it's time to talk about flying on commercial airlines

It’s time to bite the bullet and discuss a verboten topic - the many negative issues that swirl around flying on commercial airlines. I realize writing about curtailing one of our most treasured conveniences is like writing about taking toys from children, but we need to consider this in the context of the big picture. Let’s try to gain a better understanding of what that picture entails.

Last April Tennessee became the first state to pass legislation banning geoengineering in its skies. As of this week 31 states now have legislation in the works to ban geoengineering. RFK Jr. has expressed his support and said HHS will do its part.

Clearly there is a groundswell of support to ban geoengineering. The cat is out of the bag – that spiderweb of trails we see crisscrossing our skies are a source of toxins that an ever increasing number of people are learning about. None of us consented to having our skies and the air we breathe made toxic by chemtrails.

In addition to RFK Jr, a number of other well known people and entities have recently chimed-in on this topic, but few of them fully understand the issues involved. I’m not saying I know everything there is to know about this topic, but I’ve been researching and writing about geoengineering long enough to know that even those states working on legislation to ban geoengineering are barking up the wrong tree. It’s been a big learning curve. Here is a compendium of everything I’ve written on the topic.

Let’s try to sort all of this out.

While I stand behind what I said in all of those posts about the intentional injection of SAI and SRI particulates into the atmosphere for geoengineering purposes, I may have underplayed the role that the exhaust from commercial airlines has played in altering our formerly blue skies. Although, depending on atmospheric conditions, that exhaust is sometimes visible and sometimes invisible, the fact remains that if a commercial airline jet is flying across the sky, it’s releasing massive amounts of toxins into the atmosphere, whether it can be seen or not. Although I’ve never denied the existence or toxicity of commercial jet exhaust, I’ve now come to understand that it plays a much bigger role in altering our skies and the air that we breathe than intentional SAI/SRI geoengineering. In fact, I’m now thinking geoengineering may have served to help provide cover for the commercial airline industry. If statistical comparisons between the number of commercial airline flights and the number of geoengineering flights exist, they are a well kept secret – I can’t find any. If I had to guess, I would hazard that commercial airline flights outnumber geoengineering flights by 50 to 1. There are a LOT of commercial airline flights.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-air-passenger-traffic-evolution-1980-2020

Unfortunately, in terms of cleaning up the air that we breathe, this means that bans on geoengineering will have little effect. As I pointed out last year when I discussed Tennessee’s ban, chemtrails – be they from intentional geoengineering flights or from commercial airline flights - don’t recognize state lines, they can drift for hundreds, even thousands of miles. Given that the winds in the upper atmosphere essentially travel from the West to the East, that means toxins being spewed from commercial airlines or from intentional geoengineering flights over the Rocky Mountains could be spreading toxins over Tennessee. Banning geoengineering in the skies over Tennessee does nothing to prevent that.

More importantly, the fact that some of you readers in Tennessee have said you’re still seeing the same amount of chemtrails in your skies as you saw before the ban means that the ban on geoengineering ignored the primary culprit… commercial airlines.

Knowing this, we can now understand why states are rushing to pass these laws, why RFK is onboard and why airlines are not complaining about them. In terms of having any real effect on the core problem, these bans are worthless. These bans are just another example of politicians patting themselves on their collective backs to say, ‘look, I did something about that’.

In 2020, after the covid travel ban had been in effect for several months, I remember standing outside having a conversation with a friend about how clear blue the skies had become since the airline travel ban had gone into effect (very apparent here in the mountains of Southern Arizona). So we know that even a relatively brief respite from commercial airline traffic can clear our skies and offer much needed relief to our lungs and the toxic load we all carry in our bodies due to commercial airline traffic.

How that occurred is easily seen in the following Bureau of Transportation chart.

As the chart indicates, prior to covidcon, the all time high year for airline traffic was the year before covidcon was imposed. As the following chart indicates, by 2025 the numbers had recovered to precovidcon levels.

https://www.airnavradar.com/statistics/us_us

After 9/11 the US government passed the Patriot Act and “authorized” the TSA to strip search people before they board planes along with imposing the other new regulations in airports across the US. Maybe because I expressed an unwillingness to have my constitutional rights trashed, I experienced a particularly rude strip search before boarding a flight to visit family. That was about 20 years ago. I haven’t flown since then. I have my limits and my morals and I strive to live by them. I’d rather forgo a convenience than forfeit my sovereign rights.

Is flying a right? How far do our rights extend? Given that many people have never flown because they can’t afford to, what’s the difference between a right and a luxury? Does someone have the right to fly just because they can afford to do so? If that’s the case, why shouldn’t a billionaire or a corporation that can afford to do so create a vaccine to cull the population, or make voting machines rig an election, or put 40,000 satellites into space to irradiate the planet with 5G? Oh wait, those things are already being done. If we agree that those things are wrong and should not be done, what’s the difference between the legalities of corporations and billionaires killing people with jabs, rigging elections, irradiating all biological life on earth with 5G and... corporations and billionaires killing people with the very well documented toxins from geoengineering and equally well documented toxic exhaust from commercial airlines? And I haven’t even mentioned the negative effects chemtrails have on our climate and the greater biosphere. How much do chemtrails contribute to global warming, or climate change as the UN likes to call it now. By the way, when compiling its report on climate change, geoengineering and A-1 jet fuel exhaust were not included in the research.

What are those toxins? According to this paper on Research Gate, the toxins includes a long list of gaseous materials as well as toxic metals.

In view of the aviation impact on the atmosphere, the following gaseous species can play the most important role: NOx (NO+NO2), HNOy (HNO2+HNO3), SOx (SO2, SO3), H2SO4, HOx (OH, HO2, H2O), COx (CO, CO2), and nonmethane hydrocarbons. The elements of NOx and HOx groups participate in the catalytic cycles of ozone destruction and the abundance of the species HNO2, HNO3, and NO2 as well asH2O can results in a broadening of the polar stratospheric cloud formation areas due to appearance of additional HNO3 and H2O in Polar Regions. The element of COx group (especially CO2) and hydrocarbons are greenhouse gases and affect the Earth’s radiative balance.

Besides the gaseous species, aircraft engines emit aerosol particles and aerosol precursors. Soot and metal particles are directly emitted by aircraft engines. Soot particles are believed to be the most important aviation aerosols impacting contrail and cirrus cloud formation. As Lohmann and Feichter pointed out in a recent review of the global indirect aerosol effects [3], black carbon, which is a major constituent of carbonaceous particles emitted from incomplete combustion processes, contributes to the direct aerosol radiative effect by absorption of visible radiation which results in a net reduction in shortwave radiation and thus a negative forcing at the surface [3]. At the top-of atmosphere, carbonaceous particles exert a positive forcing. This effect can be amplified if absorption of solar radiation by carbonaceous particles occurs within cloud droplets. Since aerosol particles are predominantly a complex internal mixture of chemical substances, the effects of coating insoluble black carbon particles with soluble organic or inorganic species may have a strong effect on the cloud condensation nuclear (CCN) activation of thoseparticles. The knowledge of the coating effects is in turn a prerequisite for an adequate treatment of carbonaceous particles in global climate models.

In another paper published on PubMed we can find some of the effects of these toxins on human health.

Materials and methods: Particles yielded by experimental kerosene combustion in a jet engine were characterized with electron microscopy and X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy. Immature human monocyte-derived dendritic cells were exposed for 18 h to 10, 25 or 100 μg/mL jet exhaust particles and/or Escherichia coli-derived endotoxin. Antigen-presenting and costimulation molecules (HLA DR, CD40, CD80, CD86, CD11c), tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-10 production were measured.

Results: The primary particles of jet exhaust are spherical (9.9 nm), carbonaceous and exert an adjuvant effect on human monocyte-derived dendritic cell maturation in vitro. Concomitant particle and endotoxin stimulation induced a high cytokine production with low antigen-presenting molecules; particle contact prior to endotoxin contact led to an opposite phenotype. Finally, low cytokine production and high costimulation molecules were present when particle adjunction followed endotoxin contact.

These toxins and effects are not limited to aviation kerosne (jet A-1) fuel , they can be found in most petrochemical derived fuels used today. However, there is a big difference between using these fuels at ground level where they get washed out of the air relatively quickly by weather, verses having them injected into the fragile upper atmosphere where they take much longer to clear. That means they have more time to wreck havoc with the subtle balance of ozone and other factors in the upper atmosphere that protect us from the ravages of radiation from space. Worst of all, from that elevation they can spread all around the globe to interfere with the earths natural diurnal radiational cycle as well as world wide natural cloud formation.

Not only did no one think to ask us how we felt about injecting millions of tons of jet A-1 fuels exhaust into the air we breathe every year, no one ever thought to conduct any studies to see if doing so would have a detrimental effect. How convenient for the airline industry.

In terms of the number of people being injured and killed, we don’t know. No one is tracking injuries and death from jet exhaust. Because so few people understand the issue, the research is very limited. It could be far worse than injuries and death from what some sources rank as the number one cause of death in the US - the medical industrial complex.

Should we ban commercial passenger flights? I don’t know. Possibly. However, if enough people wake up, take Amtrack (the most efficient way to travel and in my opinion, the most relaxing) instead of flying, the airline industry will collapse.

Personally, I haven’t missed flying since I stopped 20 years ago. I drive much less now than I did 20 years ago, but for longer trips I prefer Amtrack. Yes, I have some issues with the way Amtrack is currently being run (a whole ‘nuther post), but from a human perspective, I think Amtrack provides a much less problematic, more pleasurable option.

Be free.