Friday, November 28, 2014

Contrails vs. Chemtrails

About three years ago I wrote a piece asking questions about chemtrails. I haven't forgotten about it. Since then I've studied the issue in and out, reading both sides of the argument and doing my best to understand the physics and chemistry behind these things in the sky. I can now say with 100% certainty that chemtrails aren't real. If you'd like to challenge me on this issue, please leave a comment. But in my experience chemtrail believers don't have anything to challenge me with. They respond with emotional knee-jerk reactions. They act as if I just insulted their religion.


The thing about chemtrails is that a little research goes a long way. I don't know how the conspiracy got so popular, but it's a fascinating idea. Like something out of science fiction. And all the government documents and patents are there. But the actual program is top-secret.  

And that's the problem. 

Until somebody publicly goes up there to sample these things, the conspiracy theorists won't rest. And I'm using that term in the most polite way possible. I am a conspiracy theorist. I know Oswald wasn't a lone nut, we weren't given the full truth on 9/11, Ron Paul is the real President of the United States and that the Fed is destroying the economy. 

But chemtrails remain a theory. And any opposition to this theory is greeted with a priori dismissal. Any dissident is a “paid government shill”. 

Nevertheless, the science just isn't there. But perhaps our entire epistemological framework is mistaken. In that case, sign me up for millennial communism because then anything is possible. So until your metaphysics can be proven (and really, who can prove philosophy?) I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.

The science is clear: persistent condensation trails are natural, newer airplanes create more of them, flight patterns are the reason there are X's in the sky, aluminium readings are not off the charts, aluminium is in fact one the most abundant elements on Earth, and dumping aluminium from an airplane wouldn't even work! Dumping anything from a commercial jet wouldn't work! And mixing it with the fuel is problematic where proof relies on declassified documents or credible whistle-blowers. Which hasn't happened. Now, if the government is doing it then they must have solved the problem where water vapour trailing right behind the jet is invisible because it is too hot but where nano-metals would be visible since they oxide. Like in rockets. But let's say they did. Let's say somehow the particles won't oxide until they react to -40F weather. Then what we have is purposeful weather modification which is very different from a mass aerosol spraying of the population.

Weather modification has been proposed but there is no evidence for its implementation. So if the conspiracy is true, it is a top-secret climate modification program, not a direct depopulation method which is what the conspiracy originally started out as. 

So now the conspiracy is that someone is mixing nano-particles, presumably aluminium, with the jet-fuel and this attaches to the nuclei of the water molecule and this creates artificial clouds. The question then becomes: why?

Why would the government do this when it already happens naturally? Persistent contrails do what natural clouds do: reflect sunlight back to space and trap heat from the ground. In geo-engineering circles, aluminium clouds are supposed to decrease UV levels, which hasn't happened. Now, there is the argument that global cooling is a direct result of contrails. But correlation isn't causation. There is more evidence for cooling due to the lack of sun-spots than contrails. And even then, global contrail-cooling doesn't prove chemtrails.

A decrease of UV levels (presumably, since the mid-90s) would help the chemtrail argument. But then the gap between the hot aircraft engine and the -40F air would need to be explained. And since all chemtrail footage shows this gap and everything we know about nano-particles would indicate no gap, we would have to reassess our methodology. How are these nano-particles reacting with cold air but not the heat from the engine? And how did we even get this far? At what point in the conspiracy can we start applying Occam's Razor?

Aluminium, barium and strontium would dissipate quickly. They are heavy, whereas water is the only molecule that can form in a supersaturated atmosphere. Water can't evaporate at -40F. All contrails have the potential to become clouds. And thanks to the fuel-efficient, “environmentally-friendly,” high-bypass turbofan engines, we see a lot more contrails than we used to. Plus, y'know, all that airline traffic. 

Look at this map. If the airline industry is blocking out your blue sky, then the issue is with lack of private property rights in the sky. And government regulation of the airline industry doesn't help either. You can certainly argue that there are environmental problems with persistent contrails, but the conspiracy that they might be mixed with aluminium doesn't hold water. No pun intended.


  1. Your a fucking shill Caleb. Funny the quote you used can be applied to this trite. Go fuck yourself

  2. I don't like how you disregard the patents so easily, just because it's top secret does not mean that it isn't worth exploring. And you simply say, "dumping aluminium from an airplane wouldn't even work" without going into why. All you do is link to a KNOWN disinfo site. How about backing up your claims with actual evidence rather than this editorial piece of trash? I'm sorry but that;s what it is, OPINION. Chemtrails are proven without a doubt, normal contrails don't extend from sky to sky. To say normal contrails don't persist is not accurate, that is true, but these things today are NOTHING like the contrails from when I was a kid. You look pretty young, Caleb, I bet you have no memories prior to the 90s? Am I right? Then what gives you the authority to comment on chemtrails when you weren't even alive to see what a REAL contrail looks like? How about explaining WHY "dumping" aluminum wouldn't work instead of just linking to disinfo sites? How about some real investigation? Ever heard of confirmation bias? Oh, and care to explain why Kristen Meghan is not a credible whistleblower? Instead of linking to some youtube videos?

  3. How come alluminium levels in water have risen exponentially. Another disinfo shill. Then comes up with a school science meme to ridicule hahaha what a joker.