Print Friendly, PDF & Email


chemtrail conspiracy theory

chemtrail conspiracy theory (Photo credit: hongoxl)

Talk of “[[chemtrails]]” has been around since as long as I can remember, but like many fringe ideas, I never gave it much thought until social media put it in my face enough times to force do the research myself. After all, I avoid forming opinions on subjects I haven’t scrutinized at least cursorily. In this case, like others, I try to find what appear to be the most well-read advocates, request explanations and challenging them to address legitimate arguments by critics.

What appears to be a focal point for armchair beliefs on the subject today is a documentary (and I use the term loosely as you shall see), “What in the World Are They Spraying?” Yes, I watched the whole thing. And I took notes and double-checked credentials, facts, and the science involved. Here is that evaluation, along with contextual data that is not in the feature, but useful in discerning the overall truth on the subject.

It starts by basically reviewing the news coverage of the conspiracy and snippets of speakers talking about dispersal technology. The important thing to note here is that there’s never been a disagreement about the ABILITY to disperse chemicals. It’s done for cloud seeding, radar disbursement, firefighting, etc..

And contrary to making it all seem clandestine in a [[NWO]] sort of way, there is no orchestrated denying or even hiding the concept of atmospheric engineering. For good or evil, modifying (or wishing to modify) our environment is what humans do. And it happens in a major way every day, as a byproduct of condensation caused by jet engines. [[Contrails]], like clouds, reflect enough sunlight to cumulatively change the weather. When planes were grounded after 9-11, an estimated 1/2 degree F temp rise was observed due to the lessened global dimming effect. 

And we could talk about crop-dusting and other aforementioned activities, but this isn’t what the conspiracy is about anyway. The conspiracy is about intentional mass dispersal of unknown artificial chemicals by commercial and military jets, all the time.

The primary “expert” on this show is G. Edward Griffin, a filmmaker stirring the pot, also known for quack cancer cures. As common among chemtrail enthusiasts, he supports differentiating fast and slow dissipating trails as a hallmark of chemtrails versus contrails. Of course this is utter nonsense, since if contrails are water vapor, they are basically clouds and some clouds don’t dissipate for hours or even days, while others are short-lived or don’t form at all. His correlation to NATO countries having more tails is also spurious, since those countries simply have the most air traffic. As far as being rational, he wavers consonantly between asserting we absolutely do not know and wondering why people can’t see the “facts”.

Well, one expert and fact after another turn out to be not so expertly true …

Bad Science, Bad Research, Bad Reasoning

One such “factoid” is that water that contains more than 0.2 mg aluminum per liter should not be used for drinking water. In real-world measurement, the 61 ppm claimed to breach this level is equal to 0.061mg/ltr.

The forester “expert” is even more clueless. His idea of what is good soil pH and how “neutral soil” is undesirable is utterly ridiculous. A change in his pH of what he describes would be natural by simple use of gardening practices and fertilizers.

The “expert” PhD talking about the killer-toxicity of aluminum oxide is more than exaggerating, since there’s little research or testing that shows any real harm. From what I researched, I found that only a correlation to Alzheimer’s may exist. However, he was also wrong about it not naturally being in the environment, and the report shows that is it NOT a known carcinogen like he or Dr. Tammy Born claims.  Her assertion about the half-life of Aluminum is also completely false, as only one (naturally occurring) isotope has a half-life over a few minutes, an it is thousands of years, not decades.

The dentist talking about the dangers of aluminum is rich — it’s a known safe part of his own practice! He even calls it a heavy metal, which it is not. This makes him practically a quack.

The politician showing air toxicity levels in Phoenix (2009) along with other reports (2008) have been debunked, because they measure the contaminant levels within the particulate matter in the smog, not the air itself, which is why the levels are so similar to what you would expect in a normal (non-toxic) soil sample. If it were real as she said, not a person in the valley would be left alive.

What they are describing in Hawaii about not seeing as many stars is easily attributive to light pollution from the growing urbanization over the last half-century. None of the video images or descriptions make any sense or show anything abnormal, only weird guesses about “spraying over the ocean”. And softening of coconut trees? There could be a dozen natural reasons for that, but instead of asking an expert or doing the research, the completely unknown correlation is posited as evidence. And the girl’s hair sample? It’s the opposite of honest science — taking a measurement of one person at one time with nothing to compare it to, and no other explanations explored. I have to wonder how many little girls they had to test (if it’s not an outright lie at this point) to get the result they wanted for the movie.

The Monsanto connection is interesting and sounds like something they would do — if it were even remotely possible to add aluminum in any non-negligible quality using high-altitude dispersal. But more on that later.

At the conference in Belgium, the stitched-together snippets of the speakers don’t actually say anything, mean anything, or make any sense without the assumption of what you want them to mean.

The congressmen approached near the end reacted as anyone could reasonably expect when confronted by people on a topic they were not prepared to discuss (such as not knowing the issue was even an issue). The “documentarists” were being jerks in pursuing them after they were made to feel ambushed — which they were. They made no effort to make appointments or give them time to review, and when ignored even before mentioning geo-engineering, they use it t o claim it’s a cover-up. The conclusion of knowledge and participation is nothing short of reckless libel.


So what does it all mean? If the above is debunked or worthless, what is the truth then?

I know people who are military and disaster trained in bio/chem/nuclear attack or disaster response. Unless an airborne agent is released in an enclosed space (such as a subway station in Japan a few years back) or you are a few hundred feet or less from a concentrated source (low altitude, such as crop-dusting or agent orange, or being near a broken chemical tanker downwind), there’s virtually no danger of serious effect. If I dropped a thousand tons of nerve gas, for example, from a commercial aircraft altitude, no one would notice and the effect would be.

And even if all that were not true, a cover-up involving so many aeronautics personnel at all levels across so many nations and companies would be impossible.

So even if we are affecting the weather with our jets, there is no known connection or reason to believe one exists between contrails (let alone zero-evidence existence of chemtrails) and intentional geo-engineering. It just plain does not make sense.

But the accusations and suppositions continue to fly (no pun intended) and simple explanations

that do add up are discounted by the believers …

{An additional debunk of the film can be found at}

Enhanced by Zemanta