The Chemtrail Conspiracy BOMBSHELL! Secret Agenda Explained!

Researcher Jim Lee (climateviewer.com) believes the secret to the chemtrail mystery can be found in the gas tank. Lee has found barium fuel additives and aluminum in the jet fuel, and believes that there is a not-so-secret agenda to alter contrail cirrus to cool the planet. This conspiracy encompasses the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO, United Nations), NATO, U.S. State Department, DOT, EPA, FAA, and NASA, and it all revolves around soot and sulfuric acid, the plan being to turn heat-trapping pollution into planet cooling carbon credit cash.

Lee puts the aviation fuel problem pithily: “The truth is that artificial clouds are destructive to nature, harmful to health, and there is nothing ‘normal’ about fire-breathing metal tubes spewing nanoparticles at 30,000 feet.” Lee explains how soot—carbon black dust (CBD) and carbon black aerosol (CBA)—has been recognized for its weather-altering abilities since the 1970s and is the primary ingredient of artificial cloud production.[1] Both carbon black and soot are fossil fuel waste products, but carbon black is in diesel (diesel oxidation), whereas soot arises only during pyrolysis (jet fuel combustion).

Soot particles are composed of individual, nearly spherical particles (spherules), which have a number mean radius between 10 and 30 nm.[2]

http://web.archive.org/web/20151019132400/http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/April/19040901.asp
Lead lined clouds (soot nanoparticle with traces of lead)

As Lee puts it, the more soot nanoparticles generated by jet exhaust, the more cloud condensation nuclei (CCN or cloud seeds), the more cirrus cloud cover created.

In 1994, two FOIAs from the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) revealed that the U.S. military was still pursuing weather warfare despite the ENMOD ban.[3] The U.S. Naval Research Lab at China Lake, California was experimenting with weather modification techniques, and the U.S. Air Force Research Lab at Wright Patterson Air Force Base was researching CBD/CBA seeding as a “force multiplier.”[4]

Code C2741 (Warhead Development Branch) NAWCWPNS, China Lake, California.

weather-modification-using-carbon-black-USAF-Phillips-Lab

Weather Modification Using Carbon Black - Phillips Laboratory (AFMC) Geophysics Directorate

In 1996, the oft-quoted “Weather As A Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” was released by the USAF Air War College as a roadmap for weather warfare technologies, including a diagram showing the use of Carbon Black Dust by 2005 under “Technologies to be developed by DOD (Department of Defense).”[5] Government officials and debunkers scoff at “Owning the Weather” as only a “think piece,” but they are either wrong or disingenuous. (Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005.)

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 – timeline of future weather weapon systems – Carbon Black Dust highlighted.

At the Test Technology Symposium ’97, “Session B: Advanced Weapon/Instrumentation Technologies,” Dr. Arnold Barnes of the Phillips Lab/GPO at Hanscom Air Force Base reiterated the use of Carbon Black Dust for weather warfare on three slides, including a slide with current 1997 capabilities referencing cloud creation.[6]

weather-modification-by-carbon-black-cloud-seeding-03

USAF Phillips Lab carbon black cloud seeding

weather-modification-by-carbon-black-cloud-seeding-011

 

Hearkening back to 1973 when William M. Gray (atmospheric science, Colorado State University) and William M. Frank (meteorology, Pennsylvania State University) proposed aircraft delivery of carbon black soot to heat portions of a hurricane and alter its path. [7]

Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy 1976 William M. Gray, , William M. Frank, , Myron L. Corrin, and , and Charles A. Stokes Atmospheric Science Department, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins 80523
Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy 1976

35 years later, the post-Katrina 2008 Hurricane Modification Workshop sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate proposed testing CBD/CBA seeding for hurricane “mitigation.” In a presentation called “Collaborative Research: On Hurricane Modification by Carbon Black Dispersion: Methods, Risk Mitigation, and Risk Communication,” research scientist Moshe Alamaro (Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, MIT) suggested “the use of carbon black aerosol (CBA) to selectively heat parts of the atmosphere by dispersion of CBA above a hurricane.” Among the workshop recommendations was this nugget: “Distribute the CCN (cloud condensation nuclei) aerosols on the periphery of the hurricane using aircraft and ships. When distributing carbon black, release it above the core of the hurricane. Accomplishing the seeding will take further study.” Their plan called for $64 million and 36 months to “conduct large scale test w/evaluation and reports.”[8] Jim Lee believes that drones (UAVs) are doing this testing today and offers the Hurricane Aerosol Microphysics Program (HAMP) and NASA Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes (GRIP) programs as examples.[9]

US DHS testing Carbon Black Aerosol (CBA) hurricane mitigation
US DHS testing Carbon Black Aerosol (CBA) hurricane mitigation

Lee and four fellow activists spoke at a CSPAN-televised hearing of the EPA in Washington, D.C. on August 11, 2015.[10] The EPA was considering regulating six greenhouse gases produced by jet aircraft to bolster the promises that President Obama would make at COP21 in December. Lee pressed the EPA to include cloud creation in their upcoming aviation pollution regulations and demanded it do randomized testing of in-flight jet aircraft for metal particulates.[11] The EPA decided to move ahead with regulating the six greenhouse gases but still ignores the soot, contrail cirrus clouds, and metal particulates.[12]  Shortly thereafter, the ICAO made an emissions reduction agreement and the plaintiffs of the original hearing suddenly, and without reason, dropped their case!

Hijack the lawsuit during an election year and nobody will notice. So much for our hearing:

Once you recognize that the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security are involved in using carbon black dust for weather modification, it will come as no surprise that the EPA, FAA, and IPCC have no soot reduction goals.

Two studies, one in 2001 and another in 2008, have caused a panic in the aviation industry: chemtrails and the cirrus clouds they make are trapping heat, as much as 5000 times the IPCC estimates, and as much as 50 years worth of aviation-produced CO2!

“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.” [13]

source: http://www.cosic.leeds.ac.uk/
The pictures show satellite thermal images of the evolving contrail. This was from a case study published by Jim Haywood and colleagues in JGR doi:10.1029/2009JD012650.

Carbon black dust may be a great cloud seed, but it absorbs heat. Will the addition of sulfuric acid to these clouds mimic a volcano’s cooling effect and increase the aviation industry’s carbon credits? Geoengineering SRM advocates think so.

“Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, which would be the better option. Putting sulfur in the fuel would have the problem that if the sulfur concentration were too high in the fuel, it would be corrosive and affect combustion. Also, it would be necessary to have separate fuel tanks for use in the stratosphere and in the troposphere to avoid sulfate aerosol pollution in the troposphere.” [14]

Doping commercial flight jet fuel looks like the name of the game, given that the EPA and FAA are working together to dope the fuel with sulfur to cool the planet on the cheap while plants, animals, and human beings breathe it all in. Taking a nod from the geoengineers, Ulrich Schumann exposes the real chemtrail conspiracy in his recommendations to the ICAO in 2010.

Both aspects (soot and flight routing) offer the potential for aviation to reduce the climate impact of aviation (less soot emissions, LESS WARMING and MORE COOLING CONTRAILS, predictable for OPERATIONAL PLANNING) [15]

ICAO-use-contrails-to-geoengineer-skies_o6wtgs

This statement is a bombshell. Schumann is clearly abandoning the idea of ridding the world of contrails, he is in fact advocating for creating “cooling contrails” and using them for geoengineering SRM purposes.

Schumann is creating a computer program to acheive the “operational planning” portion of his statement: the Contrail Cirrus Prediction Tool (CoCiP).

http://www.dlr.de/pa/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-8859/15306_read-19960/

Schumann’s recommendations are finally combined with the recent mandate for aviation biofuels in the ultimate two-tank geoengineering solution:

“Applying high FSCs [fuel sulfur content] at aviation cruise altitudes combined with ULSJ [ultra-low sulfur jet fuel, aviation biofuel] fuel at lower altitudes result in reduced aviation-induced mortality and increased negative RE compared to the baseline aviation scenario.” [16]

This statement means “use high sulfur jet fuel when we get to flight altitude to cool the planet, use no/low sulfur jet biofuel on takeoff to kill less people around airport runways.” That is exactly what they are doing:

Lee is closely following the alternative jet fuel (biofuels) and sulfur fuel doping now being tested under the FAA’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI). These tests, dubbed the Alternative-Fuel Effects on Contrails & Cruise EmiSSions  (ACCESS-I and ACCESS-II), are focused on how different types of fuels make clouds, and interstingly enough, they are testing sulfur doped fuel. [17]

Three fuels are on the drawing board and in the skies: a low-sulfur JP-8 fuel (military), a 50/50 blend of JP-8 and a camelina oilseed-based HEFA fuel (Drop-in fuel), or a JP-8 fuel doped with sulfur. [18]

Lee has dubbed this scheme Fuel Sulfur Content (FSC) Geoengineering and insists the agenda is to implement geoengineering SRM worldwide while circumventing international geoengineering and weather modification laws.

Lee believes that NATO has already applied the sulfur doping technique to its jet tankers.  This would explain the fact that most researchers are seeing unmarked planes, flying real high, not on FlightRadar or any tracker, making a mess of the sky with huge plumes.

In fact, many of the geoengineering research papers conclude the military is the primary target for deployment of a secret sulfur-doped geoengineering conspiracy:

“Another technique examined was the use of commercial passenger aircraft flying at high altitudes to inject sulphate aerosols, emitted by aviation fuel, into the stratosphere. This would mimic a volcanic eruption, during which sulphur compounds are released into the stratosphere. They reflect solar radiation and thereby have a clear cooling effect on the climate. No previous calculations are available on the viability of using commercial flights in this way.

“In terms of efficient geoengineering strategies, this technique proved unviable. It would work best close to the equator, but little air traffic operates there – commercial flight routes are operated further north. In addition, current commercial aircraft are unable to fly high enough in the stratosphere. We would need new planes with large amounts of sulfur added to their fuel,” Laaksonen says.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20150314160918/http://www.apropos.fi/Tiedostot/Tiedostot/FICCA/FICCA%2016.04.2013/Posters/FICCA_poster_Partanen_COOL.pdf
“Finland’s FICCA COOL Project” Partanen, Antti-Ilari, et al. “COOL.”

That is why Alan Robock, Ben Kravitz, and company agree that the military is the best way to achieve FSC geoengineering:

The military has already manufactured more planes than would be required for this geoengineering scenario, potentially reducing the costs of this method. Since climate change is an important national security issue [Schwartz and Randall, 2003], the military could be directed to carry out this mission with existing aircraft at minimal additional cost. Furthermore, the KC- 135 fleet will be retired in the next few decades as a new generation of aerial tankers replaces it, even if the military continues to need the in-flight refueling capability for other missions.

Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes midflight and already have a nozzle installed. In the tropics, one option might be for the tanker to fly to the upper troposphere, and then fighter planes would ferry the sulfur gas up into the stratosphere (Figure 2b). It may also be possible to have a tanker tow a glider with a hose to loft the exit nozzle into the stratosphere. [14]

So much for those Asilomar promises, military rogue geoengineering with Fuel Sulfur Content geoengineering.  #TarAndFeathers

http://www.climate.org/PDF/AsilomarConferenceSummary.pdf
The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies, 2010 – Quote Source

Now that climate change is a national security concern, you can rest assured the CIA’s geoengineering study has everything to do with NATO’s geoengineering scheme.  It is clear that the military is already geoengineering and now the plan is to get commercial aviation in on this planet-cooling agenda.

References

[1] Jim Lee, “Chemtrails: The Shady Truth About Contrails.” https://climateviewer.com/chemtrails/

[2] “Aviation and the Global Atmosphere: 3.2.3. Soot and Metal Particles,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=35

[3] Jim Lee, “1978 ENMOD Convention on the Prohibition of Military and Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” January 22, 2016.
https://climateviewer.com/2016/01/22/1978-enmod-convention-on-the-prohibition-of-military-and-other-hostile-use-of-environmental-modification-techniques/

[4] The U.S. Navy proposal to develop new weather modification weapons, Code C2741 (Warhead Development Branch) NAWCWPNS, China Lake, California, April 1994, https://www.scribd.com/doc/256210692/Weather-Modification-US-Navy-FOIA-Non-Lethal-Warfare-Proposal-1994 ; and the U.S. Air Force proposal to develop a theater-scale weather modification system using carbon black, Phillips Laboratory (AFMC) Geophysics Directorate.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/184741384/Weather-Modification-Using-Carbon-Black-Phillips-Laboratory-AFMC-Geophysics-Directorate

[5] Tamzy J. House et al. “Weather As A Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,” Air Force 2025, August 1996; see page 34, Figure 5-2, “A Systems Development Road Map to Weather Modification in 2025.”
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

[6] Jim Lee, “US military discusses future of Weather Warfare despite ENMOD ban,” November 16, 2013.
https://climateviewer.com/2013/11/16/us-military-discusses-future-of-weather-warfare-despite-enmod-ban/

[7] William M. Gray, “Feasibility of beneficial hurricane modification by carbon dust seeding,” Paper No. 196, NOAA Grant No. N-22-65-73 (G), April 1973; William M. Frank, “Characteristics of carbon black dust as a large-scale tropospheric heat source,” Paper No. 195, National Science Foundation, January 1973.
https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/bitstream/handle/10217/98/0196_Bluebook.pdf?sequence=1

[8] Jim Lee, “Hurricane Hacking: The Department of Homeland Security enters the weather modification business,” November 8, 2013, https://climateviewer.com/2013/11/08/hurricane-hacking-the-department-of-homeland-security-enters-the-weather-modification-business/

[9] “Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP)” YouTube of a speech by chairman and cloud physicist William R. Cotton at the 29th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology, May 10, 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z72TJ68zKJE and Scott A. Braun et al., “NASA’s Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes (GRIP) field experiment.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94.3 (2013): 345-363.

[10] Jim Lee, “World’s First EPA Public Hearing on Flight Pollution! Speak Now!” https://climateviewer.com/2015/07/26/worlds-first-epa-public-hearing-on-flight-pollution-speak-now/

[11] Jim Lee, “My Speech to the EPA about Flight Pollution,”
https://climateviewer.com/2015/08/09/my-speech-to-the-epa-about-flight-pollution/

[12] “EPA Finalizes First Steps to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft Engines,” EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, July 2016, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/documents/aviation/420f16036.pdf

[13] Boucher, O. Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1078.html

[14] Robock, Alan, et al. “Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering.” Geophysical Research Letters 36.19 (2009).
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf

[15] Ulrich Schumann, German Aerospace Center, Recent research results on the climate impact of contrail cirrus and mitigation options, ICAO Colloquium on Aviation and Climate Change 2010
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/EnvironmentalColloquium/Documents/2010-Colloquium/1_Schumann_ContrailMitigation.pdf

[16] Kapadia, Z. Z., et al. “Impacts of aviation fuel sulfur content on climate and human health.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 15.13 (2015): 18921-18961. – http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/10521/2016/acp-16-10521-2016.html

[17] Bruce Anderson, “Alternative-Fuel Effects on Contrails & Cruise EmiSSions (ACCESS-2) Flight Experiment.” NASA LaRC and the ACCESS-II Science and Implementation Teams, January 2015;
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160006477.pdf

[18] Richard H. Moore et al. “In-Situ Measurements of Contrail Properties Measured During the 2013-2014 ACCESS Project,” 14th Conference on Cloud Physics, July 2014.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/14CLOUD14ATRAD/webprogram/Paper250908.html

BONUS FUEL-DOPING GEOENGINEERING QUOTES

“Use commuter aircraft fuels doped with aerosol generators” http://youtu.be/o3rAZ8Fmc0Q?t=15m50s

“dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail”
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102/pdf/1748-9326_4_4_045102.pdf

“The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the particles may remain in suspension for up to one year.”
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5003186.html

A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment. The main known drawback to this approach is that it would not stop ocean acidification. It does not have many of the drawbacks that stratospheric injection of sulfur species has.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102

“Direct detection of total sulfuric acid (SA) has been achieved for the first time in the plume of a jet aircraft in flight. The measurements show the same SA signatures for the case when SA was injected directly into the exhaust jet and the case when sulfur was provided to the engine with the fuel.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL00512/pdf

 

WANT MORE?

Read my FAQ:

Chemtrails: The Shady Truth About Contrails

See the Timeline:

The History of Artificial Clouds: How to Geoengineer a Planet with Jet Fuel

Or dig in to the Full Timeline

The Weather Modification and Geoengineering Timeline

Never heard of Geoengineering?

Geoengineering and Weather Modification Exposed

Categories:

8 Comments

  1. If you want to find out about what happened to the temperature just after nine 11 ask the geologists. They were all in communication with each other, and recognized a two degree increase in the overall mean temperatures across north America for the three days following the no fly rule. Ask a geologist for the skinny on this one. Hope it helps. Harreson Waymen, Eastend, Saskatchewan, Canada.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Harreson, I did cover that paper on my timeline article:
      https://climateviewer.com/2015/08/08/the-history-of-artificial-clouds-how-to-geoengineer-a-planet-with-jet-fuel/

      September 11, 2001

      Research Paper: Regional Variations in U.S. Diurnal Temperature Range for the 11–14 September 2001 Aircraft Groundings: Evidence of Jet Contrail Influence on Climate

      All planes grounded for three days due to terrorist attack. Contrails seen on satellite from six fighter jets cover more than 11,000 square miles. From The Contrail Effect:

      At least that was the case until September 11, 2001. For the first time since the jet age began, virtually all aircraft were grounded over the United States for three days. Even as they tried like the rest of us to absorb the enormity of the terrorist attacks, climatologists realized they had an unprecedented opportunity to scrutinize individual contrails, and several studies were quickly launched.

      One study looked at the aforementioned contrails that grew to cover 7,700 square miles. Those condensation trails arose in the wake of six military aircraft flying between Virginia and Pennsylvania on September 12, 2001. From those isolated contrails, unmixed as they were with the usual dozens of others, Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at NASA’s Langely Research Center, and his colleagues were able to gain valuable insight into how a single contrail forms. Those once-in-a-lifetime data sets are so useful that Minnis is about to analyze them again in an expanded study.

      Another study that took advantage of the grounding gave striking evidence of what contrails can do. David Travis of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and two colleagues measured the difference, over those three contrail-free days, between the highest daytime temperature and the lowest nighttime temperature across the continental U.S. They compared those data with the average range in day-night temperatures for the period 1971-2000, again across the contiguous 48 states. Travis’s team discovered that from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit.

      These results suggest that contrails can suppress both daytime highs (by reflecting sunlight back to space) and nighttime lows (by trapping radiated heat). That is, they can be both cooling and warming clouds. But what is the net effect? Do they cool more than they warm, or vice versa? “Well, the assumption is a net warming,” Travis says, “but there is a lot of argument still going on about how much of a warming effect they produce.”
      September 11, 2001 – Presidential Chemtrails

      Also covered on main timeline:
      http://climateviewer.org/geoengineering-timeline/#Contrail%20cirrus%20clouds%20affect%20daily%20temperature%20range

      Contrail cirrus clouds affect daily temperature range
      September 11, 2001

      David J. Travis, Andrew M. Carleton, and Ryan G. Lauritsen, 2004: Regional Variations in U.S. Diurnal Temperature Range for the 11–14 September 2001 Aircraft Groundings: Evidence of Jet Contrail Influence on Climate. J. Climate, 17, 1123–1134.
      References

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C1123:RVIUDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
      http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html

      Like

  2. Thanks once again Jim for a well researched and easily understood article. We appreciate all the hard work you put in here. Keep up the good work, you do make a difference – even if the EPA pretend you don’t 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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