Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
A recent speech by CIA director John O. Brennan at the Council on Foreign Relations mentioned geoengineering, specifically stratospheric aerosol injection.

Claim:

• CIA director John O. Brennan at the Council admits geoengineering in the form of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is taking place, ie "chemtrails".

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kdDkYfaNMQ


Rebuttal:
Nowhere in his speech is there an "admission" that a SAI program is already taking place. The part where Brennan mentions geoengineering is just one example out of several, not-often-mentioned issues that CIA monitors for potential (future) elements of instability in the world. A SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It's CIA's job to consider all types of concepts for potential future problems and threats, including science oriented concepts.


Reading the whole transcript, and the relevant parts, it becomes clear that when Brennan brings up geoengineering, he is talking about future concepts, that may never be put into practice:

This is the context of the speech:
add: time stamp 4:30 in full speech video attached below/c-span
Here is the part where SAI is mentioned. Emphasis (bold font) has been added where there are clear indications how Brennan is talking about something that would be, could be a potential future thing:
add: timesstamp 12:30 in original video linked below/c-span
https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...eaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html

It is quite clear that John O. Brennan does not talk about something that is already implemented. He talks about merely suggested technology that might be useful, but not necessarily implemented, in the challenge against abrupt anthropogenic global warming. Brennan also raise the issues with the proposed technology from a security perspective, which is what the CIA deals with every day.

This is nothing new. The goals and the problems of the proposed SAI technology is something that has been openly stated and discussed, both science and political-wise for more than a decade now. Brennan does not provide any new information on the subject.

Some interesting side points:

• Brennan mentions that an SAI program intends to combat global warming "in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do".
• Volcanic eruptions cools the earth by depositing ash and sulfur particles in the air.
• Some have suggested a connection to discredited scientist J. Marving's study on coal fly ash, claims which have been addressed and debunked here, here and here.
• The very term stratospheric aerosol injection indicates that the aerosols should be put into the stratosphere, otherwise the aerosols will cause heating instead of cooling. Common "chemtrail" lore believes that conventional airplanes are doing the "spraying", but conventional airplanes cannot fly in the stratosphere. This strongly suggests that the trails seen behind such airplanes cannot be the product of stratospheric aerosol injection.


add: full video of speech and question/answer session
http://www.c-span.org/video/?411936-1/cia-director-john-brennan-discusses-global-threats

add2: It has been pointed out that some commercial flight flies in the lower edge of the stratosphere (stratopause). Most common SAI proposals involve ejection of sulphate aerosols at much higher altitudes than that. For example, in the 2008 repport An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols a scenario is explained:

15km is 50,000 feet which is much higher than conventional commercial flights go. But the altitude depends on the latitude. Northern latitudes require lower altitudes. The repport also explains (my emphasis):

So it is important to understand that the proposed methods of SAI is neglecting obvious current delivering limitations when it comes to aircrafts. Commercial type aircrafts doesn't seem to be a viable option in this proposition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
• The very term stratospheric aerosol injection indicates that the aerosols should be put into the stratosphere, otherwise the aerosols will cause heating instead of cooling. Common "chemtrail" lore believes that conventional airplanes are doing the "spraying", but conventional airplanes cannot fly in the stratosphere. This strongly suggests that the trails seen behind such airplanes cannot be the product of stratospheric aerosol injection.
One remark on this; Don't they sometimes do fly in the stratosphere? Depending on definition and location used, e.g. when searching google things like these pop up:
http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/stratosphere-overview
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
One remark on this; Don't they sometimes do fly in the stratosphere? Depending on definition and location used, e.g. when searching google things like these pop up:
http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/stratosphere-overview
Yes, commercial planes do often fly above the tropopause, ie in the stratosphere. Here in the UK the tropopause can be around 30,000ft or even lower when we have arctic air overhead. Planes regularly fly above it (and very rarely leave contrails above it, as humidity rapidly drops off above the tropopause).

This is a sounding from April, showing the tropopause (arrowed) below 30,000ft. Planes were leaving contrails around 27,000ft that day but no traffic above 30,000ft was leaving any trails.

 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Planes routinely fly in the lower stratosphere, yes. Most SRM proposals assume injection at 60/70kft, however. This is far beyond the reach of commercial aircraft, as well as all heavy lift military aircraft (the C-17 tops out around 45kft, while the An-124 reaches 40kft. The C-5 can't even reach 36kft).
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
Thank you all for the clarification. Yes, the points brought by @Spectrar Ghost is what I meant originally. While some commercial aircraft flies on the edge of the lower stratosphere, it is no where near the altitude where SAI is proposed to be ejected. I will add this to my OP for clarification. Perhaps @TWCobra can help clarify, as TWCobra is an actual pilot if I remember correctly.
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Thank you all for the clarification. Yes, the points brought by @Spectrar Ghost is what I meant originally. While some commercial aircraft flies on the edge of the lower stratosphere, it is no where near the altitude where SAI is proposed to be ejected. I will add this to my OP for clarification. Perhaps @TWCobra can help clarify, as TWCobra is an actual pilot if I remember correctly.
I brought this topic up about 4 years ago in one of my initial posts. I think the info presented there is still pretty valid. I did a Sydney-Santiago flight about two weeks ago and am fairly certain we flew in the lower stratosphere for most of the way. We also contrailed for the solid two hours of sunlight we had leaving Sydney AND saw the Aurora Australis.(flew under it as well!)

If we were dropping geoengineering materials however it would not have been particularly effective in blocking any sunlight as the sun was always either low in the sky or absent completely.

That is the point. People like David Keith say that 30 degrees either side of the equator would be the optimum region for SAI, and a quick look at the tropopause markers in the graphs in that post show how high an aircraft would have to fly to get even close. Not possible with 99.95% of current aircraft.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Our generic platform is a jet-fighter-sized aircraft carrying a payload of 10 metric tons of finely divided aerosol, or an equivalent precursor mass, to be distributed evenly over a 2500 km flight path
This equates to 4 grams of material per kilometre. Or roughly 1 cubic centimetre of geoengineering material per flight kilometre.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Chuck Norris claims "CIA director confesses stratospheric aerosol injection".
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/cia-director-confesses-stratospheric-aerosol-injection/

Its sad that he takes a discussion of potential future use of SRM as a "confession" of on-going activity. Its really unfortunate that he uses his celebrity to deliberately mis-inform (disinfo) his followers into believing its a "confession" when it is no such thing. As for actual evidence? He claims to be offering that up in his next article- stay tuned:

 

Shade sitter

New Member
My guess is they will probably do the SIA thing because places like China and India make so much pollution and they won't lower it because of their economies. The thing is that it won't be covert. Unfortunately there is no garuntee that it will even work correctly or effectively enough to make a huge difference. My brother who has a BA in geology took lots of courses that focused on climate change. He said that it's too complicated to hit with a silver bullet like SAI. Many scientists do not think SIA is a good course of action. The government is definitely consulting scientists about this issue. I just wonder why they want the CIA to do this and not NASA or the air force. Maybe it is because the CIA is a foreign intelligence agency?

The government considers climate change to be a cause of terrorism, and they are correct. Chemical companies like Dupont have a lot to gain from this whole thing and does some hawkish stuff, which works for conservatives, and fighting global warming works for the liberals. It's an easy sell to a congress who desperately needs to make something work. My brother says the earth has a way of fixing itself regardless, even if it means making human life impossible. So I figure it won't really matter if they do SIA or not. It's not going to be a big secret if they do it, but it may not work the way they plan because of how complex the atmospheric system is. This stuff is a low health concern, and the elites have to breathe the same air as all of us, so I don't really give a shit what happens at this point.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I just wonder why they want the CIA to do this

CIA monitors for potential (future) elements of instability in the world. A SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It's CIA's job to consider all types of concepts for potential future problems and threats, including science oriented concepts.
The Central Intelligence Agency gathers Intelligence. NASA has no means of gathering Intelligence on other countries. And the Air Force's job isn't to gather Intelligence either.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
My guess is they will probably do the SIA thing because places like China and India make so much pollution and they won't lower it because of their economies. The thing is that it won't be covert. Unfortunately there is no garuntee that it will even work correctly or effectively enough to make a huge difference. My brother who has a BA in geology took lots of courses that focused on climate change. He said that it's too complicated to hit with a silver bullet like SAI. Many scientists do not think SIA is a good course of action. The government is definitely consulting scientists about this issue. I just wonder why they want the CIA to do this and not NASA or the air force. Maybe it is because the CIA is a foreign intelligence agency?
The CIA is involved because global warming (GW, and it's effects) can become a security issue in the future (global flooding and/or results that can destabilize nations), and it's not out-of-the-ordinary to consider these things, for any governmental agency. Countless other gov't agencies are also considering the future effects of GW, and just because the CIA is doing it too, is no big deal. One lesson learned from 911, was that agencies should work together and share common issues....but some 'agencies' have a distasteful taboo among the suspicious.

The government considers climate change to be a cause of terrorism, and they are correct. Chemical companies like Dupont have a lot to gain from this whole thing and does some hawkish stuff, which works for conservatives, and fighting global warming works for the liberals. It's an easy sell to a congress who desperately needs to make something work......
I think it's presumptive to claim companies and regulatory gov't are happy and complicit about climate change.
 
Last edited:

sushifoot

New Member
Hello, I'm new here and I have a few questions.


• The very term stratospheric aerosol injection indicates that the aerosols should be put into the stratosphere, otherwise the aerosols will cause heating instead of cooling. Common "chemtrail" lore believes that conventional airplanes are doing the "spraying", but conventional airplanes cannot fly in the stratosphere. This strongly suggests that the trails seen behind such airplanes cannot be the product of stratospheric aerosol injection
This is from PhysLink:

and

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae610.cfm

Another question I have is, with the relatively consistent history of our government not being extremely honest with the citizens, how can we know for sure that a project isn't already implemented in some way, perhaps still in an experimental or trial phase, just because the head of the CIA used words like "would" and "could". If they started doing this today, how long would it be before we saw any results from it? Would it be immediate? If not, then are words like "would" or "could" really signs that he is referring to a program that has not yet been implemented, or could it be that we have yet to see the results he is saying the program "could" produce?

Also, isn't it a pretty well known thing that the general population never knows the full capability and technology of the government? That the government are years or decades ahead of the technology that is publicly available? If that is the case, and the above quoted article mentions that the government has been able to fly planes well above the 60-70k feet that Spectrar Ghost mentioned in this quote:
Most SRM proposals assume injection at 60/70kft, however. This is far beyond the reach of commercial aircraft, as well as all heavy lift military aircraft (the C-17 tops out around 45kft, while the An-124 reaches 40kft. The C-5 can't even reach 36kft).
How could I convince someone that the government does not have planes that fly that high when the article I linked states that "Originally, very high altitude military planes were used for surveillance � the current versions of the famous U2 spy plane, originally designed in the 1950s can cruise at up to 90,000ft (17 miles). The Stealth Bomber cruises at up to 50,000ft (8.3 miles) and many other combat planes can now also attain significant altitudes.". If the government had planes that could cruise at 90k feet in the 1950's, how could I possibly convince someone that 60-70k is too high for them today?

Just to be clear, I am not a chemtrail person, but I am having an ongoing debate with some very intelligent friends and they keep making good points that I can't quite argue against. Came here hoping to find solid, unquestionable proof, but the proof provided in this article seems pretty shaky, and some of the claims used to debunk seem pretty inaccurate, according to PhysLink.

Thanks!


mod: edited to fix improper formatting issues
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
How could I convince someone that the government does not have planes that fly that high
I'm not sure why you'd want to. The vast majority of what believers identify as "chemtrail" planes are commercial craft, not military. This can be confirmed with flight trackers.

Are these smart people you're debating with claiming otherwise? That'd be a good place to start showing them their errors.

Ray Von
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Well, there are many who believe that the chem planes are all military (not civilian)...and checking whether one or the other is correct.... seems not to be necessary.

It should be necessary, to form a firm an opinion.
 

sushifoot

New Member
Are these smart people you're debating with claiming otherwise? That'd be a good place to start showing them their errors.
They claim that, if it is a government program, which the government was trying to keep somewhat under wraps, then there would be no reason that a type of plane could not be created that would externally resemble a commercial jet, but be able to fly higher and carry the aerosol payload and distribution mechanism. The argument there is that citizens would become even more concerned more quickly and be easier to believe if people were constantly seeing military jets flying above.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
They claim that, if it is a government program, which the government was trying to keep somewhat under wraps, then there would be no reason that a type of plane could not be created that would externally resemble a commercial jet, but be able to fly higher and carry the aerosol payload and distribution mechanism. The argument there is that citizens would become even more concerned more quickly and be easier to believe if people were constantly seeing military jets flying above.
i think the point is there is no proof. Chemtrailists point to contrails as proof, but the vast vast majority of the time the exact plane can be identified. And they arent military. (obviously once in a while they are military as military planes fly too).

Even "if" some SRM experiments were happening now, there is absolutely nothing that indicates they would look anything like contrails.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
They claim that, if it is a government program, which the government was trying to keep somewhat under wraps, then there would be no reason that a type of plane could not be created that would externally resemble a commercial jet, but be able to fly higher and carry the aerosol payload and distribution mechanism. The argument there is that citizens would become even more concerned more quickly and be easier to believe if people were constantly seeing military jets flying above.
But to people on the ground any plane, commercial, military or whatever, at 38,000ft plus is all but invisible unless it is laying a contrail. A tiny spec in the sky is a tiny spec in the sky, even if it is contrailing, and without a camera with a very big lens, top notch binoculars, a powerful spotterscope etc, it is impossible to distinguish the type of plane it is, let alone marking. So most planes go un-noticed anyway. The only people who will use the equipment required to identify the plane are hard core aviation enthusiasts - who will probably know exactly what they are seeing anyway; or chemtrail theorists who probably wouldn't, so why go through all the rig-moral of complex sub-diffuse, when most people wouldn't even notice?
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
They claim that, if it is a government program, which the government was trying to keep somewhat under wraps, then there would be no reason that a type of plane could not be created that would externally resemble a commercial jet, but be able to fly higher and carry the aerosol payload and distribution mechanism. The argument there is that citizens would become even more concerned more quickly and be easier to believe if people were constantly seeing military jets flying above.
It's worth noting here that credible stratospheric aerosol plans envision laying about ten million tons of SO2 annually. This would require thousands of aircraft to fly hundreds of thousands of flights per year. Presuming you could build and fly these aircraft for about the same as an A320 ($99M aircraft cost, $8500/hr flight cost), you would be spending ~$200B on aircraft, and ~$34B annually on flight time. This is not an expense that could go unnoticed. Nor is the number of necessary employees - the thousands of flight crew and accompanying logistics chain - conducive to a secret program.

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4007.short
 

adamcarboni

New Member
I tend to believe the chemtrails theory is hysteria. Which is why I was surprised when stumbling across this in the school newspaper. What is John Brennan talking about when he addressed an audience of students of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in November 2016. I happened to be reading because I am alumni. I quote from The Poly, the school newspaper, link below ...

https://poly.rpi.edu/2016/11/09/cia_director_discusses_tech_change/

Brennan then transitioned to questions from the audience. He said that some of the new global issues that he is paying attention to are biological agents, genetic editing, stratospheric aerosol injection, and added that technology is a double-edged sword.

However, those are not his direct words, its an account from the college newspaper. So I like original direct sources of exactly what he said in his own words, so I went looking, he said this during the question and answer period. I found the only video of it online at YouTube, the video was put on YouTube by RPI, however, they edited out the question and answer section completely.


My guess is that because he addresses global warming and its effects in the video that he was referring to future technology to combat the effects of global warming. But as he points out, technology is a double-edged sword. The CIA did use stratospheric aerosal injection in the 70s in Vietnam trying to prolong the monsoon season so the Ho Chi Minh trail would stay muddy and less effective for more of the year. So they have had this tech for a long time I imagine. But alas, no direct source on what he actually said so I guess we'll never know.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The CIA did use stratospheric aerosal injection in the 70s in Vietnam trying to prolong the monsoon season so the Ho Chi Minh trail would stay muddy and less effective for more of the year.
No they didn't, they use cloud seeding. Very different. As far as I know deliberate stratospheric aerosol injection has NEVER been attempted, and all discussions of it are in future tense.

I'd think the first post here should give sufficient context.
 

James Groh

New Member
I'm not convinced. As an example, there was a gap of 10-12 years in between the time the first stealth aircraft were flown to when they were publicly acknowledged. And during that time the possibility of their existence was denied. Then when it couldn't be denied any longer, they went public. In the case of SIA's or "chemtrails" they're not just going to come out & say that they've been doing this for a number of years. Instead it will come out slowly, confirming that what we've considered conspiracy theories are in reality, facts.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not convinced. As an example, there was a gap of 10-12 years in between the time the first stealth aircraft were flown to when they were publicly acknowledged. And during that time the possibility of their existence was denied. Then when it couldn't be denied any longer, they went public. In the case of SIA's or "chemtrails" they're not just going to come out & say that they've been doing this for a number of years. Instead it will come out slowly, confirming that what we've considered conspiracy theories are in reality, facts.
But what he is saying here is not an admission, which is the point of this post.

That does not mean there's not a secret program leaving no evidence. It just means that this speech is not evidence of covert geoengineering.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Agreed. Not an admission, but not a firm denial either.
I doubt he's even aware that the conspiracy theory exists. Why would he go out of his way to deny something if he thinks it's a baseless conspiracy theory. He discussing what he sees as real issues.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 2
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 13
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later] 9/11 137
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's Analysis of Slag Residue from WTC Debris 9/11 20
Dan Wilson Debunked: Steven Crowder: The AIDS epidemic was a hoax Health and Quackery 9
Dan Wilson Debunked: Infowars product damages sperm Health and Quackery 2
Mick West Debunked: Corbett Report Targeted by Google/Youtube Conspiracy Theories 37
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top