Chemtrails: How in the World Are They Spraying?
By T.J. Coles
14 August, 2014.
In anticipation of Michael J. Murphy’s new film Who in the World
is Spraying?—a follow-up to the masterful
What in the World Are They Spraying? and Why…?
—this article asks How?
Do these trails resemble commercial flight-paths?
Chemtrails are chemical trails released in the troposphere
and/or stratosphere by unmarked jet aircraft under
military control. Most of them are white, some are black.
Unlike most condensation trails (contrails), chemtrails
are laid in patterns impossible for commercial jets.
They appear in all atmospheric conditions at all times
of the year—in contrast to persistent contrails—and linger
for hours, hazing blue skies to white.
Chemtrails are real. An Air Force Phillips Lab and Materiel
Command geophysics acquisition document published in 1996 states:
‘Chemical and other techniques to mitigate deleterious
ionization effects on GPS transmission will be tested
and evaluated in FY97-99 … Measurements of effluent
plumes and chemical clouds by ground-based and
airborne Lidar will continue through FY99 …
[Department of Defense will] Develop accurate
and validated cloud and weather simulation
for any world-wide location to support acquisition,
training and war-gaming’.1
The date correlates to a US Congress budget allocation
to the US Army and Air Force for a programme
called ‘owning the weather’, published in 1996.
To quote the budget report:
‘USAIC&FH [US Army Intelligence Center and
Fort Huachuca] sponsors the Joint Army/Air
Force tactical weather concept, which embraces
the “Owning the Weather” initiatives of the
Army Research Laboratory’s Battlefield
Environment Directorate. These TRADOC
[US Army Training and Doctrine Command]
concepts describe how weather support to the
future Army will be provided. They also describe
the employment of IMETS
[Integrated Meteorology System] with its
capability to integrate information from national
and indigenous sources to provide a 3-D
of weather and environmental effects on
and above the battlefield’.2
Erik Meijer, Member of the European Parliament,
stated at the European Commission:
‘since 1999, members of the public in
Canada and the USA have been complaining
about the growing presence in the air of aircraft
condensation trails of a new type, which
sometimes persist for hours and which
spread far more widely than in the past,
creating milky veils which are dubbed
‘aerial obscuration’, and that the new type
has particularly come to people’s attention
because it is so different from the short,
pencil-thin white contrails which have been
a familiar sight ever since jet engines came into use’.3
The dates (i.e., the late-1990s) correlate to the documented
Pentagon programmes.
In 2001, retired US Air Force sergeant Gene Shimer,
who had served for four years in the Korean War
as a radar technician, told his daughter:
‘They’re gridding us up there’.
HOW THEY DO IT
The aeroplanes involved are non-commercial.
They use afterburner jets. In the 1970s, the
US National Aeronautical and Space Administration
(NASA) tested the possibility of deliberately
creating condensation trails with JP-4 jet fuel and
no chemical additives. The author wrote:
‘The Sabreliner aircraft has twin jet engines each
capable of consuming 1200 lb hr-1 of fuel.
In the contrail experiments we used an engine
setting which gave total fuel consumption
rate of 1500 lb hr-1 and an indicated airspeed
of 180 kt. Partial approach flaps were applied to
jeep the aircraft level at this slow speed’.4
In other words, the jet was flying slowly in order
to burn more fuel and generate more heat.
The purpose is to raise the relative humidity levels
to make the air conducive to contrail formation and persistence.
Scholars understood that adding chemicals to
afterburners would give water vapour a substance
to adhere to and thus persist in atmospheres
where contrails cannot usually persist, unlike the
above study, which chose an area known
for contrail persistence, i.e. a mountainous region.
NASA filed a patent in 1973 for
‘a liquid fuel, in which barium salts are dissolved,
and a high energy oxidizer which spontaneously
ignites the fuel on contact. The barium
release is accomplished by impinging fuel
and oxidizer jets in an open-ended combustion
[sic] chamber which expels the reaction product
gases or plasma and which includes the desired
barium neutral atoms (Ba°) and barium ions (Ba+)
as individual species’.5
It would be used in the upper atmosphere in order
to detect electromagnetic radiation.
Others combined the idea of heat-generation,
which could be attained by afterburners, and
chemical additives. ‘An afterburner is in effect
a ram jet added to a turbine jet engine’, write
Gray et al. in a 1974 academic study for the University of Colorado.
‘[we could use] existing afterburner equipped
jet engines with relatively simple modifications …
Use of afterburner type jet engines to
generate carbon directly. This alternative
was considered by far the cheapest,
most effective, most convenient, and
safest alternative … An ideal aircraft would
be a B-52 with its 8 afterburner engines,
4 of which could be modified. Some re-piping
of the fuel tanks would also be required.
During take off all engines would be used
in the normal manner. In the air 4 engines
would be switched to carbon production …
We have concluded that by slightly modifying
readily available jet engines carbon dust
particles could be produced and dispersed
into the air at a rate of 20-30,000 pounds per hour per engine’.6
Gray et al.’s illustration of where carbon would
be stored before being vaporized by afterburners.
People often film and photograph unmarked jets
releasing black trails.
Gray et al. proposed using carbon black dust.
Others have proposed using sulphur dioxide, sea salt, and aluminium.
In 2010, The Regulation of Geoengineering was
published by the British government. Minister of
State for Climate Change, Joan Ruddock, revealed
that ‘there has been work on low level cloud
development, which … has some Government funding’.7
In the previous years, scholars and engineers
proposed methods for cirrus-cloud creation.
John C.D. Nissen is quoted here as mentioning
two of three geoengineering techniques
in a proposal to the UK government preceding
its ‘low level cloud devleopment’:
‘main candidates include: 1) creating stratospheric clouds
– using precursor injection to generate aerosols;
2) creating contrails – using an additive to aircraft fuel’.
Another submission from chartered engineer
John Gorman, says: ‘it would be nice to investigate
the possibilities of injecting the fuel/additive
mixture into an afterburner’, referring to silica.8
Illustration from a BBC report on proposed
geoengineering depicting a plane spraying.
UNDER MILITARY PROTECTION
Referring to preliminary tests, Gray et al. explained:
‘The primary disadvantage of operating in
the Mariana Islands is the large distance
from the continental United States.
If long lead time planning were accomplished,
the Mariana Island location should prove
to be satisfactory. Military transportation
is available on a low priority basis. The primary
disadvantage of the Florida Keys site
is the large recreational tourist industry
in this area. Precautions would have to be
taken to avoid conflicts with private fishing boats
in the dispersal area on test days. However,
a large portion of the sea area likely to be
affected is a U.S. Navy and Air Force
operational training area subject to their control.
This should facilitate coordination of the testing
with local interests … The required raw material
will have to be supplied in tank cars or tank
trucks since the consumption will be large.
(This does not apply to early stage testing wherein drums
might suffice.)’9
This tells us that 1) the military would be
involved in any chemtrail operations 2)
the operations would not be disclosed to the public
3) the chemicals would be transported by tankers,
presumably to secret and/or secure military bases.
Gray et al.’s afterburner design.
In 2001, retired US Air Force sergeant Gene Shimer,
who had served for four years in the Korean War
as a radar technician, contacted the Military
Operation Control at Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield.
‘I said, ‘What would you say if I said there are three
aircraft up there right now.’ I said, ‘Are they there?’
He [the controller] said, ‘No. They are not there’’.10
This author contacted the Plymouth UK radar station
in 2012 to report the presence of four jet aircraft,
which the operators denied.
NOTES
1. Air Force Materiel Command and Air Force Phillips
Laboratory, ‘FY97 Geophysics Technology Area Plan’
, 1 May, 1996, Ohio: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
2. The Federal Plan for Meteorological Services and
Supporting Research: Fiscal Year 1997, June 1996,
3. Erik Meijer, ‘Parliamentary questions WRITTEN QUESTION
by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission’, 10 May, 2007, E-2455/07,
4. R.G. Knollenberg, ‘Measurements of Growth of the Ice
Budget in a Persistent Contrail’, Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences, October, 1972, volume 29, pp. 1367-74.
5. NASA and Paine et al., ‘Barium Release System’,
US Patent, 3,751,913, 14 August, 1973,
6. Gray, W. M., W. M. Frank, M. L. Corrin, and C. A. Stokes,
1974, Weather modification by carbon dust absorption
of solar energy, Department of Atmospheric Science
Paper 225, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO,
7. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee,
‘The Regulation of Geoengineering’, Fifth Report of Session
2009–10, HC 221, 18 March, 2010, London: Stationary
Office, pp. 38, EV 28,
8. British Parliament, Innovation, Universities and Skills
Committee: Geoengineering Inquiry (Geoengineering Case Study):
Memoranda of Evidence, ‘Memorandum 16 [also listed as 115]:
Submission from John Gorman, Chartered Engineer’, September, 2008,
and ‘Memorandum 13 [also 152] Submission from John C.D. Nissen’,
9. Gray et al., op. cit.
10. Lance Lindsay, ‘Californians Concerned Over Chemtrails’,
World News Daily, 27 August, 2001,
No comments:
Post a Comment