Brighton is the hub for European Chemtrails!

[fataddick]

Can any of the anti-Falmer lot explain to me when any of the pro-chemtrails lot posting on here ever suggested:

(a) Jumbo Jets can take off from Shoreham Airport

(b) There are chemsilos currently located at Shoreham Airport

(c) Planes take off from Shoreham Airport with the aim of spreading chemtrails

I am neutral. No-one on any side of this debate has ever remotely suggested any of the above, yet several angry "thick" people (either agents of the Control Class or genuine double-drop morons) have been arguing that the pro-chemtrails crowd have been saying this on NSC for some 500-odd posts now. They never have. Never once. Thick people, please stand away, let the adults take over now. Can NSC as a whole please apologise to Falmer for the bullying and doubting, hopefully he will accept that apology and it will all be over, and the rest of you can go back to your robotic mind-drone half-lives.

I'm not holding my breath, but frankly it doesn't bother me either way. I just believe in fairness not bullying.

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

(b) There are chemsilos currently located at Shoreham Airport

(c) Planes take off from Shoreham Airport with the aim of spreading chemtrails

Well, I've not been bullying him, I've had some fun at his expense, but like I said before he's free to believe what he wants so long as he's not acting like a cock about it which he was a bit. Although I do still think he's trolling.
But I can answer your questions. If you watch the second video on the original post, it says Brighton is the centre of chemtrails in Europe (then proceeds to show a picture of some clouds for some reason) and then links this to Shoreham Airport. After that, it shows an aerial shot of the airport with the locations of chemsilos at Shoreham. Then it asks did one of the 9/11 planes originate at Shoreham? "YOU DECIDE!" I'm that well read up on 9/11 but you said before they weren't jumbos? I assume people thought they were and that's there that came from.

 

[fataddick]

Well, I've not been bullying him, I've had some fun at his expense, but like I said before he's free to believe what he wants so long as he's not acting like a cock about it which he was a bit. Although I do still think he's trolling.
But I can answer your questions. If you watch the second video on the original post, it says Brighton is the centre of chemtrails in Europe (then proceeds to show a picture of some clouds for some reason) and then links this to Shoreham Airport. After that, it shows an aerial shot of the airport with the locations of chemsilos at Shoreham. Then it asks did one of the 9/11 planes originate at Shoreham? "YOU DECIDE!" I'm that well read up on 9/11 but you said before they weren't jumbos? I assume people thought they were and that's there that came from.

Hi, no worries, I'm amazed he didn't defend himself from the jumbos at Shoreham thing to be fair, but he seems to have taken the No Defence let-my-opponents-dig-themselves-in-deeper approach. The original video claimed UA 175 left from Shoreham - as I've said I think that it ridiculous and I think any link between 9/11 and Shoreham is stupid bollocks at best and offensive plus at worse, but it is feasible (it was a 767 and at half max weight or less it's not inconceivable on that runway) so he was right on what he was originally pulled up on - a 9/11 plane couldn't have logistically taken off from Shoreham (it could have).

From then on, people just chose to rip him a new arsehole, but I'm not sure he ever said anything wrong. People just assumed he had. As regards the video - that he never said was anything to do with him - I assumed the arrows pointing at chemsilos indicated where they were (ie grass that hadn't grown while the silo was there) rather than the silos themselves were patches of empty grass. Only the antis seemed to think the patches of cut grass "were" the silos, that just strikes me the antis being thick people. What, a patch of cut grass is a gas dispenser? FFS! Falmer never said or thought that. His opponents seemingly did.

There was only one specific image of chemtrails over Brighton in the original post video, and that was the still of multiple pentagrams over (I think, I may well be wrong) Clifton Hill. I'm not scientific enough to argue either way, but I won't ever resort to making up things my 'opponent' has said the way folk on here have being doing against Falmer. That's the only reason I am standing by him. Spirit of the underdog. Everyone has it. Half my Albion mates wish Wrexham had won today.

People have assumed too much over this thread, and Falmer has spoken less rubbish than almost everyone else. I don't support his views in general, I just think he has presented them better than the vast majority of his opponents have. You are exempted from this criticism Phoenix Arrow, as you seem willing to take things on board either way, unlike various feral knee-jerks on here who leapt on Falmer the moment he started this thread. Good on you, whatever you may or may not believe. Now or in the future.

 

[shellsuit]

I'll whisper you the answers, pastafairy:

The runway at Shoreham is 1,036 metres long.

United Airlines Flight 175 (the one mentioned in the video as originating from Shoreham) was a Boeing 767-222.

The recommended minimum runway length at MTOW is 1,710 metres.

MTOW is maximum take-off weight, in this case around 180,000 kg.

Minimum operating weight (ie with crew and fuel, but no passengers/cargo) is circa 82,000kg.

Minimum weight is around 45% of MTOW.

45% of a runway length of 1,710 is around 772 metres, so Shoreham runway is long enough for an "empty" 767 by over 250 metres.

Also, bear in mind these minimum runway lengths are recommended by the manufacturer playing it safe insurance-wise. You could quite easily take-off on far less, particularly in a black bag operation such as this would have been.

I've no idea what the runway requirements of a jumbo jet (747) are, much higher I expect, but this is irrelevant as no jumbos were involved on 9/11, just 767 and 757s, which are probably less than half the size.

I do not for one minute believe UA Flight 175 took off from Shoreham.

It would however be perfectly feasible in terms of the size of Shoreham airport, its runway length, etc.

Can everyone now apologise to Falmer.

He was right, you were all wrong.

i will definitely never be flying Fataddick Airlines if this is how you calculate required runway length

as for Falmer being bullied thats utter bullcrap,he just likes to spit the dummy when his ridiculous theories dont stand up.........it isnt the first time he has claimed everyone is ganging up on him and im sure it wont be the last.

 

[Pevenseagull]

I read somewhere that 25% of Brits don't believe man went to the moon but I think the article was fake

 

[Pevenseagull]

Why is it that people who believe in conspiracy theories are nearly always ill informed, paranoid idiots? It concerns me.

 

[sydney]

where did all these f***ing spoons come from any way .........who the f*** are they , everyone seems to be too quick on the cyber-bullying trip these days...what a petty bunch of little kants...

 

[beorhthelm]

Can any of the anti-Falmer lot explain to me when any of the pro-chemtrails lot posting on here ever suggested:

Seriously? the first post video makes all these claims*, which as Falmer posted it one assumes he is supporting. at least he has refused point blank to accept any and all evidence that the video is false.

* jumbos is a little inferred, without knowing the minimum unladen takeff distance one wouldnt know that it was technically possible. its a short runway, commercial airlines normall requires a good mile of tarmac. What hasnt been answered is whether an unladen swallow (African or European) could carry chemicals or not.

 

[brunswick]

as im at work i dont have half an hour to spare. is there footage of the chemical dispersals and how do they compare in appearance, height etc to the contrails we have in question today?

yes, there is lots of footage - but best source is to use is ones own eyes...... i looked into this years ago and could post lots of clips, all i would get on here is "its a contrail" "your a conspiracy theorist" "that is fake" etc....but to answer the questions yes, a contrail can stay in the sky a while due to atmosphere but a chemtrail slowly gets wider, then over 2 hours disperses into a large white hazy cloud.....and can even be seen slowly falling in a very geoengineered way.

hope your well B :0)

 

[Woodchip]

i will definitely never be flying Fataddick Airlines if this is how you calculate required runway length

as for Falmer being bullied thats utter bullcrap,he just likes to spit the dummy when his ridiculous theories dont stand up.........it isnt the first time he has claimed everyone is ganging up on him and im sure it wont be the last.

Has he inferred anyone us a paedo yet? That's often a favourite of mine.

Sent from my phone cause I can

 

[Woodchip]

I'll whisper you the answers, pastafairy:

The runway at Shoreham is 1,036 metres long.

United Airlines Flight 175 (the one mentioned in the video as originating from Shoreham) was a Boeing 767-222.

The recommended minimum runway length at MTOW is 1,710 metres.

MTOW is maximum take-off weight, in this case around 180,000 kg.

Minimum operating weight (ie with crew and fuel, but no passengers/cargo) is circa 82,000kg.

Minimum weight is around 45% of MTOW.

45% of a runway length of 1,710 is around 772 metres, so Shoreham runway is long enough for an "empty" 767 by over 250 metres.

Also, bear in mind these minimum runway lengths are recommended by the manufacturer playing it safe insurance-wise. You could quite easily take-off on far less, particularly in a black bag operation such as this would have been.

I've no idea what the runway requirements of a jumbo jet (747) are, much higher I expect, but this is irrelevant as no jumbos were involved on 9/11, just 767 and 757s, which are probably less than half the size.

I do not for one minute believe UA Flight 175 took off from Shoreham.

It would however be perfectly feasible in terms of the size of Shoreham airport, its runway length, etc.

Can everyone now apologise to Falmer.

He was right, you were all wrong.

So full of wrong it's unbelievable. You are aware that speed determines if a plane can take off or not.

Have you ever been on a bus? A fully laden bus or an empty bus still accelerate at approximately the same rate (slight advantage to the empty bus). You would never get a 767 in the air on a 800 metre runway. All you'd do is pile into whatever was at the end of the runway.

I'm sure one of the pilots that frequent this board will be able to correct me on required distances, acceleration, required take off weight, etc...

Maybe you need to stop calling everyone thick and go study your old physics books.


Sent from my phone cause I can

 

[fataddick]

I tell you what else is spooky.

My post that proved a 767 can take off from Shoreham, and also debunked the cynics' irrelevant focus on jumbo jets?

I noticed that it said Posts: 747 in my name bit to the left of it. I had no idea of my post count until I posted.

I was going to take a snapshot of the screen and post it with that bit highlighted, but I forgot. And no doubt the antis would have made out I had faked it anyway.

But you can see it now says 750 and that post was three posts ago, so I'm clearly not making it up.

Coincidence? Maybe. Dark forces manipulating even me? A more likely explanation.

 

[Woodchip]

Also Fataddick, you are aware that the minimum operating weight your refer to does not include fuel. 82,000 is the minimum operating weight (empty). The empty part means devoid of fuel and persons.

If, as you claim, it includes fuel, and it takes 60,000 litres of fuel to cross the Atlantic (using 1l = 1kg) then the plane only weighs 22,000kg. That would be as rigid as a sheet of A1 paper.

Otherwise we see that the plane weighs 82,000 and the fuel weighs 60,000. This makes circa 140,000kg. That is close to it's MTOW (about 70%). Even with you're maths on take off distance 70% of 1,700m would be about 1,250m. That, I'm sure you'll agree, is longer than Shoreham airport.

Sent from my phone cause I can

 

[Falmer]

Has he inferred anyone us a paedo yet? That's often a favourite of mine.

Sent from my phone cause I can

And are you still claiming that anyone with a different coloured skin to you should be shot? Can't say I agree but It is a subject you feel strong about.

 

[fataddick]

it takes 60,000 litres of fuel to cross the Atlantic

Does it? That's very interesting? What the hell has that got to do with anything?

I was just proving that a 767 could take off from Shoreham, I never said where it was going to fly to.

Find me anyone on this thread who has ever said it would be flying from Shoreham across the Altantic.

No-one has ever said that. Fact.

"The video in the first post claims UA Flight 175 originated from Shoreham" you bleat between blows of the intellectual beating that is being administered to you.

Yes, "originated from" not "flew to NYC direct from". Its next stop from Shoreham may well have been Gatwick for all we know.

Once again, I reiterate, there is nothing in the Brighton chemtrails video that can be disproved.

It is only be ignoring what is actually in the video and deciding certain things are "inferred" from it (inferred = conclusions jumped to by the lesser minds of the anti-chemtrails crowd) that you seek to argue.

You argue against 747s taking off from Shoreham when no-one claimed they do.

You argue against a plane flying from Shoreham across the Atlantic when no-one claimed they do.

What are you going to argue about next? That the beach huts on Hove Beach aren't used to store crashed UFOs? ("Well, the video must be inferring that, why else would it include a shot of them blahblahblah etc.")

Let's check on the latest score: Falmer, Brunswick et al 11 - Chemtrail Denialists 0.

 

[Woodchip]

And are you still claiming that anyone with a different coloured skin to you should be shot? Can't say I agree but It is a subject you feel strong about.

Now you're claiming I'm racist. Do you ever stop to think?

Find me a thread where I've claimed that?

Back to school with you, little boy.

Sent from my phone cause I can

 

[Woodchip]

Does it? That's very interesting? What the hell has that got to do with anything?

I was just proving that a 767 could take off from Shoreham, I never said where it was going to fly to.

Find me anyone on this thread who has ever said it would be flying from Shoreham across the Altantic.

No-one has ever said that. Fact.

"The video in the first post claims UA Flight 175 originated from Shoreham" you bleat between blows of the intellectual beating that is being administered to you.

Yes, "originated from" not "flew to NYC direct from". Its next stop from Shoreham may well have been Gatwick for all we know.

Once again, I reiterate, there is nothing in the Brighton chemtrails video that can be disproved.

It is only be ignoring what is actually in the video and deciding certain things are "inferred" from it (inferred = conclusions jumped to by the lesser minds of the anti-chemtrails crowd) that you seek to argue.

You argue against 747s taking off from Shoreham when no-one claimed they do.

You argue against a plane flying from Shoreham across the Atlantic when no-one claimed they do.

What are you going to argue about next? That the beach huts on Hove Beach aren't used to store crashed UFOs? ("Well, the video must be inferring that, why else would it include a shot of them blahblahblah etc.")

Let's check on the latest score: Falmer, Brunswick et al 11 - Chemtrail Denialists 0.

I've not watched the video due to watching too much of the other stuff posted by Falmer. Did you see his video about Spain falling apart that he claimed happened "yesterday" yet I found the same video posted 5 months prior.

These are the first posts I've made on this thread, so I haven't made any of the claims you profess I have made. Alas, you and truth don't make good bed fellows do you.

Sent from my phone cause I can

 

[Falmer]

Now you're claiming I'm racist. Do you ever stop to think?

Find me a thread where I've claimed that?

Back to school with you, little boy.

Hardy ha. So when you claim on this thread that i've been accusing people of being 'peados'! That's not childish? Now find me a post on thisa thread where I said that?
What I said was in relation to what yo've said about me, LIES! I write an obvious false accusation (like yours) and funny how you don't recognise the school behaviour in your action, only mine. That my friend is called bullying. Now point out where I've called anyone a peado on this thread? There you can't, but yet in your defence about the bullying, this is your reason!

Woodchip on his shoulder more like, now piss of back to naughty school chop chop.

ps and sort your insercurities out too.

 

[Woodchip]

I never said it was on this thread you insinuated someone was paedo. You have insinuated it in the past though, have you not?

Do you really want me to trawl through your posts to fine it?

Sent from my phone cause I can

 

[Falmer]

You, sir, are a complete mentalist and I claim my £5.

Comments like these are in my defence. Bullying is ripe in NSC right now, This post is his only cintribution to a topic vey well known now!
Explain how this isn't just being plain rude and horrible? Does anyone think some who may have mental difficulties might read NSC?