Airplane Chem-trails.

[UnijunctionTransistor]

As you all may be aware, one of the many conspiracy theories is the one about airplane chem-trails. Which according to the conspiracy theories, no one really knows who is behind them or the real purpose, but it must likely be the Illuminati, Bill Gates or George Soros which are spraying them to control, somehow, the World’s population.
Or words to the effect.

I could give a rat’s ass about it, if it were not by the fact that my very dear twin brother is one of them.

Now, I could argue with him, but when arguing with someone I love dearly, mental block sets in.
I would appreciate it if someone could provide talking points I could use to explain this to him. He is not irrational, he has changed his worldview if presented with well-thought talk.

Now, if you believe that instead I am the one full of shit, please say so but provide solid reasons. I promise that I am not going to fight back with anyone. I will simply listen.

[hexreader]

Forget chem-trail conspiracy bullshit

Aeroplane travel is not good for the planet in scientifically verifiable ways.

If "chem trail conspiracy BS" reduces aeroplane traffic, then maybe it could be a good lie/delusion

Pity there is no conspiracy BS against ocean shipping.

Luckily I am 66 years old and will be dead long before the planet fries.

Sorry to be selfish

[UnijunctionTransistor]

I agree that excessive airplane travel is not environmentally sound.

But my concern is essentially the Chem Trails, that airlines somehow carry loads of mysterious chemicals over long distance flights, to spray over people for unknown, but certainly nefarious, reasons.

[paul cotter]

When something like this gets going it is very hard to put it back in the box. Generally believers think that we are the "sheeple" and the possession of the truth puts them in a favourable position versus the sheeple- hence they are very resistant to giving up their beliefs. All I can suggest is a careful study of the sky where one will find on certain days all high flying aircraft will leave persistent trails and on other days the trails will disperse quickly. The pertinent question is , are all aircraft spraying on some days and not doing it at all on other days? Maybe a telescope to determine what aircraft one is looking at but with great care not to look at the sun. A detailed observation like this will show that with the right weather conditions ALL high flying aircraft, regardless of whether civilian or military will produce persistent trails and on other days when conditions are not conducive it does not happen. The possibility that this activity is coordinated across all carriers, the military and private aircraft is, in my opinion, quite remote. One thing that militates against reason here is the huge increase in air travel in the last few decades which means the sky is criss crossed by trails so frequently that some people say it was never like that when they were a child. If I think of anything else I will add it but you may be up against a rigid belief here.   

[pcprogrammer]

Oh shit, the bullshit is everywhere. A friend of ours is also convinced that the stripes and circles he sees in the skies are chem trails made by planes spraying shit into the air. Trying to convince him is near impossible.

Explaining that the exhaust from an engine can create condensation and that other particles in the air might cause discoloration is something he does not buy. Why because often they are "sprayed" in circles. The fact that planes sometimes need to be placed in a holding pattern when there is no landing slot available is not something to consider.

Asking about what the benefits would be of this spraying compared to the costs it will bring with it, does not lead to meaningful response either.

Inquiring about how he thinks these kind of plains can get clearance from airports to take of and spray what ever nasty shit can't be answered either.

Who want's to control world population in a way that it starts to diminish, certainly not rich people that only want to become richer. They need thriving and growing economies to keep the money flowing into their pockets. Politicians don't see benefits in this either, because as is they see lots of problems with aging people and rising costs of everything surrounding them. So only if the shit sprayed is targeted towards the elderly, which won't be that easy, it would benefit them.

Leaves environmentalists, but for them poisoning the planet might be an even worse state of mind.

About planes being bad for the world, yes, as is every other thing with an exhaust or chimney. A lot of world wide pollution comes from factories that expel tiny particles. These particles can discharge to ground with rain and then be falsely thought to be from the chem trails.

Another argument is about cost. I'm convinced if one want's to get rid of some dodgy chemicals it is cheaper to do it by boat and dump it in the ocean.

Hope these statements help in convincing your brother of the most likely nonsense of the chem trail conspiracies.

[SteveThackery]

Another factor to point out is that the condensation trails are five or six miles high.

[Bud]

I remember watching those trails in the sky back in 70-s as a kid. Bill Gates was a teen then and World's population has doubled since, so whatever they are spraying seems pretty harmless 

[SteveThackery]

I remember watching those trails in the sky back in 70-s as a kid. Bill Gates was a teen then and World's population has doubled since, so whatever they are spraying seems pretty harmless 

In fact it's more likely to be a fertiliser, so to speak.

[bson]

It's a delusion.  Delusions are not based in fact, so no amount of reasoning will change it.  There's no point arguing; they should be talking to a clinical psychologist, not you or me.

[coppercone2]

I don't know its pretty god damn sad that they need to spray fuel out before they land. I can perfectly understand that someone has a concern if something is spraying kerosene up in the sky.

I mean I think we realize by now that the whole "its a big world, the ocean is deep, the canyon is deep, the river flows fast" industrial attitude towards waste disposal never works correctly. Its like uneducated.

But this is supposedly a emergency procedure. Not sure if there is a list of if this happens (it would be nice)

[TERRA Operative]

Why spray chemicals way up in the air where most won't even reach a human, when they can just put it in the water supply or in the processed food for much cheaper cost for more direct dosing?

It's all bullshit, but you practically can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into.

[Circlotron]

How are these chemtrails meant to affect only the target audience and not also the lizards that rule over us and breathe the same air?

[BradC]

I don't know its pretty god damn sad that they need to spray fuel out before they land. I can perfectly understand that someone has a concern if something is spraying kerosene up in the sky.

<snip>

But this is supposedly a emergency procedure. Not sure if there is a list of if this happens (it would be nice)

Frankly in an emergency if it's a choice between dropping some kero into the atmosphere or the aircraft potentially dissembling itself on landing I know what I'd rather deal with.

[Analog Kid]

So does anyone know what, exactly, the chemtrail nutjobs claim is being released into the atmosphere? Specific chemicals?

Yeah, I know it's all bullshit; just wondering if any of the believers have come up with anything remotely close to a plausible explanation.

(Not including silver nitrate and friends, right? We know what that's used for.)

[coppercone2]

I don't know its pretty god damn sad that they need to spray fuel out before they land. I can perfectly understand that someone has a concern if something is spraying kerosene up in the sky.

<snip>

But this is supposedly a emergency procedure. Not sure if there is a list of if this happens (it would be nice)

Frankly in an emergency if it's a choice between dropping some kero into the atmosphere or the aircraft potentially dissembling itself on landing I know what I'd rather deal with.

still, maybe it can be built better so the procedure is not dumping fuel. Imagine the kind of fiasco there would be if a truck did the same thing LOL. If anything BUT an airplane leaks fuel or oil it turns into a circus. Say a boat.

Airplanes get alot of lee way with all sorts of stuff..


I wonder if they can dye the fuel so you can for sure know if its contrails or airplane fuel being dumped..

I am just saying there might be some design improvements to make there

[BradC]

still, maybe it can be built better so the procedure is not dumping fuel.

Aircraft hold a *lot* of fuel. A *lot* of fuel weighs a *lot*. Aircraft burn a *lot* of fuel during normal service, and therefore they weigh a *lot* less when they land. As every "unit of weight" in an aircraft costs money in fuel to lug around, aircraft are designed to weigh as little as possible. This means they are designed to withstand the structural load of the plane, its cargo and passengers when it hits the ground in a controlled manner based on having burned a *lot* of fuel.

If an emergency happens and a plane has to land just after takeoff, it will have a *lot* of fuel on board and will therefore weigh more than its structure and landing gear is designed to hit the ground with. So the right thing to do is circle for hours and burn off enough fuel to get the weight down, or dump that shit and get on the ground as quickly as possible.

Of course we could do it your way and ensure each aircraft was designed to land at its MTOW (maximum take off weight), which would cost more in structure, weigh more and therefore use more fuel.

Again, I'll take the occasional (and it really is occasional because fuel costs money and airlines balance operating costs against dead people and trashed aircraft, so they won't be dumping fuel unless they really, really have to) fuel dump vs mangled wrecks where the fuel from the wings sloshes out onto the runway and burns up anyway.

Aircraft don't leave "contrails" of fuel, they go out over the nearest body of large water and dump that shit as quickly as possible and they only dump the minimum they need to in order to prevent the thing falling apart when it hits the deck.

FMD.

[paul cotter]

2N2646/7, I am still looking for ideas that may help. If one looks at a high altitude plane the trail comes from the engine exhaust, some distance behind, where condensation occurs. Now that gives us two possibilities (1) the "chemicals" are mixed in with the fuel or (2) they are sprayed into the propulsion nozzle by a system separate from the fuel system. The problem with (1) is that what is alleged to be used, barium and aluminium(these two I remember from long ago but I am sure there are many more) would wreck a jet engine in short order. Option (2) would require an add-on system that aircraft technicians could not help but notice. The need to do any of this in a covert manner would require the silence of tens of thousands of aviation personnel and knowing human nature leaks of knowledge would be unavoidable.

[pcprogrammer]

Lots of shit in them according to this site: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-7-2012-002906_EN.html

barium, aluminium, radioactive thorium and caesium, copper, titanium, silicon, lithium, cobalt, lead, ethylene dibromide and several pathogenic agents.

No levels mentioned though, but if true and with elevated levels we would basically all be dead by now.

[Bud]

It is not fuel dumping, trails can be see behind military planes climing up at steep angles. Would not make sense to dump fuel just right after take off and climing, would it.

[langwadt]

Aircraft don't leave "contrails" of fuel, they go out over the nearest body of large water and dump that shit as quickly as possible and they only dump the minimum they need to in order to prevent the thing falling apart when it hits the deck.

FMD.

the max landing weight is taking into account what won't damage the structure with the hardest allowable landing, highest sink rate and being able to do a go around (I think with one engine out)

so you can likely land over max landing weight with no issue, the plane just have to be inspected for damage afterwards

[UnijunctionTransistor]

How are these chemtrails meant to affect only the target audience and not also the lizards that rule over us and breathe the same air?

Exactly!
I think this is probably the best argument. Simple and straightforward. 
I’m going to try and use it, and see what counter-arguments he comes up with.

[coppercone2]

I am still annoyed the EPA can get you really good for a leaking boat motor (the water police go bananas) but the giant air plane (boeing) can do it. needs better suspension or something. I really wonder if they got lobbyists to help them not have to design something more durable lol. It's hard not to think about certain big aerospace companies as rather shady now. They don't even wanna put the things together properly and that makes me not have too much faith in their engineering processes either'...

I have a hunch that maybe something like this exists but was never designed in because they can get away with it for now. I think every single design suggestion goes through a lawyer that tells them if they absolutely need it or if its good for now.

I saw similar things with enviromental changes I tried to get done in manufacturing. Even with substantial cost savings they laughed at me because its currently unregulated and they don't wanna deal with it (a recycler I designed for a certain 'safe' and also expensive freon that seemed to be leaking through the books (the small portion I got access to) per year), they don't sell it, claim its never lost, costs probobly ~$20k / year. If you want your employees to inhale that shit and also lose thousands of dollars per year then OK (we could have build it from parts we have with maybe spending $500) aerospace industry culture. It could have bought some side cutters that work LOL

always the same explanation that the space is big and its diluted.


It made me understand why they zone factories so much. If they had better policies people would not care so much. There is a general 'do not trust these people' thought going around (correct).

[SteveThackery]

I am still annoyed the EPA can get you really good for a leaking boat motor (the water police go bananas) but the giant air plane (boeing) can do it.

I feel the need to remind you that dumping fuel is the exception - it is not routine. It only happens when something unexpected happens that invalidates the calculations for the take-off fuel load.

[jh15]

It is OK to let 2-stroke oil/gas exhaust underwater boat engines used on a water supply lake I know of. They say the products rise to the surface and evaporate. However if, while putting in your boat, You step in the water, sneaker on or whatever, a ranger/watcher/whatever he is called, will ticket you. Another lake of a theme park would exhaust a few quarts of oil per cruise in it's worn out engine.

[Andy Chee]

He is not irrational, he has changed his worldview if presented with well-thought talk.

The first thing to do, is listen to his (so-called) rational explanation.

For the moment, ignore facts (if any).  Listen to the reasoning and argumentative structure.

If the reasoning is loaded with logical fallacies, then you will need to correct them before proceeding to facts.

Here's a starter list.  It's not comprehensive, but still extremely useful to evaluate arguments.

1a. Hypothetical Syllogism (Conditional Reasoning)
Structure:

If A, then B.
If B, then C.
Therefore, if A, then C.

Example:
If it rains, the ground will be wet.
If the ground is wet, the game will be canceled.
Therefore, if it rains, the game will be canceled.

1b. Hypothetical Syllogism (Fallacious Version)
Structure:

If A, then B.
If C, then B.
Therefore, if A, then C. (Invalid)

Example:

If I drink coffee, I stay awake.
If I take a cold shower, I stay awake.
Therefore, if I drink coffee, I took a cold shower.

Why it's fallacious: The conclusion assumes equivalence where there’s none — just because two causes lead to the same effect doesn’t mean they’re related.

2a. Disjunctive Syllogism
Structure:

Either A or B.
Not A.
Therefore, B.

Example:

Either we go out or stay in.
We're not going out.
Therefore, we stay in.

2b. Disjunctive Syllogism (Fallacious Version – False Dilemma)
Structure:

Either A or B.
Not A.
Therefore, B.
Incorrect, when the options are not truly exhaustive.

Example:

You're either with us or against us.
You're not with us.
Therefore, you're against us.

Why it's fallacious: This assumes only two possible options when there could be others — a classic false dilemma.

3a. Modus Ponens (Affirming the Antecedent)
Structure:

If A, then B.
A.
Therefore, B.

Example:

If I study, I will pass.
I studied.
Therefore, I will pass.

3b. Modus Ponens (Fallacious Version – Affirming the Consequent)
Invalid Structure:

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A. (incorrect)

Example:

If it’s a dog, it has four legs.
This animal has four legs.
Therefore, it’s a dog.

Why it's fallacious: Many animals have four legs — having four legs doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a dog.

4a. Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)
Structure:

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore, not A.

Example:

If it’s a dog, it barks.
It doesn’t bark.
Therefore, it’s not a dog.

4b. Modus Tollens (Fallacious Version – Denying the Antecedent)
Invalid Structure:

If A, then B.
Not A.
Therefore, not B. (incorrect)

Example:

If it is raining, the ground is wet.
It is not raining.
Therefore, the ground is not wet.

Why it's fallacious: The ground might be wet for other reasons — sprinklers, a spill, etc.

5a. Inductive Reasoning
Structure:

Specific observations → General conclusion.

Example:

Every swan I’ve seen is white.
Therefore, all swans are probably white.

Note: Inductive reasoning leads to probable (not certain) conclusions.

5b. Inductive Reasoning (Fallacious Version – Hasty Generalization)
Example:

I met two rude people from New York.
Therefore, all New Yorkers are rude. (incorrect)

Why it's fallacious: Drawing a broad conclusion from an unrepresentative or small sample is a hasty generalization.

6a. Abductive Reasoning
Structure:

Inference to the best explanation.

Example:

The grass is wet.
It probably rained last night (best explanation).

Used in scientific reasoning and diagnostics.

6b. Abductive Reasoning (Fallacious Version – Ignoring Alternative Explanations)
Example:

The grass is wet.
Therefore, it rained last night.
(But in reality, the sprinklers were on.) (incorrect)

Why it's fallacious: This is a faulty causal inference — jumping to the most convenient explanation without ruling out others.

7a. Analogical Reasoning
Structure:

A is like B in many ways.
A has property P.
Therefore, B probably has property P.

Example:

The brain is like a computer.
A computer processes information.
Therefore, the brain probably processes information.

7b. Analogical Reasoning (Fallacious Version – False Analogy)
Example:

A watch has gears and a designer.
The universe has parts and complexity.
Therefore, the universe has a designer. (incorrect)

Why it's fallacious: The analogy is weak — the universe and a watch are fundamentally different kinds of things. This is a false analogy.

Bear this in mind for now, we are not evaluating the facts at this stage, we are evaluating the logical reasoning.  Correcting the logical reasoning can be as fraught as the conspiracy itself!