the weight and bulk of the material means that this method cannot be used. Loading aluminium is done by the modified ULD container method. Even this method however has its safety considerations which must be followed.



Cargo loading is critical and must take into account the weight and balance restrictions that all aircraft have. Real problems can be caused by mis-loading as the aluminium oxide slurry is very heavy. Every flight, even non spraying flights, must have containers loaded in correct sequences to avoid balance errors. Duty load dispatchers aren't required to know what is in the containers, just what each one weighs in order to get the sequence correct. ULDs that are modified for spray purposes are always loaded first at either cargo door(locations pictured below). Loading them this way is essential because they have pipe arrangements which hook into the onboard spray system, and the heaviest containers must go as close as possible to the C of G as you can see from this proprietary diagram... (not to be released.)



deleted





One can see that CPT 2 and 3 have the heaviest allowable weights, 20 and 15 tonnes respectively which is fortunate because they are the areas that must be used by the modified ULD containers. ULD use is ubiquitous and the modified ones can be found at holding areas at airports around the world if one knows what one is looking for. Suffice to say, if you are looking for evidence about how ULDs can be modified, check out "envirotainer" and imagine how simple it would be to do the required modifications.



Using the ADSB system, the inflight position of the aircraft is always known by spray controllers. New ATC procedures mean that the position of spray aircraft are always broadcast to satellite receivers that sites such as FlightRadar24 do not have access to. Spraying can therefore be targeted very accurately and efficiently.



Knowing all this is a heavy burden I now wish to pass on to others. Every day has become a trial for me. Please us this information wisely. Trust is important..for the reasons we both know so well. I cannot meet you till this is out in the open, hopefully these disclosures will be the tipping point for you. Can you disseminate this as widely as possible, without the info that must remain confidential? All I long for is an end to this guilt.



Leaving it with you now, in hope..











Horatio Hornblower >









to Max

Content from external source

Hi Everyone,This will be my last post here.Let me state first up that the object of this exercise was not to humiliate Max Bliss. He is a decent man who believes in things beneath his intellect. The object always was to vivdly demonstrate the trait of conspiracy theory believers to wholeheartedly embrace that which confirms their beliefs and to reject that which denies them, no matter what the merits of the arguments are.I am trying to teach "discernment."But Jay Reynolds is right. It is time to end this.Who I am is unimportant. I am not a pilot but I am related to two of them, who assisted by giving me the technical details needed to be plausible. One day you may see this in some academic literature as a case study.I can demonstrate easily that I perpetrated this to the viewers here and to you Max. I left you clues which told you precisely what I was doing. You only had to look. The first three messages I sent you contained rather tortured syntax which should have alerted you. The second message is the shortest and will take you the least time to decode; the first letter of each sentence spells out "FAKED". Applying the same system to the other emails, including the fragment of the one posted on Metabunk yields similar messages. I did try to warn you.Suffice to say that there was not an ounce of truth in anything I wrote. Every word of it was made up. I simply wrote and expanded a theme started by you, Max. I told you what you wanted to hear, even though as the experienced debunkers here pointed out, it was very far fetched. TMA has no place on aircraft. Its use would result in death and destruction on a grand scale. Aluminium Oxide weighs far too much, as others here have pointed out and there is no distribution network for the large amounts of it required.There are no special ULD containers and there are no TMA tanks at airport fuel farms. Sorry Max, it was all made up.And yes, I guess you didn't watch "Olympus has Fallen"?Max, you are a decent guy. It had to be someone prominent and you took the bait too easily. In your communications to me you said you had heavyweight mainstream media ready to interview me. It is rather disturbing to me that the people you mentioned would even countenance the chemtrail hoax being true, and that is one reason why chemtrail believers need to be given a reason to maybe pause and reflect.Not everything you read, no matter how attractive to your way of thinking it may be, is true.You aren't saving the world. You are wasting you boundless energy and passion on a quixotic quest that will get you nowhere.Max I will not release your replies to me unless I see some sort of backpedalling from you. The email you sent me yesterday reveals nothing but a hunger to expose "chemtrailing" to the world and I will release all of them if I sense some sort of rationalisation of your actions. I will include the dates so people will see what I am talking about, but I have no wish to humiliate you any further.I reproduce the first three emails I sent below.Signing off,TheReferee/Hornblower