“Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.” – Edgar Allan Poe
If you remove all the slavespeak from the debate, Chemtrails and Contrails are both terms referring to clouds made by jet aircraft. I choose to use the term “contrail” while talking to scientists because using the word “chemtrail” may cause them to discount the value of my words. I choose to use the term “chemtrail” while engaging the public because using the word “contrail” tends to get you labeled as a debunker and may cause them to discount the value of my words. Both chemtrails and contrails are high-level descriptors meaning they are highly argumentative and have different meanings based on the individual. However, the terms chemtrail and contrail are not alone:
- Persistent Contrails
- Spreading Contrails
- Contrail Cirrus
- Contrail Induced Cirrus (CIC)
- Contrail Induced Cloudiness
- Aviation Induced Cloudiness (AIC)
- Aviation Induced Cirrus
- Induced Cirrus Cloudiness
- Man-made clouds
- Artificial Clouds
The term Artificial Cloud is the most accurate term as it cannot be argued with and is the lowest level descriptor.
The entire “chemtrail conspiracy” boils down to one thing: intent.
The problem with searching for intent is that it leaves people looking for a “smoking gun” or a “whistle blower” or a note from “the guy” who ordered planes to “spray” the world. This is actually a search for a “straw man” and likely designed to waste your time. If you want to end planes making clouds, all the evidence you need is in this article and all that is needed is proper protest at the FAA, EPA, and ICAO in my humble opinion.
Are “rogue geoengineers” intentionally spraying material to create clouds that cover the sky or is this just a dirty, unregulated industry doing what fossil fuel industries always do, polluting? Based on the evidence we can show that the military has intentions to use carbon black dust to modify the weather for warfare purposes, and commercial aviation produces tons of carbon black dust.
Due to the overwhelming amount of propaganda surrounding the topic of chemtrails, I have researched for more than three years to “clear the air” on chemtrails as a part of something I dubbed “Operation Clarity” and this is my final report. The information I present is based on information I have personally reviewed and is subject to change based on new evidence to the contrary.
“There are three sides to every story. Your side, his side, and the truth.”Conspiracy believers claim that chemtrails are a secret program that do X, Y, and Z.
Debunkers say chemtrails are contrails and are completely normal (IE harmless).
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.
Despite more than 60 years of jet aircraft “accidentally” geoengineering, scientists are now wanting to legalize global weather control. We must stop this, it’s time to get educated on how chemtrails work!
- Leading Climate Scientists Say Paris Conference Failed, Call For Geoengineering
- Academics call for geoengineering preparation in wake of Paris Agreement’s ‘deadly flaws’
- COP21: Paris deal far too weak to prevent devastating climate change, academics warn
Cirrus Cloud FAQ
“First estimates of potential aircraft soot effects on cirrus with ECHAM4: depending on how background cirrus form, soot may lead to increases or decreases in ice crystal number density provided aircraft soot particles are good ice nuclei.” Particles and Cirrus Clouds (PAZI-2) Final Report (2004-2007)The more sulfur and soot there is in the jet exhaust plume the more likely you are to see contrails turn into cirrus clouds that spread out and blanket the sky. The other thing you need is saturation, which is provided by large bodies of water in the sky called Ice Supersaturated Regions (ISSR). Jets fly through these frozen water bubbles in the sky, sulfur-coated soot and water from the engine attach and the rest is chemistry, unknown chemistry:
“Aerosol-cloud interactions are one of the main uncertainties in climate research. Up to now a lot of research has been conducted on aerosol-cloud interactions in warm clouds. The impact of aerosols on ice or mixed-phase clouds is much less understood.” Ulrike Lohmann, Miriam Kübbeler, Johannes Hendricks and Bernd Kärcher, Dust ice nuclei effects on cirrus clouds in ECHAM5-HAM, 2013
“likely contrails are affecting precipitation to a much greater extent than are present deliberate seeding operations.”In 1975 William Gray proposed steering hurricanes with carbon black dust cloud seeding from jet exhaust.
In 2008 Dr. Moshe Alamaro proposed steering hurricanes with carbon black dust using Department of Homeland Security money:
Military Carbon Black Dust SeedingFor those who doubt the US military’s intention to control climate chaos, the following two 1994 FOIA documents obtained by The Sunshine Project show both the US Air Force and US Navy are engaged in weather modification techniques using Carbon Black Dust.
- US Air Force proposal to develop a theater-scale weather modification system using carbon black. Phillips Laboratory (AFMC) Geophysics DirectorateReleased under 1994 FOIA from the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.
- US Navy proposal to develop new weather modification weapons.Code C2741 (Warhead Development Branch) NAWCWPNS, China Lake, California.This proposal is from April, 1994 and was submitted to the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.
In December 1994, the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force (CSAF) tasked Air University to conduct a study to identify the concepts, capabilities and technologies the United States would require to remain the dominant air and space force beyond the first quarter of the 21st century. The study was called Air Force 2025, or 2025for short. USAF 2025 Fact SheetAs a part of AF 2025, the United States Air Force discussed the future of weather warfare in its 1995-1996 brainstorming session “Weather as a Force Multiplier; Owning the Weather in 2025.” Of particular interest is the following chart which shows the use of “Carbon Black Dust (CBD)” by 2005 with a star indicating “Technologies to be developed by the Department of Defense.”
The intention to use carbon black dust for weather warfare despite the ENMOD ban is clear.
Weather warfare, as laid out in the “Owning the Weather in 2025″ paper, was presented the following year at a joint US Air Force and US Army conference titled “Test Technology Symposium ’97 Weather Modification.” The presenter, Dr. Arnold Barnes from the Phillips Lab/GPO at Hanscom Air Force Base, reiterated the use of Carbon Black Dust for weather modification and showed a slide with “Current Capabilities” as of 1997.
- MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS IN SHORT TERM FORECASTS BY 2010
- 14 DAY FORECASTS BY 2040
- CURRENT CAPABILITIES (1997) 1. TARGETED FOG DISPERSAL 2. LOCAL CHANGES IN PRECIPITATION 3. CLOUD MODIFICATION
- HOLE BORING
- CREATE/SUPPRESS CIRRUS/CONTRAILS
- ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TOO LARGE FOR MAJOR STORMS
- TREATY RESTRICTIONS
- NEW WEAPON SYSTEMS PUSH THE ENVELOPETHE ENVIRONMENT MUST BE CONSIDERED FROM THE START OF THE CONCEPT/DESIGN FOR ALL NEW WEAPON SYSTEMS
According to these documents, the US Air Force has had the ability to create or remove cirrus clouds and contrails since 1997 and intends to control the weather using Carbon Black Dust by 2005, the same year of the Katrina Hurricane disaster.
Clouds and Aerosols Supplementary Material. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Lead Authors: Paulo Artaxo (Brazil), Christopher Bretherton (USA), Graham Feingold (USA), Piers Forster (UK), Veli-Matti Kerminen (Finland), Yutaka Kondo (Japan), Hong Liao (China), Ulrike Lohmann (Switzerland), Philip Rasch (USA), S.K. Satheesh (India), Steven Sherwood (Australia), Bjorn Stevens (Germany), Xiao-Ye Zhang (China)The lead author of that report was Olivier Boucher, and his conclusion was that “large uncertainties associated with spreading rate, optical depth, ice particle shape and radiative transfer. A low confidence is attached to this estimate.” Four years later, Boucher made this statement:
Contributing Authors: Govindasamy Bala (India), Nicolas Bellouin (UK), Angela Benedetti (UK), Sandrine Bony (France), Ken Caldeira (USA), Anthony Del Genio (USA), Maria Cristina Facchini (Italy), Mark Flanner (USA), Steven Ghan (USA), Claire Granier (France), Corinna Hoose (Germany), Andy Jones (UK), Makoto Koike (Japan), Ben Kravitz (USA), Benjamin Laken (Spain), Matthew Lebsock (USA), Natalie Mahowald (USA), Gunnar Myhre (Norway), Colin O’Dowd (Ireland), Alan Robock (USA), Bjørn Samset (Norway), Hauke Schmidt (Germany), Michael Schulz (Norway), Graeme Stephens (USA), Philip Stier (UK), Trude Storelvmo (USA), Dave Winker (USA), Matthew Wyant (USA)
“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.” Boucher, O. Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078.Another researcher said:
“A single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent contrail formation appears to exert a contrail-induced radiative forcing some 5000 times greater than recent estimates of the average persistent contrail radiative forcing from the entire civil aviation fleet.” Haywood, J. M., R. P. Allan, J. Bornemann, P. Forster, P. N. Francis, S. Milton, G. Rädel, A. Rap, K. P. Shine, and R. Thorpe (2009), A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving into contrail-induced cirrus, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D24201, doi:10.1029/2009JD012650. – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012650/abstract
The climate change uncertainties surrounding aerosols, contrails, and ship tracks seriously undermine the credibility of climate change models as they are clearly missing LARGE portions of crucial data to make accurate predictions.
More importantly, Geoengineering SRM proposals using aerosols are truly gambling with the weather as scientists do not understand the first thing about how geoengineering aerosols will impact our climate.Nonetheless, the cat is out of the bag and the aviation industry faces a hefty “carbon tax” bill unless they can find a way to turn their heat-trapping chemtrails into a “carbon credit.”
GeoengineeringGeoengineers seek to take advantage of commercial aviations over 100,000 flights per day by adding sulfur to jet fuel to do solar radiation management in what they call “stratospheric aerosol injections.” Here are their quotes:
- Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections – A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma by Nobel prize winner Paul J. Crutzen [ref]
- The only approach that might be feasible is to perform wide-area seeding with soot or carbonaceous aerosols (Carbon Black Dust) which would absorb solar radiation and warm cirrus layers enough to perhaps dissipate cirrus clouds (a semi-direct effect). This strategy would be similar to that proposed by Watts (1997) and Crutzen (2006) for implementation in the stratosphere. As noted by Crutzen (2006) only 1.7% of the mass of sulfur is needed to produce a similar magnitude of surface cooling [ref] [ref]
- “Use commuter aircraft fuels doped with aerosol generators” [ref]
- “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” [ref]
- “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.” [ref]
- “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.” [ref]
- 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. [ref] [ref]
- “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.” [ref]
- Here we describe an alternate method in which aerosol is formed rapidly in the plume following injection of H2SO4 (sulfuric acid), a condensable vapor, from an aircraft. [ref]
- “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.” [ref]
- “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. ” [ref] [ref]
- Three different fuel types are discussed: a low-sulfur JP-8 fuel, a 50:50 blend of JP-8 and a camelina-based HEFA fuel, and the JP-8 fuel doped with sulfur. [ref]
- Influence of fuel sulfur on the composition of aircraft exhaust plumes: The experiments SULFUR 1–7, 1994-1998
- In Situ Observations of Particles in Jet Aircraft Exhausts and Contrails for Different Sulfur-containing Fuels, 1996
- Novel Rates of OH induced Sulfur Oxidation. Implications to the Plume Chemistry of Jet Aircraft 2003
- Gaseous SO3 and H2SO4 in the exhaust of an aircraft gas turbine engine: measurements by CIMS and implications for fuel sulfur conversion to sulfur (VI) and conversion of SO3 to H2SO4 2003
BiofuelsIn order to save aviation from carbon taxes and “greenwash” dirty fossil fuels as “climate friendly” the oil tycoons are switching jets to exotic blends of biofuels. President George W. Bush signed into law the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 making 21 billion gallons of biofuels mandatory by 2022. Coal biofuel, Camalina plant, municipal waste biofuel, algae-based biofuels, and even Chicken Fat biofuel. Expect future “GMO Chemtrail” memes. For the past two years, the FAA’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) has tested these fuels to see how biofuels effect contrail production and the results should be public in the near future, we hope. Here are the entities involved in geoengineering jet fuel and controlling flight paths for contrail control:
- Jet Biofuel Enlisted For Contrail Control
- 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
- (ACCESS) Alternative-Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise EmiSSions
- The Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI)
- 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
To sulfur or not to sulfur, that is the question?The European Union recently took bold steps to address the flight pollution which the Obama administration blocked and under threats of lawsuits from environmental groups the EPA is now deciding whether to regulate flight pollution for the first time, ever:
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.The EPA asked for public input on their decision making process with an option to hold a public hearing. I was the only person who called the EPA demanding a hearing and Senior Policy Analyst Lucie Audette called me to try and talk me out of coming: On August 11, 2015 I attended the world’s first EPA hearing on flight pollution and told them to tell the airline industry stop making clouds: Here is a transcript of my speech. The battle is on, will the aviation industry biofuel its way out of carbon tax oblivion or will they turn those contrail frowns upside down by changing heat-trapping clouds into a cooling ones by doping jet fuel with sulfur? Inquiring minds want to know.
“If the vast low-lying districts of Eastern Siberia and Western Alaska were sunk beneath the sea . . . it would open wide the road of this vast ocean stream straightaway to the pole.” And then . . . Paradise! Arctic temperatures would instantly rise by 30 degrees; the ice caps would melt, New England winters would become a quaint memory, and lawns and trees could commence “their march towards the pole.”In 1889 Jules Verne’s “The Purchase of the North Pole” suggested using an enormous cannon to tilt Earth and melt the poles:
“Although they are searching for coal and not oil, readers will find that the auction of the Arctic energy reserves has a definite 21st century ring.” Gutenberg LibraryIn 1921 Carroll Livingston Riker, a New York engineer, proposes in a small book issued yesterday to change the climate of the whole Atlantic Coast of North America, and to alter even the solar inclination of the earth. His plan is to send the great heat-bearing Gulf Stream, unchilled, into the very heart of the Arctic. In 1929 Hermann Oberth proposed building giant mirrors on a space station to focus the Sun’s radiation on Earth’s surface, making the far North habitable and freeing sea lanes to Siberian harbors. In 1945 Professor Julian Huxley, biologist and Secretary-General of UNESCO 1946–48, proposed exploding atomic bombs at an appropriate height above the polar regions to raise the temperature of the Arctic Ocean and warm the entire climate of the northern temperate zones. These nuclear explosions occurred in the 1950’s. In 1958 M. Gorodsky and Valentin Cherenkov proposed placing a ring of metallic potassium particles into Earth’s polar orbit to diffuse light reaching Earth and increase solar radiation to thaw the permanently frozen soil of Russia, Canada, and Alaska and melt polar ice. In 1961 this proposal became a reality with Project Westford when 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas (Westford Needles) were launched into orbit. In 1966 the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences from the National Research Council stated in their report “WEATHER and CLIMATE MODIFICATION, PROBLEMS and PROSPECTS” that jet aircraft are creating too much water vapor in the stratosphere and that could raise earth’s surface temperature by 1.6 degrees Celsius.
The possibility must be examined that the residence times for stratospheric contamination are so long that significant concentrations can build up from supersonic transport operations. If the contaminants introduced into the lower stratosphere remain there on the average of 10 years (about 10 times longer than is presently suspected), supersonic transports could double the concentration of water vapor naturally present. This would affect the radiation balance, but not in very important degree, according to model calculations of Manabe (1965). Assuming fixed relative humidity, Manabe finds that a five-fold increase of stratospheric water vapor would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 1.6°C.Is it possible that chemtrails are intentionally heating the planet to melt polar ice? Despite the warnings of the COP21 agreement that we must not heat our planet by more than 1.5°C, there are no mentions of atmospheric water vapor at all. They are only focusing on CO2 and greenhouse gases even though back in 1966 these same governments acknowledged that water vapor would heat the planet my more than 1.5°C. To make matters worse, the USA and Russia are now attempting to drill for oil and gas in the arctic:
- Cloud blanket warms up melting icecap
- Greenland ice sheet melts more when it's cloudy
- Clouds enhance Greenland ice sheet meltwater runoff
- The new cold war: drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic
- The new Cold War? Russia sends troops and missiles to the Arctic as Putin stakes a claim for the region’s oil and gas reserves
- Counting the Cost – The new cold war: The race for Arctic oil and gas “Vanishing at 13 percent a decade, the melting ice is expected to make drilling, mining and shipping easier.”
- America falling behind the new cold war over arctic oil
- The Arctic Natural Gas Extraction, Liquefaction & Sales (ANGELS) Proposal
- It’s Water Vapor, Not the CO2
Remark: “The Earth has certainly been warming since we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.” Reply: “Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.”
Long suggests that a high-altitude “ice haze,” created by water and other emissions from aircraft, is responsible. “I’m talking about a sub-visual contrail-generated haze of ice, which we do not classify as a cloud but gives blue sky more of a whitish tint.” Long said. - Smithsonian: Airplane Contrails May Be Creating Accidental GeoengineeringFurther, a two-fuel solution to use biofuels on takeoff and sulfur-doped fuel at altitude is gaining major traction. Read all about it here: FAA Scientist: We Want Clouds By Day, None By Night #CirrusCloudsMatter Geoengineering with Cirrus Cloud Seeding The History of Artificial Clouds: How to Geoengineer a Planet with Jet Fuel
But Isn’t Geoengineering Illegal?Answer: True, almost The Convention for Biological Diversity has banned geoengineering:
Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities** that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment; Climate-related Geoengineering and BiodiversityHowever, “The U.S. is not a party to the 1992 accord and thus was NOT officially involved in the geoengineering decision.” This means the USA is ignoring the law. Source: “Countries Agree To Ban Geoengineering.”
Aircraft jet engines also directly emit metal particles. Their sources include engine erosion and the combustion of fuel containing trace metal impurities or metal particles that enter the exhaust with the fuel (Chapter 7). Metal particles-comprising elements such as Al, Ti, Cr, Fe, Ni, and Ba-are estimated to be present at the parts per billion by volume (ppbv) level at nozzle exit planes (CIAP, 1975; Fordyce and Sheibley, 1975).The fact that the IPCC’s estimates are based on 1975 research papers shows their lack of concern for metal particle pollution from planes. When jet aircraft switched from gasoline based fuel to kerosene (diesel) fuel the aluminum content of the fuels skyrocketed. See this chart Trace Element and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analyses of Jet Engine Fuels: Jet A, JP5, and JP8:
Why add nanoparticles? The idea, says lead author R. B. Anand, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the National Institute of Technology in Tiruchirappalli, India, is that because of their high surface-to-volume ratio, the nanoparticles—which, in the study, had an average diameter of 51 billionths of a meter—have more reactive surfaces, allowing them to act as more efficient chemical catalysts, thus increasing fuel combustion. The presence of the particles also increases fuel–air mixing in the fuel, which leads to more complete burning. In the study, Anand and co-author J. Sadhik Basha first used a mechanical agitator to create an emulsion consisting of jatropha biodiesel (a fuel derived from the crushed seeds of the jatropha plant), water, and a surfactant, then blended in different proportions of alumina nanoparticles. In addition to outperforming regular biofuel, the nanoparticle-spiked fuels produced significantly lower quantities of nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide gases, and created less smoke. The researchers are now testing other types of nanoparticles, including hollow carbon nanotubes, and investigating the effects of nano-additives to engine lubrication and cooling systems. One obstacle to the application of this kind of nanotechnology is the high cost of nanoparticle production, says Anand—who also cautions that nanoparticles "should be used judiciously," because they tend to "entrain into human bodies." Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-04-nanoparticles-biofuel.htmlDuPont created STADIS-450 in 1962 and ever since this barium salt fuel additive has been in every single jet fuel tank worldwide. The purpose of STADIS-450 is to reduce static discharge from refueling to keep fuel from exploding. Nonetheless, barium is a serious health concern for everyone on the planet.
- Dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA, Stadis 450)
- Effects of barium fuel additive and fuel sulfur level on diesel particulate emissions
- Effects of Barium-Based Additive on Diesel Exhaust Particulate
“The big one that we’ve found is lead. … comes from things like tetraethtyl lead in fuels … still used in some light aviation. So that’s probably the biggest metal that we find, or the most frequent metal that we find. But we find a whole host of different metals, actually.” Science Magazine Podcast, Transcript, 10 May 2013 – http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6133/766.2.fullApparently, small amounts of metal particles have major effects on cirrus clouds:
“It would seem that you would have to change all of the aerosol in the atmosphere very radically to get a big effect on the clouds. But because mineral dust and metallic particles are such a small amount of the particulate matter – just a percent or two – it means that you only have change about a percent or two of the particles to get a big effect on these clouds” Science 14 June 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6138 pp. 1320-1324 DOI: 10.1126/science.1234145 “Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation”For more information on metals see: Aluminum, Barium, and Chemtrails Explained – JUST THE FACTS
The in-flight measurements found ions so massive that they should be thought as charged particulates, i.e., the nucleation had already occurred. … Chemiions produced in jet engine combustion are speculated to play a role in ion-induced nucleation of aerosols, possibly followed by condensation, which may result in the formation of contrails, cirrus clouds, and pollutants.
Jet Fuel Additives
- Biocide – kills microorganisms that grow in the gas tank
- Leak Detection Additive – detects leaks in fuel tanks and fuel lines
- Tracer A (LDTA-A) – MSDS – Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
- Corrosion Inhibitor/Lubricity Improver (CI/LI) – Additive contains a polar group that adheres to metal surfaces, forming a thin surface film of the additive, thereby improving lubricity and inhibiting corrosion. Most CI/LI additives contain dilinoleic acid.
- Apollo PRI-19 – NO MSDS – No Product Sheet
- Hitec 580 – MSDS – Product Sheet – PROPRIETARY (secret)
- Nalco 5403 – MSDS – POLYCARBOXYLIC ACIDS, AROMATIC SOLVENT
- DCI-4A – MSDS – MSDS – PROPRIETARY (secret) – TRADE SECRET REGISTRY # 00850201001-5000 P
- DCI-6A – NO MSDS – Product Sheet – A ‘stronger’ corrosion inhibitor than DCI-4A
- NALCO 5405 – MSDS – HEAVY AROMATIC NAPHTA, 20-40% HAZARDOUS
- Spec-Aid 8Q22 – MSDS – Aliphatic Petroleum Distillate 64742- 88- 7 30- 60 %
- Unicor J – MSDS – FATTY ACIDS, DIMERS (55-65%), AROMATIC HYDROCARBON (HEAVY AROMATIC NAPHTHA (SOLVENT NAPHTHA)) (35-45%), NAPHTHALENE (SARA 313) (CERCLA) (< 4.5%)
- Tolad 351, 4410, 245 – NO MSDS – Baker Hughs Product Sheet
- RPS-613 – NO MSDS
- Hitec 515 – NO MSDS – E-515 MSDS – PETROLEUM DISTILLATES (NAPHTHA OR RUBBER SOLVENT)
- Mobilad F-800 – MSDS – XYLENES (O-,M-,P- ISOMERS) (SARA III) 4%, NAPHTHA (PETROLEUM SPIRITS OR BENZIN) 45%, PHENOL 1%
- PWA-536 – NO MSDS
- Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) – FSII is chemically composed of di-ethylene glycol monomethylether (di-EGME) which contains both a hydrophobic (water hating) and hydrophilic (water loving) portion. This structure allows the molecule to be soluble in both nonpolar fuel and in highly polar water. Having a higher solubility in water the FSII works by combining with any free water that forms and lowering the freezing point of the mixture so that no ice crystals are formed. It also has bio-stat properties thus preventing bio-material from growing.
- Static Dissipater Additive (SDA) – Stadis ® 450 increases the conductivity of the fuel, thereby increasing the rate of static conductivity of the fuel, thereby increasing the rate of static charge dissipation.
- Stadis 450 – MSDS – TRIMETHYLBENZENE (SARA 313), NAPHTHALENE (SARA 313), TOLUENE, SOLVENT NAPTHA, DINOYLNAPTHALENESULFONIC ACID (DINNSA), PROPAN-2-OL
- Sigbol – NO MSDS
- +100 Additive – also known as HiTTS or S-1749, Increases the thermal stability of the fuel by 100ºF to ~425ºF in an effort to prevent engine deposits caused by fuel being used as a heat sink. The additive is a combination of a dispersant, antioxidant, and metal deactivator, which prevents oxidation reactions and keeps potential insolubles in solution rather than depositing out on the engine surfaces. – Army NO USE POLICY – The currently used +100 additive has a Dispersant/Detergent component that affects Army fuel/water separators increasing risk of water to enter fuel tanks. In addition, no benefit has been identified for Army systems
- SPEC-Aid 8Q462 – MSDS – TRIMETHYLBENZENE (SARA 313), NAPHTHALENE (SARA 313) (CERCLA), TRADE SECRET INGRED 561, TRADE SECRET INGRED 428.
- AeroShell Performance Additive 101 – MSDS – MINERAL OIL, PETROLEUM DISTILLATE, SOLVENT DEWAXED (SEVERE), HEAVY PARAFFINIC, HEAVY AROMATIC NAPHTHA (SOLVENT NAPHTHA), NAPHTHALENE (SARA 313) (CERCLA), BUTYLATED HYDROXTOLUENE/2,6-DI-TERT-BUTYL-P-CRESOL, DIMETHYL SULFOXIDE (DMSO EXTRACT BY IP346 FROM INGRED #1)
- Turboline FS100 – MSDS – Solvent naphtha (petroleum),heavy aromatic 60 – 80%, BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene, Distillates (petroleum), solvent-dewaxed heavy paraffinic, Naphthalene, Phosphonothioic acid, polyisobutenyl derivs., esters with pentaerythritol, N,N, Disalicylidene-1.2 Propanediamine, Xylene
- Dupont JFA-5 – NO MSDS – Product Details – Ethylbenzene and xylene
- Antioxidants (AO) – Required in fuels that have hydrotreated components. Antioxidants improve storage stability by preventing the formation of peroxides, gums, and insoluble particulates. Peroxides attack elastomeric fuel system parts, gums can cause engine deposits, and insoluble particulates can cause engine wear and plug fuel filters. AOs function as hydrogen atom donors that stop the oxidation process.
- Metal Deactivator Additive (MDA) – The only approved metal deactivator is N,Ń-disalicylidene-1,2-propane diamine. Metals like copper and zinc can act as catalysts for oxidative reactions of fuel. MDA inhibits the catalytic activity of the metals by creating stable complexes with the metal ions. source: JP-8 and other Military Fuels
- N,N’-Disalicylidene-1,2-propanediamine – MSDS
- N,N’-Disalicylidene-1,2-cyclohexanediamine – NO MSDS
EPA HearingI spoke in Washington DC in August of 2015 after I was the only person on the planet that requested a hearing when the U.S. EPA asked: "Do you think Aircraft Emissions are a threat to human health under the Clean Air Act?"
I demanded accountability and randomized testing of jet aircraft emissions. In addition, I requested the regulation of cloud production from aviation. Of course, you know how that went.
Did the EPA listen to my warnings in 2015? You betcha. So did the Obama administration, the ICAO, and the rest of the world. Working overtime during an extremely contentious election, the Powers that Be gathered, wrote an agreement to use biofuels for “contrail control” and dropped the EPA lawsuit. Once again, the airline industry skirted the law:
- July 25, 2016 – BREAKING: EPA To Limit Greenhouse Gases From Airplanes
- July 31, 2016 – White House releases “Federal Alternative Jet Fuel Research and Development Strategy”
- September 3, 2016 – China, U.S. and Europe pledge support for global aviation emissions pact
- September 12, 2016 – Greens move to dismiss EPA lawsuit over airplane emissions
ConclusionBiofuels, Carbon Black Dust, Sulfuric Acid, and Water Vapor Pollution are completely absent from the “chemtrail conspiracy” narrative and few activists have ever heard of these climate changing issues. This is a HUGE red flag. Please get educated if you intend to fix our skies and end chemtrails.
Based on what we know there should be no need for “smoking guns” or “whistle blowers.” Jet aircraft are geoengineering our skies, the military is involved, we are breathing metal particles, and these clouds are drenching us with ACID RAIN!