Science Textbook teaches about Chemtrails!

This was discussed at length earlier this week. It was credited to teach about 'chemtrails', or contrails, or that it was an attempt to indoctrinate kids into thinking that trails in the sky was either okay or maybe even a good thing. Much was made about the content and context; no proof by visualization was to be had. I got tired of the back and forth, because in order to really prove one or the other was correct, we needed the book.
I and everyone else in the world can trace this "news" due to the tireless shillinguh, work of Will Thomas. Everyplace I found this book mentioned used him as the source. You can find a copy of the story here:
Egads! I'm linking to InfoWar! Hell has surely frozen...

I found the book. Here is the cover, showing it is the one being named in the article:


Here's the publishing info:

Here's the plane, as described:

Sorry for the size, I wanted everyone know know it is real. And the plane was on the inside of a page, so the scan is not completely flat.
But here is the page the plane is one:

And the next page. This is the totality of the "chemtrail" topic:

But where does it talk about planes spraying things as a part of the geo-engineering master plan by "Them"?
It's no where. What is discussed about planes is just this:

So it is one piece of crappy clipart and one sentence on two pages. This book is not teaching kids about "chemtrails", it's not indoctrinating them to do think trails are normal, it merely states that producing more pollution from engines running too rich would add more particles in the air. Which is 100% factual. It's not suggesting it is okay. It's not saying anyone has suggesting do it, it mentions it as one way to put more particles in the air.
It's why "chemtrailers" who continue to use geo-engineering interchangably with "chemtrails" are just wrong. Geo-engineering is not "chemtrails". "Chemtrails" are not part of some geo-engineering on-going project.
And saying planes will produce more particles through richer mixtures is just a true statement.
Using this as anything for "chemtrails"........FAIL. And reactionary.

reply to post by stars15k


S&F, great post! Why do people listen to Alex Jones still? Just further evidence that he is fearmongering, but now I'm more inclined to feel that he is lying every time he opens his mouth.

reply to post by stars15k


Good effort, taking all that time to do this.

Can I just, again reiterate:

And saying planes will produce more particles through richer mixtures is just a true statement.

For a piston engine, this is true. It involves the fuel/air ratios, and anyone with a passing knowledge of auto mechanics understand this.

Modern jet turbine engines, however...operate differently. In simplest terms, to make a fuel/air mixture more 'rich', you increase the ratio of fuel, to the amount of air. Turbine engines, though, get their air from the environment...it is readily available, and free for the taking, right in from the front (the intake). The air is not metered, nor managed by a 'carburetor' or even restricted and modulated, as in a fuel-injected piston engine.

A turbine engine, when you increase the flow of fuel (the rate and amount), it will simply 'find' the air it needs in order to provide combustion....this generates more heat, and power. But, there is an upper limit regarding heat, and thus..power output has a limitation too.

The increase in power, besides making it hotter, also increases the RPM of the components, and they also are limited, based on design and material strengths and tolerances.

The only way to make the jet turbine exhaust 'dirtier' or 'smokier' is to revert to older technology designs....or, out of the range of feasibility, use a process called 'water-injection' (actually, a 50/50 water/isopropyl alcohol blend) which cools down the gases, as they exit the combustion chamber, so the turbine blades and rotors don't experience the excessive heat....this provides a brief time of extra power 'boost'. But, of course, takes a lot of the water mix...and, this equipment is more trouble than it's worth, and isn't practical except in limited applications.

reply to post by stars15k


It is showing SOLUTIONS to global warming. Then shows a plane with trails. It further says use sun block. Then questions if it would be possible to add particles into the air that could be used in the same way as a volcano. Personally I think it is self descriptive. I really do not understand why people refuse to face the facts that if it isn't happening iot is definitely being planned. Are the nay sayers really that afraid it might be true.

reply to post by redrose123


I'd like to take this time to refer you to this thread. You aren't saying anything that hasn't been said before.

Oh look, it's a case study...

Just as I said.



Good stuff!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks for the tech! It reinforces that the page is geared for a quicky lesson for 7th graders. That Will Thomas and the parent mentioned in the article got so hot about it, and all the uses of the WT article since reinforces the fact that believers will latch onto anything they possibly can and blow it up all out of proportion.
So to the believers, this isn't about 'chemtrails", it's not about contrails, it's not indoctrinating anyone to believe anything. It's about teaching science to kids in a way that makes them think. It's what school is all about. At least it used to be.
I was wondering how to put that thought into the thread, but was getting ready to go to my grandson's birthday party, so left it out. Introducing the tech side, shows how simplified the lesson really is.
Perhaps it was too indepth for Will Thomas to understand?

This would suggest to me that that whole article by Mr Thomas is officially debunked.

Nice work here

reply to post by redrose123


It's showing a plane with black exhaust, which would be something seen rarely if at all. It shows what the article is talking about, a plane running a rich mix. Just like an engine a seventh-grader would have had familiar with.

It further says use sun block.

No, it has a unit title using a comment that kids would be familiar with: Use sunblock. Then it discusses, very briefly, how blocking the sun's rays makes the planet cooler.

Then questions if it would be possible to add particles

And, if you continue onto the next questions, asks what would be some problems with this plan. It's not saying it's a plan at all. It's asking kids to think. This used to be what school was about.

refuse to face the facts that if it isn't happening iot is definitely being planned

Wrong. You haven't faced the fact that something you believe in is failing to live up to what believers want to use as evidence. It's self-explanitory. It's discussing Global Warming and geo-engineering. But geo-engineering is not about "chemtrails". It's about all kinds of things being discussed, one possibility might be to have things delivered into the stratosphere. And it's one of the possibilities that the experts know is the most problematic and most likely to have adverse effects, therefore very far down the list on programs that would be implemented.
Believers are giving geo-engineering a bad name, because you continue to use the terms interchangably when they are not the same thing. There is nothing in this quicky lesson about "chemtrails". nothing that is listed or even suggested is being done as opposed to discussed, and just shows you don't understand what geo-engineering really is.
You really should look it up. Keep in mind that "aerosol" in any reports you read does not mean "sprayed." Find how many times something to do with a plane is even mentioned.
The fact that this was even brought up shows that believers will read between the lines so much they lose all conception of what the lines themselves really say.