Home » Uncategorized » Chemical Analysis of Contrails

Chemical Analysis of Contrails

What is a contrail made of? Mostly ice, since one of the primary exhaust emissions of a jet aircraft is water vapour, which freezes within a couple of seconds, and forms the visible part of the contrail. If the air is fairly humid, then the contrail can persist for quite a while, and even spread out, turning into a sheet of cloud.

Jet engines also emit the usual things engines emit: carbon dioxide, smoke, and small amounts of unburnt hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and small amounts of other things. Aircraft emissions are regulated.

Some people think that if a contrail stays in the sky for a long time, that this is very unusual, and that it means the government is spraying something in the air, either to change the weather, or to poison people. They call these persistent contrails “chemtrails”

Of course, persistent contrails are nothing new, they have been around at least since the 1940’s – when planes were able to get to sufficient altitude. But some people believe in the “chemtrail” theory so strongly that they ignore this fact, or they say “well, SOME of the persistent contrails must be chemtrails”.

One person who was convinced of this was Clifford Carnicom, who put a report on his web site that he said showed that “contrails” were poisoning the air. What happened was someone called Sue Miller collected three samples of rain and snow. She then sent them to someone called Therese Aigner, who then sent them to a lab to be analyzed for Aluminum, Barium, Calcium, Magnesium, and Titanium.

When the results came back, they detected very low levels of those elements, but Miller said: “This devastating data points to a deliberate atmospheric release of massive quantities of material containing Aluminum, Barium, Calcium, Magnesium, Calcium, and Titanium.

Scary stuff. But what do these results actually mean. All three samples were about the same, so lets look at the first one:

Result MDL EPA
Aluminum <0.100 0.100 0.200
Barium 0.100 0.020 2.000
Calcium <1 1 N/A
Magnesium <1 1 N/A
PH Field 7.2 6.5 to 8.5
Titanium <0.050 0.100 N/A

The “Result” column is the amount the substance found in mg/L (milligrams per liter). The units here are important. Sometimes concentration is measured in ppm (parts per million), which is the same as mg/L. Sometimes they are measured in ppb (parts per billion, so 1 mg/L = 1 ppm = 1000 ppb). Make sure you use the right units when looking at things like this

The second column, the MDL is the “Method Detection Limit”, defined as the smallest amount where you can be 99% sure that there is a non-zero amount of the substance. If a number is below the MDL, then you can’t be sure that it’s just instrument noise. If something is less than MDL, then you can’t say with any certainly if any of the substance exists. The best you can say is “there might be some, but we can’t say for sure, but it’s definitely less than the MDL”

The third column (EPA) is one I added for some perspective. It lists the allowable limits for drinking water from the EPA. If the EPA has not set a limit, then I put N/A.

Most of the substances are lower than the MDL, so we can’t really say if there is actually any of these substances in the sample. But the “chemtrail” people say “Tests were ordered for several elements that should NOT be present in normal rain/snow“. So is that right? Should the results come back as zero?

There are two problem here. Firstly if there actually WAS zero aluminum in the samples, then the tests would STILL come back as “less than MDL”, because of “noise” in the instrument. If an instrument has an MDL level, than means it can’t detect zero values with any confidence.

Secondly, we DO expect these substances in rainwater. Aluminum is the most abundant metal in the earth’s crust, so is found in dust in the air, and hence in rainwater. The EPA says:

  • Virtually all food, water, air, and soil contain some aluminum
  • Everyone is exposed to low levels of aluminum from food, air, water, and soil.

The EPA has not set safety limits for aluminum, the limit listed above is for taste and color reasons.

Calcium, likewise, is found in abundance in rocks (and hence airborne dust), as is magnesium and Titanium. There are no EPA limits set, because they are not particularly toxic.

The only substance with a measurable result was Barium. This was present in the samples a concentration that was just 5% of the allowable EPA limits for drinking water. Not a dangerous amount, but should it be found in the air (hence rainfall) at all? The CDC says

  • Barium gets into the air during the mining, refining, and production of barium compounds, and from the burning of coal and oil.
  • The length of time that barium will last in air, land, water, or sediments depends on the form of barium released.

So yes, barium is in the air, from such things as burning of coal and oil. And seemingly from this test result, not at a dangerous level.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usQuickly looking at the pH value – that measures the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, where a value of 7 is considered neutral. Drinking water ranges from 6.5 to 8.5, so the value here of 7.5 is nothing unusual for drinking water. “Acid rain” for example is defined as having a pH of less than 5.0. But rain is usually slightly acidic (pH of around 5.6) because of the carbon dioxide in the air, however it varies depending on location and atmospheric pollution (and can be has high as 8.5) . In the US rainwater is usually under 5.6, so getting a value of 7.5 is somewhat suspicious. since rainwater pH is constantly being measured, it’s very unlikely that such a high pH would have gone unnoticed. The fact that this one set of sample has a high pH suggests that either the samples were contaminated during collection, or that they were actually ground water, and not rainwater.

65 thoughts on “Chemical Analysis of Contrails

  1. siegmund says:

    Hello Mick,

    in your above article you refer to a report dated 02/13/2002 from Clifford Carnicoms website called “Lab tests are positve”

    This report is showing test results according EPA 200.7 (Metals by ICP AES) with MDL 1 mg/L for Ca, 0.1 mg/L for Al, 0.02 mg/L for Ba, whereas ISO 11885 (issue 4/1998) is showing MDL 0.001 mg/L for Ca, 0.05 mg/L for Al, 0.002 mg/L for Ba.

    It seems that this no name analytical lab (name and address blackened) was equipped with a first generation ICP spectrometer. But even then, especially when analytical results are near or below MDL, an experienced chemist would have delivered exact results. There is an old analytical rule which everybody knows: One has to concentrate the water sample (vacuum evaporation) by factor 10 or 100. And a top chemist would have told you whether this Barium fallout from the atmosphere was of geogenic or anthropogenic origin.

    I can imagine quite well why Clifford Carnicom did not disclose the name of the lab.


  2. E M. says:

    So you get some evidence against one thing on carnicom’s site and you assume that it debunks everything?

    Look here:


    Your site is gov’t disinfo. Propanganda. It was the first site that came up when searching for kucinich / chemtrails looking for the HR 2977 bill information. Why did the search results change recently ? It’s anyone’s guess I suppose. You obviously have the upperhand in this debate. You’ll probably present fact sheets directly from google as to why you are so high in the ratings. And of course I’ll believe them. Just like everyone else 🙂

    Just got here. I’ll certainly check out the rest of what you say.


  3. Hello E M., no, I don’t think this one article debunks the whole chemtrail story, but have a look at the other articles, and see what you think.

    I’m not sure why I get top result for “kuchinich+chemtrails – maybe other sites link here? I do think this is the most in depth article I’ve seen about the 2977 bill, so Google actually doing a good job in guiding you here. I don’t say anything incorrect, do I?

  4. Duncankunz says:

    This is an invaluable resource to people like me who want to present fact — as opposed to fantasy and paranoia — about the “chem-trail” debate.

  5. JazzRoc says:


    I quote jbreezes today on a “Chemical Awareness Day” thread:

    “Check out the site newyorkskywatch dot com which has much info, including the faultiness of the site contrailscience dot com. Jazzrock is apparently a debunker. Check out newyorkskywatch to learn more about weather modification, chemtrails, and debunkers”

    Hoping you find this of interest,


  6. wildwelder az says:


    watch the video ,then tell me all these people are lying.


    “THEY”started spraying again here in az on monday am ,sky completely clouded over in 4 hours ,just like last week ,monday-clear,mon afternoon cludy-tuesday spray-wednesday cold cloudy and supposed to rain?

    what are you spraying?!?!?!?!?

  7. moxaman says:

    Perhaps you would like to explain the extremely elevated levels of aluminum, barium, and other metals found in these samples taken at Mt. Shasta and surrounding areas?


    The area where these samples were taken has been heavily sprayed with persistant contrails (chemtrails). The samples were furnished by citizens living in the area.

  8. moxaman says:

    And then there is the following report by a reporter who visited with a long time resident of Mt. Shasta.


  9. moxaman says:

    You can deny the reality of chemtrails all you want folks… the numbers don’t lie. Unless you can come up with a reason why the air, soil, and water are being polluted with aluminum, barium, and other metals at THOUSANDS of times normal limits, I think chemtrails would have to be considered the most plausable reason.

  10. Faithinscience says:

    Moxaman. The websites that you glean your “facts” from are NOT reputable. How were the collected samples kept free of contamination? Sorry, the people who run these sites would sell their mothers to push their agendas further. NONE of these sampling techniques prove that ANY of this stuff comes from the trails. This is just more assumption, speculation and BAD science.

  11. You can deny the reality of chemtrails all you want folks… the numbers don’t lie. Unless you can come up with a reason why the air, soil, and water are being polluted with aluminum, barium, and other metals at THOUSANDS of times normal limits, I think chemtrails would have to be considered the most plausable reason.

    That observation actually proves that it’s not coming from trails in the sky. The test made are highly localized – in one very small spot, and vastly different from other spots just a mile or so away.

    If they are accurate then it proves it can’t be from contrails, as anything sprayed in the sky and lingering fro hours would spread evenly over thousands of square miles, been detected at the same levels everywhere.

    The most likely explanation is simply local contamination from the ground. Aluminum and barium are very common elements, and found, in different concentrations, in the ground, and in airborne dust.

  12. And the “THOUSANDS” is due to people confusing milligrams with micrograms. At most the aluminum tests are 2-3 times the EPA limits (which are limits for taste, and not toxicity), and perfectly natural to find in groundwater.

  13. captfitch says:

    I guess I’m a little in the dark about the testing process. If you wanted something tested can you just bring it in and tell them were you got it and they test it? Shouldn’t the item being tested have some sort of collection and possession protocol? I mean, if I give urine it’s controlled and handled very carefully. It looks like all these samples have just been collected willy-nilly and handed over on faith that they were collescted and handled correctly.

    I think I’ll fill a cup with bottled water and label it “rain water” and have it tested. I’m sure that will prove once and for all that there is absolutely nothing in the air.

  14. faithinscience says:

    I think I’ll fill a cup with bottled water and label it “rain water” and have it tested. I’m sure that will prove once and for all that there is absolutely nothing in the air.

    Yup, and what these people claim to do is no more or less scientific than that. What bothers me is that they don’t understand WHY it’s a bad idea to leave a jar out, collect rain water and claim that anything found in that water is proof of air contamination. They are COMPLETELY ignorant about proper sample collection and contamination when these things SHOULD BE obvious. How can someone make such obvious mistakes and then claim it’s the proper way to collect a sample, with a straight face. It’s just absurd!

  15. Archeopterix says:

    If someone is attempting to poison us then barium is a particularly poor choice.

    While all soluble barium salts are poisonous and can be lethal in quantity (and here I have to admit that I don’t know what the LD50 for different barium salts are-if anyone reading this knows they’re welcome to follow up of course) barium itself is a peculiarity among heavy metals because it does NOT bio-accumulate. That means it does not persist in the body as other heavy metals like lead, cadmium, arsenic, gold, thallium, etc. do. In fact people who work with barium on a regular basis often develop a benign condition called baritosis which manifests itself as a cough, and as tiny star shaped deposits in the lungs which are opaque to X Rays. These clear gradually after exposure to the barium ceases.

    Likewise aluminum IS toxic but the body has natural mechanisms to rid it from the system. With the right amounts of the proper nutrients the aluminum is excreted through the hair follicles. It DOES after all stand to reason that the body would evolve a defense against the most prevalent metal on Earth!

    Then what about the constituents some people claim also compose chemtrails, such as biological agents like molds, bacillus strains, viruses, spores, etc? Well naturally you would expect to find those things in the environment and it would be a very strange place indeed that lacked these common organisms. What about claims that the particular species being found are exotic to the areas they’re being found in however? If there are species of bacteria being found in Long Island (just as an example) that should normally be found in Africa, then how did they get to Long Island? That’s a question I don’t have an answer for.

    Moral: Not everything being found in so called chemtrail fallout MUST be strange or exotic. If I order a test to find out if there are bacteria in rainwater then I must expect SOME kind of bacteria are undoubtedly going to be found. Bacteria are the most common organisms on the Earth! However if I don’t go further and order the species to be specifically identified then I might assume by way of a knee-jerk reaction that said bacteria doesn’t belong. There is a panic factor involved.

    Now if the technician that does the test calls me and says well sir, I ran your tests and I found out something very odd: You have a microscopic parasite in your rainwater that’s normally found in the jungles of the south pacific and not on Long Island then maybe it’s time to be concerned.

    What about things like blood cells, vaccines, and other cell types that can’t be positively identified being found in rainwater? That I don’t have an answer for. I said earlier I believe something could be going on and I have a few reasons but as with anything I welcome logical answers.

  16. patthecat says:

    Uncinus…you are misleading people here. Why don’t you elaborate on the chemical composition of jet engine exhaust instead of just saying it’s mostly water with a few other things?

    Stop pretending these trails are so benign. Please highlight the gargantuan fuel consumption of typical aircraft. The visible white plume is the pleasant side of the contrail but the invisible pollution produced may well be thought of as a chemical trail.

    You (and others) are deliberately trying to bissect the issue into an either/or debate which is pointless and obfuscating. The real issue here is that growing numbers of public are becoming aware of atmospheric pollution of massive scale…we can see it with our own eyes. Don’t tell us it’s ok it’s just water vapour…that is false. If it weren’t so noticeably changing our skies people wouldn’t care. It is the cognitve dissonance between official greenwash and visible pollution that is leading so many to reach far-fetched and fantastic conclusions.

    A chemtrailer that says that we are all always being sprayed by a global conspiracy is as devoid of reason as the contrailer that says we are never being sprayed. The evidence exists to dispel both notions categorically.

    This site is let down by a lack of impartiality. How do you KNOW that the occasional trail in the sky is not a chemical trail? Omniscience is a trait you likely don’t possess.

  17. TheFactsMatter says:

    “Stop pretending these trails are so benign. Please highlight the gargantuan fuel consumption of typical aircraft. The visible white plume is the pleasant side of the contrail but the invisible pollution produced may well be thought of as a chemical trail.”

    I love how some people pick on the most efficient way to transport people and goods around the world, and then refuse to understand that the cars,trucks and buses on any highway in the country are polluting the planet in much more serious ways. Brake dust, fuel leaks, radiator fluid leaks are spilling all over our road ways because people don’t service their machines anywhere NEAR as well as any plane in the sky is. Again, focusing on the absurd while ignoring the REAL problems that are much closer to home seems so ridiculous to me!

    MUCH more fuel is wasted on empty buses, cars and trucks than the average person can comprehend. Look in ANY 5 passenger car and tell me how many passengers are in it! VERY inefficient! But, again, most people ignore the REAL problems we face in favor of the imaginary ones.

    “The real issue here is that growing numbers of public are becoming aware of atmospheric pollution of massive scale…”

    Swimming pools are MUCH more of a concern to the environment with all of the chlorine gas being evaporated into the atmosphere. Yet, since we can’t “see” the pollution, it’s ignored simply because people like to swim.
    Sure they are…If you are referring to the trails of water vapor and combustion gases in the sky, you are a bit confused. Accusing Uncinus of downplaying the “problem” of “chemtrails” doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t as much of an environmental issue as so many people CLAIM (but provide no evidence to support the claim) them to be. So many people sound these alarm bells…and then REFUSE to back up there claims with anything more than conjecture, assumption and opinion. Sorry, I need more than that.

    “A chemtrailer that says that we are all always being sprayed by a global conspiracy is as devoid of reason as the contrailer that says we are never being sprayed.”

    This is simply untrue. There is PLENTY of evidence that shows that these trails are a normal and predictable byproduct of aviation. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that these trails have anything to do with “geoengineering”. People understand that both things are related to “the sky” and they jump to conclusions and make assumptions about what one thing has to do with the other. I’ll write it again…there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to link the trails in the sky to ANY “spray program”. It’s PURE speculation. Feel free to show me how wrong I am! I’m waiting!

    Also, personally, I do believe we have been “sprayed” with different substances from time to time. I don’t deny that, at all. My whole contention is that there is NO EVIDENCE that shows the trails we all see have ANYTHING to do with any type of “spray program”. Again, feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

    This whole thing is about evidence….Chemtrailers lack it, completely.

    This site is NOT a “let down” to me! It’s a “let down” to you because the facts here go against your “beliefs” in the matter. I certainly don’t claim to “KNOW that the occasional trail in the sky is not a chemical trail”. I have never said anything of the sort! All I’m saying is that the “evidence” presented so far isn’t as compelling as many would like to believe it is (not by a long shot!). In fact, what has been presented AS evidence only goes to show that the person presenting it hasn’t taken the time to learn the facts about aviation and atmospheric science…or science in general, on many occasions. Present ANY bit of evidence and show me how it proves “chemtrails” without making a single assumption! You can’t! That is VERY important!

  18. moxaman:

    Perhaps you would like to explain the extremely elevated levels of aluminum, barium, and other metals found in these samples taken at Mt. Shasta and surrounding areas?

    I’ve addressed that to some extent here:

    Basically the wildly different values that were measured are strong evidence AGAINST spraying in slowly dispersing trails (which would cause a small, but consistent, increase), and instead indicate normal environmental variations, testing contamination, and testing procedural errors (testing pond sludge, testing surface snow in a ski area in June, not having controls, etc).

  19. patthecat:

    Uncinus…you are misleading people here. Why don’t you elaborate on the chemical composition of jet engine exhaust instead of just saying it’s mostly water with a few other things?
    Stop pretending these trails are so benign. Please highlight the gargantuan fuel consumption of typical aircraft. The visible white plume is the pleasant side of the contrail but the invisible pollution produced may well be thought of as a chemical trail.

    I’m highlighting the water component because most of the chemtrail theorists think that “normal” contrails can’t persist. They don’t know that burning a gallon of jet fuel produces more than a gallon of water, and that explains why contrails form. Ice super-saturation explains why they persist and spread.

    That jet exhaust contains other things is hardly rocket science. It’s like car exhaust. It’s burt hydrocarbons. It’s pollution. But it’s a vastly smaller component of global pollution than ground based sources.

    If you really want to go down the “contrails are made by jet engine exhaust, which contain chemicals, so contrails are chemtrails”, then fine – but please note that’s not what most people who use the word “chemtrails” mean, so you are talking about something different. Hence you need to clarify that whenever you use the term in the future.

    Might be a bit easier to use the words “jet engine exhaust”.

  20. patthecat says:

    “I love how some people pick on the most efficient way to transport people and goods around the world”

    What?…air travel more efficient than ship and train? faster yes more efficient no.

    Don’t jump to conclusions about my “beliefs”.

    Yes i do think they are contrails in the way this site thoroughly points out, but I would not preclude the possibility of secret spraying, as has been admitted, also occuring. I would take the admissions of these operations as supporting evidence.

    I understand you’re taking on the “all contrails are chemtrails” argument…but that seems an easy fight to win.

    I have campaigned against pollution for a long time and I know contrails are not the biggest issue by far, but judging by the amount of research into the accidental effects on climate that the air industry affects I am not the only one concerned.

  21. Large planes are arguably more efficient than most cars and ships, but much less efficient than most trains, in terms of passenger miles per gallon. But it’s rather complicated to get an overall figure.


    I’d not preclude the existence of secret spraying either. I just don’t see any evidence for it. The vast majority of the proposed evidence contains serious errors, which is mostly what I point out here.

    The fact there were a very small number secret spray tests in the past is arguably some evidence that there might be secret test now. But not particularly strong evidence, and certainly not evidence for the scale of operations that people are calling “chemtrails” – where tens of thousands of trails are supposedly “sprayed” every day.

    If those old tests had never happened, I don’t think it would make the likelihood of current tests any greater or smaller.

  22. TheFactsMatter says:

    “What?…air travel more efficient than ship and train? faster yes more efficient no.”

    Are you honestly trying to convince me that a train/ship uses less fuel to transport a few hundred people or tons of goods from NY to CA than an airplane would?!?


  23. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423261677748380.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth

    With cars, you measure miles per gallon in how far the vehicle can travel on one gallon of gas. With airlines, it’s how far one seat (occupied or not) can travel on one gallon of jet fuel. And U.S. major airlines average about 64 mpg, according to calculations using Department of Transportation data for 2009. For each gallon of jet fuel, airlines could, on average, fly one seat 64 miles. That’s better than your SUV or hybrid car, unless you pack lots of people into the car.

    But trains and busses beat planes by economy of scale.

    And here’s an interesting analysis:


    And according to this:


    Cruise ship get around 10 passenger miles/gallon. Which makes sense, due to the friction of water.

  24. TheFactsMatter says:

    Again, I’m referring to global travel, not “economy of scale”. Before we had airplanes, in order to move goods and people from one end of the country to another, one used shipping/trucking…not buses. If we’re talking about short distances, that would be one thing…But, when discussing aviation (in terms of these trails), air travel is the most efficient. Let’s see a bus bring a load of anything from California to NY with anything that resembles efficiency. A bike would be more “efficient” (fuel used per passenger per mile) as a mode of transportation than anything else, but it would be impractical as far as moving goods or people across country. Should I use the word “practical” instead of “efficient”?! Maybe…

    Which creates more pollution…A ship having to navigate around land masses to get from NY to CA or an airplane that flies in a straight line from one coast to the other? Don’t forget about the crew and their needs (heat, fresh water, cooking/cleaning) on the ship. Also, a bus/truck traveling from one end of the country to another would not be traveling in a straight line and would eat up it’s advantage in no time through a couple of mountainous areas.

    There are several variables. I guess I’ll just use the word “practical” from now on instead of efficient. Which,. I still believe is the case anyway. Oh well.

  25. Maybe the word you were looking for was “effective”?

    Los Angeles to NY is 2,780 miles and about 45 hours of driving by road, 2,462 miles and 5.5 hours by air. But the bus will burn less total fuel per passenger for the trip.

  26. TheFactsMatter says:

    You are referring to “fuel efficiency”. I’m referring to efficiency in general. I can move 300 people from New York to LA in 5.5 hours by air in one plane. I could also move 300 people from New York to LA in 3 buses (plus) in 45 hours…nonstop.

       /ɪˈfɪʃənt/ Show Spelled[ih-fish-uhnt] Show IPA
    performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort.

    Time is a key in overall efficiency.

    yes, I know I mentioned fuel and yes, per person it uses less fuel on the bus. But, when I first used the word, I was referring to overall efficiency.

  27. patthecat says:

    Fair points. I suppose it comes down to what, where and how fast to find the most efficient mode of transport. Personally I wouldn’t try shipping something across the U.S and I wouldn’t really want to ship myself to the U.S from the U.K either. Air travel is appropriate much of the time.

    Not sure the friction of water is any harder to overcome than gravity though but I was thinking more of freight than people anyway.

    Also, in France and some parts of Europe high speed trains have become a good alternative to flight on many routes. The U.S is so large flying is the only fast way to go.

  28. TheFactsMatter says:

    “Also, in France and some parts of Europe high speed trains have become a good alternative to flight on many routes.”

    I’d love to see “bullet trains” in the USA.

    Some day…

  29. Mike says:

    Air is certainly less dense than water…..but at 600 mph vs 20 (or so) mph for a ship, the force required to pass through the air is increasing with the square of the velocity……there are plenty of sites around will tell you how to calculate the density of air at altitude…….you do the math! 🙂

  30. Jesse Brower says:

    Chem-trail conspiracy theorist are like drug addicts “they just cant get enough”. So you want to believe the lie, the paranoid fantasy, that you are being poisoned by your government? Go right ahead! Please don’t scare your kids into thinking it too though. Have some common sense. You all are killing yourselves with worry and fear. For what? First of all, to everyone that thinks chem-trails are real, you are all clearly wrong and painfully misinformed! Second, even if the government was poisoning us, which I assure you they are not, then what the hell could you do about it? NOTHING thats what. So why worry about something you are not going to be able to control anyway? If you people are not careful, you people are going to end up really going crazy and heading for the hills to hide out in a chem-trail free camp for lunatics. You choose. Do you want to drive your self to that? Or do you want to be free from paranoia? Get counseling if thats what it takes. I am.

    At least I see the folly of my ways now. Being paranoid like this is madness it it’s purest form. There is help. You have to want it though. BTW medication is not the answer. Cognitive behavioral therapy is one good way to beat paranoia. So any way I am signing off this site for the last time and for all of you paranoid people reading this. Please wake up. I mean really do your selves a favor. Give it up. I know all you paranoid ones are reading this and thinking to your self “this guy is just blind or what a dummy he does not know the chem-trail truth,” or he is just a government worker lying to us to cover it up” You know what, you can go right ahead and think that if you want. You know in your own hearts that you are just playing the paranoid game though. It makes you feel important. It’s time to give it up. I have done more research them probably most of you combined and I can tell you with utter certainty that chem-trails are non-sense. You will believe what you want. If you are smart though you will give it up and go to counseling for paranoia and anxiety, if that is what it takes.

    Think of your families that you are neglecting by sitting at your computer reading this garbage. Most of you probably have wives. You put them through hell with this crap. Why not give it up now. Really. O but wait, I am just a government worker covering up the truth. Give me a break people. Come out of your insanity and go spend some time with your family. Seriously. That is what I am about to go do.

  31. TheFactsMatter says:

    Well, there is one thing they could do…

    The revolution is coming!

  32. Mike says:

    The could stand against the wall to make it more convenient?

  33. TheFactsMatter says:

    “The could stand against the wall to make it more convenient?”

    And they will. The damned traitors!

  34. Revolutionary says:

    I am not a scientist I am just a carny working state fairs all over the country.Sometimes I get to places that have no trails in the sky .No trails for days .We set up with no trails .Have the light show with no trails.Saturday morning the trails start.The skies of blue turn white with persistent trails that become long whisking clouds .The clouds take over the sky and it becomes hotter.I see it feel it and I have become ultra aware of it.I do not need science to tell me something is wrong with it .I have watched the trails being laid low over the fairgrounds.starting from one side and ending at the other.Weather control is a possible reason.Carnivals stimulate the economy and they are all owned by shrine rs and free masons.People control could be another reason.Raleigh had the largest crowd of people I had ever seen this year and the chem trails were the worst and most obvious I had ever witnessed

  35. Revolutionary says:

    You can not turn a contrail on and off

  36. Artyom says:

    You are right, you can’t turn a contrail on and off… IT DEPENDS ON THE ATMOSPHERE!!!! Do you think it is even???????? There are differences all over and if the engine goes from a dry pocket to a saturated one, guess what happens? A contrail will appear… So no switch, JUST interaction with the atmosphere… Any patch contrail is just a visual sign where the moisture was at that given altitude…

  37. Geezer says:

    Barium Sulphate is commonly used as a filler in vehicle brake pads (Chan and Stachowiak, 2004) and barium has been used to trace brake pad dust in a pollution study in central London (Gietl et al, 2010).

    1) Chan D., Stachowiak G.W. (2004). Review of automotive brake friction materials. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering

    2) Gietl J.K., Lawrence R., Thorpe A.J., Harrison R.M. (2010). Identification of brake wear particles and derivation of a quantitative tracer for brake dust at a major road. Atmospheric Environment.

  38. Weinlock says:

    Uncinus, I can’t post a link, about contrail chemistry. It is form Cynthia H. Twohy and Bruce W. Gandrud in
    ‘GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 25, NO. 9, PAGES 1359-1362, MAY 1, 1998

  39. http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/facultypages/twohy/TwohyGRL98.pdf

    Interesting stuff – now there’s some real contrail science.

  40. captfitch says:

    Great article except there was no mention at all regarding what the engines were on the aircraft. Who cares if it was a 75 or a DC8. PLus I was suprised at the amount of metal present. Those engines are constantly eating themselves or the fuel storage method is poor.

  41. MikeC says:

    I dont’ think you can say too much about metal in the samples at all – the overall quantities are miniscule, and the various mechanical components of the engines do wear – even with the best technology and lubrication available – that’s jsut a fact of life in mechanical systes.

    I seem to recall a few years ago a RR engine was pulled off a wing having achieved the amazing life of 20,000+ hours of service – which is, of course, just flying hours and not maintenance & taxying (at least I don’t think it includes taxiing) – but jet engines used to be routinely overhauled at 6000 hours operation.

    Tehse days the various modules are more likely to receive their own overhauls rather than the engine as a whole, plus there’s all the fuel related components such as pumps, meters, valves, etc all of which are cosntantly wearing and will have their own overhaul/maintenance lives as determined by how they wear.

  42. Marcel says:

    “I seem to recall a few years ago a RR engine was pulled off a wing having achieved the amazing life of 20,000+ hours of service”
    Wonder if any of the turbine blades were ground by my father – he worked at RR Hillington plant near Glasgow,Scotland from 1952 to 1984.

  43. Danny55 says:

    Just wondering if someone could post any links to analysis of contrails, undertaken in situ, on a regular basis.

  44. MikeC says:

    Airbus had a programme in the 1990’s – ‘Measurement of OZone by Airbus In-service airCraft’ (MOZAIC) program” – but ut isn’t specifically contrails.

    some results are here – http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr/dbfastex/datasets/moz.html

    I haven’t looked at exactly what is in them tho.

    AFAIK aircraft and jet manufacturers actually have little or no interest in contrails & that is likely to remain the case unless politicians decide that contrails are actually a contributor to global warming worth taking some action on.

  45. Danny55 says:

    Thanks Mike


  46. I can disprove the entire website with one encyclopedia article. It’s called “Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols.” Aluminum oxide, strontium, barium sulfate, and other heavy metals and “dust” / bioprecipitation are dumped on the public as part of a “global warming experiment.”

    This is kinda like one of those atheist websites trying to disprove the existence of God. Funny and sad at the same time.

    This is an official government program. What exactly are you trying to debunk on this website, out of curiosity? Seriously.

  47. Hi Michael, I’m trying to debunk the notion that the long white persistent trails behind some planes sometimes are anything other than normal contrails.

    “Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols” are a PROPOSED method of geoengineering. There’s no evidence anyone has done it yet.

    Do you think the trails look different to contrails? How so?

  48. Weinlock says:

    Unkinus, I still don’t understand why we still didn’t contacted that person and asked her for some very valuable contribution? You are quite famous with your work on chemtrails theory, you can ask her for help.
    Cynthia Twohy

  49. Rude Bastard says:

    Mr. Fleming,

    There is no evidence that the trails in the sky have anything to do with “Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols”.

    I can’t see where you have disproved anything about this site.

  50. Vinny says:

    “Contrails,” and “Chemtrails,” are two completely different things. It is generally fairly simple to tell the difference, due to the unique characteirstics of each. Contrails are quite simply the rapid mixture of mostly atmospheric moisture laden air flows going over and under the surfaces of the wings, mixed with a small amount of exhaust. Plus, these contrails will nearly without exception will appear at the same elevation as the moisture which creates normal clouds. Chemtrails, on the other hand not only appear normally below the elevation of cloud cover, they are by far more distinguishable by the “patterns” in which they are formed (the most noticeable is the “checkerboard” pattern) each pattern has one glaring consistency…they would never occur in any natural manner.

    At the risk of being whisked away in the black helicopters…lol…in the latter part of the Clinton Administration an executive order was produced that allowed for “distribution of simulated biological warfare agents and related materials over American soil, in order to determine best-case scenarios for first responders without prior notification as long as said materials were being used for study purposes.” This, despite the fact that such simulated materials can and have been lethal in cases of the elderly, the immuno-compromised, and the very young. These materials, have had state patrol officers, firefighters, credible civilians and journalists collect samples and the test results were consistent; a chain of poly-peptide co-polymer containing biological elements which lead to the development of a set of very specific physical “flu-like”symptoms severe enough to cause “infected” patients to go to their doctors, walk-in clinics, ER’s and the like. Medical facilities in areas slated for testing are informed by the CDC to report any patients in a given area and/or timeframe displaying a specific set of symptoms directly to them. That WAS the “original concept” which though still being done, however the major focus in the past 25 years or so has been “strategic weather control,” conducted under the auspices of the Air Force
    operating from the HARRP (harmonic atmospheric resonance research program) based in Alaska.

    Harrp has been conducting experiments in combining harmonics to create new vibratory rates to “see what they do.” It has long been known that certain sub-harmonic frequencies cause fear, confusion, anger, and triggers the fight-or-flight response. During their experimentation researchers have also found frequencies that (if bombarded onto a reflective surface) can either/or heat up or cool down a highly specific surface by over 20 degrees Fahrenheit. This is done by using a massive antennae array and “bouncing” these frequencies off the ionosphere and onto a reflective platform.

    Lay down a pair of these mile-square “checkerboards” of these alleged “contrails,” at or around 5-10 miles apart containing highly reflective elements such as aluminum et al, then using these harmonics heat one up by even 10 degrees, and cool the other one by the same and…voila! The conditions for
    massive thunderstorms, lightning strikes, drought or flood conditions, tornadoes and even typhoons, hurricanes and super-storms have been created. As a strategic military asset it is understandable for research into such control, but irrespectively, this is being used with well-known “cloud seeding” additives such as aluminum and iodine. Aluminum oxides have been proven to be directly responsible for early onset Alzheimer’s Disease in younger patients as well as the exacerbation and worsening of the symptoms of those patients whom have already been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.

    The lady from Arizona who witnessed an odd cloud configuration in an otherwise clear sky, followed within hours by heavy cloud cover, high winds and chilling rains is a classic scenario that was repeated just last week west of Portland OR. Three perfectly formed X’es stacked in a straight line North to South in an otherwise clear, fair and warm day, changed within hours to a sky FULL of swirling black clouds, freezing rain and high winds. In the next 24 hours, there were record setting rain and snowfalls!

    Two states hundreds of miles apart, in the same week, having nearly identical conditions followed by nearly identical results. Hmm…just a coincidence I am blindly supposed to believe? Something like that town which had never had a tornado in it’s entire history having the same “odd-looking cloud patterns” followed a few hours later by TWENTY-SEVEN tornadoes within 12 hours! Just another coincidence I suppose…but I DO have a question for you.

    In your first “lab results” discussion you claimed the heavy metals were at or under EPA regulations. Later you made the comment that we were obviously were mistaking the decimal points from hundreds to thousands (we’re ALL pretty stupid according to your real employers) then went on to say these results showed the regulated elements as being 2-3 times ( 200 to 300%) over the EPA maximums. So, Good Sir, which is it? Well within the maximum range or 200-300% over the EPA mandatory maximums, and if so…then why are these planes exempt from these regulations? That in itself is a bit odd in my personal view…unless considered in the light of our current administration.

    If it weren’t so deadly, it would be amusing how semantics and rhetoric can be used to assume we are ALL deaf, blind and stupid. If anyone is wondering WHY all of this is happening, please check out the U.N.’s Agenda 21.

  51. Strawman says:

    Didn’t read past your first paragraph. Please get your facts on contrails straight. As it is, you are wrong.

  52. Don Gisselbeck says:

    We will probably never hear from “Vinny” again. It is amazing how how poor reading comprehension comes with crank magnetism.

  53. cloudspotter says:

    HARRP (harmonic atmospheric resonance research program)? You mean HAARP (high frequency active auroral research program) ?

  54. Jay Reynolds says:

    I thnk it was a spoof. Nobody is that full of bunk.
    On the other hand….?????

  55. durrmoment says:

    If your going to dispute someone’s findings, PERHAPS you should identify who you are, your credentials, the source of your findings…there are no identifying names on the charts of chemicals you show. For all we know you fabricated all your findings, its very easy to make a chart. WHAT PISSES ME OFF IS YOU JUST WASTED 15 MINUTES OF MY TIME!!!!!

  56. JFDee says:


    what charts are you referring to?

    As stated, the test result sheet was taken from Cliff Carnicoms site. If you claim it has been tampered with, then please explain what evidence that claim is based on.

    If you think Mick’s explanation of the lab report is wrong, then you can surely point out the errors.

  57. floridaniel says:

    I’ve read through much of the debate here and haven’t caught if anyone has gone up in an aircraft and taken a sample of the “trails.”

    It seems to me to be an inexpensive test if soooooo many feel it might be life threatening.

    Let’s, or your group, pay a reputable university of your choice, have third party witnesses and PROVE what is in the exhaust. Certainly the EPA and other government sample analysis would be COMPLETELY dismissed by the theorists, so why not spend, say a quarter or dollar a piece, between the thousands who worry, and RESOLVE the issue. An acquaintance reminded me about this, so I’ve gone through a LOT of articles and found ZERO scientific collection of data by the fearful, on what is portrayed as LIFE threatening; this in itself is sort of proof to me.

  58. Captfitch says:

    They don’t want to be proven wrong. It’s too much fun to keep this going. Remember the x files? In his office the poster read “I want to believe”.

Comments are closed.