http://educate-yourself.org/ct/
The above link will bring you to the site that the full conspiracy theory was posted. On this site, I’ll break it down and explain why the theory is false.
Anybody who reads conspiracy theories knows about ‘chemtrails’. According to theorists, these are chemical agents sprayed in the air and are designed to look like contrails, which are clouds of sublimated H2O that airplanes leave. So let’s see how true this theory is.
The link posted at the beginning brings you to Educate-Yourself, which is renowned for not posting evidence of its theories and simply demanding that you listen to them (they justify this lack of evidence by saying that people should educate themselves, instead of relying on them). As a result, it’s nearly impossible to argue against them, since there isn’t anything to argue. This makes it necessary to follow their links. So the first link we’ll follow is:
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/chemtrailsoverpenn04may07.shtml
This is E-Y editor Ken Adachi’s response to a reader asking about the difference between “airplane exhaust” and chemtrails.
You’re seeing chemtrails. Commercial jet engines burn fuel so efficiently that you would never “see” exhaust fumes, especially from such such a great distance, and they couldn’t possibly contain enough particulate matter to be seen as a plume.
Wrong. All exhaust systems release one similar gas: water vapour. When released into extremely cold conditions (-40 degrees C), this vapour a) condenses into water, or b) freezes directly from a gas to solid ice in a process known as sublimation. This is almost exactly what happens to normal clouds.
Notice how the water vapour lines up directly with the engines, and how there is a large space between the engines and the contrail. This more or less proves that these aren’t chemtrails; aluminum, even in the most minuscule proportions, would have turned this space white, and barium would have made it green. So it appears that even the DENSEST trail is metal-free.
The normal response is then “Not through the engines, Spray nozzles are used”.
But spray nozzles are yet to be featured in ANY chemtrail video.
You wouldn’t even smell fumes if you were standing relatively close to the plane with their engines running.
Obviously Mr. Anachi hasn’t spent much time near jets. Jet fumes have a rather strong smell. Because I’m a nice guy, I’ll even give you a link: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/388110/
How many times have you’ve flown on a commercial jet and could “see” any sort of visible exhaust plume coming out the rear of the engine? Never, right?
Notice how in both of these images the contrail is only visible behind the plane. Most airline passengers don’t see these because most airplanes aren’t fitted with rear-view mirrors.
There are now a lot of disinformation web sites on the internet which try to convince people that they are seeing jet engine “exhaust” or the “formation of cirrus clouds” from jet engine exhaust, etc.. It’s nonsense, utter bogus nonsense. The “explanations” being offered up by these disinformation web sites to account for chemtrails are so preposterous that it doesn’t deserve serious discussion.
I presume that this is Mr. Adachi’s justification for why he hasn’t returned my and countless others’ emails asking him for proof of chemtrails.
Let’s go to the next article:
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/chemtrailsfakeornot15jan08.shtml
Ah, here’s a good one. Here’s yet another one of Adachi’s replies to skeptics. Instead of evidence of chemtrails, though, he decided to educate us as to who’s in charge. I’ll let you read the whole article, but here’s the best part:
Those at the top are usually reptilian shape shifters or are human/alien hybrids. Most are not normal human beings in any sense of the word. Although they may APPEAR to be human, they are not human. Someone who has access to much higher inside information than I, had it confirmed that about 70% of the US Senate are reptilians masquerading as human beings.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………I honestly don’t know what to say to that. Conspiracy theorists, is this your source of information?
Here’s an interesting one:
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/blackberamsandshadows15oct08.shtml
Mr. Adachi seems convinced that mystical ‘black beams’ are being projected and somehow assist chemtrail sprayers. He’s wide off the mark.
These black beams are shadows cast by contrails. A full explanation can be found here:
http://contrailscience.com/contrails-dark-lines-chemtrails/
The most interesting type of contrail dark line is when the contrail is lined up with the sun. This produces a slice of shadow through the atmosphere that looks like a dark line when viewed edge-on. It is quite difficult to visualize what is going on since you have to think in three dimensions, and we are accustomed to thinking of shadows as being flat, since they are usually cast on surfaces. You are not seeing a thin dark shadow here, you are actually seeing a huge slab of very faint shadow, but it’s viewed from looking along the edge. Imagine you have a thick sheet of glass. Viewed head on, it’s transparent, but if you look at it from the edge, it seems a lot darker…Given the line (contrail) and direction vector (sun) we can form a plane that contains the line, and is parallel to the direction vector. This plane cuts through the contrail, the atmosphere, and intersects the ground. Projecting two end points of the contrail along the plane in the direction of the sun’s vector, we get essentially a two dimensional parallelepiped (although the far edge is not very well defined). This parallelepiped is quite thin (it’s as thick as the contrail), so when viewed from the side, you won’t see much. But when the viewer is in the plane of the parallelepiped – specifically anywhere along the line on the ground formed by the intersection with the plane formed by the contrail and the sun – then they will be viewing the parallelepiped from edge-on, and so it will seem to be a dark line that intersects the contrail.
I promise you, it’ll make more sense when you read the link. Here’s a picture of a shadow:
Notice how in the above picture, the black beam can be seen on ground and water as well as the sky. This is more or less proof that it is a shadow.
Another problem with the ‘black beam’ theory:
Think of a mechanism that will project black into a sunlit sky. There are none. The only part of a sky that can be black is a part where the sun is partially blocked by something. Common sense can answer a lot of questions.
UPDATE
Here’s an explanation for how contrails form written in the March 1943 edition of Popular Science:
Contrails are formed by the exact same mechanisms today as they were in 1943, as explained above. Old propellor planes used fuel which is essentially the same thing used in modern day jets. The engines release water vapor, and contrails form if the conditions are right. It even states that contrails “can last for some time”. It also provides an explanation of how vortices create contrails. Keep in mind that even the most deranged chemtrail theorists don’t say that chemtrails have been around since 1943.
Будем здоровы!
Влади́мир
Daily Dose of Logic 
BTW, this blog isn’t dedicated to the chemtrail conspiracy. For more in-depth information on the topic, view http://contrailscience.com/
More like a daily dose of propaganda and disinformation. I noted that you cherry-picked the photos, so as to show only those that support your contention that the trails are coming from the engine exhaust. However, there is ample evidence showing they are not at all coming from the engines and that, in fact, the pilots are able to shut off and turn on the aerosol spray tanks these trails are, in fact, coming from. In the case of those trails that do come from jet exhaust, this is due to a jet fuel additive that produces these trails.
Chemtrails are NOT water vapor, as you’ve erroneously claimed, but are, rather, composed of nano particles of aluminum and various heavy metals including barium, cesium and strontium. This has been independently verified by several laboratories around the world.
No, you wouldn’t “smell any fumes,” as there are none and no one has ever claimed there are. Nor has anyone ever claimed that passengers aboard a chemtrail plane can see the trails form inside the plane, so your comments about these things are totally irrelevant.
No one is claiming that chemtrails are jet engine exhaust, either, so you are attacking a straw man on that point, as well. These are not jet contrails, which are composed of ice crystals from water vapor. Contrails typically disperse within seconds or minutes, depending upon altitude and air temperature. Chemtrails, on the other hand, billow out and spread and hang in the sky for hours.
The Educate Yourself site is hardly our “source of information.” The fact is there are many websites on the subject of chemtrails, for one thing, but the main source of information about them is to be found in the sky, as well as in the labs that have analyzed particulate fallout from these trails.
As for the so-called “black beam,” few in the truth movement talk about “black chemtrails” and those who do so are simply ignorant of the fact that these are cast shadows. However, you will find that normal jet contrails don’t cast any shadows that are visible, either in the air or on the ground. Why? Because they are composed of diffuse microscopic ice crystals that are melting as soon as they are produced. Chemtrails, on the other hand, have been seen to cast shadows, under certain conditions, as they are composed of opaque matter (i.e., nano-particulate heavy metals).
Vladimer, you seem to have a great deal of free time on your own hands, if you spend so much time and effort trying to attack so-called “conspiracy theorists” (there is nothing theoretical about conspiracies, which do exist). Or maybe you’re actually being paid to do this, perhaps by one of the government agencies (the NSA, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Air Force, etc.) that have admitted to having an army of hackers and disinformation agents working full time on the internet to counter truthers?
. I noted that you cherry-picked the photos, so as to show only those that support your contention that the trails are coming from the engine exhaust
Do you care to show me some other photos?
In the case of those trails that do come from jet exhaust, this is due to a jet fuel additive that produces these trails.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBaPJCXMPd8
Do you know anything about jet fuel? It requires VERY specific amounts of chemicals; any additives would severely compromise the plane’s ability to fly.
This YouTube video shows contrails. For instance, that “third chemtrail” at 2:00 is caused by a vortex on the plane’s tail, and the other two are from vortexes on the elevators. Other “chemtrails” include exhaust from the plane’s APU and contrails formed by the pane flying through varying areas of temperature and humidity.
Chemtrails are NOT water vapor, as you’ve erroneously claimed, but are, rather, composed of nano particles of aluminum and various heavy metals including barium, cesium and strontium. This has been independently verified by several laboratories around the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI
Did you read my statement? Do you know the space between the plane and where these “chemtrails” form? Aluminum, even in the smallest amounts, would turn this space WHITE. Barium, even in the smallest proportions, would turn this space GREEN. So it appears as though even the densest contrails don’t contain metals.
As for the video, its conversions are off by 100X. The lab results revealed 68.8 ug/L, which converts to 0.0688 ppm. This is well below the EPA limit of 2 ppm, and renders the video bunk. The news agency that reported it has since retracted this report.
Contrails typically disperse within seconds or minutes, depending upon altitude and air temperature. Chemtrails, on the other hand, billow out and spread and hang in the sky for hours.
This is incorrect. How long contrails last depends on the humidity. If the air has so much water vapor in it already that it can’t hold any more (i.e. it’s “supersaturated”), then the ice crystals can’t sublimate, and so the contrail will stay around for a long time. The ice crystals might even attract water from the air, if there is enough, and the contrail will get thicker. Winds might make the contrail spread out to even cover the whole sky.
The above is a simplification, as other factors like temperature, pressure, and sunlight have an effect. But it explains the basic reasons why some trails last only a few seconds, and some can last for hours, and spread out to cover the sky.
And if contrails disperse in a matter of seconds, then how come clouds last so long?
However, you will find that normal jet contrails don’t cast any shadows that are visible, either in the air or on the ground. Why? Because they are composed of diffuse microscopic ice crystals that are melting as soon as they are produced. Chemtrails, on the other hand, have been seen to cast shadows, under certain conditions, as they are composed of opaque matter (i.e., nano-particulate heavy metals).
For starters, how can these ice crystals melt instantly in humid, -40 degrees C weather?
And what about this?
Didn’t you say that chemtrails “billow out”?
“Do you care to show me some other photos?”
I posted a link to a video that clearly – and repeatedly – shows several examples of aerosol spraying in action. This footage shows, without a doubt, that the trails are NOT coming from the engines at all. Furthermore, it clearly shows several examples of the aerosol spraying mode being turned on and off while in flight. I suppose you’ll explain this by saying the pilot was alternately shutting down the jet engines and restarting them while in flight?
“Do you know anything about jet fuel? It requires VERY specific amounts of chemicals; any additives would severely compromise the plane’s ability to fly.”
No, they wouldn’t and it depends on the additives used. Typical jet fuel is mixture of components, chiefly kerosene. There are additives in the gasoline you burn in your car’s engines. These don’t cause your car’s engine to fail, do they?
“This YouTube video shows contrails. For instance, that “third chemtrail” at 2:00 is caused by a vortex on the plane’s tail, and the other two are from vortexes on the elevators. Other “chemtrails” include exhaust from the plane’s APU and contrails formed by the pane flying through varying areas of temperature and humidity. ”
No, it doesn’t. These are chemtrails, not contrails and they are coming straight from the aerosol tanks aboard the plane. Vortexes have nothing to do with them. A vortex is an air current; it doesn’t generate thick plumes of particulate heavy metals that hang in the sky for hours. Temperature and humidity have nothing to do with chemtrails, either. They and do occur at any altitude, unlike contrails, which are composed of water vapor that freezes, momentarily, into microscopic ice particles. Contrails, thus, require a colder air temperature in order to occur at all and this is usually attainable only at higher altitudes. Chemtrails, on the other hand, have been commonly photographed at much lower normal flight altitudes; i.e., well under 20,000 feet.
“Did you read my statement? Do you know the space between the plane and where these “chemtrails” form? Aluminum, even in the smallest amounts, would turn this space WHITE. Barium, even in the smallest proportions, would turn this space GREEN. So it appears as though even the densest contrails don’t contain metals.
As for the video, its conversions are off by 100X. The lab results revealed 68.8 ug/L, which converts to 0.0688 ppm. This is well below the EPA limit of 2 ppm, and renders the video bunk. The news agency that reported it has since retracted this report.”
Yes, I read your statement. Did you read anything I said, or look at the materials I linked to? What do you mean do I “know the space between where the plane and these chemtrails form?” If, by “know,” you’re suggesting there is some special property of the atmosphere between, say, 20,000 feet and the ground that I am not aware of, I believe you’re mistaken. Yes, nano particles of aluminum will – and DO – turn the sky a milky white as these trails dissipate over time. This is a common observation of chemtrails, in fact. I don’t, however, know where you are getting the erroneous idea that nano-particulate barium would turn ANYTHING green, though. This is evident from many independent lab tests of chemtrail fallout, which shows barium in high amounts. It is, along with aluminum, the most common element found in chemtrails. Contrary your opinion that chemtrails don’t contain any heavy metals, these same lab tests have shown otherwise, as I stated, as as the video I posted a link to shows, as well, despite your attempts to misrepresent the findings shown. The report has never been retracted, to my knowledge and I’d like to know what proof you have that it has been.
“This is incorrect. How long contrails last depends on the humidity. If the air has so much water vapor in it already that it can’t hold any more (i.e. it’s “supersaturated”), then the ice crystals can’t sublimate, and so the contrail will stay around for a long time. The ice crystals might even attract water from the air, if there is enough, and the contrail will get thicker. Winds might make the contrail spread out to even cover the whole sky.
The above is a simplification, as other factors like temperature, pressure, and sunlight have an effect. But it explains the basic reasons why some trails last only a few seconds, and some can last for hours, and spread out to cover the sky.
And if contrails disperse in a matter of seconds, then how come clouds last so long?”
No, again, you are incorrect. Contrails form as a result of frozen water vapor. They are composed of ice crystals and these crystals melt almost as quickly as they form, which is why an actual contrail never grows in length. It remains a steady length, following behind the plane. Chemtrails, on the other hand, are commonly seen being deposited from horizon to horizon and then they hang there for several hours, blown about by the winds. Contrails ARE humidity and the presence or lack of atmospheric humidity usually has no effect upon a contrail’s duration. It is air temperature, not humidity, that determines how long a contrail persists. This is a function of altitude, not atmospheric humidity. The effects you have described have no applicability to contrails, but DO describe exactly what happens when a plane leaves a trail of particulate heavy metals. Clouds are not formed in the same way as contrails. They are formed by evaporation and condensation of water that has risen from ground level and, typically, they are far larger and denser and contain far more water vapor. A single cumulonimbus cloud is typically miles high and hundreds of miles in width and length. This is why they last longer than jet contrails do. The more water vapor, the longer it takes to dissipate.
“For starters, how can these ice crystals melt instantly in humid, -40 degrees C weather?
And what about this?
Didn’t you say that chemtrails “billow out”?”
Yes, I did say that chemtrails typically “billow out,” meaning that, over a period of minutes or hours (depending upon altitude and wind speed), they are spread out by the prevailing wind. Obviously, when they have just been formed, there hasn’t been sufficient time for this to occur yet. Also, if it is a relatively calm day, a trail will not spread out as much as it will on windy day, due to less interference from the wind. The photo you’ve posted a link to is a typical case in point. On a windy day, several passes made chemtrail planes will cause multiple trails to fan out across the sky, creating what appears to be a “cloud” layer or “overcast.”
As for the melting of ice crystals in contrails, it is self-evident this is what occurs, as the trail never gets any longer. Typically, it remains roughly about six to ten times the length of the aircraft and follows the plane out of sight (as observed from the ground). Chemtrails, as I’ve said, do the opposite. They grow longer as the plane traverses the sky overhead, leaving a trail many miles in length that persists long after the plane has flown out of sight.
I posted a link to a video that clearly – and repeatedly – shows several examples of aerosol spraying in action. This footage shows, without a doubt, that the trails are NOT coming from the engines at all. Furthermore, it clearly shows several examples of the aerosol spraying mode being turned on and off while in flight. I suppose you’ll explain this by saying the pilot was alternately shutting down the jet engines and restarting them while in flight?
No, he probably wasn’t turning off his engines in mid-flight – although in several of those videos, you could tell that he was turning off the APU when it was no longer needed.
Also, if chemtrails hang in the air, then how come the video showed many trails which disappeared almost instantly?
No, they wouldn’t and it depends on the additives used. Typical jet fuel is mixture of components, chiefly kerosene. There are additives in the gasoline you burn in your car’s engines. These don’t cause your car’s engine to fail, do they?
There’s a difference between “minuscule amounts of additives” and “massive amounts of heavy metals and aerosols”. Try filling your car with barium and see what happens.
No, it doesn’t. These are chemtrails, not contrails and they are coming straight from the aerosol tanks aboard the plane
You have no proof that there are aerosol tanks aboard any planes at all.
Yes, vortices do cause trails. The cores of vortices spin at very high speed and are regions of very low pressure. To first approximation, these low-pressure regions form with little exchange of heat with the neighboring regions (i.e. adiabatically), so the local temperature in the low-pressure regions drops, too. If it drops below the local dew point, there results a condensation of water vapor present in the cores of wingtip vortices, making them visible. The temperature may even drop below the local freezing point, in which case ice crystals will form inside the cores.
This is explained mathematically in the “wingtip vortices” section of this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=j6qE7YAwwCoC&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427&dq=condensation+in+wingtip+vortices&source=bl&ots=S8a5ApDgog&sig=wMqbujbSVVVVGJ9yNq9CnQyW368&hl=en&ei=E6BLSpj2FZqytwfT0PibDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8
And do you see any aerosol tanks on this plane?
A vortex is an air current; it doesn’t generate thick plumes of particulate heavy metals that hang in the sky for hours.
That’s because there aren’t any particulate heavy metals.
Temperature and humidity have nothing to do with chemtrails, either. They and do occur at any altitude, unlike contrails, which are composed of water vapor that freezes, momentarily, into microscopic ice particles. Contrails, thus, require a colder air temperature in order to occur at all and this is usually attainable only at higher altitudes. Chemtrails, on the other hand, have been commonly photographed at much lower normal flight altitudes; i.e., well under 20,000 feet.
Do you have any photos?
And what about these?
These are contrails that have formed from cars at ground level. They can spread out and form a mist, meaning they don’t instantly disappear:
What do you mean do I “know the space between where the plane and these chemtrails form?”
Like this:
Yes, nano particles of aluminum will – and DO – turn the sky a milky white as these trails dissipate over time.
But what about those big gaps between the plane and the trail (see above)? Does aluminum magically turn invisible when near aircraft?
I don’t, however, know where you are getting the erroneous idea that nano-particulate barium would turn ANYTHING green, though.
When barium comes into contact with air, it burns green. This means that if you were to photograph a contrail, the space directly behind the plane would be bright green.
This is evident from many independent lab tests of chemtrail fallout, which shows barium in high amounts. It is, along with aluminum, the most common element found in chemtrails.
The only one you showed me was incorrect by a factor of 100, making it 0.0688 ppm of barium, which is enough to be assumed natural.
Contrary your opinion that chemtrails don’t contain any heavy metals, these same lab tests have shown otherwise, as I stated, as as the video I posted a link to shows, as well, despite your attempts to misrepresent the findings shown.
I am not misrepresenting your video; it was simply wrong. Or are you denying that 68.8 ug/L is 0.0688 ppm?
No, again, you are incorrect. Contrails form as a result of frozen water vapor. They are composed of ice crystals and these crystals melt almost as quickly as they form, which is why an actual contrail never grows in length. It remains a steady length, following behind the plane. Chemtrails, on the other hand, are commonly seen being deposited from horizon to horizon and then they hang there for several hours, blown about by the winds. Contrails ARE humidity and the presence or lack of atmospheric humidity usually has no effect upon a contrail’s duration. It is air temperature, not humidity, that determines how long a contrail persists. This is a function of altitude, not atmospheric humidity. The effects you have described have no applicability to contrails, but DO describe exactly what happens when a plane leaves a trail of particulate heavy metals.
And do you have proof of any of this? At all?
Clouds are not formed in the same way as contrails. They are formed by evaporation and condensation of water that has risen from ground level and, typically, they are far larger and denser and contain far more water vapor. A single cumulonimbus cloud is typically miles high and hundreds of miles in width and length. This is why they last longer than jet contrails do. The more water vapor, the longer it takes to dissipate.
Contrails ARE clouds. What about those cirrus clouds you see in the sky? Those aren’t hundreds of miles in length, yet they still last hours.
Yes, I did say that chemtrails typically “billow out,” meaning that, over a period of minutes or hours (depending upon altitude and wind speed), they are spread out by the prevailing wind. Obviously, when they have just been formed, there hasn’t been sufficient time for this to occur yet. Also, if it is a relatively calm day, a trail will not spread out as much as it will on windy day, due to less interference from the wind. The photo you’ve posted a link to is a typical case in point. On a windy day, several passes made chemtrail planes will cause multiple trails to fan out across the sky, creating what appears to be a “cloud” layer or “overcast.”
Currently, your only proof of any of this would rely on whether or not contrails can make shadows. You’d also have to prove that contrails disappear instantly and don’t spread.
As for the melting of ice crystals in contrails, it is self-evident this is what occurs, as the trail never gets any longer. Typically, it remains roughly about six to ten times the length of the aircraft and follows the plane out of sight (as observed from the ground). Chemtrails, as I’ve said, do the opposite. They grow longer as the plane traverses the sky overhead, leaving a trail many miles in length that persists long after the plane has flown out of sight.
The main flaw in your arguments is that you’re using the thing you’re trying to prove as proof. This is like saying that the sun revolves around the earth, and saying that the earth is stationary as proof. You CANNOT use chemtrails as evidence that chemtrails exist.
You’re saying that persisting contrails don’t exist because chemtrails exist, and as a result chemtrails exist. Once again, you can’t use chemtrails as proof of chemtrails if you can’t prove they exist without using them as evidence.
“No, he probably wasn’t turning off his engines in mid-flight – although in several of those videos, you could tell that he was turning off the APU when it was no longer needed.
Also, if chemtrails hang in the air, then how come the video showed many trails which disappeared almost instantly?”
You might want to define what “APU” stands for instead of assuming everyone knows. Obviously, the only thing being turned on and off is the aerosol canisters from which the chemtrails are being sprayed.
“There’s a difference between “minuscule amounts of additives” and “massive amounts of heavy metals and aerosols”. Try filling your car with barium and see what happens.”
I didn’t use either the terms minuscule amounts” or “massive amounts.” You did. These are nano-particulates; i.e. sub-microscopic particles. They would have no effect whatever on the performance of the engines. However, I’m not the one who stated chemtrails are coming from jet fuel exhaust, in the first place; you did. I said they come from pressurized aerosol canisters aboard the plane.
“You have no proof that there are aerosol tanks aboard any planes at all.”
Actually, I do, and you have no proof they are not.
The equipment has been patented, for one thing:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=5484
This photo clearly shows trails that are not coming from the engines:
http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/chemtrails.jpg?w=450&h=365
Neither are these:
Then there is this photo of the interior of a chemtrail plane, showing the canisters:
By the way, there are thousands of chemtrail photos that make it abundantly clear that these planes are not flying any FAA-approved routes. Here are few examples:
“Like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Qantas_and_contrails.jpg”
What about it? This is an example of chemtrails. So what?
“But what about those big gaps between the plane and the trail (see above)? Does aluminum magically turn invisible when near aircraft?”
No, it doesn’t. It’s being dispersed from the canisters under high pressure. If you’ve ever observed any aerosol spray, you can sometimes see nothing coming out near the nozzle, but, the farther the content is from the nozzle, the more it slows down and coalesces. So what?
“When barium comes into contact with air, it burns green. This means that if you were to photograph a contrail, the space directly behind the plane would be bright green.”
That is incorrect. barium doesn’t burn on contact with air, it burns in air when HEAT is introduced, as this page makes clear:
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorganic/group2/reacto2.html
Since chemtrails are not coming from jet exhaust, but from compressed aerosol tanks, there is no heat applied to the barium particles, hence, there is no green coloration.
“The only one you showed me was incorrect by a factor of 100, making it 0.0688 ppm of barium, which is enough to be assumed natural.”
I don’t know where you are getting the idea anything about the video was “incorrect.” There is nothing “natural” about barium in the atmosphere.
“And do you have proof of any of this? At all?”
Only my own eyewitness observations, over a period of three years (in the case of chemtrails; over a lifetime, in the case of contrails), combined with those of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, as well as much reading, study and research over more than three years. And what proof to do YOU have of anything you are saying?
“Contrails ARE clouds. What about those cirrus clouds you see in the sky? Those aren’t hundreds of miles in length, yet they still last hours.”
No, they are not. Contrails are man-made, by jet plane exhaust, and they do not persist. They are not even cloud-like. Chemtrails, on the other hand are what you are seeing persisting in the sky as so-called “cirrus clouds.” These are not clouds at all, but are chemtrails that have been blown by the wind.
“Currently, your only proof of any of this would rely on whether or not contrails can make shadows. You’d also have to prove that contrails disappear instantly and don’t spread.”
I’ve already presented evidence that contrails do not persist and this is observable in video footage comparing chemtrails and contrails in the same air space:
No, whether or not contrails “can make a shadow” has nothing to do with proving the existence of chemtrails, and there is abundant proof of their existence. Try going stepping away from your computer and taking a walk outside and look up.
“The main flaw in your arguments is that you’re using the thing you’re trying to prove as proof. This is like saying that the sun revolves around the earth, and saying that the earth is stationary as proof. You CANNOT use chemtrails as evidence that chemtrails exist.
You’re saying that persisting contrails don’t exist because chemtrails exist, and as a result chemtrails exist. Once again, you can’t use chemtrails as proof of chemtrails if you can’t prove they exist without using them as evidence.”
There is no flaw in my “arguments” and your statement is absolute nonsense. Of course I can use chemtrails as evidence of their own existence; they are self-evident. All one has to do is go outside and observe them with their own eyes. Of course, you have no interest in doing so because that would entail running up against the possibility of proving yourself wrong by your own first-hand observations, wouldn’t it? Whether you admit they exist or not is irrelevant because I and hundreds of millions of people around the world are observing them almost daily and recording them on video and in still photographs. Besides, the government has admitted to not only their spraying, but to their spraying of sarin and VX nerve gas over Wiltshire, England in the early sixties, which certainly indicates they have done chemical spraying over civilian populations before and would have no qualms about doing so now. Even a few meteorologists have admitted (to an extent) that the military is spraying us:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
You might want to define what “APU” stands for instead of assuming everyone knows. Obviously, the only thing being turned on and off is the aerosol canisters from which the chemtrails are being sprayed
APU stands for Auxiliary Power Unit. They’re found on most large aircraft, and can be used to power parts such as the flaps in the event of a hydraulics failure. In the US, planes that fly 43,000 feet up must have flight-startable APUs.
Here’s a picture:
I didn’t use either the terms minuscule amounts” or “massive amounts.” You did. These are nano-particulates; i.e. sub-microscopic particles. They would have no effect whatever on the performance of the engines. However, I’m not the one who stated chemtrails are coming from jet fuel exhaust, in the first place; you did. I said they come from pressurized aerosol canisters aboard the plane.
For these nano-particles to have any affect, they’d have to be dropped in fairly large amounts.
And if these are coming from aerosol canisters, where are your photos? Until you can prove the existance of such canisters, you’re taking wild guesses.
The equipment has been patented, for one thing:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=5484
There’s a major difference between patenting something and actually doing it. I do not doubt that we have the technology to spray chemtrails, I’m just saying that it isn’t being done.
This photo clearly shows trails that are not coming from the engines:
http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/chemtrails.jpg?w=450&h=365
Those contrails are coming from the slats, which are used during takeoff and landing.
Neither are these:
That first one shows vortices from the tail.
The second one shows a hydraulic actuator cover. The flaps on most large aircraft are hydraulic powered, and have fairly large hydraulic rams to drive them. There is no good way to mount these in the wings and get the flap movement they want. The solution is to mount the mechanisms outside of the wing. The problem with that is aerodynamics. You don’t want big odd shaped things hanging out in the airflow. The easy solution is to build covers for them.
Then there is this photo of the interior of a chemtrail plane, showing the canisters:
That’s a Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner, specifically it’s WD001, a plane that was used for flight testing. The original photo can be found here: – note the “Hazmat” text was added later. The barrels contain water, which is pumped around to shift the center of gravity to test various flight characteristics.
Here’s a description of a similar setup from the 2002 book, “Inside Boeing, Building the 777″, page 76., describing tests done in 1994.
From Boeing’s blog:
Remember, we test at the extremes of the weight/CG envelope. This requires us to control the CG during ground and flight conditions. We can move weight, in the form of water, forward or aft with the use of the water ballast system. This system is comprised of 48 barrels, each capable of carrying 460 pounds, connected by tubing to a pump. A computerized system tracks fuel placement, fuel burn, people placement, ballast, flap setting, landing gear position and water barrel quantity. The information is processed to display the airplane’s current CG. We move water or specify fuel tank usage to configure the CG within the specified test requirements.
By the way, there are thousands of chemtrail photos that make it abundantly clear that these planes are not flying any FAA-approved routes. Here are few examples:
I see you’ve completely disregarded Air Force jets. Hell, those could have been left by helicopters if it was cold enough.
No, it doesn’t. It’s being dispersed from the canisters under high pressure. If you’ve ever observed any aerosol spray, you can sometimes see nothing coming out near the nozzle, but, the farther the content is from the nozzle, the more it slows down and coalesces. So what?
That’d be quite a lot of pressure, seeing as there’s a 20 foot difference between the “canisters” and the trail. In addition, barium would STILL burn green right next to the engines.
That is incorrect. barium doesn’t burn on contact with air, it burns in air when HEAT is introduced, as this page makes clear:
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/inorganic/group2/reacto2.html
Since chemtrails are not coming from jet exhaust, but from compressed aerosol tanks, there is no heat applied to the barium particles, hence, there is no green coloration.
Barium will either burn or oxidize. This means that a) it should be green, or b) it should be a gas.
I don’t know where you are getting the idea anything about the video was “incorrect.” There is nothing “natural” about barium in the atmosphere.
The video was incorrect. There is no way you can have your conversions off by a factor of 100 and call it accurate.
From Jeff Ferrel, the video’s reporter:
Yes, I did make corrections to my first report, which originally aired almost 2-years ago now… after quickly realizing my very embarrassing mistake. I was not happy with myself. Unfortunately, the first version of my report got out to the internet before I could make the correction(s), and the wrong version is shown repeatedly.
…
My feeling is, and maybe you’d agree, that if such aerosol mixes were created and loaded into jets with either a separate/independent dispersal method other than the exhaust, or actually in the fuel itself… somewhere, somehow, you’d expect someone to talk. I have not heard that yet.
…
I also interviewed the scientist who originally patented what some believe was a precursor to so-called chemtrail technology. He’s a very kind, helpful man who could not have been more helpful. He says he knows nothing about any such conspiracy.
And they tested a bowl of water that had been left in rural Arkansas for an entire month. Obviously, there was quite a bit of dust and dirt, which contained barium.
Only my own eyewitness observations, over a period of three years (in the case of chemtrails; over a lifetime, in the case of contrails), combined with those of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, as well as much reading, study and research over more than three years. And what proof to do YOU have of anything you are saying?
Oh, I only have peer-reviewed literature, scientists, the military, etc etc. I suppose your blogs trump this?
In reality, the only way that your observations can be accurate is if you flew into a contrail and tested it, which I strongly doubt.
No, they are not. Contrails are man-made, by jet plane exhaust, and they do not persist. They are not even cloud-like. Chemtrails, on the other hand are what you are seeing persisting in the sky as so-called “cirrus clouds.” These are not clouds at all, but are chemtrails that have been blown by the wind.
For which you have no proof.
I’ve already presented evidence that contrails do not persist and this is observable in video footage comparing chemtrails and contrails in the same air space:
No, whether or not contrails “can make a shadow” has nothing to do with proving the existence of chemtrails, and there is abundant proof of their existence. Try going stepping away from your computer and taking a walk outside and look up.
And I’ve demonstrated that your evidence isn’t any good.
Walk outside and look at the sky. See those contrails? Why do you think they’re chemtrails? Have you seen a single study that says so? Of course not; you’re using chemtrails as proof of chemtrails. In an equation, it’d look like this:
y+2=y
You cannot solve that equation, because y (chemtrails) are on both sides. The only way to solve it is to get rid of y;
2=/=0
There’s no solution. You are unable to verify chemtrails existence without using chemtrails; the problem is that they aren’t verifiable.
I see you’ve either blocked me from any further posting to this comments section, or you have flagged my response for your “approval.” What’s the matter? Afraid I might disprove your bullshit?
I’m new here, and by default I’m required to approve all comments. Oviously, you left yours sometime between when I fell asleep and now.
My mistake, then, however, I happen to know you have deliberately stalked a friend of mine to other sites besides your own blog, and have besmirched her character and repeatedly harassed her. Given this behavior of yours, I don’t think my accusation is either “bizarre” or out of line.
Are you talking about Rozzr? If so, here’s an example of what I ‘harassed’ her with:
You’re panicking over anything with the prefix “fluo-“. This is irrational. Earlier I suggested you read a *peer-reviewed* book by an MD and Ph.D named Kauffman. I hope you read his book, because most of what you’ve said is incorrect:
1. You state that you have the healthy kind of fluoride, not sodium fluoride. But you *do* have sodium fluoride. You’re drinking the same thing that comes from an aluminum plant.
2. You have no evidence that small doses of fluoride is capable of pacifying anyone.
3. Your Prozac source has no idea what it’s talking about. For starters, it states early on that fluorine is found in nature and fluoride is not. This is untrue, since fluorine automatically reacts with anything near it, creating a fluoride. Second, it states that Prozac contains sodium fluoride. This is untrue. The formula for Prozac is (C17)(H18)(F3)(NO) [parentheses added to make it readable in my current font without parentheses it reads C17H18F3NO]. Sodium fluoride is NaF, the Na being sodium. If Prozac contains sodium fluoride, then somebody had better tell
(C17)(H18)(F3)(NO) that there’s an Na floating around in it.
4. You have no evidence that people are walking around in a semi-trance state. Even if you did, you wouldn’t be able to prove it’s because of fluoride.
5. Filtering won’t work. To get the fluoride out of your drinking water, you’ll need a reverse osmosis machine.
6. The only danger related to Teflon is that if you heat it to 500+ degrees F, then it can release chemicals into the air. Even if it did disintegrate into your food, it would do so at such a slow rate as to be completely harmless.
7. Any amount of fluoride in juice from concentrate and similar food items is so small as to not be detected. If there’s one thing that can’t be denied, it’s that if something is so small as to not be detected, it’s not dangerous.
7. As stated above, fluorine does not occur naturally. Just because it’s an element doesn’t mean it exists in nature.
8. Tea is known for its ability to accumulate chemicals. This means that when grown in areas with a high concentration of natural fluoride, a lot of it gets absorbed. Your statement that it’s from being watered is wrong, considering how I doubt that drinking water is used to water plants.
Even this was comparatively impolite compared to earlier statements; she had recently accused me of being a sociopath who wanted to destroy the world.
By the way, you are lying about having to “approve all comments.” I have a WordPress account, myself and know very well how it works. Besides, my first three posts here posted without any delay at all, as they normally will tend to do unless you have selected to hold comments for authorization.
Yes, I do have to approve comments (not replies) and it’ll be that way until I figure out how to undo that option.
The post that disappeared had been put in my spam folder by WordPress. It was not my fault.
I have no idea what you have done with my previous posting. Can’t handle the truth perhaps?
Perhaps you would like to study this for a few hours.
Click to access Fahey.etal.99.pdf
Kind thought to you poor mistaken man.
M J Nixon BASc
Your previous posting simply hadn’t been approved yet. Try waiting before you make bizzare accusations.
From your source:
Condensation trails, or contrails, generated from high-altitude aircraft exhaust may affect climate because they can persist for many hours
Well, that flies in the face of everything you said in your previous post. And that was just the first sentence of the introduction; did you read that study at all?
Perhaps you would like to quantify your qualifications and exact knowledge of the subjects you seem so fond of knocking. Or are you simply a very bored young man who has nothing else in his life?
At least I have a degree and a great deal of experience. What have you please?
M J Nixon BASc
I have a degree in astrophysics and climatology, thank you.