It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Could chemtrails be wrong?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:57 PM
I've always had difficulty in believing in chemtrails, considering the massive logistical nightmare it would be to pull it off, but the idea still persists and there really doesn't seem to be a huge amount of effort gone into quieting it. Sure, a few token attempts are made occasionally, but nothing wide-scale that would really put the idea down.

I've been wondering of late if chemtrails aren't simply a coverup for something much different.

A chemtrail is where a chemical is placed into the fuel of an airliner, and that airplane then spreads the chemical in normal, every-day flight or in planned flights. But the difficulties this brings up are many. Just looking at a single reason for this thought, there are far too many people who handle the fuel to not notice something is going on, and there are far too many people who handle the engines to not see something is amiss. It just seems odd that several hundred thousand people, ranging from people barely above the bums on the street to high-class tycoons, would all be silent on this issue.

This post isn't about attempting to debunk chemtrails, so I won't go further into why I question it. I will state, however, that the thought of additives has piqued my interest, and I had been doing a good amount of thinking about it.

Something that seems much more reasonable and realistic, at least to myself, is that chemicals are not being added to airline fuel, but to automotive fuel. The bit with chemtrails is simply kept around to keep people from seeing what could be the real culprit.

Think about it: oil is brought in to the country by a very small number of companies, many with a goodly amount of government oversight. It would be far easier to deploy chemicals into the oil when it is being shipped over (or before being shipped) than it would be to deploy chemicals in airline fuel. Of course, some of that oil would indeed be used for airline fuel, so chemtrails are not entirely out of the picture, but they are not the primary target.

Comparing chemtrails to normal automotive exhaust, chemtrails are much too obvious. If the government wanted to poison people, making it so obvious would be a horrific screwup on their part. As well, chemtrails just don't have the penetration that automotive exhaust would have. Airlines and airplanes cover only a very small portion of the area, whereas automobiles are ubiquitous -- you cannot go to a city in the States without being surrounded by pollutant-filled automotive exhaust.

Furthermore, the amount of people who would have to be involved is significantly lower. A few hundred people bringing oil into the country, who are employed by the big oil companies, who have a very tight grip on the government as it is, are far more manageable than a few hundred thousand airline mechanics and technicians who could otherwise notice if a chemical was being added or not.

Additionally, the cost would be tiny in comparison, while reaching a much wider area. When dealing with chemtrails, the chemical would have to be light enough that it could spread out over a very wide area, but still be heavy enough to settle to the ground. However, that brings up the issue that, if a chemical is heavy enough to fall to the ground, it will actually fall to the ground and remain there until it is kicked up.

Automotive additives do not need this sort of chemical balance. The chemicals don't even need to spread out over a wide area, as, as mentioned, automobiles are found everywhere. The cost of developing these two chemicals is vastly different, and the second, the automotive additive, would be cheaper to manufacture en-mass and and cheaper to deploy en-mass.

And as I am coming very quickly to the end of the alloted character limit, I'll end this post and come in with a follow-up post about the very real issue of the government dealing with hostile nations to gain oil.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:12 PM
So, second post.

The US Government deals with hostile nations for oil constantly, primarily in the Middle East. Why would they do this when so many other nations, who are much less hostile, sell us oil for only a very slight increase in price? Surely an increase in the price of gas (fairly small once the price of oil has been spread out over the many gallons of gas obtained from a single barrel of oil) would be well worth the significant boost to safety we would have, right?

If companies bought oil from other nations, the Middle East would dry up fairly quickly, and the ruling parties would collapse upon themselves for lack of money, nor would terrorists would not have the money to finance projects.

But yet, oil is still purchased from the Middle East. Why is this?

If the government were adding chemicals to the oil itself, such nations may be the only places they are able to do so without raising concerns and suspicions. Sure, token amounts of oil may be purchased from other, less- or non-hostile nations, but the additives could be compensated for by simply dumping more chemicals into the oil from the Middle East.

If Iraq and Saddam had wanted to make changes to the existing arrangement, perhaps demanding more money to add the chemicals or keep quiet, that would also have been a good reason for the invasion of Iraq, despite no evidence for Saddam and Iraq having any involvement in 9/11 or having WMDs.

Finally, if the chemicals were added to the oil, that oil is used for far more than simply being turned into gas. Many, many products have oil in them (far more than most people realize). One very large and common product are plastics. The keyboard and mouse you are using right now may very well have chemicals added to them because of any chemicals added to oils. Even attempting to avoid chemtrails (or from my curiosities, automotive exhaust) may not do enough to avoid exposure to additives.

Many drinking glasses, especially baby cups, are made from plastic. So are computer parts, and automotive parts and, well, just about everything has oil-based plastics in them.

So that brings me back to my original statement in the first post, that I have to wonder if chemtrails are nothing more than a coverup the government, and its puppeteers, permit to exist, in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. Or, perhaps, the chemtrails are simply a byproduct, since, as I've said, some of the chemicals would exist in them, as well, and the government is simply unable to get rid of them, and so they permit them and use them to keep people from seeing a wider issue.

Heavily summarizing, adding chemicals to oil, instead of airliner fuel, would require fewer people to be involved, can be done much sooner (at a point in time when few, if any, people would notice), the cost would be significantly lower and the reach of the affects would be far wider. Logically, it simply makes sense.

Oh, and do be careful when pulling any potential wool from your eyes -- most clothes are made from machinery containing oil-based plastics.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by Snowball

Gday there, welcome to ATS

I wont debate it with you wether chemtrails exist or not, seeing as you asked so nicely, you can however, checl my threads and some of the pro chemtrail threads if you want.

You do bring up some good points about why its not an effective or plausible theory, eg, the number of people involved in the cover up.

Personally, if I wanted a covert, secretive and a highly effective way of controlling or poisoning the population, I would be looking at affecting the drinki water supply

Much easier than anything else I reckon

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by OzWeatherman

ahhh yes! Flouride anyone???

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by Snowball

I do like the auto fuel theory but the fact that there is something going on with chemtrails in certain areas is undeniable. Some of the new footage I've seen is downright disturbing.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:21 AM
However, I would like to present this little report from Norway..

Analysis of chemtrails in Norway ?

On and around October 7, 2007, there was a big military exercise called Arctic Tiger on Ørlandet NATO Air Force Base, Norway. For days the sky was filled with chem-trails, much more than usual and in all kinds of shapes and patterns. One of the days during the exercise, the base was open to the public. My source, together with a couple of friends, went there to see if they could find any evidence of the spraying. After a little while, they left the rest of the crowd and went for a "stroll" around the base. They found the fuel-trucks (Statoil) and went over to examine them more closely. Just behind where all the fuel-trucks stood, they found another tank, one big empty metal tank with multiple outlet pipes and more which made them suspicious. To them, it seemed like whatever had been in the tank was mixed with the jet-fuel. My source was able to look inside the empty tank, and found that there was some white, dusty stuff left in the bottom. He took a sample. He sent this sample to analysis, and for economic reasons he could only search for Aluminium and Barium, the two most reported substances in chemtrails. Last week he got the results from the lab, and what do you know, it was a full score!
You can see the whole analysis here:

My source have today been in a meeting with the Norwegain broadcasting station NRK, and discussed the possibility of making an investigative report on the issue of chemtrails. It will be very interesting to see what happens in this case now!

Here is the link to the Report.pdf. Its not too much details, but Im guessing they just tested for Barium and Aluminium.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by Snowball

Automotive fuel can easily be tested for any anomalous chemicals, in fact you can do it yourself.

There are plenty of off the shelf test kits you can buy, so there's no reason why you can't see if your theory is correct or not.

[edit on 14/4/09 by Chadwickus]

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:45 AM
I dont post much but would you tell me what we are breathing here. I personaly took the pics and they do turn the sky darker and are doing the patterns that have been described. Can you explain ?

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 06:40 AM

Originally posted by CloudWalker
I dont post much but would you tell me what we are breathing here. I personaly took the pics and they do turn the sky darker and are doing the patterns that have been described. Can you explain ?

Are you referring to clouds?

Contrails are just manmade clouds. They behave and have the same effects as natural high level clouds. So not really sure what you're asking.

As for breathing - we're certainly breathing fumes from cars, but anything emitted 6 miles above our heads will be too diluted - should it ever even reach the ground - to affect us.

Snowball is right - if you want to worry about something worry about car exhaust fumes. And regardless of whether they contain anything they should not, they certainly make me choke when walking past stationary traffic on calm days

new topics

top topics


log in