News Ticker

The Chemical Trail Contrail-versy

[SPECIAL NOTE: While I find it possible that chemtrails may be part of some nefarious scheme, I have yet to see any concrete evidence I could present in a court of law that would prove that case.  I have researched chemtrails, contrails, cloud seeding, ionospheric heaters, and every other type of weather modification for over three years, and all the evidence points towards the chemtrail problem being caused by an industry hell-bent of flying as cheaply as possible, damn the environmental and health repercussions. If there are actually some shady government or corporate thugs who intentionally added chemicals to the fuel or were spraying them from specially designed equipment, we would likely not find out for another fifty years, as was the case with the Manhatten-Rochester Coalition public experiments using radioactive dust sprayed from US. Army Chemical Corps pumps and planes.  Therefore, I will act on what I know to be true:

  • These planes are full of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals
  • These chemicals are burned and sprayed out of the back of planes
  • Those exhaust plumes filled with chemicals are making clouds
  • People hate plane-made clouds, but do not seem to care about the toxic soup causing it
  • The chemtrail community refuses to discuss aviation biofuels.

Understand that I believe there is a possibility that a conspiracy to cloud the skies could be true, I just haven’t seen any proof of ‘intentional spraying’ yet…

Until the day I do, I will act on what I know by pressuring responsible parties. My suggestion to you is stop the poisonous clouds, poisonous debate online, and don’t shoot the messenger.  These are JUST THE FACTS. ]

Municipal Waste Jet Fuel?

Municipal Waste Jet Fuel?

2014 is at an end and as I look back over the last year of looking up, I feel we are finally making some progress. I began talking about the chemical trail problem over two years ago and my sole focus has been “What in the World are the Spraying?” Today, though I know more about the particulars of aviation fuels and additives, I am left with more questions than answers.  Between the toxic substances in aviation fuel, acid rain, global warming concerns, and public outrage, the question I most want answered is: How do we introduce some clarity and accountability in the world of aviation pollution?

It is now clear to me that many jet fuel additives contain trade secret substances and carcinogenic chemicals.  It as also clear that the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for these fuels and additives almost always state the same thing:

Stadis 450 Barium Salt [MSDS trade secret][MSDS full]


“R-11 Highly flammable. R-36 Irritating to eyes. R-67 Vapours may cause drowsiness and dizziness. R-51/53 Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. R-65 Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed. R-66 Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or cracking. R-22 Harmful if swallowed. R-40 Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect. R-50/53 Very toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. Not classified. R-36/38 Irritating to eyes and skin. R-38 Irritating to skin. R-48/20 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation. R-63 Possible risk of harm to the unborn child.”

Octel’s Stadis 450, originally made by DuPont, has been in use since 1962.  Used in both military and commercial airliners, this chemical reduces the possibility of static discharge initiated explosions. So what’s the problem?  Mixing chemical additives and jet fuel is a complicated process that is subject to human error and educated guesses:

It is a well-known phenomenon for conductivity to decrease as fuel moves through the supply chain and this can require re-doping between the refinery and the airport fuelling operation. The DEF STAN 91-91 and ASTM D 1655 specifications acknowledge this by applying a 3 mg/L limit for Stadis 450 on initial doping and a cumulative limit of 5 mg/L. The DEF STAN 91-91 specification also recognizes that, because of losses in the distribution system, the refinery may not be the best place to inject Stadis 450.  source: Joint Inspection Group, 2009

Another fine example is the High Temperature Thermal Stability (HiTTS) additive SPEC-AID 8Q462, and wouldn’t you know, deja-vu all over again.  This new chemical came during NATO’s Single Fuel Concept switch from JP4 to JP8 between 1988 and 1996.

SPEC-Aid 8Q462 turbine fuel stabilizer and detergent additive

In the late 1980s, as part of the U.S. Air Force Fuel Thermal Stability ImprovemenProject, an exhaustive search of more than 325 candidates was made to find an additive that could increase the thermal stability of jet fuel by as much as 100°F (38°C). SPEC-Aid 8Q462 is the only additive to meet the project’s goals; it has now been in use in the U.S. Air Force and other foreign air forces for more than 20 years. source: GE Power & Water Brochure

In 1989, the Propulsion Directorate began evaluating jet fuel additives to reduce coking and maintenance costs in aircraft engines and fuel systems. In 1994, the directorate selected an additive, designated SPECxAID 8Q462, to test on F-16s with Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 engines. The resultant additized fuel, designated JP-8+100, raises the fuel’s thermal stability up to 100°F hotter without increasing its propensity to form coke. The two-year test program using JP-8+100 resulted in a significant reduction in coke-related maintenance. To date, thousands of Air Force aircraft, as well as numerous aircraft of allied nations, successfully use JP-8+100. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently approved the use of the Betz Dearborn SPEC×AID 8Q462 fuel additive and its commercial equivalents for all Pratt & Whitney commercial aircraft turbine engines. The FAA’s approval of the additive for use in commercial engines is a huge step towards wide use in the commercial aviation industry.  source: US Air Force Research Lab, 2001: Propulsion Research Could Revolutionize Jet Fuel

SPEC-Aid 8Q462 turbine fuel stabilizer and detergent additive [MSDS]


SPEC-Aid 8Q462 contains two Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (Section 313) chemicals, and has been in use for over 20 years.  The introduction of this additive had another side-effect, Stadis 450 had to reformulated:

“The materials were obtained from the following sources; HITTS additive BETZ SPEC AID 8Q405(A), had been supplied previously by Wright Patterson AFB, additives 96POSF3256(B), 98POSF3558(C), 99POSF3598(D) and 99POSF3724#144071(E) were supplied by Pratt and Whitney, and these, for ease of reference, will be labelled A, B, C, D and E as indicated, antioxidant Ionol K-65 by British Petroleum, Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether(FSII), N,N-disalicylidene-l,2-propylenediamine (MDA) by Pfaltz & Bauer Inc. and Phenol-loose crystals (99+% A.C.S. Reagent) by Aldrich.
Octel America supplied the reformulated version of the antistatic additive Stadis 450, designated here as r-StadisTwo main fuels were used – these were, dodecane which was supplied by BDH Chemicals/Merk and purified by percolation through a mixed oxide filled column [7], and an additive-free Merox base fuel (fuel F-2) [contains Cobalt??] which was supplied by BP Oil Technology Centre. A small number of preliminary experiments used a second additive-free Merox (fuel F-l).

4.8 Estimate of Ion Concentrations: To our knowledge there are no reported estimates in the literature. … We accept that the above discussion includes several fairly major assumptions. However, its main purpose is to serve as a stimulus to further thinking about the basic science of these systems of which we still know very little.  source: Electrical Conductivity of “JP-8 + 100″ Additives in Hydrocarbons and Fuel,

… but the aviation industry uses it anyway and tests it on you, over your head, everyday …  along with all of these jet fuel additives:

The interaction between additives and the new aviation biofuels, like FAME contamination (Fatty Acid Methyl Ester) further complicate the search for an answer to “What in the World are they Spraying?”

Leading up to the introduction of biodiesel, the JIG aviation fuel suppliers recognised a potential risk of carryover of FAME from biodiesel into jet fuel because FAME is a surface-active material and can adhere to metal surfaces. Multi-product pipelines were identified as a potential source of FAME carryover and a large pipeline trial  was conducted in France on the Trapil pipeline. 
Lessons learnt from this trial and guidance to pipeline operators, were included in Joint Inspection Group (“JIG”) Bulletin 15. A subsequent FAME related jet fuel product quality incident at Kingsbury Terminal in the UK, that impacted the supply to Birmingham Airport, highlighted that besides the potential for carryover from metal surfaces, bulk contamination even at very low levels could also be a potential source of FAME and lessons and recommendations from that incident were included in JIG Bulletin 16.  source: JIG Bulletin No. 26

The answer is simple: some of it is secret and most of it is not safe or properly tested for health, bioaccumulation, or environmental concerns.

It is, however, tested for performance and dollars per gallon.

The aviation industry’s solution is to find some blend of biofuel-based fuel that has low sulfur and no persistent contrails.  Considering the monumental effort that went into converting most NATO planes from JP-4 to JP-8, which is a high sulfur kerosene-based fuel and caused many maintenance issues, it comes as no surprise to me at least that the military is now abandoning JP-8 for commercial Jet A fuel.

The US military is jettisoning its jet propellant in favor of civilian-grade jet fuel.

With testing of civilian-grade jet A with additives nearly complete, 36 military bases in the US have converted away from the military-grade JP-8. The remaining more than 230 locations are slated to convert in 2014.

“For the conversion in the continental United States, the demonstration phase of the conversion is essentially completed,” said Susan Lowe, a spokeswoman for the Defense Logistics Agency Energy, the fuel-buying arm of the Department of Defense. “Virtually all DOD aviation and ground equipment has been tested and (is) ready for the use of commercial specification jet A fuel with additives.

The two main exceptions to the conversion are jet A-1, a civilian grade nearly identical to JP-8 that is commonly used by the military outside of the US, and JP-5, which is mainly used on aircraft carriers. Jet A-1 has the same flash point as jet A but a lower freezing point:  jet A freezes at minus 40 degrees Celsius and A-1 freezes at minus 47 degrees Celsius. The requirement of an antistatic additive for A-1 is another major difference, while JP-8 further requires corrosion inhibitor and icing inhibitor additives.

The DoD began the initiative in 2009 with demonstrations at four Air Force locations. One market source said the additives put into the jet A bought by the military during the early testing period made it almost identical to JP-8 at first, and that few  suppliers could meet the requirements. But he said the military was realizing it does not need the superior freeze point, or that it may even get the spec thrown in for free later.

The DOD bought 73.32 million barrels at a cost of $12.21 billion for jet fuel globally in 2013, a purchase similar to that of Delta Air Lines and United Airlines, the world’s largest commercial airlines before the newly merged American Airlines was created.

But market sources say the addition of military demand to the civilian market will not drive prices up, because producers that usually make JP-8 for the DOD can simply make more jet A–also known as 54 grade–to offset the new demand. JP-8 producers will lose premium pricing for the special handling involved, but the jet A supply chain will gain more flexibility.

See, it’s all about the dollars Climate Viewers.

Flash forward to today and we see the IPCC has their eyes fixated on a very public problem: contrails.

“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.” source: Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails

The aviation/military/oil industry wants to fly as cheaply as possible while disregarding climate and health impacts.  The problem is that almost everyone speaking out about contrails call them chemtrails and hate them for various (possibly illegitimate) reasons, which seems all-to-convenient.  While the airline industry is busy field-testing all sorts of blends of genetically-modified (GMO) biofuels overhead in an attempt to alleviate their future carbon taxes and get rid of their contrail problem, NASA has been flying research planes behind biofuel-burning jet airliners to try to figure out exactly what is making all these persistent contrails.

 “Understanding more about contrail formation is important because they are considered an essential variable in discussions about climate change. While it is known that contrails are ice particles that form when water vapor from jet exhaust condenses and freezes on some source of nuclei, there are a number of different models to suggest what the source of the nuclei might be, Anderson said.
The source could be soot from the jet engine exhaust, so the use of alternate fuels might reduce contrail formation. The source could be from the sulfur that is present in jet fuels, so a low-sulfur or non-sulfur fuel might make a difference. And still other models suggest that just the presence of normal background aerosols in the atmosphere is enough to trigger contrails.
It could be any or all of those things. Some people say there’s so much water vapor in the exhaust of an aircraft that any particles at all will seed the formation of ice,” Anderson said.
To help test at least one of those possibilities, for ACCESS II the DC-8 will fly with both a low sulfur and high sulfur grade of JP-8 jet fuel.” source: 
NASA to study the effects on emissions and contrail formation of burning alternative jet fuels

If you call the FAA and say the word “chemtrail” your response will be silence, laughter, or the canned response, “those are contrails and they are completely normal.”

When I spoke to the head of the FAA Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative, Dr. Rangasayi Halthore, I asked him about the FAA’s “public relations” problem.  I asked him “when someone calls the FAA complaining about chemtrails, why are the callers dismissed or talked down to?  Why not brag about your ACCRI program, and the ACCESS flights, and all the other things you’re trying to do to get rid of contrails or at least reduce them?”


I told the good doctor that “The true sign of intelligence is to be able to meet a person on their level and be understood” then made the the point that their needs to be less quibbling over verbiage and more honesty and clarity.  In the end he agreed that “maybe we could do a little better.”

Why does any of this matter?

Toxic substances are being sprayed from the back of jet planes all over the world, leaving chemical trails that turn into persistent contrails (chemtrails, aviation pollution clouds, whatever you want to call them).

The main focus of the aviation industry seems to be hide the contrails fast, before people figure out how dirty their exhaust pipes really are.

Will you still care about the crazy chemicals and GMO biofuels when the contrails are gone?

What will we give up to clear the sky of contrails?

As Aircraft Emissions Skyrocket, EPA Looks Into Regulation For First Time

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency took a step towards adding aircraft emissions to the list of regulated pollution sources. In a statement the EPA said it will study the issue of greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft, the first step in the regulatory process, and release its findings by next April.  If the agency finds airline emissions to be a risk to public health or the environment, it will begin the process of crafting rules. The rules would make airplanes subject to carbon emissions guidelines in a process similar to the one currently underway for vehicles and power plants.


Contrails, Geoengineering, and the Single Fuel Concept

The Dirty Secret of Chemtrails and Geoengineering


Chemtrails, Trade Secrets, and Cloud Seeding


Operation Clarity: The End of Chemtrails

I know what you sprayed last summer | Operation Clarity 


Aviation Climate Change Concerns at the FAA | Operation Clarity

It was a conspiracy! Military experiments on unsuspecting public

“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.”

RED ALERT! Geoengineering SRM Just Got Real, US & UK lead new push

Sulfuric Acid from Aviation and Ship Tracks may be higher today than Geoengineering SRM would require in 2020


The Double-Sided Sensitivity of Clouds to Air Pollution & Intentional Seeding (CARBON BLACK)

Is the indirect forcing by aircraft soot (CARBON BLACK) positive or negative?

A bit of a bombshell from the AGU IGBR: Black carbon (CARBON BLACK) is a larger cause of climate change than previously assessed

NASA to study the effects on emissions and contrail formation of burning alternative jet fuels

Jet Flies Hot on the Heels of Biofuel-Burning Aircraft (Photo)

Earth Warmed by Trails of Clouds that Jets Leave Behind

Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming

ACCESS II Alternative Jet Fuel Flight Tests Begin

Image: Contrails carry clues to more eco-friendly flights

NASA Researchers Sniff Out Alternate Fuel Future

US Defense Department switching to civilian-grade jet fuel (2014)


Air Transport Action Group’s Beginner’s Guide to Aviation Biofuels

US Department of Agriculture Farm To Fly 2.0 program!

Farm to Fly 2.0: Energy Department Joins Initiative to Bring Biofuels to the Skies


Overview & Discussion: Aviation Biofuels & Farm-to-Fly 2.0 (F2F2) TAC Meeting. August 14, 2013

Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting

Jet Biofuel Enlisted For Contrail Control

The space agency recently began doing flights over the Southern California desert in which a DC-8 “flying laboratory” is testing the contrail consequences of using standard JP-8 jet fuel versus a 50-50 blend of JP-8 and a biofuel made from camelina plants.

Chicken fat fuel emissions look cleaner, greener

Sustainable Alternative Jet Fuels

INCITE Researchers Explore How Aircraft Contrails Can Impact Climate

(ACCESS) Alternative-Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise EmiSSions flight schedule

The Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI)

Continuous Lower Emissions, Energy, and Noise (CLEEN) Program

Alternative Aviation Fuels Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER)

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)

Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI)

Project REACT4C “Reducing Emissions from Aviation by Changing Trajectories for the benefit of Climate” –

Centre for Aviation Transport and the Environment (Omega)

Formation flying civilian airliners?  Flying planes like birds to save on the gas bill, no joke.

Climate compatible Air Transport System (CATS)

Climate Optimized Routing of Flights

Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA)

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)

Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Dashboard

Future Aircraft Traffic Management Concepts Evaluation Tool (FACET)

FAA Aviation Environmental Tool Suite

Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT)

Environmental Design Space (EDS)

Aviation environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT)

also see: Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) • System for Assessing Aviations Global Emissions (SAGE) • Model for Assessing Global Exposure to the Noise of Transport Aircraft (MAGENTA)


On The Climate response to Cirrus Cloud Seeding (2015)


Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy 1974 (CARBON BLACK)

Effects of Cloud Seeding (with Dry Ice)


An obvious hole in a stratus deck due to cloud seeding with aircraft, using dry ice as a seeding agent. This is an example of cold cloud seeding, where supercooled cloud droplets are converted into ice crystals, which then precipitate out of the cloud deck. (USAF photo; boxed caption in the lower right reads “Effects of seeding Altostratus Clouds over Green Bay, Labrador: 45 minutes after seeding with dry ice”. Photo and boxed caption obtained from Sewell, W.R.D., et. al., 1973: Modifying the Weather; Western Geographical Series, Vol. 9, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada).

Stratocumulus Decks – labs for inadvertent & planned cloud seeding (contrails, ship tracks)

Simulation results of unintentional aircraft-induced cloud clearing

Inadvertent Cloud Seeding – Hole Punch and Canal Clouds

Aircraft-induced Hole Punch and Canal clouds – Inadvertent Cloud Seeding

Observations of a glaciating hole-punch cloud

Ice-Supersaturated Regions (ISSR)



~ Jim “The Lorax” Lee

About Jim "rezn8d" Lee (175 Articles)
Jim Lee publishes diligently researched environmental pollution, geoengineering, and mind control articles on his website ClimateViewer News ( where the mantra is: "Where Conspiracy Meets Reality." He is also a contributing author and geoengineering adviser at The Liberty Beacon. Jim created ClimateViewer 3D (, an open-source geophysical monitoring map with live intel streaming onto a gorgeous 3D globe. CV3D features an encyclopedic list of exclusive maps resulting in thousands of hours of personal educational bliss not found anywhere else on the internet, let alone all in one place. Also, Jim has compiled the largest volume of geoengineering and weather modification history into one massive timeline, complete with company directory, patents, sponsors, experiment map, and even live weather derivatives tracking: Weather Modification History ( "I am forever a Boy Scout, lifetime artist, nocturnal programmer, music is my life, love is my religion, and I am the luckiest husband and father on Earth. I have a passion for mapping, mysteries, and mayhem." Jim can be reached at

3 Comments on The Chemical Trail Contrail-versy

  1. Though I follow the ‘logical conundrum’ you have outlined, regarding proving the existence of a nefarious ‘chemtrail’ spraying program (in this post and others on the site), I would like to put the following, (as a whole) to you for comment:

    1) I live near a major airport – so the flight plans/schedules and types of planes can be considered to be similar on a day by day basis.

    2) Thus, given two consecutive days of similar weather, there should not be such dramatic differences in contrail formation that occur.

    3) Regarding weather conditions, it is of significance that contrails are being formed at far lower altitudes that used to be. These days contrails are often formed at approx 10-15,000 feet, whereas in the past, it would be 25,000 feet. The reason this is of significance, is that temperatures at 10-15000 are generally not that dissimilar from those at ground level – whereas by 35,000 it is always extremely cold.

    4) One observable fact that is extremely significant, is that on any given day many planes will leave no persistent contrails at 20-25,000 feet, whereas another plane will leave a horizon-to-horizon contrail (~50 miles?) while flying at same or lower altitude (being emitted by all engines on the aeroplane).

    5) I find it hard to believe there is such a performance difference allowed or permitted in plane engines – such that some leave no contrails, while another leave horizon-to-horizon ones. There’s no way, imo, that in certification proving/testing that a plane engine that left a lingering horizon-to-horizon contrail at any altitude would be given a production certificate.



  2. Bill Bunting // January 26, 2015 at 6:20 pm // Reply

    Jim, i dont push away discussions about aviation biofuels….but if it was a fuel additive theyre would always be trails. Instead the are on one day and off the next


  3. I’m not sure if this was one of the questions you were left with without an answer: How do you explain a perfect criss-crossed/checkerboard layered “contrail” pattern in the sky made by one plane? To me this doesn’t explain a fuel additive issue.


6 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. 23/12/2014 | My Blog
  2. Hate Chemtrails? ACT NOW! Earthjustice sues EPA! - Climate Viewer News
  3. Aluminum, Barium, and Chemtrails Explained - JUST THE FACTS | Climate Viewer News
  4. The History of Chemtrails: How to Geoengineer a Planet with Jet Fuel | Climate Viewer News
  5. The History of Artificial Clouds: How to Geoengineer a Planet with Jet Fuel | Climate Viewer News
  6. Aluminum, Barium, and Chemtrails Explained – JUST THE FACTS – ClimateViewer News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: