G. Edward Griffin Goes On Record in Video About Chemtrails Conspiracy

Dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid... Searching for a link to barium salts.

Have at it: en.wikipedia.org...

This is the one I was after...

The chemical contaminant is now known to have been ethylene diamine. At the time of the event, there was a concerted effort to define what the contaminant was (concentration in the Avgas was low); how the contaminant had got there; and what the contaminants behaviour would be in an aircraft fuel system.

It is widely used in the production of polyurethane fibers.

Gene Delivery The ability to deliver pieces of DNA to the required parts of a cell includes many challenges. Current research is being performed to find ways to use dendrimers to traffic genes into cells without damaging or deactivating the DNA. To maintain the activity of DNA during dehydration, the dendrimer/DNA complexes were encapsulated in a water soluble polymer, and then deposited on or sandwiched in functional polymer films with a fast degradation rate to mediate gene transfection. Based on this method, PAMAM dendrimer/DNA complexes were used to encapsulate functional biodegradable polymer films for substratemediated gene delivery. Research has shown that the fast degrading functional polymer has great potential for localized transfection.[24] [25]

If you recall, fibers tested from Morgellons patients are resistant to temperatures in excess of 1500 degrees... Makes you wonder.

reply to post by Phage


Sorry Phage, I disagree.

1) They seed above the clouds, not relatively low as you said. The flares for hail suppresion are done from above and below.


2) Technically weather modification, and cloud seeding are releasing chemicals into the atmosphere so how can they not be considered as a type of chemtrail?

3) Here is an article with facts on a 12 year program to do weather modification in Canada.
www.wingsmagazine.com...

reply to post by exile1981


Take a look, again, at the image of the airplane you posted.

See it? Do you know what kind of airplane it is?

Well, I can tell just by looking that it is a twin Cessna, because of the distinctive tip tank.

Now, it could be an unpressurized C-310...or, a pressurized C-340, or even a C-414 or C-421.

In any case, it IS equipped for cloud seeding, but it DOES NOT fly as high as commerical airliners! Especially if it's the C-310 (unpressurized, remember?)

Really, this is such basic stuff--- and, in any event, the actual seeding is usually done INSIDE the clouds...just because you see an image of the airplane flying on top of a cloud deck, this proves that the airplane is flying above the clouds, and nothing more.

I DO wish some people would go out, and learn to fly or something...or pick up a copy of an aviation magazine, such as Flying or Plane & Pilot, etc. You could learn a LOT from a magazine, and dispel so many of these impressions that folks have, who are not that familiar with flying.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here, I did a favor and read your link, to, regarding the company in Canada. Good info there, IF you read the whole thing....

A snippet:

The fine particles produced by burning silver iodide flares mounted on frames extending aft of an airplane’s wings or ejected into clouds from a rack mounted underneath are the nuclei to which super-cooled water droplets attach themselves. Good timing and having aircraft in the right area at the right altitude are crucial factors in effective cloud-seeding.

For the AHSP, two turbo-prop aircraft and a piston twin-engine airplane are used by WMI. For the 2007 season, a Piper Cheyenne II and a Cessna 340...

See? I was right....but, they have a diverse fleet, as well...

...were based in Calgary, and a Beech King Air C90 operated from Red Deer. The turboprop aircraft, which have a greater rate of climb than the Cessna, are typically used to seed the upper portion of the clouds, while the C340 seeds the cloud base.

[edit on 16 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by exile1981

2) Technically weather modification, and cloud seeding are releasing chemicals into the atmosphere so how can they not be considered as a type of chemtrail?

Well, it's more chemical dispersal - there is no trail left and certainly not anything that can be seen from the ground (obviously, since seeding has to take place in or above moisture bearing clouds - at relatively low altitude.)

And of course some cloud seeding is carried out using rockets.

But we all know that when people are talking about chemtrails they don't mean cloud seeding, they mean white lines left behind high altitude aircraft in otherwise clear blue skies. Exactly what we in Britain have not seen a single case of today

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Essan]

reply to post by Essan

Exactly what we in Britain have not seen a single case of today.

I am very glad you brought that up, because it occured to me whilst reading about the volcanic eruptions from Iceland, and the shut-down of airspace over most of Western Europe and Scandanavia that this is a PRIME opportunity to let people who believe in "chemtrails" see for themselves.

Would be nice if a weather front moves in, during the next few days, and brings the normal precursor cirrus clouds, as normally presage an approaching weather system. All without any mean ole' airplanes "spraying" ....

Of course, the particulates in the ash clouds could also induce some cloud formation...and if that leads to precipitation, then it could be harmful to some flora, due to increased levels of acidity.

I also spotted a bit in some articles mentioning that, because the volcanic ash tends to remain aloft in the 20,000 to 40,000 foot, or so, altitudes, it poses no immediate threat to people on the ground, in terms of respiration and such.

Gee....wouldn't that ALSO be the case for these so-called "chemtrails" that are alleged to be "sprayed" at the 30,000 foo tlevels, and above???

I think this event is a clear indication of the power of Mother Nature, and just HOW MUCH it can produce, just from one volcano, compared to the measely efects that mere Humans could, by using airplanes to "spray"...the sheer volume, in weight, is enormous if any sort of intense saturation of the air were attempted, by Humans.

Totally unfeasible.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by NOTHING 4 NO ONE
Still you are telling me nothing. I have conducted research.

So WHERE IS IT?? Show us the documents, the spreadsheets, the charts, the images, the videos and all the supporting information.

Alternatively, you may prefer to admit you are a chairborne web-based 'expert' and pretender.

This plane wasn't even near 35,000 ft.

Now as a researcher, you will know the reliable methods that allow a determination of aircraft height from the ground, so back to you - prove that statement. I'm impressed, very few people know how to do this, so when you post your evidence, you will gain even greater acclaim....

Additionally, you're only half right about the atmosphere having these "pockets" of just right conditions for producing legitimate contrails.

Err, say what???? He's 'half right'? What does that mean, exactly?

On a hot sunny day from horizon to horizon signifies there is an uniform condition of high pressure barring out any pockets of moisture or other influence producing these morphing smokescreens.

May I have some Italian dressing with that meaningless (and completely false) word salad?

[edit on 16-4-2010 by CHRLZ]

Marine Corps observation and communications- sorry Chaz not gonna explain 4 u in detail. You might be surprised as to how many people can estimate distance. I estimate what you don't know can fill a warehouse.
Scientific Method- Yes uneducated one, observations are one of, if not the most CRITICAL tool in researching phenomena.
Areas of high pressure= no moisture=no cloud formations=no ripe conditions for LEGITIMATE contrails. Never before in my life have I seen what you're trying to have me believe that contrails are just as savvy as you debunkers in matters pertaining to them... how and why they "persist", Why hot jet exhaust suddenly crystalizes the tiny miniscule water vapor associated with intense air compression/combustion. Hell, you'd be able to make your argument if these airliners used WATER as jet fuel. But my common sense along with many hours of observing these "contrails" leave with this one conclusion. YOU ARE WRONG. I don't need to produce anything for you in the likes of spreadsheets, data, corroboration with scientists.... whatever. Take your all knowing ass outside and sit. Sit there. Sit and take notice on a nice clear day where I live (do i hafta produce airfare for you too?) and watch the planes criss cross the sky in a DELIBERATE fashion. Watch how the planes flying in & out of the 3 major airports around here do not leave contrails. Watch how these persistent contrails muck up the sky left by these no destination planes NOT following the strict flight path of non chemtrail passenger planes. Theres my observations. Stick that in your ear if you don't like it. As a stats guy you should know those are the least reliable as they are tools of manipulation just like the fed's stats. Look where we are now. So no stats for you chrlz.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Here, I did a favor and read your link, to, regarding the company in Canada. Good info there, IF you read the whole thing....
[edit on 16 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

The point of the picture was Phage had said many pages back that cloud seeding was done under the clouds never above clouds. The picture and associated article was intended to point out that the cloud seeding, hail prevention was done at many altittudes and with different equipment.

Totally unfeasible.

Sorry, I won't pass on the opportunity... It's starting to look like you spew more tr-ash than the volcano!

reply to post by NOTHING 4 NO ONE


Bzzzzz! Wrong answers. Recommend remedial science and meteorology classes...

Areas of high pressure= no moisture=no cloud formations=no ripe conditions for LEGITIMATE contrails.

Where did anyone get the quaint notion that high pressure areas = no moisture? If thats' the extent of your 'research', knowledge and expertise, then I think we've discovered the flaws in your arguments.

BTW....I spent some quality time composing a post, just for you. It was tailored to the Southern California area (since I grew up there, I know it well. AND I am soom to be moving back...)

Any luck with your research, from using the tools I provided in my post, back one page?

reply to post by exile1981


IN the clouds....read it, again. Phage is correct. IN the clouds.

Gee....think on it, you wish to snap a photo of your airplane's equipment, while it's in flight. You certainly don't do it WHILE in the clouds, not very good picture that way, eh?

It is a publicity photo! The airplane was flying (as airplanes tend to do) over a layer of clouds, at the moment the phot was snapped.

BTW, those clouds certainly did NOT look like viable candidates for seeding, anyways. The airplane (the Cessna 340) was either en-route to a location, where the clouds would be seeded, or had finished already, at some other location, or was just up for the Photo OP!

Originally posted by NOTHING 4 NO ONE

Originally posted by jthomas
The burden of proof remains on those who claim "they are spraying" us.

Good luck.

Same worn cop out fashion.
You haven't dedicated your time into actually seeing this going on have you?

Years ago. This is old news.

You have taken the easy way out. What proof are you willing to demonstrate key word is DEMONSTRATE not re-post, side with phage etc. regarding your OWN experiences with seeing these anomolies?

I guess you still don't understand I have nothing to prove. YOU do. And you haven't.

Good luck.

Ok I have a question for both sides of the debate to answer.

If contrails/chemtrails are caused by engines and fuel would not the following all effect the frequency of reports?

1) Modern Jet engines burn fuel more efficiently then older engines. There is less unburnt fuel in the exhaust of a modern airplane. This would result in less aerosols left in the exhaust plume which should decrease the "seeding" effect of a jets passage.

2) Modern aircraft rarely use "jet" engines. Most civilian passenger aircraft use turbofan engines where most of the airflow is actually travelling around the engine in the fan section and then mixing with hot engine gases at the rear of the engine. This means the exhaust gases should be cooler and create less contrails because the air would have to be colder to get the same effect.


So has the frequency of the sitings increased or decreased? I would assume that these two items should decrease the frequency of sightings, but the number of planes has gone up.

So if sightings have gone up faster than # of planes flying then it lends evidence to the chemtrail theory, while if the # of sightings has decreased or gone up slower than the # of planes flying then it decreases the chemtrail theory.

reply to post by Americanist


Please....spare me.

If logic and science, not to mention experience is "trash" to you, then there is no way to help educate.

Or, is there?

Earlier, I proposed a challenge. It wasn't directly pointed out, but those who read carefully may have noticed.

I asked people to think about the volume of air, not just in two dimensions, but in THREE. And to think about just how MUCH material would be needed, in order to bring levels of concentrations of whatever is alleged to be "sprayed" up to what the "chemtrail" con-artists claim.

Then, divide that mass, that weight of material, by the number of airplanes needed to fly it up. Consider the payload capability of the airplanes, since that will differ greatly. Use averages, if you wish.

Count all of that up. Don't forget to add the man-hours necessary.

How large a 'fleet' is needed? Each airplane will be limited by payload concerns, and fuel capacity, which equates into endurance times.

Try figuring all of that out, THEN, try to remember that regularly scheduled passenger jets are NOT equipped, nor do they have the capacity, to be doing this so-called "spraying". It costs money to carry extra weight --- money in the extra fuel burn necessary. Besides, there is no space on a passenger jet, no plumbing, pumps, nozzles....no switches, controls in the cockpits. Nothing.

People see regular contrails, by normal airplanes, and call them "chemtrails"?

THAT is the 'trash', folks. And sites responsible for that garbage, such as 'carnicorn', et al, are the irresponsible low-lifes who spread it.

Click here for more information.

[removed quote of mannered content]

I guess lack of evidence about chemtrails makes some people crazy with rage. I've already had to deal with it several times in this very thread. This is evidently what happens when you believe in unsupported conspiracy theories: psychotic rage.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

I asked people to think about the volume of air, not just in two dimensions, but in THREE. And to think about just how MUCH material would be needed, in order to bring levels of concentrations of whatever is alleged to be "sprayed" up to what the "chemtrail" con-artists claim.

You really present a doozie. So who here, has the means to reproduce a 3D image utilizing barium salts as the medium for proper analysis of volume?

I've seen a fashion show modeling Kate Moss as a 3D hologram, but I'm under the impression it wasn't barium they were using.

btw, You've failed to address the chemical compounds in aviation fuel as well as what is commonly referred to chaff. It should be clear by now the military douses the atmosphere. It's also apparent commercial airliners dump fuel. That alone is in direct conflict of finding contrails everywhere.

Keep trying though... There are many that enjoy picking you apart.


(top of the page)

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Americanist]

reply to post by exile1981


Actually, modern engines make contrails more likely

As aircraft engines become more fuel efficient, contrails will form more frequently at lower flight levels because exhaust plumes of more efficient engines are cooler for the same water content (see Section 3.2.4.1). The overall efficiency h (Cumpsty, 1997) with which engines convert fuel combustion heat into propulsion of cruising subsonic aircraft was close to 0.22 in the 1950s, near 0.37 for modern engines in the early 1990s, and may reach 0.5 for new engines to be built by 2010 (see Figure 3-22). An increase of h from 0.3 to 0.5 in a standard atmosphere increases the threshold formation temperature of contrails by about 2.8 K (equivalent to 700-m lower altitude) (Schumann, 1996a).

Parameters of Future Changes in Aircraft-Produced Aerosol and Cloudiness (worth reading through in full )

reply to post by Americanist


Seems clear that you refuse to read the posts, or you do read, but aren't thinking them through.

btw, You've failed to address the chemical compounds in aviation fuel as well as what is commonly referred to chaff.

I posted information about the chemicals in aviation fuel, did you miss it? There is nothing harmful in the fuel, nothing that can do what the clowns at 'carnicorn' and on other sites claim.

Shall I link the post? Or, trust you to go back and find it?

Now, chaff. So what? Chaff is used very infrequently, most of the times in Military airspace, and is about as harmful as party confetti.

It should be clear by now the military douses the atmosphere.

There is NO such evidence.

You actually read my challenge...calculating the volume of airspace isn't hard. Length X Width X Height. Gives you cubic miles (or km, your preference for units). Look at the sky over your head, you can see in an arc of many, many miles (or kilometers). Use your best estimates, then add in the several thousand feet (or meters) height....simple. THEN, you can determine how much "stuff" would need to be "sprayed", after it was loaded (please show examples of that activity, in photos), carried aloft by the airplanes (also, show the "fleets" of these aircraft), and the numbers involved, by dividing what each airplane can carry, and how many would be needed.

It's also apparent commercial airliners dump fuel.

Now, that's just a silly statement!

Looks like someone needs to go back, and read again....



[edit on 16 April 2010 by weedwhacker]