Chemtrails get a bad rap.
I don’t find it so hard to believe that aerosols are being released into the atmosphere, but my train of thought on the subject runs along a different set of tracks.
To imagine that the waste products of the chemical industry, which are so very expensive to store/bury/dispose of, could not be re-purposed into a product such as: Sulphur (S8, used in the steel industry et al.) used in bullets, fluoride (F-, NaF / F6H2Si, by-products of the fertilizer industry and used in the aluminum industry) used in toothpaste / tap-water, benzene (C6H6, a by-product of the petroleum industry) used in cigarettes, who-knows-what in fracking fluids, micro- and nano-sized particles in cloud seeding formulations,…) is simply naïve.
The Albertan insurance industry has been diverting and minimizing hailstorms by using cloud-seeding/desiccant programs to avoid damage to Calgary’s automobiles. The consequence is that some of these storms move further east and hit the crops instead.
In this way, the toxic waste, which cannot be safely disposed of on land without polluting an entire site forever (insurance companies have been actively funding cloud-seeding experiments for many decades; toxic waste spills at dump sites represent an enormous potential cost for these companies,) can be used as a raw material in a proprietary formula (like the Colonel’s seventeen herbs and spices or Coca-Cola’s secret recipe) and thus be re-classified from being ‘toxic waste’ to being a potentially harmful product but used in acceptably small doses.
Warm cloud seeding is not conducted nearly as frequently as silver iodide cloud seeding, and the effect of warm cloud seeding agents on the environment is not as well known. Warm cloud seeding agents are salts. Preliminary results suggest that because the amounts of seeding agent used are so small, even these warm cloud seeding materials probably do not have any significant impacts.
Wouldn’t it just be a lot cheaper to spray it out of a plane? Maybe the chemical industry is running out of land to bury its harmful by-products. They have to dispose of it somehow; so why not sell it instead of burying it? It would simply need to be mixed in with the jet fuel, which is a ‘dirty’ fuel to begin with, as anyone trying to use kerosene in a camping stove not designed for it will testify. It plugs the tiny spray nozzles. Modern jet engines are designed to mitigate this occurrence.
It is easy to see how all of this could be linked to the so-called increase in extreme weather due to climate change despite the fact that Hermine (cat.1) was Florida’s first hurricane in over a decade, and that there have been no deaths due to a hurricane in the USA since Katrina, also more than a decade ago.
The problem is not one of albedo, nor is it one of nucleation; it is rather one of pollution because we breathe it and we end up eating it, too. Very small particles can be inhaled and can cross the blood-brain barrier (search Russell Blaylock for more info. He has, unsurprisingly, been labelled a conspiracy theorist for some of his views.) It falls on the grass like an imperceptibly fine mist. The cows eat the grass, we eat the cows. It falls onto our rivers but is too small for our filtration plants’ pores sizes. We drink them in suspension.
The worst part is that in most cases, the difference in levels may be too small to measure accurately. This means that any research into the issue can be put down quickly as just another ‘conspiracy.’ If one cannot prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, that thing is not valid and as a result, is not worthy of consideration.
“Climate engineering, commonly referred to as geoengineering, also known as climate intervention, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of limiting adverse climate change.”
SRM (Solar Radiation Management), AWM (Atmospheric Water Management) are two terms used to cloud (excuse the pun) the discussion surrounding geo-engineering. The claim is that much is known about the potential environmental effects, which would be minimal – so they say, but NASA launched a satellite to study aerosols, and CERN has built a cloud chamber to study the same thing. If so much is known, why then fund these very very expensive tests? Monitoring experiments and testing conclusions seem to be reasonable guesses. Is the atmosphere being experimented on as was the case during nuclear atmospheric tests (which are no longer permitted due to health and environmental concerns?) Will we ban the practice only after tests are concluded?
Most who deny the existence of chemtrails fall back on one of two positions: 1) The long clouds left behind jets are contrails, not chemtrails, and 2) despite it having been talked about in US government documents, military documents, environmental assessments, university symposiums, and think-tank meetings, there is no evidence of it having been implemented.
Some of you may remember that during the sixties, seventies, and eighties, jets left very short contrails, maybe five to ten times the length of the plane. Jet engines built these days are more efficient than older models and leave significantly less contrails than did their predecessors. It is common to see jets leaving no contrails at all, which was not the case decades ago. Newer engines produce lower exhaust temperatures. It is worth noting that military fighter jets leave no contrails.
Modern jet engines do not leave contrails under most conditions. The conditions necessary occur rarely and do not change rapidly. It is beyond believable that the same atmospheric conditions which lead to the formation of contrails exist both on clear days and clear nights despite changes in relative humidity, temperature, and pressure.
I took this photo myself.
The plane leaving a ‘contrail’ is to the left. The one leaving a ‘persistent contrail’ or chemtrail is to the right. I watched them both for quite some time, almost from horizon to horizon. Despite relative changes in their altitudes and speeds, their trails did not change. The contrail remained short, while the chemtrail stretched from horizon to horizon (H2H.)
According to flightradar24.com, these were the two planes I photographed:
Same planes, same engines, same altitudes, same atmospheric conditions, different contrails?!?
The claim is that contrails are caused by a jet engine heating the air causing condensation. When refering to H2H, this is not plausible. We would need to believe that the air which was heated stayed at the same temperature for the five minutes or so after the jet had passed. This is not possible, especially at altitudes of 30,000+ ft. This is why contrails from decades ago disappeared rather quickly. This is the same reason that your visible breath on a cold day dissipates within seconds.
Contrails come from engine exhaust. Why then can chemtrails be seen to come from between engines? Why would a three-engine plane leave only two contrails? Broken contrails which display large gaps are also problematic and difficult to explain. It could be said that a localized change in atmospheric conditions can lead to the broken nature of certain contrails, but then why would they remain visible after several minutes of drifting?
Some will claim that the trails are just fuel being dumped by airliners coming in for a landing. Two problems with this assumption: The first is that planes usually dump fuel at altitudes of around ten thousand feet, not metres; the second is that planes wouldn’t dump fuel over populated areas, and so would likely not be seen. Besides, dumping enough fuel to stretch from H2H would leave the tanks empty.
The main chemicals used in chemtrails are said to include Aluminum, Barium, Manganese, Silver Iodide, Strontium, Sulphur, and others. These additives also serve as nucleation points. There may be several uses for these different elements such as weather modification, albedo growth, communications, cloud-seeding, etc. There are many possible military as well as commercial applications. None of these substances can be considered beneficial or even inert.
The following video shows a Californian town hall meeting in which the citizens forced their elected officials to take action on their behalf. (15:23)
This next video takes the debate to the UN. (17:46)
Rosalind Peterson, to her credit, says that there is no proof of chemtrails and so would not attach her name to a law suit claiming that they exist. Her contention is about proof. She says, and rightly so, that she cannot prove that jets are releasing anything but jet fuel emissions. She also does not know who should be held accountable if it is happening. No credible studies have been done. All the evidence, at this point, is circumstantial. There is no funding for this type of research. But this does not mean it should not be done, nor does this mean chemtrailing is not happening. It simply means that it cannot be proven, yet. She has also stated that if solid evidence were to present itself, her calculus on the topic would change.
Now I can prove that the rocket programs in the United States are releasing trimethylaluminum, aluminum oxide, barium. I can prove the rocket programs in the United States are just coating us with toxic chemicals all the time. And these programs are listed at NASA, NOAA, the US Air Force, the US Navy, I mean there’s tests going on all the time. The US Navy CARE program is a prime example. So I can prove, I have so many documents I couldn’t even put them all on the internet, even if I tried, because there’s Pentagon reports, there’s all kind of reports dating back twenty, thirty years.
When it comes to proving what the jets are releasing, I don’t have the documentation, and I don’t have a single study, I don’t have a single solitary verifiable evidence that the jets are releasing anything except military releases of aluminum coated fiberglass by military aircraft.
I agree with her. I am not claiming that this article proves the case one way or the other. I am simply saying that because of the evidence, more research needs to be done, and that a lack of proof does not provide contrary proof in and of itself. If this is taking place (?and based on the amount of research funding which has gone into this, why wouldn’t it be?) we should be aware. We need to guard against this once the legislation is put forth to initiate these plans, and we must be vigilant in case black projects have indeed proceeded with testing, as has been done secretly in the past, and which I personally believe is taking place now, even if it is on a relatively small scale. We must not ignore the possibility of this occurring. Certainly not all contrails are chemtrails, but even if a small percentage are hidden within, we all need to know about it, and the sooner, the better.
Much of the evidence brought forth by proponents of chemtrailing is not credible. There is, admittedly, much false information, much of which is combined into false claims by those who don’t have a good grasp of what constitutes evidence. This is clear and is prevalent in many other domains, as well. There can be no denial that there is some veritably bad investigative work which has been done in the name of the chemtrail theory. This, however, is not a valid argument against good evidence being presented. There is BS everywhere, from all sides, on all issues, but common sense and physical laws do exist to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Pictures of spray nozzles mounted on planes, for example, are not proof. There are many good reasons to install spray nozzles on planes. These can range from vortex testing, crop spraying, smoke trails for airshows, missile defense systems, etc. They do not prove anything, nor do pictures of planes full of storage tanks. Just because others have presented these as proof, does not in itself prove that chemtrails are not real. Disney changing its backdrop to reflect modern skies does not prove this either, but what it does show is that a change in our skies is a recognizable phenomenon, and if the explanations for these changes are not plausible, we must continue to push for better answers.
geoengineeringwatch.org is a website run by Dane Wigington, who has also participated in the making of several videos which document the phenomenon (see below.) The site is filled with an enormous amount of data on the subject. Sites like these, while providing much good data, must be taken with a grain of salt. There are many issues which distract from the narrative such as climate change. There are those who disagree with Dane’s position on it, and so try to discredit all the evidence he presents. There is a rift between those who believe in AGW and chemtrails, those who believe in AGW but not chemtrails, those who believe in chemtrails but not AGW, and those who believe that AGW means that people are affecting climate, but on purpose, through the use of chemtrails (SRM et al.) and other means. None of this changes the evidence brought forth by air, water, and soil samples, whistle-blower testimony, photographic evidence, flight logs, insurance company research documents, military reports, scientific assessments, etc. We need to push for more complete studies.
Two points to ponder: 1) Why is it that planes which do not leave persistent contrails (PCTs) often can be seen flying through PCTs left by other planes (with identical engines and on the same flight path?) Would not the conditions which prevent the formation of PCTs in the former also lead to the dissipation of these in the latter? 2) In order for this not to be a ‘conspiracy theory’, it only needs to have happened once. Is there any doubt that such an oft-talked about topic would have been tested? It must also be noted that ‘one’ does not a statistically relevant study make.
Chemtrails: The Secret War (1:00:56 – Italian with subs.)
What In The World Are They Spraying (1:37:44)
Why In The World Are They Spraying (1:12:54)