Debunked: Monsanto's Aluminum Resistant GMOs and Chemtrails

Fred259

New Member
as i read this thread i cant help but wonder why so many of the "debunkers" repeatedly use links to the Contrail Science website only and cite them as "credible" resources to debunk chemtrails when its run my just "some guy" as he states in his About Me section. this same guy runs Metabunk.


Its wrong to say that the debunkers only use the Contrail Science website. What has been published in the Contrail Science website however is factually true, and so its for that reason that many refer to it.

If it was not true, plain disinformation or junk, then equally we would speak out and highlight the misinformation.

You have to appreciate that what happens in the upper atmosphere has little or no consequence for the vast majority of people on this planet. Those who seek to trick you know this, and this is how they are able to control your mind and perception.

In my opinion the Contrail Science website explains precisely what is happening and more importantly how and why its happening in simple easy to understand format.

Why not look at this problem another way..............

The United Nation estimate that around the world some 460,000 professional pilots operate 25 million flights annually. That’s nearly 70,000 flights per day. Do you think they are wrong, all of them, all 460,000 of them are all wrong and Michael Murphy, Kerry Cassidy, Carnicon and that crew are right!

In addition to the 460,000 pilots the industry employs hundreds of thousands of engineers, air traffic controllers met officers and forecasters...... are they they are all wrong as well!


i would like to see all this same "debunking" information from at least 3 other sources that have nothing to do with Contrail Science or his sources.


He is not talking bunk. If he was, he would be blown out the sky in 5 minutes.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Why would Monsanto spend hundreds of millions to patent aluminum resistant corn when all a farmer has to do is put down lime. They have been doing this for a hundred years and it works just fine to neutralize the soil. Why would a farmer spent three times the price for the seed when the limestone fertilizer costs less?

DebC
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why would Monsanto spend hundreds of millions to patent aluminum resistant corn when all a farmer has to do is put down lime. They have been doing this for a hundred years and it works just fine to neutralize the soil. Why would a farmer spent three times the price for the seed when the limestone fertilizer costs less?

DebC

See post #2, above:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/3008

And:
http://www.agbrazil.com/good_cerrado_land.htm

 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Why would Monsanto spend hundreds of millions to patent aluminum resistant corn when all a farmer has to do is put down lime. They have been doing this for a hundred years and it works just fine to neutralize the soil. Why would a farmer spent three times the price for the seed when the limestone fertilizer costs less?
DebC

The patent mentioned in "What In The World Are They Spraying" is US Patent # 7582809. This patent IS NOT, I repeat IS NOT owned, funded, or for sale to Monsanto.

The patent (Link) is assigned to two entities:
1. The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture (Washington, DC, US)
2. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (Embrapa, BR)

The assignation to those two is because scientists from both the USDA(US Department of Agriculture) Agricultural Research Service and
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria(EMBRAPA, BR) [translated from Portuguese- Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research] discovered the gene for aluminum resistance referred to in the patent.

Here are several publications on the subject:

Cornell University- http://cornellsun.com/node/23945
Physics.org- http://phys.org/news186142522.html
USDA- http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=80417

Here are some of the scientists:
Dr. Robert Schaffert- http://www.maizeforacidsoils.uni-hannover.de/embrapa.htm
bobkl.jpg
Dr. Vera Maria Carvalho Alves- http://www.cnpms.embrapa.br/noticias/mostranoticia.php?codigo=342
Alves.jpg
Dr. Patricia Klein- http://hortsciences.tamu.edu/people/faculty-2/patricia-klein/
Patricia-Klein1-153x175.jpg
Dr. Leon Kochian- http://ars.usda.gov/PandP/docs.htm?docid=12283
Leon.jpg


This is yet another example of the many false claims made in the movie.

Additionally, the movie also falsely claims that soils have become less acidic and more alkaline. Rather interesting though, is that aluminum resistance would only be required if soil were more acidic, not less!

These people can't even make false claims without contradicting themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
What a great site. I wish I had used it sooner.

I love the Monsanto theory for chemtrails as it is just so easy to kick into touch. Soil chemistry aside, if chemtrails are to be accepted as a Global Conspiracy, then Monsanto's involvement just makes no sense. What may be valid for the USA is not valid for Europe. Monsanto does not have the market in the EU as it does elsewhere. I am certain they would love to but we have some of the tightest GMO legislation around, especially here in the UK. I won't get into the GMO argument but in the UK, even after getting a licence to sow, it is virtually impossible for anyone to plant a GMO crop without Greenpeace coming over the horizon and stomping it down. Even when there is a veil of secrecy it gets out pretty quickly.

I think the green activists will be the first to notice that there is more Al in the soil and would be asking serious qestions as to where the hell it came from. Even if the conditions where right for the necessity of Al resistant seeds there just is not the market for GMO products as they have to be labelled, and the main supermarkets choose not to use them.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I am skeptical of claims that the spraying of chemicals is a Monsanto scheme. However, are the debunkers claiming that chemicals are never sprayed into the atmosphere? If so, that's simply not true. We spray chemicals all the time, for various purposes. I know it's not completely on topic, but I think it's relevant.

In 1959, the Royal Air Force in the UK was experimenting with cloud seeding (Project Cumulus) and most likely caused a deadly flood. The fact that the documents regarding this operation are missing is very telling.

Cloud seeding is widespread in the United States. The reason I bring this up is not to suggest a conspiracy or that we are being poisoned with silver iodide, but to point out that chemicals do get sprayed by aircraft. It is a mistake to say that anyone who sees a chemtrail is actually looking at a contrail.

Interesting fact: For the 2008 Olympics, China had 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. Each system would shoot various chemicals into any threatening clouds to shrink rain drops before they reach the stadium.

Regarding weather warfare, I think it would be naive to assume we are not experimenting with that.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

The conclusion of this report reads "...while offensive weather modification
efforts would certainly be undertaken by US forces with great caution and trepidation, it is clear
that we cannot afford to allow an adversary to obtain an exclusive weather-modification capability."
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Cloud seeding is NOT chem trails. Can you show us some a cloud seeding operation that looks like a chem/con trail?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Cloud seeding is NOT chem trails. Can you show us some a cloud seeding operation that looks like a chem/con trail?

I'm not an expert on chemtrails or contrails. My point was that we spray chemicals from airplanes for various purposes. I do not know of every chemical that is used, or what the trail from the airplane would look like in each case. I'm only trying to say that not everyone who claims they saw an airplane spraying chemicals is wrong.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Cloud seeding is NOT chem trails. Can you show us some a cloud seeding operation that looks like a chem/con trail?

http://savethewater.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Rain-Cloud-Seed.jpg

That looks like a lot of alleged "chemtrail" sprays to me. It doesn't resemble a contrail but it does resemble some of the pictures where we see a large plane billowing something out of several tanks underneath the wings. Cloud seeding isn't the only reason we spray chemicals into the atmosphere, either. I'm just saying that the people who believe the government is trying to kill us all by spraying poison from planes are crazy, but saying that we don't spray chemicals into the atmosphere is equally crazy.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I am skeptical of claims that the spraying of chemicals is a Monsanto scheme. However, are the debunkers claiming that chemicals are never sprayed into the atmosphere? If so, that's simply not true. We spray chemicals all the time, for various purposes. I know it's not completely on topic, but I think it's relevant.

In 1959, the Royal Air Force in the UK was experimenting with cloud seeding (Project Cumulus) and most likely caused a deadly flood. The fact that the documents regarding this operation are missing is very telling.

Cloud seeding is widespread in the United States. The reason I bring this up is not to suggest a conspiracy or that we are being poisoned with silver iodide, but to point out that chemicals do get sprayed by aircraft. It is a mistake to say that anyone who sees a chemtrail is actually looking at a contrail.

Interesting fact: For the 2008 Olympics, China had 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. Each system would shoot various chemicals into any threatening clouds to shrink rain drops before they reach the stadium.

Regarding weather warfare, I think it would be naive to assume we are not experimenting with that.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

The conclusion of this report reads "...while offensive weather modification
efforts would certainly be undertaken by US forces with great caution and trepidation, it is clear
that we cannot afford to allow an adversary to obtain an exclusive weather-modification capability."

And what about cloud seeding in the UK? It just does not happen. The government decided that it was unsuitable for our climate and geography. Now to me that provides even greater evidence that they are not spraying stuff in the skies.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Cloud seeding is widespread in the United States. The reason I bring this up is not to suggest a conspiracy or that we are being poisoned with silver iodide, but to point out that chemicals do get sprayed by aircraft. It is a mistake to say that anyone who sees a chemtrail is actually looking at a contrail.
Cloud seeding is real, not new, and not secret. But it's not what "chemtrails" are claimed to be. It's done into existing clouds (not across open skies), it's not done at jet cruising altitudes, and it doesn't leave persistent visible trails across the sky. It's also not all that widespread in the US - there are only 11 states that currently have cloud seeding programs, none of them in the East.

No one says that planes never release anything. There is cloud seeding, skywriting, crop dusting, mosquito control flights, etc. But those are not "chemtrails", which refers specifically to those white trails across the sky that appear in every way to be persistent contrails.

unregistered said:
Regarding weather warfare, I think it would be naive to assume we are not experimenting with that.

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

The conclusion of this report reads "...while offensive weather modification
efforts would certainly be undertaken by US forces with great caution and trepidation, it is clear
that we cannot afford to allow an adversary to obtain an exclusive weather-modification capability."

And the disclaimer at the beginning reads, "The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of theUnited States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government."
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
This unregistered person is just using the old fall-back position of a chemtrail believer who has been confronted and is unable to show any proof whatsoever that what he sees in the sky are anything other than contrails. It is the "straw-man" defense.

Let me ask you, unregistered, what is the best most irrefutable evidence that the millions of contrails people see, photograph, and video are anything other than ordinary contrails? If you had fifteen minutes of fame before a national audience, what evidence would you show?

Cairenn said:
Cloud seeding is NOT chem trails. Can you show us some a cloud seeding operation that looks like a chem/con trail?

That is a good challenge for you, too.

If you aren't able to answer these questions succinctly, you need to seriously consider why not...
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
However, are the debunkers claiming that chemicals are never sprayed into the atmosphere?

No.

In 1959, the Royal Air Force in the UK was experimenting with cloud seeding (Project Cumulus) and most likely caused a deadly flood.

They might have thought they caused a flood but most likely did not. Or some people blamed the operation for a flood in a fit of post hoc misattribution of the flood to cloud seeding expiriments. Cloud seeding is simply not that effective.

Cloud seeding is widespread in the United States.

Cloud seeding occurs in the US. Your definition of widespread either differs from mine or you think there is more cloud seeding than there really is.

but to point out that chemicals do get sprayed by aircraft.


That has never been in dispute.

It is a mistake to say that anyone who sees a chemtrail is actually looking at a contrail.

Do you have any real evidence of chemtrails that look like the contrails that chemtrail advocates so often mis-identify as chemtrails? Cloud seeding looks nothing like contrails.

Each system would shoot various chemicals into any threatening clouds to shrink rain drops before they reach the stadium.

This does not accurately describe how cloud seeding works or how the Chinese were trying to affect local weather.
 
H

Halifaxious

Guest
I am on the fence and am trying to figure out what is going on without getting my emotions involved. Perhaps this has been answered but I didn't see it in the forum. How do you explain the grid patters that stretch from horizon to horizon? I want nothing more than for the spraying to be a myth but too many people can testify that the sky is not looking the same as it used to. If it is just air traffic that alone should concern us. My grandparents are saying the sky is not blue anymore the way it was most of their lives. They don't believe in chemtrails.

So, what are the grid like patterns I see almost everyday, and have seen in the pictures people post on chemtrail websites? Why are there planes coming up from one side of the horizon and down the other? I am a downtown ambassador which means I walk around outside all day, year round. Literally, I watch the sky throughout the day 7 hours a day. This is what got me searching for an answer that got me to a chemtrail theory, not the other way around. I never knew about the theory until something started looking wrong to me. I see planes doing things that make no sense, and sometimes they have four trails coming out behind them. I just want an explanation for this as well as why we aren't panicking about the air, sky, and water everywhere being too dirty to swim or drink. Fish are no argument; animals survive terrible conditions before dying off.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Halifxious, the grid patterns form when planes are flying long distances, and their paths roughly intersect anywhere within a 100 mile radius, combined with the effects of wind.

The planes you see going up and down from horizon to horizon are actually in perfectly level flight, and it's just perspective and the curvature of the earth that makes it look like they are going up and down. They are about 5-8 miles above the ground,

Have a look at:

http://contrailscience.com/contrail-grids-are-not-chemtrail-grids/

and:

http://contrailscience.com/how-far-away-is-that-contrail/
 
S

skyman from Kamiah Idaho

Guest
I do not have a dog in the fight. But I make my living as a Hortacologist. You have need to rethink your conclusion. Natural Aluminum is much, much bigger in size than the Aluminum we are finding in rain water. The Aluminum found in rain water is NANO sized particles which the plant can take up. If you were correct with your assumption then a plant could never get sick. The plant would always reject viruses or bacterium.

So you might want to rethink your debunking.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I do not have a dog in the fight. But I make my living as a Hortacologist. You have need to rethink your conclusion. Natural Aluminum is much, much bigger in size than the Aluminum we are finding in rain water. The Aluminum found in rain water is NANO sized particles which the plant can take up. If you were correct with your assumption then a plant could never get sick. The plant would always reject viruses or bacterium.

So you might want to rethink your debunking.

Can you show a test that shows that it's "nano" sized? All the tests I've seen use plasma emission, which tells you nothing about the type or particle size. The finest soil dust is still soil, and hence still 7%+ aluminum.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
nanosized doesn't mean much besides describing a size. Many natural particles fall into the range of nanosize. Interesting that you make your living as a "Hortacologist". I've never heard of your profession......
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...Why are there planes coming up from one side of the horizon and down the other? ....
The world extends further than your view of it. That would be where the planes are coming and going from. Hopefully I misunderstood this question.
 

skyman

New Member
I do not have a dog in the fight but I make my living as a Hortacologist. You might need to rethink your conclusion. Natural Aluminum is much, much bigger in size than Natural Aluminum. The very small man made NANO Aluminum are what we are finding in rain water. NANO sized particles any plant can take up.
So with all the wisdom and time you did debunking Aluminum in the soil and telling us how a plant reacts to Aluminum, and PH world wide you need to rethink your conclusions taking into account NANO sized Aluminum. Do you know why a plant gets sick? It does this by becoming weak then succumbs to host of diseases. NANO sized Aluminum makes plants weak. There are numerous research reports that provide documented evidence of the toxicity of aluminum NANO particles that then makes the plant succumbs to viruses, fungi or bacterium. So it is not the quantity nor natural Aluminum we need to worry about. When it come to plant physiology and for that matter animals size matters.
 

hemi

Senior Member.
There are numerous research reports that provide documented evidence of the toxicity of aluminum NANO particles that then makes the plant succumbs to viruses, fungi or bacterium.

Where can we see this research?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I found this, is this what you are referring to

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20821608

If so, it doesn't seem like there is a major problem.

Now what is your evidence that any nano aluminum is being 'sprayed'?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Where can we see this research?

There really is research showing effects (including phytoxicity) of nanoparticles of alumina and other substances,although they don't always see any effects, and when they do they're not always negative.

A couple of examples:
Nanoparticles and higher plants
Toxicity of aluminium oxide nanoparticles demonstrated using a BY-2 plant cell suspension culture model

What is lacking (as far as I know) is any evidence that such materials are being released from planes, or being found in rainwater.
 

skyman

New Member
I never said anything is being sprayed. Fact we are finding Man made NANO particles in the soil and water. I do not care where it comes from. You can put words in my mouth if you want. I reported proven fact. Even your quote dealing with [Worms] shows and I quote "Results of the present study indicate that nano-sized Al2O3 may impact reproduction and behavior of E. fetida," Remember worms are not plants.I will repost the studies US AIRFORCE STUDY “In Vitro Toxicity of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Rat Alveolar Macrophages” Institute of Technology study “In Vitro Toxicity of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Human Keratinocytes” affect on animals study “Cellular Interaction of Different Forms of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Rat Alveolar Macrophages“, April 2007 (see the conclusion on the last page): http://t.co/hUMLRnR
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Can you give a reference for this? Who is "we" and where are these findings documented?

I don't doubt that man made nano particles are being detected in soil. Man has been making such particles ever since we discovered how to create fire deliberately - that's plenty of time.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I do not have a dog in the fight but I make my living as a Hortacologist. You might need to rethink your conclusion. Natural Aluminum is much, much bigger in size than Natural Aluminum. The very small man made NANO Aluminum are what we are finding in rain water.

I presume what you mean is natural aluminium is much smaller than "man made" aluminium.

However that is not always the case.

Aluminium toxicity in soil is caused by Aluminium ions in acidic soil - Al 3+ ions are atoms - and there is no aluminium particle smaller than an Al 3+ ion!
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Aerosols are "nano particles" and have been created naturally on Earth ever since comets aggregated to make it in the first place. Natural aerosols exist in air.

Children make up stuff. I'm not sure that adults should talk to them about made-up stuff until the children have left school.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I will repost the studies US AIRFORCE STUDY “In Vitro Toxicity of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Rat Alveolar Macrophages”

Yeah, you will find that G. Edward Griffin is seling a product called "Silverlungs", which supposedly generates silver nanoparticles which you inhale to "protect" you from illness.

Yet, the same US Airforce group you cite above studied the effect of silver nanoparticles on HUMAN LUNGS and found then to be far more harmful than aluminum nanoparticles!

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/244-Silver-Nanoparticles-cure-all-or-recipe-for-lung-problems
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Agav8r

Member
One of the recurring contentions of the chemtrailers on this thread is that Monsanto is spraying aluminum in order to increase aluminum levels in the soil so they can sell aluminum resistant seeds. Aluminum content already in the soil aside, can anyone explain to me, if this is the case, why they are wasting resources ‘spraying’ over heavily populated urban areas and leaving the rural agricultural areas where the maximum return on investment for them is largely untouched? The idea of on target application from altitudes of 25,000+ feet is laughable enough to dismiss the subject out of hand without further thought anyway, but just wondered if anyone had an explanation for the majority of the spraying happening over urban non-agricultural areas. I live in an area that is dominated by Monsanto products, yet I see chem/contrails very rarely around here. Seems to me they are missing their market, so to speak.

Secondly, and far more importantly, I am unaware of an aircraft that could carry the volume of material required to make a chemtrail for miles upon miles, along with the massive pump system needed to put it out. Consider that these aircraft are observed for miles upon end, putting out a constant, dense stream of chemicals, never needing to land to re-load.

Well, consider this. Let’s take a 747-81, one of the largest aircraft in service, civilian or military. It has an empty operating weight of 472,900 lbs. (aircraft plus all fluids, crew, required equipment and unusable fuel), and a max takeoff weight of 975,000 lbs. This leaves 502,100 lbs for fuel and payload. Let’s just go with 2 hours of fuel. Jet fuel weighs 6.8 lbs/gal. Fuel burn is 3,855 gal/hr @cruise altitude of 35,000 ft. (Max range at MTOW = 9,200 miles. Max fuel = 62,225 gal. Cruise speed @35,000 ft = 570 mph. 9,200 miles / 570 mph = 16.14 hrs. 62,225 gal/16.14 hrs = 3,855 gals/hr @cruise). 3,855 x 6.8 lbs/gal x 2 hrs = 52,428 lbs. 502,100 – 52,428 = 449,672 lbs available for payload. This allows for a hypothetical unpowered ascent and descent that burns 0 fuel. Water is 8.34 lbs per gallon, and aluminum is 2.7 times denser than water. Let’s use the weight of just water, as the total quantity of aluminum is unknown. We will even assume weightless containers and pump systems for this exercise. 449,672 lbs / 8.34 lbs/gallon = 53,917 gals/H2O. During a 2 hour flight, at even flow, the aircraft would be putting out a rate of 7.49 gal/sec. A 747 travelling at cruise speed of 570 mph will be moving at 836 ft/sec. It has a wingspan of 224 ft. The span of chem/contrails is generally regarded to be slightly more than the wingspan of the jets observed in flight.

For simplicity, we will lower it to just the wingspan. In one second it will travel 846 ft x 224 ft wingspan = total area of 189,504 sq/ft covered. 189,504/43,560 = 4.35 acres covered in 1 second. 7.49 gal/sec / 4.35 acres/sec = 1.72 gal/acre. An acre, for scale, is about the size of an American football field, sideline to sideline, and just slightly less than goal line to goal line. 2 gallons of water over a football field. I can tell you for a fact that 2 gallons per acre is virtually impossible to see coming out of the nozzles of an AT-502 when parked on the road next to the field he is working, much less from 6 miles away. And what is seen in the skies regarding these trails is clearly more than that. SUBSTANTIALLY more than that. So how do you get more into the airplane? The answer is, you can’t.

You could shorten the flight, but let’s say that we reduced the flight to 15 minutes. All we have done is increased the output to 13.76 gallons/acre. Ground sprayers commonly put out 20 gallons/acre, and looks nothing like the volume seen behind an aircraft at high altitude. Still would not be visible from 6 miles down, much less linger in the skies for hours. To get the types of volume that can be seen lingering for hours we are probably talking about a MINIMUM rate of 300 gallons per acre, per second breaking up in the airstream to create that cloud at the very, very least. Ok, that means that the aircraft is now putting out 1,305 gal/sec of total volume. At that rate, the aircraft would be out of spray in 41 seconds, leaving a trail only 6.6 miles long. Remember, this is working the problem using just water. Aluminum is 2.7 times denser, lowering total volume available as it is added to the equation.

Given my working knowledge in the aerial spraying business, I am convinced that to leave the visible, voluminous trails that are seen by chemtrailers, that it would take significantly more than 1,305 gallons/sec in this example to create that effect. But, even at 1,305 gallons, there is also the issue of 10,883 lbs of water leaving the aircraft every second. I would like to hear some heavy drivers weigh in on this, but I doubt that the aircraft would remain controllable under those conditions. The few times that I have had to make an emergency dump I have had to shove the stick full forward just to keep the aircraft from pitching out of control, and we are talking about a max of 400 total gallons over the course of 5 or 6 seconds. Transferring a massive amount of weight out of an aircraft in a short period of time is a violent and very risky proposition. This probably needs a little more work to convince some, but as far as I’m concerned, this makes the chemtrail debate over. I would like to hear from any aero engineers on the board regarding the volume of air over distance that any of the various models of turbofans are pushing out, to compare for volume of water vapor in contrails vs. the necessary volume needed to produce a chemtrail.

Corrections to my math/methodology are certainly welcome, I don’t want to misrepresent anything I am saying. I’ve double checked, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t overlooked something or made a mistake. Also, I’ve worked the numbers with a 767, and as you would probably expect, the efficiency was substantially worse. At 300 gal/acre, that aircraft was out of water in 26 seconds. To visualize 300 gallons per acre, picture six 55 gallon barrels not filled quite to capacity spaced evenly around a football field. Still not a lot of volume for the area involved. If anyone wants to plug the numbers in to other aircraft, by all means feel free. I have given the large airframes of the military, C-17, C-5, a cursory glance to see how the numbers compare. The 747 was still the most productive platform.

I used some very basic equations here, and did not get into finite details such as fuel required for ascent, descent, and other factors like TAS,temperature, and other factors that would not change the overall numbers by more than a small percentage. Where I have omitted factors that are obviously impossible (0 fuel burn for climbout, weightless pumps and storage systems, etc) they only skewed the numbers slightly in favor of the chemtrailers.

One more thing: There would have to be literally hundreds of these chemtrail loading sites located at virtually every major airport across the country and even the world, as there would be no way to load the aircraft with chemical, and ferry it across the country to refuel and begin a chemtrail run. Way beyond the max landing weights. The unfeasibility is stacking up very quickly.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
One of the recurring contentions of the chemtrailers on this thread is that Monsanto is spraying aluminum in order to increase aluminum levels in the soil so they can sell aluminum resistant seeds. Aluminum content already in the soil aside, can anyone explain to me, if this is the case, why they are wasting resources ‘spraying’ over heavily populated urban areas and leaving the rural agricultural areas where the maximum return on investment for them is largely untouched? The idea of on target application from altitudes of 25,000+ feet is laughable enough to dismiss the subject out of hand without further thought anyway, but just wondered if anyone had an explanation for the majority of the spraying happening over urban non-agricultural areas. I live in an area that is dominated by Monsanto products, yet I see chem/contrails very rarely around here. Seems to me they are missing their market, so to speak. Secondly, and far more importantly, I am unaware of an aircraft that could carry the volume of material required to make a chemtrail for miles upon miles, along with the massive pump system needed to put it out. Consider that these aircraft are observed for miles upon end, putting out a constant, dense stream of chemicals, never needing to land to re-load. Well, consider this. Let’s take a 747-81, one of the largest aircraft in service, civilian or military. It has an empty operating weight of 472,900 lbs. (aircraft plus all fluids, crew, required equipment and unusable fuel), and a max takeoff weight of 975,000 lbs. This leaves 502,100 lbs for fuel and payload. Let’s just go with 2 hours of fuel. Jet fuel weighs 6.8 lbs/gal. Fuel burn is 3,855 gal/hr @cruise altitude of 35,000 ft. (Max range at MTOW = 9,200 miles. Max fuel = 62,225 gal. Cruise speed @35,000 ft = 570 mph. 9,200 miles / 570 mph = 16.14 hrs. 62,225 gal/16.14 hrs = 3,855 gals/hr @cruise). 3,855 x 6.8 lbs/gal x 2 hrs = 52,428 lbs. 502,100 – 52,428 = 449,672 lbs available for payload. This allows for a hypothetical unpowered ascent and descent that burns 0 fuel. Water is 8.34 lbs per gallon, and aluminum is 2.7 times denser than water. Let’s use the weight of just water, as the total quantity of aluminum is unknown. We will even assume weightless containers and pump systems for this exercise. 449,672 lbs / 8.34 lbs/gallon = 53,917 gals/H2O. During a 2 hour flight, at even flow, the aircraft would be putting out a rate of 7.49 gal/sec. A 747 travelling at cruise speed of 570 mph will be moving at 836 ft/sec. It has a wingspan of 224 ft. The span of chem/contrails is generally regarded to be slightly more than the wingspan of the jets observed in flight. For simplicity, we will lower it to just the wingspan. In one second it will travel 846 ft x 224 ft wingspan = total area of 189,504 sq/ft covered. 189,504/43,560 = 4.35 acres covered in 1 second. 7.49 gal/sec / 4.35 acres/sec = 1.72 gal/acre. An acre, for scale, is about the size of an American football field, sideline to sideline, and just slightly less than goal line to goal line. 2 gallons of water over a football field. I can tell you for a fact that 2 gallons per acre is virtually impossible to see coming out of the nozzles of an AT-502 when parked on the road next to the field he is working, much less from 6 miles away. And what is seen in the skies regarding these trails is clearly more than that. SUBSTANTIALLY more than that. So how do you get more into the airplane? The answer is, you can’t. You could shorten the flight, but let’s say that we reduced the flight to 15 minutes. All we have done is increased the output to 13.76 gallons/acre. Ground sprayers commonly put out 20 gallons/acre, and looks nothing like the volume seen behind an aircraft at high altitude. Still would not be visible from 6 miles down, much less linger in the skies for hours. To get the types of volume that can be seen lingering for hours we are probably talking about a MINIMUM rate of 300 gallons per acre, per second breaking up in the airstream to create that cloud at the very, very least. Ok, that means that the aircraft is now putting out 1,305 gal/sec of total volume. At that rate, the aircraft would be out of spray in 41 seconds, leaving a trail only 6.6 miles long. Remember, this is working the problem using just water. Aluminum is 2.7 times denser, lowering total volume available as it is added to the equation. Given my working knowledge in the aerial spraying business, I am convinced that to leave the visible, voluminous trails that are seen by chemtrailers, that it would take significantly more than 1,305 gallons/sec in this example to create that effect. But, even at 1,305 gallons, there is also the issue of 10,883 lbs of water leaving the aircraft every second. I would like to hear some heavy drivers weigh in on this, but I doubt that the aircraft would remain controllable under those conditions. The few times that I have had to make an emergency dump I have had to shove the stick full forward just to keep the aircraft from pitching out of control, and we are talking about a max of 400 total gallons over the course of 5 or 6 seconds. Transferring a massive amount of weight out of an aircraft in a short period of time is a violent and very risky proposition. This probably needs a little more work to convince some, but as far as I’m concerned, this makes the chemtrail debate over. I would like to hear from any aero engineers on the board regarding the volume of air over distance that any of the various models of turbofans are pushing out, to compare for volume of water vapor in contrails vs. the necessary volume needed to produce a chemtrail.
Corrections to my math/methodology are certainly welcome, I don’t want to misrepresent anything I am saying. I’ve double checked, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t overlooked something or made a mistake. Also, I’ve worked the numbers with a 767, and as you would probably expect, the efficiency was substantially worse. At 300 gal/acre, that aircraft was out of water in 26 seconds. To visualize 300 gallons per acre, picture six 55 gallon barrels not filled quite to capacity spaced evenly around a football field. Still not a lot of volume for the area involved. If anyone wants to plug the numbers in to other aircraft, by all means feel free. I have given the large airframes of the military, C-17, C-5, a cursory glance to see how the numbers compare. The 747 was still the most productive platform.
I used some very basic equations here, and did not get into finite details such as fuel required for ascent, descent, and other factors like TAS, temperature, and other factors that would not change the overall numbers by more than a small percentage. Where I have omitted factors that are obviously impossible (0 fuel burn for climbout, weightless pumps and storage systems, etc) they only skewed the numbers slightly in favor of the chemtrailers.
One more thing: There would have to be literally hundreds of these chemtrail loading sites located at virtually every major airport across the country and even the world, as there would be no way to load the aircraft with chemical, and ferry it across the country to refuel and begin a chemtrail run. Way beyond the max landing weights. The unfeasibility is stacking up very quickly.


The sad part of this is that nothing you can cite will disabuse one "true believer." You'd be better off stating that you got the above knowledge after being taken to Planet X by the Annunaki and undergoing an electronic information transfer. Then they'd probably believe you.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The sad part of this is that nothing you can cite will disabuse one "true believer." You'd be better off stating that you got the above knowledge after being taken to Planet X by the Annunaki and undergoing an electronic information transfer. Then they'd probably believe you.

True believers though, are not the target audience. It's the people more on the fence, and the nearly-but-not-quite-true believers.
 

Agav8r

Member
The sad part of this is that nothing you can cite will disabuse one "true believer." You'd be better off stating that you got the above knowledge after being taken to Planet X by the Annunaki and undergoing an electronic information transfer. Then they'd probably believe you.

The credibility of that wouldn't carry any weight either. Everyone knows that planet X is more of a resort planet, not known for cognitive information transfers. Besides, it is also not on the normal trade route for Annunaki transport vessels. Good buffet, though.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I say what i see. I've seen heavy spraying in the sky and i've then seen it falling around me like a poisonous metallic star dust!



Question everything, especially debunkers...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I say what i see. I've seen heavy spraying in the sky and i've then seen it falling around me like a poisonous metallic star dust!



Question everything, especially debunkers...

Nice animation, but it's just showing two planes at different altitudes.

"Question Everything" is good advice. But needs to be tempered with "question appropriately". I don't question if my cat is a robot, for example.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Critical Thinker Debunked: Monsanto wants to replace the bees they are killing with genetically engineered flying ant General Discussion 5
deirdre Debunked: Monsanto to replace honey bees with genetically engineered ants Health and Quackery 5
Mick West Debunked: Monsanto Patents and Chemtrails (Infowars' GMO-Chemtrail Connection) Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Mathias Olsen Partially Debunked: List of Monsanto Employees in Government Conspiracy Theories 30
Critical Thinker Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign Conspiracy Theories 308
Mick West Debunked: Monsanto and USAF School of Aerospace Medicine chemtrail study 1977 Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Leifer Debunked: Monsanto canteens (cafeterias) serve non-GMO foods Conspiracy Theories 7
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 12
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 45
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top