Legitimization of chemtrail airplanes and tactics


Well-known member
In case anyone needed more evidence...how about a published paper from 2009 on the benefits, risks, and costs of "theoretical" stratospheric geoengineering?

Using existing U.S. military fighter and tanker planes, the annual costs of injecting aerosol precursors into the lower stratosphere would be several billion dollars. Using artillery or balloons to loft the gas would be much more expensive. We do not have enough information to evaluate more exotic techniques, such as pumping the gas up through a hose attached to a tower or balloon system. Anthropogenic stratospheric aerosol injection would cool the planet, stop the melting of sea ice and land‐based glaciers, slow sea level rise, and increase the terrestrial carbon sink, but produce regional drought, ozone depletion, less sunlight for solar power, and make skies less blue. Furthermore it would hamper Earth‐based optical astronomy, do nothing to stop ocean acidification, and present many ethical and moral issues. Further work is needed to quantify many of these factors to allow informed decision‐making.
1. Cool planet1. Drought in Africa and Asia
2. Reduce or reverse sea ice melting2. Continued ocean acidification from CO2
3. Reduce or reverse land ice sheet melting3. Ozone depletion
4. Reduce or reverse sea level rise4. No more blue skies
5. Increase plant productivity5. Less solar power
6. Increase terrestrial CO2 sink 6. Environmental impact of implementation
7. Rapid warming if stopped
8. Cannot stop effects quickly
9. Human error
10. Unexpected consequences
11. Commercial control
12. Military use of technology
13. Conflicts with current treaties
14. Whose hand on the thermostat?
15. Ruin terrestrial optical astronomy
16. Moral hazard – the prospect of it working would reduce drive for mitigation
17. Moral authority – do we have the right to do this?
MethodPayload (tons)Ceiling (km)Number of UnitsPurchase Price (2008 Dollars)Annual Cost
F‐15C Eagle820167 with 3 flights/day$6,613,000,000$4,175,000,000b
KC‐135 Tanker911515 with 3 flights/day$784,000,000$375,000,000
KC‐10 Extender160139 with 3 flights/day$1,050,000,000$225,000,000b
Naval Rifles0.58,000 shots per dayincluded in annual cost$30,000,000,000
Stratospheric Balloons437,000 per dayincluded in annual cost$21,000,000,000–$30,000,000,000
Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, which would be the better option. Putting sulfur in the fuel would have the problem that if the sulfur concentration were too high in the fuel, it would be corrosive and affect combustion. Also, it would be necessary to have separate fuel tanks for use in the stratosphere and in the troposphere to avoid sulfate aerosol pollution in the troposphere.
The military has already manufactured more planes than would be required for this geoengineering scenario, potentially reducing the costs of this method. Since climate change is an important national security issue [Schwartz and Randall, 2003], the military could be directed to carry out this mission with existing aircraft at minimal additional cost. Furthermore, the KC‐135 fleet will be retired in the next few decades as a new generation of aerial tankers replaces it, even if the military continues to need the in‐flight refueling capability for other missions.
We postulate a schedule of three flights per day, 250 days per year, for each plane. If each flight were 2 hours, this would be 1500 hours per year. As a rough estimate, we take $5 million per 300 hours times 5, or $25 million per year in operational costs per airplane. If we use the same estimates for the KC‐10 and the F‐15C, we can get an upper bound on the annual costs for using these airplanes for geoengineering, as we would expect the KC‐10 to be cheaper, as it is newer than the KC‐135, and the F‐15C to be cheaper, just because it is smaller and would require less fuel and fewer pilots.
Anyone need further proof of the viability of this? This paper is 10 years old but I guaran-damn-tee all of this to a tee was going on back then too. The methods are known, the costs are known, the modes of deployment are known, the benefits and risks have already been weighed. This is happening. The only thing that matters now is how long people will put up with this bullshit.

Red Bird

Well-known member
I live in Montana where it’s very obvious...finally, one day we saw them.


Well-known member
The issue here is that climate science is so sure that we're causing the problem 100% that they'll do anything they can to change what's happening, when - if the outliers in climate science are to be believed - the Earth goes through a rapid cooling during pole flip/reversals. So, what happens when they seed reflective particles into the air and the Earth cools ON IT'S OWN because that's what it 'normally' does during it's cycle. What are the odds we end up permanently freezing the Earth? Did the global culture from before try something too, thinking they could fix the world they live on from their own meddling? I think that any decision we make as humans where we meddle in Earth-Wide changes is beyond arrogant and extremely stupid.


Well-known member
I read an interesting theory, I think on Miles Mathis' physics page.
He supposes the sun is not hydrogen fusion generator, but is picking up energy (matter, electric charges) while moving through space, i.e. around the galaxy. That neatly explains why sun spots, which expose inner layers, are less hot then the outer shell.
This, in turn, would make us on earth dependant on energy density in the space ahead of us. No pole flip required.
"Man made global warming" is the modern, pseudo-scientific replacement for medieval "sin" scare. And carbon tax + CO2 footprint are the replacement for indulgence letters.



I seen this all my life, grew up (and still live) beneath a couple of international flight corridors (flying North-South/ East to West and reverse)... it's just planes' exhaust water condensing in the correct atmospheric conditions to form cloud (yep, the same as regular clouds but a bit dirtier with other fumes) .. once the vapour has condensed, it attracts more vapours, and then there's the spread from the winds.. you can watch these morph all afternoon some days. other days you can watch the planes and there's no trails, ie; the atmosperic conditions don't suit the condensing of the water vapour

(yes that is all feasible in the "cloud seeding" theory, but why seed clouds in cloudy SW England, on a frickin cold day?!?! :ROFLMAO:)

there's just about 10x more flights than there used to be when I was a kid.

and chemtrails, what chemicals, what evidence??

Have the world leaders really decided to poison their own atmosphere? and, in turn, the people that create and sustain their wealth and power? nahhhh don't think so

my biggest thing about all this flying around is the sheer volume of fuel that's being combusted and the amount of unburnt/partially reacted waste in the exhaust fumes. but then again, same with global warming. much more concerned about the disgusting pollution people breathe than the world temperature changing a little bit.. its an equilibrium far beyond our imagination.. maybe it's meant to warm up... maybe it's supposed to "normally" be warmer and we're just coming out of a post-apocalyptic cold snap ;)

another thing... I've looked out of the window during some flights, and watched other aeroplanes changing altitude, they hit a certain point and the exhaust turns to visible vapour!

also can see this quite clearly as planes are dropping in altitude as they head towards london/ paris, the contrails become on/off sometimes and stop... sometimes i can see planes going from 0 contrails to "cloud seeding". I think it's just part and parcel of our nice, easy, modern lifestyles, the planes are bigger, they burn more fuel, more efficiently than ever... therefore produce larger amounts of vapour, bigger contrails, bigger clouds... more planes, more clouds. i don't see the conspiracy at all!
Just because it doesnt happen where you live doesnt mean that it is not real.
360: Should we have more cloud seeding in Colorado?

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Pros and cons of cloud seeding. 10 Most Notable Cloud Seeding Pros and Cons

This reminds me of how somebody is always coming up with a new drug for some aliment or other and then a few years later. Opps! we should have done more testing. :mad:

1. It may not be safe.
The chemicals that are used for cloud seeding are not currently listed as a health hazard, but the truth is that the effects of this process are not really known. Weather experiments involving cloud seeding since the 1940s have shown us that the benefits of cloud seeing with chemical processes may not be healthy. Toxic levels of silver iodide have been known to create skin rashes, weakness, and weight loss. When it is inhaled, it can permanently discolor the skin as well.

Are we already having problems because of this?!?

5. It could lead to other natural disasters.
If more water is falling from the sky, then it must go somewhere. That extra participation could trigger more flooding. It could provide more hail to fall, which would have the potential of damaging property or causing injury. Severe weather events could ruin crops, just as cloud seeding could encourage more crops to grow. Although the ideas behind cloud seeding are designed to solve problems, we might create more problems instead of less with this type of weather modification.


Well-known member
5. It could lead to other natural disasters.
If more water is falling from the sky, then it must go somewhere. That extra participation could trigger more flooding.
The amount of water in circulation on earth doesn't increase, at least not significantly.
But together with deforestation, soil sealing (concrete buildings, streets, etc.) and large-scale industrial agriculture, the circulation speeds up dramatically , and with less natural water retainers (vegetation, trees) will result in much more damage.
Somehow appears to be done on purpose.

1. It may not be safe.
The chemicals that are used for cloud seeding are not currently listed as a health hazard, but the truth is that the effects of this process are not really known. Weather experiments involving cloud seeding since the 1940s have shown us that the benefits of cloud seeing with chemical processes may not be healthy
Just as a side note, cloud seeding for the "inverse" purpose is known and done for some decades now in Europe.
Some wine grower communities use to have small batteries of short range rockets for a kind of "cloud seeding" installed.
In this case, they explode the payload into the clouds, to trigger a hail fall in a safe area, away from the vineyards.