What if chemicals were sprayed from planes

November 5th, 2011
submit to reddit Share

I’m trying a new method of addressing the lunacy of chemtrails by showing that dumping chemicals at altitude wouldn’t generally do very much or be a very effective way of exposing populations to the chemicals that some claim are being sprayed.  It’s worth noting that the chemtrail loonies can’t even seem to agree on what is being sprayed, so here are some of the more common chemicals claimed.

If chemtrail conspiracy theorists are to believed, then large jet aircraft, possibly the same aircraft that carry passengers are being used to spray unknown quantities of chemicals of some type at high altitude.  While it’s rather difficult to judge the altitude of an aircraft by sight alone, based on what has been claimed to be chemtrails it’s fairly clear that the aircraft were flying at normal jet altitudes, well above tropospheric weather.   If they were indeed passenger aircraft then the altitude is generally above thirty thousand feet.

Some commonly claimed materials:


Jet Fuel or other hydrocarbons – This is actually done on occasion, as passenger jets do occasionally have to preform fuel dumps.   These are not done as a matter of routine but rather happen when a plane is heavily loaded with fuel for a long flight but has to land shortly after takeoff due to an emergency such as a mechanical failure or a passenger medical emergency.  The fuel disperses rapidly.  Studies have been done on exactly what happens to fuel dumped at altitude and have concluded that at least 98% of it evaporates before it ever reaches ground level. If any does reach the ground (which it usually does not) it is a very minute amount which is spread over an enormous geographic area.   The quantity is basically unnoticeable and will itself evaporate relatively quickly.

The fuel vapors will not last long in the atmosphere.  Hydrocarbons tend to photodegrade and generally decompose in the atmosphere and will eventually oxidize entirely.   In the short term, these vapors may contribute, at least locally to smog, but they would  makeup a relatively small proportion of human generated air pollution.

Aluminum – Atomized aluminum or some aluminum compound like aluminum oxide would disperse quite a bit before any amount reached the ground.  It would basically behave as atmospheric dust, some remaining suspended for some time in the high winds at altitude but most eventually falling from suspension.  Aluminum is one of the most common elements in the crust of the earth and therefore one of the primary components of atmospheric dust.  Adding a little more aluminum would have little effect on the total amount in the earth’s atmospheric dust and any that settled to the ground would join the enormous amounts of aluminum present in most soil.

Aluminum is generally regarded as being non-toxic and in all but the most extreme circumstances presents no substantial health danger.

Mercury – If ejected from aircraft, mercury would either evaporate or form very small droplets which would remain suspended at least initially.   Due to the high weight of mercury it would not stay in the atmosphere for a very long time but would precipitate out.   By the time the mercury reached the ground, it would be extremely dispersed and would not reach toxic levels in any given location.  However, it would accumulate in water especially in the worlds oceans.

Spraying mercury out of aircraft wouldn’t do a whole lot to increase the atmospheric mercury levels or the oceanic mercury levels, however.  Unfortunately, we already spew many many tons of mercury into the atmosphere and it has resulted in increased atmospheric and oceanic mercury levels and occasionally can be shown to bioacumulate in some species.   This happens because of the burning of coal which is a very effective way of ejecting mercury into the atmosphere.   In areas directly downwind from coal plants, mercury levels are elevated, especially after the coal burner has operated for a many years or decades.

Dumping mercury from an aircraft would at least result in more dilution before it reached the ground and thus would not expose a given area to as acute a level of mercury.   All in all, it would do what coal burners already do, although to a much smaller extent.

Barium – One of the most commonly claimed components of chemtrails is barium.  However, chemtrail conspiracy theorists don’t seem to have much idea what form it is supposedly being discharged in.  Barium is an alkaline earth metal, but in its elemental form it is highly reactive especially to oxygen.  If barium were discharged into the air in an atomized form, it would react violently to form barium oxide and barium peroxide.  Both of these compounds are also reactive and are powerful oxidizers.  While it is unlikely that either would reach the ground in significant concentrations, if they did, they would react readily with most organic material.

If barium compounds were released in the atmosphere, it’s more realistic to expect that they would be m0re stable barium salts.   The most common of these is barium sulfate.   Barium sulfate is non-toxic and not reactive.   It is so safe that it is a very common radiocontrast agent that is often swallowed to allow x-ray examination of the digestive tract.   It is also fairly common in the surface geology of earth, so adding a tiny bit more would not change very much.

Other barium salts vary in toxicity and reactivity from very low to very high.  Most soluble barium compounds are fairly toxic.  Barium carbonate, for example, has been used as a rat poison.   These barium compounds are also found in nature, in soil, water and atmospheric dust and are generally not of concern as long as the concentrations are fairly low.  According to the CDC, respiratory precautions become necessary when the concentrations of soluble barium compounds in the air exceed .5 miligrams per cubic meter.

Such high concentrations are would not result from dumping barium into the air at altitude.   By the time the compound reached the ground, it would be dispersed over a minimum of dozens of square kilometers.  Some chemtrail theorists cite measurements of soluble barium compounds in air samples that have been as high as 50.8 nanograms per cubic meter.   This is a tiny amount, and orders of magnitude bellow what is considered the safe exposure level.  It is entirely consistent with the levels expected to exist from soil kicked up by wind and other sources of atmospheric dust.   Atmospheric barium is also produced by some human activities, such as flares and fireworks, where barium compounds are used to produce a green color.   The levels produced by such activities have been subject to study and while they do cause a very modest localized increase in detectable barium compounds, the levels are nowhere near what would be considered hazardous.

Sulfur Dioxide – Aircraft do already release tiny amounts of sulfur dioxide, because sulfur is present in hydrocarbon fuels. Aviation fuel tends to be relatively highly refined and conform to standards for low sulfur levels. In the case of Jet-A fuel, the maximum allowable sulfur concentration is less than .3% by weight. This results in a small but significant amount of sulfur dioxide in the engine exhaust.

It has been suggested that aircraft could spray sulfur dioxide as a means of reducing global warming.  Indeed, sulfur dioxide does reflect sunlight, but it also causes acid rain, so intentionally depositing it into the atmosphere seems to be a rather flawed idea.  Still, there is quite a bit of the stuff in the atmosphere, both as a result of natural sources like volcanos as well as man-made sources.  The largest, by far, is coal burning, which releases hundreds of thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere each year.

It would take an enormous effort by a huge number of aircraft to increase the total emitted noticeably, and although it would deposit the gas at a higher altitude (at least initially) than coal exhaust, it wouldn’t change atmospheric distribution much in the long run.  In any event, the total amount that could be placed in the upper atmosphere by thousands of aircraft would be less than can be produced by a single large volcanic eruption, as happens every so often.

Cloud Seeding Chemicals - Cloud seeding is typically accomplished by using hydroscpic materials, such as salts, by using cold materials like liquid propane or dry ice or by using silver iodine, a chemical which has a structure similar to ice and can be used to induce the formation of ice crystals.  These chemicals are sometimes delivered by aircraft but are also commonly delivered by rockets or by ground-based misters and flares.

The best evidence indicates that these chemicals can indeed have some localized effect on cloud structure and precipitation.   Adding large amounts of seed material to saturated, supercooled clouds increases the rate of ice and water droplet formation and can temporarily increase the altitude of the cloud, causing additional cooling and resulting in precipitation.   The effect, however, is entirely temporary and will only affect the cloud formation which is seeded and not the overall weather of a region.

While cloud seeding is sometimes practiced, it is done in a manner that does not even remotely resemble the so-called “chemtrail” reports.  For one, cloud seeding is only effective when the chemicals are applied to clouds that are already fairly saturated and contain at least some supercooled water droplets.   If cloud seeding chemicals are applied to a “dry” sky or to areas that do not have dense, cold clouds, they will have no effect at all.  If the proported chem trails really did contain seeding material, it would be extremely wasteful as these aircraft normally are reported in relatively clear skies.

The altitudes of the aircraft are also entirely wrong for cloud seeding.  While it can be difficult to judge the exact altitude of an aircraft, most “chemtrail” reports cite jet aircraft that appear to be flying at normal altitude.  The type of clouds that can be most effectively seeded are at relatively low altitudes.   Jet aircraft typically fly at altitudes far above tropospheric weather and thus, even if the appropriate cloud formations did exist, they would be too high to directly seed them.  Therefore, any attempt to seed clouds from these aircraft would be entirely ineffective.

Bacteria - If sprayed out the back of an aircraft at altitude, bacteria would be introduced to a very harsh environment.   The spraying itself would eject the bacteria into air currents moving at near supersonic speeds and into extremely low temperatures.   Many forms of bacteria are capable of surviving freezing and rethawing, but the tolerance for being frozen varies depending on the type of bacteria and the circumstances of the freezing.   Being frozen after being ejected from an aircraft is an especially rapid and violent form of freezing.  The bacteria would be subjected to an extreme temperature change and being tumbled with tiny ice crystals.   It would be expected that most of the bacteria would be destroyed if ejected in a liquid form in this manner.

The only bacteria that might be candidates for being ejected from an aircraft would be those that form tough endospores.   They also count not be ejected as a liquid, mixed with water, but would have to be dried and preserved in a powder-like form.   Ejecting the powdered bacteria presents other problems.   Atomized solids tend to accumulate static charges which cause them to clump and not properly disperse.  However, the problem is not insurmountable, assuming enough effort were put into electrostatic control and dispersal equipment.

There are very few bacteria that really fit the bill for being tough enough to be dispersed into the air in the endospore phase and have a good chance of surviving for any period of time.   One reason that anthrax has been the focus of much biological warfare research is that it is one of the very few pathogenic bacteria that can be spread by air and is tough enough to reliably survive rapid dispersal.  It also can be cultured in large quantities relatively easily.

Even a bacteria like anthrax would have difficulty in the especially rough conditions of being sprayed out of the back of a jet aircraft. If the bacteria were to come into contact with droplets of liquid water as it fell, it could come out of the endospore phase and thus become far more fragile.

An even greater danger would be ultraviolet light. UV light is an effective way of destroying bacteria and at high altitudes they would be above most of the atmosphere and much of the ozone layer. At these altitudes, UV light is especially intense. The bacteria would likely remain aloft for some time, due to their small size and the high speed winds at altitude. This would give them ample time to be exposed to intense ultraviolet light.

Ultimately some of the bacteria may well survive and eventually they would find their way to the ground.  Just like other forms of atmospheric dust, the bacteria would either reach low levels on their own or be brought down by precipitation.   By the time they reached the ground, the bacteria would be extremely dispersed, with a relatively small amount of bacterial dispersed over as much as hundreds of miles.

This would be of little concern.   The world is not sterile as is and the soil is already full of bacteria, including potentially pathogenic bacteria (for this reason, licking random things outdoors is not recommended).  The bacteria would join a huge population of bacteria of every type that lives in the soil and air of the earth.  Even anthrax can be found in soil in many locations.  Inhaling an few bacteria is not likely to cause infection, it would have to be a fairly large amount.  That would never happen.

To date, there are no known biological warfare programs that ever considered spreading bacteria by spraying it out the back of high altitude jet aircraft.  All credible biological warfare research and testing as focused on more direct methods of exposing populations or enemy forces to bacteria, such as contaminating water supplies or using small ground-level aerosol producing bomblets.

Viruses – Many of the rules that apply to bacteria also apply to viruses, although viruses are vastly varied in their tolerance for various environments.  Many viruses are extremely fragile when outside of their host organism.  Viruses also are much more difficult to produce in large quantities since they cannot be cultured on their own – they require another organism’s cells to replicate.

Assuming a virus could be found that could be produced in large quantities and was able to survive the temperature extremes, ultraviolet light and other factors associated with being sprayed from a high altitude aircraft, it would still be a too dispersed to be likely to cause much harm and  would be, at best, a highly inefficient way of dosing people on the ground.

Antibiotics – Because antibiotics are complex organic compounds, it could be expected that some portion of those discharged into the upper atmosphere would decompose or otherwise be destroyed by ultraviolet light or oxidation before ever reaching the ground.  Since the antibiotics would be greatly dispersed, it’s unlikely that there would be much in the way of noticeable effects on the microorganisms in the region.  Antibiotics have to be present in fairly high concentrations for them to be effective in killing or inhibiting the reproduction of microbes.

Discharging even fairly large amounts of antibiotics into the environment in such a low density manner would not do very much to alter the concentrations in the region.  It is important to remember that antibiotics have been common in the biosphere for at least millions of years.   Most antibiotic compounds are derived directly from compounds produced by fungi, bacteria and other microbes.  For example, the antibiotic Gentamicin is composed of compounds produced by widely found in soil and water and Penicillin is produced by a common fungus that is responsible for bread mold. There are some fully synthetic antibiotics, but they are not inherently more powerful than the naturally occurring variety.

Antibiotics are selective and only toxic to certain microbes. These compounds are not toxic to humans or animals and would not have any noticeable effects on such organisms, especially in the concentrations that might reach ground level from high altitude discharges. Since these compounds are present in minute amounts in the environment, humans are always being exposed to very low concentrations of antibiotic compounds and always have been.

Human Blood – This is an especially ridiculous claim, given the amount of blood that would be needed to create a reasonably sized trail of blood in the air. It would take all the blood in the bodies of more than 24,000 full grown humans to fill the tanks of a KC-135.   That assumes all the bodies were drained.  More than three times as many would be needed for live donors of the blood.

Not only that, but spraying blood would be a huge problem for the nozzles, pumps and other equipment.   At the very least, the blood would have to have a lot of anticoagulants added.

The blood would disperse quite and the cells and fluid would probably begin to separate.  It would tend to freeze very rapidly and this would destroy most of the cells, as blood cannot be frozen without the addition of protectionists.  The ice crystals formed tend to break apart the cell walls of blood cells.  Any biological material that did eventually reach the ground would biodegrade pretty quickly.

Any pathogens present in the blood would not be harmful in the concentrations that may survive reaching ground level.

Defoliants or Herbicides  - There is a good deal of historical data for the  dispersal of defoliants and herbicides from aircraft.  Aircraft have been used for dispersing such agents in agricultural contexts and as a means of reducing foliage where enemy forces could take cover during military conflicts.

During the Vietnam War, the United States undertook an extensive program to disperse defoliants as a means of reducing the area where enemy forces could hide.  This included the application of so-called “rainbow herbicides,” so called because each were assigned a color code to distinguish the type of chemical.   The best known of these was Agent Orange, a mixture which was generally safe for humans if formulated correctly, but which was widely contaminated by dioxin compounds due to poor quality control by manufacturers, resulting in detrimental effects on humans who were exposed.

Application of the compounds from too high an altitude would have been ineffective.  The material would have dispersed widely, resulting in an uncontrolled dispersal pattern of very low concentrations.  The compounds would have remained suspended in the air for some period of time, with much of the material breaking down, and when it finally did reach the ground, concentrations would be far too low to have any noticeable effects on vegetation.  In Vietnam, aircraft dispersing herbicides flew at the  extremely low altitude of about 150 feet.   Dispersing the herbicide also required that the wind speed be low or the chemicals would get scattered.

This low altitude spraying is also what caused the concentrations of dioxin to be high enough at ground level to cause human health issues, as well as the fact that many thousands of tons were used over a relatively small area.  If large enough quantities of dioxins were dumped at high altitude, it would increase the regional concentrations, at least slightly, but it would be an extremely inefficient way of doing so if that were the goal.

The aircraft used were typically prop-driven, slow moving aircraft that could spray the herbicide at such low levels and at low speeds.   Helicopters were also used.  Modern application of herbicides, insecticides and other such material by crop dusters also occurs at low levels, even lower in many circumstances.

Insecticides, Herbicides, Fertilizers – As mentioned above, agricultural chemicals are sometimes delivered by air.  It is an efficient method of providing large scale coverage when only low volumes of chemicals are required.  Crop dusting is most commonly done to deliver insecticides.  The practice may be used outside of the agricultural sector to combat mosquito and other pest insects.

As with herbicides, accomplishing this requires the aircraft to fly at extreme low altitudes.  Crop dusters may fly as ten feet above the fields being dusted.  Helicopters have increasingly been used for this.  Fixed wing airplanes used for crop dusting are designed for slow speeds and high maneuverability at low altitudes.  In fact, the altitudes at which crop dusters operate are so low, they have actually been known to collide with trucks and other objects on the ground.

If applied at higher altitudes, chemicals would be scattered and dispersed to a level where they would not be effective. Insecticides and other complex organic chemicals would at least partially break down before reaching ground levels.  Phosphates, nitrates and other nutrients would just be scattered into the atmospheric dust, which already contains such compounds.

Chaff - This is material that the military occasionally discharges into the atmosphere during combat and training excises. Chaff is intended to distract or obscure radar by providing false returns from reflective material.  Traditionally, chaff has been composed primarily of strips of metallic foil, but more modern chaff is often composed of thin fibers with a metallic coating.  Chaff may be dropped in large amounts over a wide area to obscure aircraft movements or may be deployed in bursts by an aircraft attempting to evade radar-based defenses such as surface to air missiles.

When deployed, chafe tends to remain in the air for a relatively short period of time.  It is therefore necessary that the material be dropped repeatedly over the same area.  However, the exact period of time it is aloft depends on altitude and wind patterns.   A common way of dispersing chaff is to have it packed into small containers with a explosive charge that blows it out in a burst.  An aircraft could be equipped with several of these containers for use in evading radar-based defenses.  It may also be dispersed by flares which aid in evading infrared-seeking missiles while dispersing chaff to confound radar.

Chaff does eventually make its way to the ground and is fairly harmless once it does, although it has caused problems when it has been blown into substations or other electrical infrastructure.  During its time in the air, chaff does occasionally show up on weather radar or other radar systems.  The image to the right shows chaff returns from a military training exercise on a regional weather radar screen.

The length of the fibers or strips used depends on the frequency of the radar which is being targeted.  On the battlefield, a variety of lengths are used to help obscure a wide range of possible radar frequencies.  However, the chaff used during training over inhabited areas is restricted to sizes that minimize the possible effects on air traffic control radar.

Conclusion:
There have been biological warfare programs, but none were ever based on the idea of spraying biological agents at high altitudes by jet aircraft.
There have been chemical warfare programs, but none were ever based on the idea of spraying chemical agents at high altitudes by jet aircraft.
There have been weather modification programs, but none were ever based on the idea of spraying weather modification agents at high altitudes by jet aircraft.
There have been aircraft-based herbicide and insecticide programs, but none ever used high altitude jet aircraft.

In all cases, this would be a poor way of getting significant concentrations of the materials to ground levels or would not have any significant effects on weather.


This entry was posted on Saturday, November 5th, 2011 at 6:29 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, Culture, History, Just LAME, Misc, Not Even Wrong. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



36 Responses to “What if chemicals were sprayed from planes”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    You forgot to mention the snowdrift of paperwork that a fuel-dump from a commercial aircraft generates. It’s been said that more damage is done by this factor, what with cutting and milling the trees for paper, and the subsequent disposal, than by the fuel itself.

    The human blood one is interesting. One of the main components in some fire suppression foams used in aviation is in fact made of cow’s blood. I wonder if the rumor spread from that.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    drbuzz0 Says:

            DV82XL said:

    You forgot to mention the snowdrift of paperwork that a fuel-dump from a commercial aircraft generates. It’s been said that more damage is done by this factor, what with cutting and milling the trees for paper, and the subsequent disposal, than by the fuel itself.

    That’s only when it is dumped because of an emergency landing and not by order of the Extra Teresterial Reptilian overlords from the center of the concave, hallow, geocentric, cubic earth under area 51, behind the grassy knoll next to bigfoot’s house.

    Those ones are for the purpose of mind control, weather modification and general purpose evil and therefore exempt from paperwork.

            DV82XL said:

    The human blood one is interesting. One of the main components in some fire suppression foams used in aviation is in fact made of cow’s blood. I wonder if the rumor spread from that.

    I don’t know where it came from. I would guess it’s just more of the bull**** about biological agents and various crap. I saw it in a chemtrail video, claiming that they had “dected” barium, antibiotics and components of human blood in chemtrails.

    I was unaware that animal blood was used as a component of manufacturing suppression foams. I guess it’s one more example of slaughterhouse waste finding a market. I assume it would be processed and denatured to some extent beyond it’s natural form to allow it to be stored long term without going bad.


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    That’s only when it is dumped because of an emergency landing and not by order of the Extra Teresterial Reptilian overlords

    Of course – how sill of me.

            drbuzz0 said:

    I was unaware that animal blood was used as a component of manufacturing suppression foams. I guess it’s one more example of slaughterhouse waste finding a market. I assume it would be processed and denatured to some extent beyond it’s natural form to allow it to be stored long term without going bad.

    They are in the class known as protein foams which contain natural proteins as the foaming agents. Unlike synthetic foams, protein foams are bio-degradable yet provides a foam blanket that is more heat-resistant and more durable.

    I understand there is some health and safety issues over the possibly of the prions which cause Mad Cow disease may survive processing and thus there is a move away from this material.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    Amoeba Says:

    Surely, some of the strongest arguments against the chemtrail loonies is the complete absence of spraying mechanisms on passenger and transport aircraft. It this myth were true, this couldn’t be achieved by an easily hidden aerosol-can type nozzle. It would need serious equipment, plus the tanks to carry all these mythical materials. Plus, where would the freight, passengers and their luggage fit?

    Mind-you the bit about our reptilian overlords was very convincing ;-)

    It all boils-down to the fact that some people believe the stupidest things.

    Oh the stupid of all this, it burns!

    http://www.plognark.com/?q=node/1129


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    Jason C Says:

    Well, Dr. Buzz0, you did a fine job of breaking it all down for those who may have just been initiated to the idea of “chemtrails” and need to clear things up, but for those who believe in it, there is no hope. Those folks are completely mad. I asked one of them why she thought airlines, or airplane owners, would go out of their way for such a thing as it would cost them time, money, weight on the aircraft, etc. Her reply: “They do it to keep the hospitals full of sick people”.

    These people will never get it, because to come full circle and admit “oh what a fool I was to believe such things” would be more humiliating for them than to keep believing this stupid crap. No one likes to admit they’ve been had by scam, and as such I suspect a lot of victims of scams do not report the crime because they are too embarrassed. But a scam like Lock Ness monster, chemtrails, or whatever should be easier to get over than being taken by a shell game on the street.

    I’m just really surprised at the staying power of these things, but then again even after a few thousand years people still get taken by shell games on the street.


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Amoeba said:

    Surely, some of the strongest arguments against the chemtrail loonies is the complete absence of spraying mechanisms on passenger and transport aircraft. It this myth were true, this couldn’t be achieved by an easily hidden aerosol-can type nozzle. It would need serious equipment, plus the tanks to carry all these mythical materials. Plus, where would the freight, passengers and their luggage fit?

    Like most conspiracy theories, there does not seem to be universal agreement on what the nature of the “chemtrail” planes is.

    Some of the claims are:

    1. They’re dedicated seceret aircraft that have been modified for chemtrail spraying and that’s all they do.
    2. They’re passenger aircraft that fly commercially but have been contracted to spray chemtrails in addition to their normal duties.
    3. There are no sprayers. The chemtrails are achieved by means of a fuel additive put in aviation fuels.
    4. They are known military aircraft that have been modified for full or parttime chemtrail spraying (the KC-135 is sometimes cited, as it is a tanker aircraft that there are many of in existance)
    5. Some combination of the above.

    It’s not uncommon to see pictures on the proported sprayers. They always turn out to be something else – refueling booms, APU exhaust ports, air samplers, antenna pods etc.


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    MikeC Says:

    I have a lot of fun on the “Above Top Secret” chemtrail forum sticking it to the chemmies – it could be a televised competitive sport I think – especially when you get a particularly interesting one on the hook!

    Some ideas I’ve seen on there:
    1/ “it” is in the fuel – never mind that you could go and buy a gallon of Jet A1 & analyse it to see what is in it, and the required standard is freely available on the ‘net (look up DEF Stan 91-91), or that any any particulates would screw up engine fuel systems, or that there’s no spare tanks on a/c to “inject” it into fuel, etc.

    2/ “it” is part of a binary or trinary weapon – the other parts being fluoride and/or vaccines. Thus the depopulation only occurs if you “take” all 3, and the ruling elite survive by not taking fluoride and/or vaccines

    3/ the C-130′s that sprayed corexit on the gulf are proof it is happening!! Wat – all 4 of them from the 757th airlift Sqn of the 910th airlift Wing?? (look up the 910th factsheet or the wiki pages for either unit for more info…….)

    4/ and of course the old favourite – “chemtrails” are easily identified because they last a long time and/or spread out to cover the sky – “genuine” contrails only last a short time – just how long depends on the chemmie you are baiting…er….sorry..talking to – anything from “a few seconds” to a minute, 10, 20, 30 or 40 minutes. There are numerous studies available about persistent contrails spreading out, as well as anecdotal (eyewitness) reports back at least as far as 1940 – but it is all falso of course – 1 chemmie on YT actually goes to the extent of “proving” that persistent contrails were added to a photo of B-17′s in WW2….

    Sorry…getting carried away here! But it is one of the bestest most silliest CT theories around – with heaps of info to debunk the claims that are made, and believers who start screaming “paid govt disinfo shill” almost on demand! :)


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    drbuzz0 Says:

            MikeC said:

    4/ and of course the old favourite – “chemtrails” are easily identified because they last a long time and/or spread out to cover the sky – “genuine” contrails only last a short time – just how long depends on the chemmie you are baiting…er….sorry..talking to – anything from “a few seconds” to a minute, 10, 20, 30 or 40 minutes. There are numerous studies available about persistent contrails spreading out, as well as anecdotal (eyewitness) reports back at least as far as 1940 – but it is all falso of course – 1 chemmie on YT actually goes to the extent of “proving” that persistent contrails were added to a photo of B-17′s in WW2….

    There are many accounts about persistent contrails going back to World War II and earlier and it was an issue that was studied and recorded both officially and unofficially.

    The airmen of the day dreaded the days when atmospheric conditions resulted in persistent contrails. Contrails are visible from a very long distance and point the way to the aircraft. Whatever route you tried to take back, if there were persistent contrails, it was impossible to hide. Every aircraft could be followed easily and they could tell where they came from them and where they went.

    This became less of an issue later in the war as radar improved and fighters became equipped with radar. But still, it was a big deal during the Second World War. It’s mentioned in a few films of the day, I think the original “Memphis Bell” film has scene where they mention the dreaded contrails.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    Paul Studier Says:

    You are too quick to dismiss releasing sulfur dioxide to combat global warming. If it is released in the stratosphere, then it persists for months or years. No rain in the stratosphere. It would be a big effort, but less expensive than shutting down the carbon economy.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    Anon Says:

            Paul Studier said:

    You are too quick to dismiss releasing sulfur dioxide to combat global warming. If it is released in the stratosphere, then it persists for months or years. No rain in the stratosphere. It would be a big effort, but less expensive than shutting down the carbon economy.

    What about the other sides effects?


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    MikeC Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    There are many accounts about persistent contrails going back to World War II and earlier and it was an issue that was studied and recorded both officially and unofficially.

    would you believe 1 chemmie has said that the contrails have been added in to WW2 footage in order to “hide” the conspiracy?

    I kid you not – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N304lzfVgN8

    The people are so bat-**** ….er….”wedded to their pet hoax”….. that rather than admit they are wrong they invent crap like this to explain away contrary data!


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    Chris Says:

    Dr. Buzzo – I think it is important to note how far downwind any fallout might possibly occur. Here on in California I tell the Chem Trail Crazies they don’t need to worry about the plans they see overhead. Those planes are targeting Nevada and Utah – they need to worry about the plans 200-500 miles further west over the horizon. The Jet Stream is usually cooking along at 100 – 300 mph. If you drop an item at 30,000 feet is is NOT coming straight down unless it is heavy enough to make a thud (or a splash depending on the surface). Anything you can see “floating” in the air is not coming straight down – period.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    drbuzz0 Says:

            MikeC said:

    would you believe 1 chemmie has said that the contrails have been added in to WW2 footage in order to “hide” the conspiracy?

    I kid you not – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N304lzfVgN8

    The people are so bat-**** ….er….”wedded to their pet hoax”….. that rather than admit they are wrong they invent crap like this to explain away contrary data!

    Um… two rather large problems with that…

    first, there are plenty of people still alive who were there during World War II (although less every year and wait another 20 years and it won’t be that way)

    Secondly, it’s not like these photos exist only online or in a limited number of sources.

    While cleaning out my grandparents house I found a set of encyclopedias printed in 1968. I would not be surprised if there were images of World War II in there that had some contrails. I suppose the government either has been up to this for many decades or managed to break into the locations of every old photograph and swap them out. Yep, everyone who owned an illustrated history book from the 1950′s or 1960′s or whenever or a copy of Life Magazine from WWII had it replaced.

    If you happen to ever find a musty old newspaper or magazine with old contrail pictures in it while cleaning out the attic or something, it just proves the government was there and planted that old magazine or newspaper. The same with every old film reel or old set of photographic negatives.

    If you happen to have had a relative in WWII, look through all their old stuff. If you find any reference to contrails, that means that a government agent has been in your place and planted it.

    And everyone who saw the documentary “Memphis Belle” when it first came out in 1944 is lying.

    My god, it’s just so goddamned idiotic I don’t even have words.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    MikeC Says:

    Yep – it’s a deep, deep, rabbit hole for these people!


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    Amoeba Says:

    Arguing with idiots, whether chemtrail loonies, 911 truthers etc., will place you at considerable risk of your head exploding.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    PsihoKekec Says:

    It’s the same with the prophecies believers, when their beliefs are proven false they prefer going deeper into fanaticism rather than admit they were wrong.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    PsihoKekec Says:

            MikeC said:

    Yep – it’s a deep, deep, rabbit hole for these people!

    And no cute, fuzzy, disapproving rabbits inside.


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

    Which all reminds me of this :

    http://xkcd.net/966/


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Matte Says:

    Sod the planes, beware of the chemtrails from windturbines instead!
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/28/the-wind-turbine-albedo-effect/

    Now this nullifies all those pesky arguments about spraying chemicals at high altitude!

    Repent, the doom is nigh!


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    Paul Studier Says:

            Anon said:

    What about the other sides effects?

    Less than a volcano because there is no ash.


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    Matthew Says:

            Paul Studier said:

    Less than a volcano because there is no ash.

    Less side effects than a volcano? Way to set the bar low, there…


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Paul Studier said:

    You are too quick to dismiss releasing sulfur dioxide to combat global warming. If it is released in the stratosphere, then it persists for months or years. No rain in the stratosphere. It would be a big effort, but less expensive than shutting down the carbon economy.

    I admit it’s not a topic I know a real lot about

            Chris said:

    Dr. Buzzo – I think it is important to note how far downwind any fallout might possibly occur. Here on in California I tell the Chem Trail Crazies they don’t need to worry about the plans they see overhead. Those planes are targeting Nevada and Utah – they need to worry about the plans 200-500 miles further west over the horizon. The Jet Stream is usually cooking along at 100 – 300 mph. If you drop an item at 30,000 feet is is NOT coming straight down unless it is heavy enough to make a thud (or a splash depending on the surface). Anything you can see “floating” in the air is not coming straight down – period.

    I was going to mention the dispersal down wind, but it turns out to be a rather complex problem. It depends on the weight of the material, cross winds, the jet stream at altitude etc. You’re right, it is usually 100-300 mph, but occasionally it’s a lot less and sometimes it has vortexes and loops that could bring it back or the wind goes in different directions at different altitudes.

    I did not feel like getting into a debate about something that complex.


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    MikeC Says:

            Paul Studier said:

    You are too quick to dismiss releasing sulfur dioxide to combat global warming. If it is released in the stratosphere, then it persists for months or years. No rain in the stratosphere. It would be a big effort, but less expensive than shutting down the carbon economy.

    As othes have pointed out there’s the potential side effects.

    also there’s no evidence it is actually being done.

    The brits were goign to do an experiment with balloons spraying sea water recently to se if it is feasible – http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/SPICE/SPICE.htm – but it’s been delayed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15132989


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    Proving You Wrong Says:

    I’m not sure who pays for these lies to be told or if it really is someone stupid enough not to see the **** they spray in our skies every day, but it is real and kind of nanotoxins they are always spraying would make you **** your pants. It’s much worse than something simple like jet fuel, so don’t be fooled.

    It has even been admitted. You want proof? Here is your proof. Just read what someone from Evergreen Aviation said about one of their chem spray airplanes. I am tying directly from the recording of what he said.

    “We’re very excited about the potential uses for the Supertanker. We designed it to be a very flexible system that can disperse material at different rates. We can empty the taks all at once or do it in several passes at any rate. The tanks are interchangable and can be refilled rapidly, so we can disperse almost anything without much modification. We’re looking beyond fire suppression uses for the Supertanker. In addition the aircraft has a lot of potential in other areas including spill dispersal chemicals, pest or biological control and weather modification. We’re looking forward to conducting some experiments with using the aircraft in those roles.”

    And the proof:

    “There’s definately a market there. Airplanes have been used to disperse various chemicals like that for years. Ours is much larger than any of the existing platforms, so we can disperse a lot more and have a bigger effect with a smaller number of flights, which gives a huge advantage.”

    Just look for the info. it’s all there. How long till you delete this comment?


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    Matte Says:

    Watch out peeps, I think we have a live one!


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    Matthew Says:

    Because, of course, the existence of crop dusters, firefighters, and cloud seeders implies anything other than that we need crops dusted, fires fought, and rain increased.


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    Mikec Says:

            Proving You Wrong said:

    It has even been admitted.

    You want proof? Here is your proof.

    Just read what someone from Evergreen Aviation said about one of their chem spray airplanes. I am tying directly from the recording of what he said.

    ” …snip… The tanks are interchangable and can be refilled rapidly, so we can disperse almost anything without much modification. We’re looking beyond fire suppression uses for the Supertanker. In addition the aircraft has a lot of potential in other areas including spill dispersal chemicals, pest or biological control and weather modification.

    We’re looking forward to conducting some experiments with using the aircraft in those roles.”

    Wel it wouldn’t be the 1st aircraft in the world used for spraying dispersant, pest or biological controls or cloud seeding.

    Can’t see it doing much cloud seeding tho…..and of course 1 747 modified as a tasnker doesn’t really explain contrails all around the world every day either.

    Oh and of course the tanker itself releases “stuff” from it’s fuselage…..not from its engines as the contrails identified as “chemtrails” are generated.

    And the proof:

    “There’s definately a market there. Airplanes have been used to disperse various chemicals like that for years.

    Ours is much larger than any of the existing platforms, so we can disperse a lot more and have a bigger effect with a smaller number of flights, which gives a huge advantage.”

    Just look for the info. it’s all there.

    Yep – how come you don’t see it??

    How long till you delete this comment?

    Comments like yours serve to embarras the poster for years afterwards – so probably until you realise you’ve been duped, had, conned, scammed, and ask for it to be removed!! :)


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    Amoeba Says:

    The question is:
    Is it possible to distinguish between a) a genuine fruitcake and b) someone successfully imitating a fruitcake?

    But ‘Proving You Wrong’, is either one or the other, but if I were a betting person I would bet he’s an a). The condescending tone naturally assuming he’s a member of the omniscienti informing the ignorant is what persuades me – what irony!

    What next? Homoeopathic chemtrails?


    Quote Comment
  29. 29
    Anon Says:

            Amoeba said:

    The question is:
    Is it possible to distinguish between a) a genuine fruitcake and b) someone successfully imitating a fruitcake?

    Generalise Poe’s law and you’ll see that it really isn’t.

            Amoeba said:

    But ‘Proving You Wrong’, is either one or the other, but if I were a betting person I would bet he’s an a). The condescending tone naturally assuming he’s a member of the omniscienti informing the ignorant is what persuades me – what irony!

    Though I do tend to agree with you.

            Amoeba said:

    What next? Homoeopathic chemtrails?

    If you see a plane that doesn’t have a contrail then it’s actually a really super-strong homoepathic chemtrail so diluted it can’t even be detected.


    Quote Comment
  30. 30
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Mikec said:

    Wel it wouldn’t be the 1st aircraft in the world used for spraying dispersant, pest or biological controls or cloud seeding.

    Can’t see it doing much cloud seeding tho…..and of course 1 747 modified as a tasnker doesn’t really explain contrails all around the world every day either.

    Oh and of course the tanker itself releases “stuff” from it’s fuselage…..not from its engines as the contrails identified as “chemtrails” are generated.

    The supertanker is a pretty amazing aircraft with impressive capabilities.

    For those who don’t know: the Evergreen Supertanker is a modified 747 aircraft which has internal tanks capable of carrying close to 80,000 liters of liquid and a system that dumps it out the back with a compressed air system.

    It was conceived as a fire fighting aircraft. It’s the largest tanker in the world. It can carry water or fire retardant. It can be refilled relatively quickly, it has the avionics to make low-level, low speed passes at under one thousand feet and can wet down an area about 100 meters across and 5 km long (about 100 yards wide and three miles long). It also has space on the upper deck for additional crew to act as a command and observation post for fire fighting.

    It came about when the US Department of the Interior put out a request for a next generation fire fighting aircraft. The firefighting aircraft in existence have really been aging and are of much lower capacity. Some are actually converted World War II flying boats – that’s how old they are, and of course, the capacity is often 10% or less of the Supertanker. The next largest tanker is a converted DC-10, but that’s only about half the capacity.

    Given the sheer size of the aircraft as a liquid tanker and dumper, it’s obvious to start imagining the possibility of other applications for the plane. Spills are one thing it could do. It could dump huge amounts of dispersant or be used to aid in decontamination. It also could find uses in dust control during construction or demolition operations or in dispersing fertilizer or controlling pests. It could dump larvacide on mosquito breeding grounds etc.

    These are all established uses of aircraft. The supertanker is larger so it could do more of it.

    As for cloud seeding, it’s a possibility. It would dump a huge amount of material, so it could have a much larger potential effect than a smaller aircraft. It probably would not be much good for dispersing silver iodine, but perhaps could be used for something like super-cooled brine solution or something.

    When the words “weather modification” are thrown around, people seem to assume it means the government has a big control panel that they can turn on storms where they want and steer weather systems in any direction. Cloud seeding is nothing like that. It’s effect is localized and temporary and it’s limited in what it can do. Cloud seeding can only cause clouds that would produce precipitation anyway to do so a bit sooner. It can’t make rain from a dry sky, it can’t steer weather systems, it can’t make a storm suddenly stop. Nothing like that. The reality of weather modification like that is that it’s fairly modest in what it can do, when it works at all, which it sometimes does not.


    Quote Comment
  31. 31
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

            Proving You Wrong said:

    You want proof? Here is your proof.

    Just look for the info. it’s all there.

    Dude, that’s not proof, that’s not even circumstantial evidence. It’s like saying “JFK was shot by a second gunman who was never caught. Josef Stalin was alive at the time and owned a gun. Therefore Josef Stalin killed JFK.”

    Is it possibly to disperse chemical from a plane? Yes.

    Is it possible to create a conspiracy capable of dispersing chemtrail toxins over vast areas of the planet without anyone in the aviation industry ever coming clean, blowing the whistle and showing proof of it? No.


    Quote Comment
  32. 32
    Marcus Davies Says:

    I will definitely pass back and check out more of stuff


    Quote Comment
  33. 33
    Jim Says:

    What’s with the crisscross lines in the sky’s? Let me guess it’s because of high airline traffic…


    Quote Comment
  34. 34
    Hemi Says:

            Jim said:

    What’s with the crisscross lines in the sky’s? Let me guess it’s because of high airline traffic…

    Yes.


    Quote Comment
  35. 35
    Karla Says:

    https://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C2EODB_enCA549CA549&q=planes+loaded+with+chemicals+for+spraying&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.511565


    Quote Comment
  36. 36
    Matte Says:

    Wow Karla, you have managed to find webpages using Google put up by the abnormally uneducated nutjobs that the web is rife with, good job!

    Oh, wait! I guess Yves Rossy is helping the evil lizard alien lords with his little wing too!?
    http://hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/jetman-human-flight.png?w=470&h=255


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string Y1jSEY to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam