I have been getting a lot of flak on social media about “chemtrails” from conspiracy theorists lately, as I’m sure many of you readers have also experienced. So, I decided to work up a reference post that uses bullet points factoids to make rebuttal points. You can also reference my rebuttal from 2016. Feel free to share and use anywhere – Anthony
The chemtrail conspiracy theory alleges that aircraft contrails are chemical agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes. This theory is unsupported by scientific evidence and contradicts well-established atmospheric science, logistical realities, and environmental data. Below is a concise rebuttal addressing key misconceptions, with additional references to strengthen the argument.
- Contrails are water vapor, not chemicals: Contrails form when water vapor from aircraft engine exhaust immediately condenses and freezes into ice crystals at high altitudes (above 25,000 feet), where temperatures are below -40°C. See the graphic below. These crystals create visible trails that persist based on humidity and temperature, as detailed in Shearer et al. (2016). Studies like Schumann (2005) further confirm contrails are primarily water-based, with trace emissions (e.g., soot, sulfur) insufficient to suggest deliberate chemical dispersal.
- Persistence is a natural phenomenon: Chemtrail proponents cite long-lasting trails as evidence of chemicals. However, contrails persist in cold, humid conditions because ice crystals sublimate slowly, as explained in Shearer et al. (2016). The IPCC (1999) report on aviation notes that contrail spreading is a meteorological effect, not a sign of spraying.
- No evidence of chemical spraying: Claims of “chemtrails” rely on anecdotal reports or misinterpretations of contrail behavior. No peer-reviewed studies support a large-scale spraying program. Shearer et al. (2016) found 98% of atmospheric scientists reject the chemtrail theory, aligning with assessments from NASA (2017) that confirm contrails are benign aviation byproducts.
- Logistical impossibility of secrecy: A global chemtrail conspiracy would require coordination among thousands of pilots, technicians, scientists, and officials across nations. Maintaining secrecy is implausible, as noted by Spencer (2025). The Manhattan Project, a far smaller operation, faced leaks; a visible, widespread program like chemtrails would be impossible to conceal, per Mick West’s analysis (2018).
- Water testing misinterpretations: Alleged evidence of metals like aluminum or barium in rainwater is often cited by chemtrail advocates. These elements occur naturally in seawater, soil, and dust, which contribute to rainwater composition through evaporation and precipitation. Spencer (2025) and the USGS (2004) confirm that trace metals in water are consistent with natural environmental processes, not aerial spraying.
- Historical context of the theory: The chemtrail theory arose in the 1990s from misinterpretations of weather modification research, like cloud seeding, and distrust in institutions. Spencer (2025) and West (2018) trace its spread to misinformation about routine aviation, with no credible evidence emerging despite decades of scrutiny.
How contrails form from jet engine exhaust:
Source: AirServicesAustralia.com
Bottom Line:
In conclusion, the chemtrail theory is refuted by extensive scientific evidence showing contrails as water vapor condensing into ice crystals at high altitudes. Their persistence is a natural atmospheric process, and alleged chemical evidence aligns with environmental norms. The impracticality of orchestrating a secret, global spraying program further discredits the theory.
References:
- Shearer, C., et al. (2016). Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program. Environmental Research Letters, 11(8). https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ERL….11h4011S/abstract
- Spencer, R. (2025). Does the Air Force own the weather in 2025? Origins of the chemtrail theory. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/does-the-air-force-own-the-weather-in-2025-origins-of-the-chemtrail-theory/
- Schumann, U. (2005). Formation, properties and climatic effects of contrails. Comptes Rendus Physique, 6(4-5), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2005.05.002
- IPCC. (1999). Aviation and the global atmosphere. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/aviation-and-the-global-atmosphere-2/
- NASA. (2017). Contrail watching for kids. https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/contrail-watching-for-kids/
- West, M. (2018). Debunked: The chemtrail conspiracy. Metabunk. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-chemtrail-conspiracy.893/
- USGS. (2004). Trace elements and radionuclides in U.S. groundwater. U.S. Geological Survey. https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/trace-elements-and-radionuclides-groundwater
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The chemtrail conspiracy has become so pervasive and so widely accepted on social media now that I think it is evidence of yet another mass formation psychosis. Normally sane, rational people are completely losing their minds. Now RFK Jr has alleged that Darpa have been adding chemicals to jet fuel, but even this supposed official admission is not sufficient for some chemtrail ‘experts’, who insist that they MUST be SPRAYING these chemicals. Whatever the case, it is interesting that a geoengineering proposal to REDUCE cirrus clouds was put forward in 2009 and this involved adulterating jet fuel with bismuth tri-iodide. I’ve written about it on my Substack because, curiously, the ARIA UK govt geoengineering ‘authorisation’ which has driven folks hysterical refers specifically to this 2009 study. But that aside, ‘chemtrails’ are 99%+ frozen H2O and there is NO evidence of a global conspiracy to adulterate jet fuels that I know of.
I have a bit of experience producing, additizing and analyzing jet fuel. I agree with you.
The following clip provides some context to your comment about mass formation psychosis. “Question everything.”
I live on the southern tip of Africa. Virtually no contrails ever yet we have clear skies, hazy skies, cloudy skies, sometimes all three in one day. The locals here call it weather.
Another dot point. Photos from WW2 – especially US Army Air Force bomber raids across clear skys.
Re “Contrails are water vapor, not chemicals: Contrails form when water vapor from aircraft engine exhaust immediately condenses and freezes into ice crystals at high altitudes (above 25,000 feet), … primarily water-based, with trace emissions (e.g., soot, sulfur) insufficient to suggest deliberate chemical dispersal.”
Another reason why the ‘contrails are chemtrails’ controversy may refuse to die:
Certain geo-engineering demonstration projects intend to take advantage of ‘enhanced’ contrails.
Hadn’t been aware of that, but was trying to check whether / why the aviation-specific ion-induced nucleation hypothesis (Rich Turco et al., mid-’90s) wasn’t mentioned above …
… and found recent items like this one:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c08408. Energy and Climate April 9, 2024
” … Stratospheric Aircraft Exhaust Plumes with H2SO4 Enhancement”
— from SUNY-Albany / NASA-Langley / Colorado State
“This research has been supported by SilverLining (??) and NSF (AGS-2325458)”
From the introduction:
” Aircraft are a likely platform for SAI [stratospheric aerosol injection] and a few existing SAI plume scale studies have explored using this platform to introduce aerosols into the stratosphere. (2,4,10,13) ”
Ref. 2. NASEM. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2021.
A companion conspiracy theory to chemtrails was HAARP. I remember that many decades ago, it was popular topic on George Noory’s radio talk show
“Coast To Coast AM”.
There is a very large file on HAARP at Wikipedia. I surprised to learn that many famous people believed that HAARP was US military scheme to control weather.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to what the effect of heating certain parts of the stratosphere would be, other than affecting weather systems?
OK, it’s not dissolving clouds at low level, is it? But it is mimicking incoming solar radiation and if you try to tell me that incoming solar radiation doesn’t have indirect effects on global weather, then I think you need to learn some basic meteorology.
HAARP is technology designed to create a focussed heating effect on specific parts of the upper gaseous phase surrounding earth.
Perhaps you would like to enunciate what the project WAS about, if not weather modification (even if it were more basic research as opposed to attempting to create specific effects straight away)?
The most obvious hypothesis to make about HAARP is that it was the US military seeking to understand how targeted bursts of EMR in the stratosphere affects global weather patterns, and then perhaps then trying to create specific effects down the line as a result of previous learnings.
Look, these are the same morons who keep screeching the Sleepy Joe is the Best President evah! so no you are not going to connect them to reality. Knock it off. Far better uses for your time and talents.
Let’s make the crazies a little crazier …
Fuel system icing inhibitor (FSII) is an additive to aviation fuels that prevents the formation of ice in fuel lines. FSII is sometimes referred to by the registered, genericized trademark Prist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_system_icing_inhibitor
There’s also a (miniscule) additive to make the jet-fuel electrically conductive enough so that some random spark during refueling doesn’t ignite a conflagration.
Believe that it is (since the late-’80s) one of those PFAs aka ‘forever chemicals’, such as CF3(CH2)6CO2H (Poly-Fluoro Heptanoic Acid).
No, it’s Stadis 450 from Innospec. It’s an organic sulfonic acid. Sometimes an antioxidant like BHT is used in military jet.
Of course they haven’t ever / are not / are not planning to, spray stuff in the atmosphere………
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates
https://www.gbnews.com/science/science-news-latest-britain-approve-sun-dimming-experiments-climate-change
That is different than chemtrails.
Thank you, Anthony.
The latest claim I’ve been seeing from these loons is that the chemicals are mixed in with commercial jet fuel so the ground crews, pilots, etc don’t even know they’re spraying it.
My question is: how to they prevent these chemicals from reducing the efficient burning of the jet fuel? Contaminants reduce the energy contained in the fuel, so if it didn’t damage the engine outright (which is most likely in sufficient quantities to do anything other than just burn up during combustion) it would at least reduce fuel efficiency. I’d think the airlines would have noticed that considering that fuel costs are one of their major expenses.
Or have the Masons or the Illuminati, or the Templars or Dr. Evil or whoever been doing this since airplanes were invented? Or at least Since, say, WWII?
I call attention to Carnicom Institute, and an article wherein they attempt to apply math to the trails left behind by aircraft.
https://www.transitieweb.nl/mirror-carnicom-institute/contrail-physics/index.html
In the article, the author constructs the following formula to calculate the amount of time that non-aerosol contrails dissipate:
t(sec) = ((d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335) J cm^3 gm kg m^3 s
m^2) / (Watts * 1E-12 J m^2 m^3 cm^3 gm kg)
or t(sec) = (d(u) * (9.17E-13) * (4.21dT + 335)) sec / (Watts *
1E-12)
or t(sec) = (d(u) * .917 * (-4.21T + 335)) / Watts/m2
where d is measured in microns, T is the air temperature where the
contrail forms, measured in Celsius, and solar radiation is in watts
per square meter.
Based on this, the following table is constructed:
1-50 600 1
10 -50 600 8
30 -50 600 25
50 -50 600 42
100 -50 600 83
1 -40 400 1
10 -40 400 12
30 -40 400 35
50 -40 400 58
100 -40 400 115
1 -30 700 1
10 -30 700 6
30 -30 700 18
50 -30 700 33
100 -30 700 60
It can be read as follows (see last item): a 100 micron diameter ice crystal subjected to temperatures of -30°C and solar radiation of 700 W per square meter will dissolve and evaporate in 60 seconds.
I also call attention to the paper entitled “Chemtrails are not Contrails: Radiometric Evidence (https://journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/476/952) wherein the authors, Herndon, Hoisington and Whiteside placed a Spectral Radiometer on a telescopic tripod, and where ordinary contrails would yield water vapor in dissipation state, they found aerosols, that is, particulate matter, that should not be present in an ordinary contrail.
I find reference to a “consensus” among scientists in the post out of place at this website, of all places, and note that a “consensus” among scientists might also be called “groupthink’”
Commenters make reference and use of “conspiracy theory” as a way of marginalizing true skepticism, use of those two words just a way of shaming people into ceasing productive thought processes. IN other words, when someone gets out of of the groupthink, the words “conspiracy theory” are used as a warning to “stop thinking, dammit!”
Thanks for your link to the paper, Mark. However, I fear that your credence in the study is unjustified. See below.
w.
===
The study *Chemtrails are Not Contrails: Radiometric Evidence* by Herndon et al. (2020) contains significant methodological, analytical, and credibility issues that render its conclusions unsupported by empirical evidence. Below is a structured critique based on the study’s content and broader scientific context:
1. Journal and Authorship Concerns
-Predatory Publishing: The study appears in the *Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International* (JGEESI), a journal published by SCIENCEDOMAIN International (SDI). SDI has been criticized for lax peer-review standards and aggressive article processing fee practices, raising questions about editorial rigor [2] [4].
-Conflict of Interest: Herndon has repeatedly published unconventional claims about “chemtrails” in JGEESI, suggesting a lack of independent scrutiny. Co-author Mark Whiteside, a public health official, lacks formal credentials in atmospheric science or radiometry [2] [4].
2. Methodological Flaws
-Unvalidated Assumptions: The study assumes *a priori* that “chemtrails” exist as distinct from contrails, framing its hypothesis circularly. No control measurements (e.g., uncontaminated airspace) are provided to establish baseline UV absorption for normal contrails [2] [6].
-Instrument Limitations: The ILT950UV Spectral Radiometer used operates in the 250–300 nm range, but the study fails to:
• Calibrate the device against known ice-crystal absorption spectra.
• Account for atmospheric scattering effects (e.g., Rayleigh scattering) that dominate UV attenuation.
• Disclose raw spectral data or measurement uncertainties [2] [4].
-Sampling Bias: A single observation of one “chemtrail” is generalized to all aerial trails, violating statistical representativeness principles [2].
3. Contradictions with Established Science
-Contrail Physics: The study dismisses contrails as ice crystals but ignores decades of peer-reviewed research confirming their composition and persistence mechanisms (e.g., Appleman charts, FAA/USAF studies) [6].
-No Chemical Evidence: While claiming “chemtrails” contain coal fly ash, the study provides no mass spectrometry, X-ray diffraction, or elemental analysis to verify particulate composition [2] [4].
-Neutrino Detection Gap: If large-scale atmospheric particulate spraying occurred, neutrino detectors like IceCube would detect anomalous decay signatures. No such evidence exists [2] [4].
4. Ethical and Logical Issues
-Conspiracy Framing: The paper asserts a deliberate public “deception” without evidence, violating Occam’s razor. Known psychological phenomena (e.g., pattern recognition bias) better explain “chemtrail” claims [2] [6].
-Health Claims Without Data: The study cites “adverse consequences on human health” but provides no epidemiological or toxicological data linking aerial trails to disease [2] [4].
-Ignored Counterarguments: The authors do not engage with disproving studies (e.g., NOAA’s 2016 meta-analysis of contrail composition) or address the FAA’s public refutations of “chemtrail” theories [6].
5. Broader Scientific Consensus
-EPA/NASA Position: Persistent contrails are well-documented ice clouds formed under specific humidity/temperature conditions. Their radiative forcing is studied in climate models, with no evidence of covert chemical payloads [6].
-Peer-Reviewed Rebuttals: Multiple studies in *Nature*, *Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics*, and *Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society* have debunked “chemtrail” claims using satellite data, atmospheric sampling, and fuel-composition analyses [6].
Conclusion
The study’s reliance on a single uncalibrated instrument, lack of comparative data, and publication in a low-credibility journal invalidate its conclusions. Mainstream atmospheric science, supported by observational datasets and reproducible methods, consistently attributes aerial trails to ice-crystal contrails. No empirical evidence exists for deliberate large-scale atmospheric spraying (“chemtrails”).
Citations
[2] https://journaljgeesi.com/index.php/JGEESI/article/view/476
[4] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Chemtrails-are-Not-Contrails:-Radiometric-Evidence-Herndon-Hoisington/18a406fbbb10a1328dd993a9d3ef3d16f1247cfd
[6] https://weathermod.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Pub-contrailvchemtrail.pdf
Belief in chemtrails is a form of paranoia. Paranoia is a form of mental illness. You have the patience of a saint, but seriously, you’d have a better chance convincing the street person screaming at the top of his lungs that the voices he hears aren’t real.
A few days ago Secretary of HHS admitted that the US has extensive ChemTrails programs that are controlled by DARPA. Tennessee has passed a law prohibiting them. California is experiencing different colors of rain and across the US there are traces of heavy metals and aluminum in the soil from the ChemTrails.
I’ve heard of purple rain.
Anyway, aluminum is the most abundant metal in the earth’s crust and its content in soils is normally measured in the % range.
Always thought this conspiracy was far fetched. This theory must have come about from people seeing cropdusting and skywriting in action. There are definitely easier ways to carry out “sinister purposes”.
Excellent post sir! I would only add or suggest an additional reality check against the conspiracy adherents views. That is describe the factual quantities of water being emitted by aircraft engines.
We know the published fuel consumption of airliners. We know the factual mass balance value of water produced for every pound of kg of fuel burned, so when you deliver the quantities of water being emitted from the exhausts it is rather sobering.
Examples: (for every gram of Jet-A burned, 3.48 grams of O2 is added, and 3.11 grams of CO2 plus 1.38 grams of H2O are released in the exhaust)
B747-400 burns 19,000 lbs/hr of Jet-A at cruise. This is 10,719 liters of fuel per hour. Meaning there are 14,792 liters of water emitted per hour. This is 4.11 liters per second. That is as much as an inch and a half fire hose delivers. Or put another way that same plane burns 100 tons of fuel to fly from New York to London, which means 138 tons of water is delivered to the atmosphere along the route.
You can run the same numbers for a B737-800 at 6,000 lbs Jet-A/hr, or a B777 burning 14,000 lbs/hr.
Finally look at combat fighter pilots, who will plan their flights into combat to avoid regions with favorable contrail values, so they do not give away their position visually. The temperature and relative humidity is what determines where and if contrails are visible. But ALL internal combustion engines produce copious water vapor, including us talking monkeys (breath on a cold day)(note we are in fact internal combustion engines, burning hydrocarbons with O2 to generate CO2 and H2O in our “exhaust”)
Most of the pictures of suppostedly “chem-trails” are in fact pictures of jet engine water vapor trails. It’s just water!:) This is not a problem and there are bigger fish to fry…
It is a sad, sad world when this elevates to such an issue.
Anyone watching bombers in WWII movies sees the same contrails.
It is not in the either and debunking will not cause it to dissipate.
When will critical thinking in the public as a whole become the norm?
Never. We have abandoned critical thinking skills. You Tube and Instagram are the current substitutes.
Correction:
It is now in the ether and debunking will not cause it to dissipate.
My first memory of “chem trails” was as a young lad watching a bi-plane working the
crop land in eastern Washington Palouse region. The farmer was a friend of my
dad. Not exactly the same as the subject of this article but…i do remember the chemical
trail being visible not at high altitude but just over the crop..
Years later I recall a cloud seeding operation in the Bozeman MT area
done to increase the snow pack at Bridger Bowl, a ski resort. It ended up in court
and was stopped by a group of grain growers in the Yellowstone River area to the east after it
was found to be impacting their crop yield. The skiing was pretty good there for a while IIRC.
The seeding was discussed while driving to the hill by my buddy’s dad, high level banker
who seemed to know quite a bit about this operation.
I also recall a geo-engineering project off the west coast involving dumping some
nutrients into the sea for improving fisheries..I think it worked but was halted for
some reason.
Our government has spayed chemicals in the air since the 1950,using aircraft
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-death-6000-sheep-spurred-american-debate-chemical-weapons-cold-war-180968717/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1950-us-released-bioweapon-san-francisco-180955819/
those operation didn’t require 1,000 of people and took years to uncover.
I worked on Y2K and understand how easy it would be to access our supply chain of ‘Jet A’ fuel, at some regional airport would be. All you would need to do is set up a false front, fuel supply company, knowing under bid the competition and get the contract to supply the fuel. The government has done this with other supply chains why not jet fuel
Your site points out that government scientists are corrupting the weather data (and yes they are) but want to claim that the government wouldn’t use jet to test weapons/etc.. That would be the same government that proposed putting birth control chemicals in water supply to reduce population.
As a pilot I understand water vapor/contrails etc. but I also believe/know that our government is not benign.
Man, you chemtrail guys will believe anything. The US government has NEVER proposed adding birth control chemicals to water supplies. A 1985 academic paper in Pubmed, NOT funded by the US government, speculated about antifertility methods but rejected them as unethical.
You are right that the US government has sprayed chemicals in the past. But you are conflating that with claims of a multidecadal effort that would have to involve thousands and thousands of people. In any case, here are pictures of contrails from WWII … and no, they aren’t “chemtrails”.
w.
For a website that is built on the sceptical belief of ‘settled science’ or ‘government experts’…. most people here are acting like the government spraying chemicals in the air is nonsense/conspiracy.
Do you really believe that our government is ALWAYS looking out for our best interest, having worked in the government, spraying chemicals in the air is probably the least sleazy thing our government has done or funded
I am not a chem-trail person and I don’t really care about them, I am just sceptical of what ever the government tells us.
As i have shown what our government has done this in the past (without our knowledge or consent) so it is not outside the realm of possibility that they would do it now or in the future
I will stand corrected on birth control in water….
Say what? After I just said in the post above yours that “You are right that the US government has sprayed chemicals in the past”, you now falsely claim that “most people here are acting like the government spraying chemicals in the air is nonsense/conspiracy.”
That’s nonsense. Not a conspiracy. Just nonsense.
w.
‘most people’
go back and read the comments,your post was NOT most people.
I lived through operation “Ranch Hand/Trail Dust”, my faith/trust in government has been on a downward spiral.
Jet fuel from pipeline and tankage is regularly inspected and tested. It’s highly unlikely that adulterated fuel would go undetected.
Chemically, the adulterant would have to be lipophilic otherwise there would be phase separation, which would plug filters that are also routinely used on jet to remove particulates and water.
Metals would have to be introduced via organometallics that would most definitely impact basic fuel properties. Any organic adulterants would be combusted via engines, and thus destroyed. One cannot prove a negative, but deliberate contamination of fuel as people imagine would be very difficult and unlikely. And, what would be the objective of these programs anyway?
People don’t even have to be forced to give themselves obesity or cancer even.
For those that believe the “chemtrail” stuff, how hard would it be to fly into one and take a sample?
Just what is this chemical supposed to be?
What about Bush and Cheney? Didn’t they bring down the WTC buildings on flat earth with combustible contrails?
Three WTC buildings with two planes raises some questions.
Nah. WTC 7, a 47-story building located just north of the main towers, collapsed later that day due to uncontrolled fires ignited by debris from the collapse of the nearby towers.
Other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, such as WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel), WTC 4 (South Plaza Building), WTC 5, and WTC 6, as well as the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, suffered severe damage or partial collapse from falling debris and fires, but only WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 experienced total collapse on September 11, 2001.
What’s your question? Is it “do buildings burn”? Or “do buildings collapse from burning”?
w.
How did WTC7 collapse the way that it did, straight down in a seemingly controlled fashion?
I just skimmed an article by Jones, et al, that claims no other steel framed high rises before or since 9-11 have suffered total collapse due to fire. Perhaps there were bats and/or pangolins around that contributed.
On 9-11 itself, I recall hearing that a passerby found two of the hijacker’s passports. I thought this was unusual, if not implausible. I would like to know who was the passerby.
Like most conspiracy theories there is no evidence to support the claims being made, and we are expected to believe it until it is absolutely proven false.
“It’s impossible to have a rational conversation with an irrational person.”
From 1996 through 2013, I worked for a company that helped power companies get air permits by doing studies of atmospheric dispersion of pollutants. The standard models (Pasquill-Gifford theory) used to estimate downwind pollutant concentrations show that for a given emission rate, the downwind concentrations are (roughly) inversely proportional to the square of the distance, and inversely proportional to the wind speed.
This would indicate that if some nefarious actor wanted to deliberately spread some toxic chemical along the ground, releasing tons of poison from an airliner about 10 km above the earth is an extremely inefficient way of poisoning people. For example, if 1 kg/s of pollutant was released from an airliner flying at 200 m/s (about 447 mph) at an altitude of 10 km, the maximum ground-level concentration would be only about 2 micrograms/m3 under the worst dispersion conditions (low wind speeds at night), and even less under more favorable conditions.
If someone wanted to poison people from an airplane, the concentrations would be much higher if the toxic chemical was released at very low altitude using a slow-flying plane, such as those usually used to spray pesticides on farmland.
For these reasons, the “conspiracy theory” of toxic chemicals released from commercial airliners doesn’t make much sense. The ground-level concentrations would be too low to cause harm.
The sheep kill at Dugway would disagree with that, as the jet that was dispursing the VX agent flew too high.
I am not advocating that contrails ARE chemicals/bio releases, I am just pointing out that our government has done testing like this before.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-death-6000-sheep-spurred-american-debate-chemical-weapons-cold-war-180968717/
Done testing like a mistaken VX release before? For your claim to make sense, you’d have to be talking about a subsequent VX release that was disbursed too high.
w.
I would like to believe you, but it’s because of me that the entire ocean is now homeopathic hot sauce and all of the fish will die. Sorry, everyone!
If you watch Nexrad, you might have a different opinion. About 8 p.m. at night. https://www.pauljhurtado.com/US_Composite_Radar/2025-4-25/
Like flat-earthers, chemtrails believers cannot be persuaded by logic or data. As the comedian Ron White said, “You can’t fix stupid”.