Jet Fuel Hoax

I've recently been sent a large amount of correspondence about a strange new story concerning aviation. The claim goes that jet aircraft need no fuel to fly and they really run off compressed air. Some of the air is added to pressurized chambers aboard the aircraft in places roughly corresponding with the location of what is believed to be the fuel tanks. This is used for taxiing, takeoff and landing; but when the plane is cruising the air comes from the atmosphere and is converted to a useable pressure by the jet engines themselves. The original source videos were removed from YouTube, but I've found them elsewhere plus additional documents. The hypothesis comes from several ideas. One says that aircraft could never store the fuel load designated as their capacity, either in terms of weight or volume. For example, the world's largest passenger aircraft, the Airbus A380, when filled up contains 83,291 gallons of kerosene. This weighs altogether about 315 tons. The theorists illustrate this by showing the equivalent weight in elephants, London buses and tanker lorries perched on the wings. They also claim that there is not enough spare space available on the plane to store all that fuel. The workings of a modern turbofan jet aircraft engine also provide a source for their suspicions. The presence of a large amount of liquid on board a plane would cause an inertia problem because the fuel would slosh around during tight manoeuvres, like beer in a glass when somebody jostles you in a pub. It only takes about forty-five minutes to refuel an A380 which means the hosepipe used must be capable of about twice the flow rate of a fireman's hose; such a spray would break the wing apart and endanger the refuelling workers should it break loose. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXRmcumPL3k and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFlAutyo-Q8.

If this theory is true then it is a massive hoax. The implications are enormous. Everybody who has ever travelled by air has the right to sue the carrier for about half of their air fare, because that is the average proportion which covers fuel costs. This appears to be the principle concern of the video uploader; but in fact that is one of the more trivial eventualities, because it also would mean that the airlines are operating free energy devices without telling anybody. However, there are major problems with this whole assertion. An aircraft's fuel tanks are not just in the wings; they are in the centre of the fuselage too. In fact the pilots have to be very careful to expend each tank evenly to keep the plane balanced. The problem of inertia is solved by having baffles to prevent sloshing. This video explains comprehensively how an aircraft's fuel tanks work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpzUbYex4dg. What's more, if jet fuel hoax theorists are right then why have there been so many instances of planes crashing because they ran out of fuel; seventeen since 1953, according to this database: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_flights_that_required_gliding. The uploader shows us a video from the famous beach next to the airport on St Maarten island where tourists like to play with the exhaust stream of aircraft taking off. The reason they are not burned to death by the exhaust is because at that distance from the engines the thermal energy is very low. A jet engine produces about as much heat as a back garden bonfire, but you would have actually to climb inside the engine combustion chamber to get close enough to the heat source to suffer burns. The same goes for the kerosene soot in the exhaust. At the distance from the tailpipe the tourists are standing, the concentration of soot particles is far too low to cause any acute toxicity (Incidentally, this is a reason why chemtrails have to be real, but that's something I cover in other publications, for example see: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2019/10/no-chemtrails.html). Therefore all that those tourists experience is a blast of strong wind. This is also why there are no scorch marks from the exhaust on the underside of the wings. The reason the engine pylons place the engine ahead of the leading edge of the wings is to keep an undisturbed direct flow of air into the engines. While ascending or at some angles of attack, if the engines sit right beneath the wings, then the wings might block some percentage of air from getting into the engine. I would also ask, why does the auxiliary power unit need a small turbojet and fuel to run it? Wouldn't a set of batteries charged by the primary compressed air engines be good enough? Of course, you'd have to keep the batteries secret from all the flight engineers, but that would be no more difficult than any of the other covert elements of this supposed conspiracy. And this brings us onto the central flaw in the jet fuel hoax theory. How many people would be needed to keep the secret? Of course I am well aware of the psychological factor in conspiracy theories, the tendency towards tacit collaboration. This is why I disagree so much with Dr David Grimes and his famous formula, see here for details: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2016/11/conspiracy-theories-mathematically.html. However, even the most extreme examples of subconscious compliance have their limits. For the jet fuel hoax to be correct, almost everybody involved in the aviation industry would have to be in collusion. This would include every engineer from Frank Whittle onwards. The builders in the factories, the draughtsmen and technicians. The maintenance crews of not only the aircraft themselves, but the pressurized fuel delivery piping systems at airports. The inspectors measuring consumption of fuel stores, the fitters of gauges and pumps, the pilots and in-flight engineers who have to measure fuel expenditure while in the air, the auditors in the oil refineries... the list goes on. Such a conspiracy would be impossibly top-heavy. What the producers of the second source videos say about Viktor Schauberger and Viktor Grebennikov is totally correct, as I detail myself in the background links below; but a conventional turbofan engine does not use anything like the kinds of technology those two men invented. Indeed why would a covert power-plant and propulsion system be both classified under the black budget and at the same time distributed across the globe for everyday use? Why don't the oil companies kick up about it? The "90% of the thrust!" figure in a turbofan engine is true, but this is because the jet is driven by a large fan which is the second stage of the system; and the first stage is a turbojet that turns a crankshaft for the fan. The turbojet itself does not provide much of the thrust because its primary output goes into driving the fan. The reason airline passengers hear the jets make a buzzing noise like a bee is because that is how the vibrations sound when they are transmitted through the airframe to the cabin. It is true that the jets throttle down when the plane is cruising; this is because it takes a lot less thrust to keep a speeding aircraft at a level altitude in thin air going than it does to make an aircraft go from a standstill at ground level to three hundred knots at thirty-five thousand feet, but at no time is the kerosene powered jet engine switched off. The refuelling operation does not involve any local pumps because the kerosene is already kept at high pressure inside the fuel lines under the apron. Also if the wings contain a pressurized air bunker than it must be made of a solid metal shell. Why is this not too heavy to put into a flying plane? I don't want to make an ad hominem point here, but the jet fuel hoax seems to be very popular with flat earthers. I notice there's quite a flat earth overlap with the fake moon landing community as well and sometimes the jet fuel conspiracy pops up in it, for example see: https://news.billkaysing.com/2018/04/04/the-great-jet-fuel-hoax-free-energy-is-real/. (Bill Kaysing has now passed away and I don't think he would approve of all the material on his tribute site, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIRGGWdjjQg.) This is not why any of the flat earthers' ideas are wrong per se. I don't get angry with flatheads just for being flatheads. I know somebody who immediately blocks all flatties on social media the moment he sees them. I never do that, in fact I have friends who believe the earth is flat. I even debate them, see: https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2019/06/flat-earth.html; but one of the reasons that I am cautious of their various adjacent theories is because I do question their ability to assess the evidence. Free energy definitely does exist and many forgotten or underrated geniuses developed it, but their discoveries were appropriated by the government and are today only used in secret. I'm always open to new notions and emergent facts. If somebody can demonstrate successfully that commercial airliners really do run off compressed air than please go ahead. However, right now I would say that free energy is certainly not being used in everyday air travel right under our noses.

See here for additional background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2019/09/incredible-anti-gravity-machine.html.

And: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2014/05/anti-g-or-not.html.

And: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2015/12/free-energy-in-india-and-shetland.html.

And: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2016/10/free-energy-taking-p.html.