1. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    This 12 minute video by someone calling himself "HAARP Report" claims that the source material for chemtrails is coal ash or fly ash. Some of his reasons: It has substantial percentage of aluminum oxide, a welsbach material. It is extremely common as a byproduct of coal burning; it is commonly and openly transported. The particle size is 10 to 100 microns, consistent with the Hughes Patent.

    PDF of presentation: https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Chemtrails_are_Coal_Ash.pdf

    Some problems with this idea: He claims the percentage of aluminum oxide is about 30%. Wikipedia puts it at 5 to 35%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash This would leave a lot of extraneous material to process out ahead of time or carry as dead weight. The percentage of al2o3 in fly ash is not that much higher than in the earth's crust to begin with. Rocks on Mount Shasta contain about 15% al2o3.
    The main ingredient in fly ash is silicon dioxide, which is normally in the form of sand. This would probably fall out of the atmosphere almost immediately.
    The narrator recommends using using this material in the form of a water slurry. However, fly ash is used as a substitute for Portland Cement. It is a binder. (Wikipedia uses the word Pozzolanic). It would quickly coagulate and fall to earth. And carrying large amounts of water as a mixer would create an additional drastic reduction in the available payload of Welsbach materials.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2015
    • Like Like x 5
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's a nonsensical idea, almost reads like a hoax, or some kind of misguided attempt to indirectly get chemtrail enthusiasts to focus on coal power plants. It's such a stream of things that are wrong that it's hard to know where to start - or even if it's worth addressing at all.

    Basically it starts out with this premise:
    And then proceeds from there.

    One can point out numerous problems with the theory - like the fact that spraying a highly abrasive powder through the engines would destroy them, and the fact that the optical density of the trails would require more mass than than planes could carry, and so must be water from the atmosphere. Then there's the fact that the trails persist and spread like contrails do, whereas a sprayed powder would quickly dissipate.

    But these are objections that have been ignored before, and the fundamental point here is they are trying to fit an explanation to a misunderstanding (contrail persistence). So it's somewhat pointless to address this silly theory, and it would be better if we could get back to addressing the persistence of contrails.

    In a way you'd think it would be easier if this becomes canon. You could just explain how nonsensical it is, and people would see the whole chemtrail thing as being based on misunderstandings. But then you've got equally backwards things like the high bypass engines not creating contrails (when they actually make more).

    There's no evidence in this document and video. Just baseless speculation. Fly ash contains those elements, but then so does dirt.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2015
    • Like Like x 6
  3. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  4. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I thought it was relatively simple. Debunkers have said "Where is this "chemtrail" Material manufactured? Where does it come from? and so they had to try and find somewhere.
    Flowable fill is a highway construction material. not sure why "they" are labelling chemtrail material as flowable fill component except it suits the needs of the conspiracy.

    Actually I think he has a point here. If people DO track all the cars from coal ash reprocessing plants, they will see that none of them ever arrive at any airbase. Then we can see that NO chemtrail bases exist.
    • Like Like x 4
  5. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    • Like Like x 2
  6. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

    Even some of the chemmies are questioning this:
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Its a bit 'techy' but this article describes what happens to the ash from coal fire powerstations...

    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  8. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I will post the link later but fly ash is used to augment and condition soil as well
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Eric the Green

    Eric the Green New Member

    The video includes some charts about rainwater content in a few locations, including Chico CA. I have no idea who conducted these tests or how valid they are. Anyone know more about these tests, or if they mean anything?
  10. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    You can ask the anonymous source of the video about the anonymous sources who made the alleged tests.
    Why anyone would believe some random person on youtube is a social phenomenon.
    Par for the course in the chemtrails world is lack of documentation for their claims.
    Just Look Up is enough if you Believe......
  11. MikeG

    MikeG Senior Member

    But has this skepticism changed since Herndon's article was published? It seems that the folks in Redding are now embracing the idea.
  12. Eric the Green

    Eric the Green New Member

    Where can I read "Herndon's article"?
  13. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

  14. Eric the Green

    Eric the Green New Member

    The HAARP Report guy told me that the source of his measurements of aluminum and barium are from rain samples collected by geoengineeringwatch.org in other words Mr. Wigington. I imagine I will read about debunking of this here.
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yes its discussed somewhere on here already. maybe search "bottom of pond" since Dane took mud from the bottom of the pond. If you have a question about something in a video it is most helpful if you give us a timestamp so we know exactly what you are referring to. Makes it easier to guide you to further reading.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    My soul wants to believe that "some of the chemmies are questioning this" and they "...do not want it posted..."
    because of a newfound reverence for truth, and reflection upon the horrible damage that can be done to society by those
    who constantly scare people irrationally...never mind the guilt re.
    charlatans stealing the dollars of society's most gullible.

    But my cerebral cortex just answers that adopting "coal ash" theory now would simply mean too much adjustment,
    and admitting that most of their other assertions were wrong.
  17. MikeG

    MikeG Senior Member

    I was curious to see if any of Herndon’s theories appeared at the August 14th, 2015 meeting sponsored by Geoengineeringwatch.org at the David Marr Auditorium In Redding, California.


    Mark McCandlish, a “Former Defense Industry Technician,” highlighted aluminum oxide as a key component of geoengineering. It was an interesting departure from the “aluminum in free form” argument that has surfaced in earlier public forums, such as the Shasta County supervisors meeting last summer.

    “Former military meteorologist” Allan Buckman briefly mentioned a “slurry” (at about 6:31 in his presentation) that was responsible for cloud formations, but did not go into any detail.

    But nothing about Herndon or coal ash. Interesting.
  18. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Possibly because Herndon put his skepticism of anthropogenic climate change in the paper. That essentially puts Herndon in the dump the way Dane Wigington sees things.
  19. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    But Dane still hailed Herndon's paper as the first peer-reviewed publication that proves the ongoing geoengineering.
  20. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Dane's hypocrisy has limits......