I’m just curious if anybody has run the numbers on the immense amounts that would be needed of whatever “secret chemical” is being used to make these chemtrails. The fuel that is actually creating these contrails, after all, is many tons.
Has anyone questioned the hundreds of thousands of airline workers that would have to be involved in loading and recharging the secret sprayer tanks?
Just last week I took a couple of short jet flights. Out of curiosity I watched the entire luggage, trash, fuel, supplies ballet. Whole thing took well under half an hour.
When exactly were these secret chemicals loaded on, and why don’t any of the workers involved rat the process out?
I’m perfectly willing to believe in people evil enough to engage in such conspiracies. I just like to see some logical explanation of how the conspiracy is even possible.
When you burn jet fuel (or most other things) the primary combustion product is water vapor. In fact, you get a little more than a gallon of water when you burn a gallon of kerosene.
When water vapor is released in cold conditions, as at altitude, it immediately condenses and freezes. Pretty much the exact same process by which clouds are formed.
There may actually be something to the notion of contrails contributing to high-altitude haze. It’s just really tin-foilish to think there’s some secret plot involved. No, just a lot of airplanes.
Are you suggesting that there are more airplanes in the air today than there were in the ‘60s or ‘70s?
I’m going to need to see charts, graphs and Congressional testimony to believe that one!
Yes, I know that mostly we’re talking about water vapor. Thanks for your post, it prompted me to read up, we’re talking even more water vapor than I thought.
Back in the 90’s when the economy was booming, airplanes were flying like crazy - I was flying like crazy. Every thurs/fri night, then out again sun night/mon morning, there was a backlog of planes landing in NYC area airports.
Nowadays, I never see such a huge backlog. It used to be like a parade - you could sit and watch them 2 min apart sunday evenings, for hours, heading into the landing pattern at Newark (NJ) airport. Could see a lineup of landing lights in the distance. But nowadays, there’s never a line. A few here and there. And I’m aware of the different patterns, land to north/south, etc. I even note when I see planes landing to the south, then suddenly one keeps going straight south. Ah, I say, they just changed the pattern, that guy is going down to Old Bridge (I used to live there) and he’ll land to the north.
Today, there are much, much fewer flights landing at Newark in the “busy” times. A lot of jet traffic in NJ now is private jets to Teterboro and Morristown. I see a lot of them.
That’s why I find it curious that the cloud cover is far more today than back in the 90s - relative to the planes flying. Back then, you could easily see that the contrails formed high-level cloud cover on busy flying days, but you also had many days where skies were very clear.
Hmmm... I found a good link - it has an informative graphic about 1/2 down the page by Mick West site admin for the site:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-much-water-is-there-in-jet-engine-exhaust.4018/
Now I think there’s an answer. We simply have a lot more moist air nowadays, as shown in his point A3 on the third graphic scenario.
So that answer leads to the question of why we have much more moist air. That leads me to wonder about any climate engineering going on related to producing the California drought. I can’ find the link, but I had found something explaining how those efforts were causing the weather patterns we see today.
Oh, as far as “poison” etc., in the exhaust, or the “chem” part of things, this, IMHO, would just be a result of additives in fuel.
If what happens in the medical industry also holds for the aviation fuel industry, what we would have is a effort with at least 2 layers. One would be the overt, published purpose of the additives (which I know are a small fraction of what’s in the fuel). The cleverness comes in only if one analyzes the full effects of the initial reactions and then follow-on reactions through the environment and eventual interactions with plants/animals/humans. But the original researchers on the public layer are not experts in those fields; they’re experts in jet fuel additives and jet engine functioning. All that needs to be done is “don’t make the connection” between the “diabolical” results and the additives.
It’s kind of the reverse game of, for example, the low-fat diet scam. In that scam, fat is portrayed as the bad thing and research is done to offer proof. No one follows through with thorough research on how dietary fats are normally used in the human body and what happens in the human body when dietary fats are removed from the diet. After all, if fats are bad for you - why would any researcher research the effects of decreased fat metabolism ? Certainly any such research could be simply drowned out by anti-fat research coupled with marketing TV bombardment of the sheeple, ubiquitous product labeling “low-fat”, etc. Fat makes you fat, it’s a simple catchy phrase that seems intuitive - if you eat fat, that fat you eat stays as fat it’s just now in your body. Sounds simple - but in reality the body’s metabolism does not work that way. It would fool most of the population.
For the jet fuel additives, all we need do is make sure they are small enough amounts that there’s no DIRECT effect on humans. Sort of like saying as long as you’re not breathing in jet exhaust directly all day you should be fine.
The “manipulators” may have worked backwards though... from an effect they wanted to produce in the environment, very simply, say, spreading a lot of a certain element into humans. Well, how can it get into the water or food supply they ask themselves ? Well, what molecules and reactions produce that element ?
It’s also probable that some bad scenarios are happened upon by the “manipulators” purely by accident, for example, they find out something they’re doing in their factories, spewing out as exhaust, etc., is causing a serious problem or potentially could. While they can’t just directly tell management to pollute, they could create a situation where the pollution was a byproduct of success for the factory, and just sort of turn a blind eye to the pollution until a few decades later it becomes a big deal when it is found out.