Are planes spraying chemicals on us?
“Aircraft are secretly spraying chemicals on the public in a large programme”
The big claim in this hole. What do the records say?
The long trails behind jets are ice clouds that last when the air up high is cold and moist, and 76 of 77 scientists surveyed found no evidence of a secret spraying programme. Real spraying exists but is small and on the record: cloud seeding, a balloon start-up and a few halted experiments.
- UnverifiedTheoryAircraft are secretly spraying chemicals on the public in a large programme
- ✕ DisprovenTheoryLingering, spreading or broken trails prove a plane was spraying
- ✓ ConfirmedTheoryAircraft and balloons really do release substances to change weather or sunlight
- UnverifiedTheoryLarge-scale solar geoengineering is already under way in secret
4 theories
Tap one to go down its tunnelEach root is a theory: one chamber per step, coloured by its rating; the ringed chamber is its key claim. Tap a root to go down it.
Meters
Theory meters read the headline theory, “Planes are secretly spraying us”. Tap a meter for its reasons.
Millions of people believe the long white trails behind jets are a secret spraying programme. The records show trails made of ice, real but small efforts to change the weather and the sunlight, and two states that have banned it all. This case separates the three.
The question Are the trails behind planes a secret programme spraying chemicals on the public, and what spraying is actually going on?
What the records say
The documented story holds up: 13 of 13 timeline steps are Confirmed by the records (score 100).
4 theories checked: 1 disproven, 2 unverified, 1 confirmed. A theory is rated by its key claim.
The EPA, FAA and NOAA say the US government is not modifying the weather or releasing harmful agents
confirmedConfirmed as a record of what this document says, not that it is true. See the step
Down the rabbit hole
The ground line is the documented timeline. Each tunnel is a theory that branches off it; every chamber is a step, coloured by how well the records support it. The deepest chamber is the theory’s key claim. Tap one to open it.
Main timeline
Oldest first- Aug 1996confirmed
An Air Force study imagines US forces able to “own the weather” by 2025
Written by seven officers for the Air Force’s “2025” study, it describes future weather modification for war. Its disclaimer says the views “do not reflect the official policy” of the Air Force and that it “contains fictional representations of future situations”.
T1Air Force 2025 study, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”, Aug 1996Disclaimer, p. ii; Executive Summary, p. viinvolved party: US Air Force - 1999confirmed
A 2017 study traces the spraying idea to a 1999 online essay that cited the Air Force paper
Tingley and Wagner write that an online essay by William Thomas “might have been the first piece of writing connecting contrails to chemical spraying”, and that it referred to the 1996 Air Force paper.
T1Tingley and Wagner, Palgrave Communications, Oct 2017Introduction - Sep 2000confirmed
Four federal agencies answer public questions with a fact sheet: contrails are ice
The EPA, FAA, NASA and NOAA wrote it “in response to public inquiries”. It says contrails are made mostly of ice, “do not pose health risks to humans”, and last only when the air is humid. It is the accused government speaking.
T1EPA, FAA, NASA and NOAA, “Aircraft Contrails Factsheet”, Sep 2000p. 1; “Are persistent contrails harmful to the public?”involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse - 10 Aug 2016confirmed
76 of 77 atmospheric scientists surveyed say they have seen no evidence of secret spraying
The survey asked contrail scientists and geochemists to judge photos and lab tests posted by believers. 76 had not found evidence of a secret programme; the one who had cited high barium in one remote area.
T1Shearer, West, Caldeira and Davis, Environmental Research Letters, Aug 2016Abstract; Results, Figure 1 - 31 Oct 2017confirmed
A national poll finds about 10% of Americans call the chemtrail theory “completely true”
In the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, about 10% of US adults said “completely true” and roughly 20 to 30% more said “somewhat true”, with no clear difference between left and right.
T1Tingley and Wagner, Palgrave Communications, Oct 2017Abstract; Results - 8 May 2018confirmed
Long-lasting trails need ice-supersaturated air, the contrail research shows
A review of the research explains that persistent contrails and the cirrus they spread into form in air cold and moist enough to be supersaturated with respect to ice. In drier air contrails still form but soon vanish. The 2016 survey’s experts gave the same explanation.
T2Kärcher, Nature Communications, May 2018 (review)“Stages of contrail evolution”T1Shearer, West, Caldeira and Davis, Environmental Research Letters, Aug 2016Results (contrail photos) - 18 Mar 2024confirmed
Harvard cancels its planned stratospheric balloon test, which never released anything
SCoPEx planned to release a few kilograms of calcium carbonate or sulfates from a balloon to study how particles scatter sunlight. A 2021 test flight from Kiruna, Sweden, was called off on its advisory committee’s advice amid objections, including from the Saami Council, and the project ended in March 2024 without field tests.
- 17 Apr 2024confirmed
Tennessee bans releasing chemicals into the air to change the weather or the sunlight
Public Chapter 709 prohibits “the intentional injection, release, or dispersion” of chemicals “with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight”. Its preamble says, citing nothing, that “it is documented” the federal government “may conduct geoengineering experiments”. It took effect 1 July 2024.
T1Tennessee General Assembly, SB 2691 / HB 2063 bill history (113th GA)bill historyT1Tennessee House Amendment No. 1 to HB 2063 (HA0828)preamble; Section 1 - 4 May 2024confirmed
Alameda halts a University of Washington test spraying salt water from an old aircraft carrier
The city said the cloud-brightening experiment on the USS Hornet sprayed sea salt water “with a machine resembling a snow maker” and broke the ship’s lease. It said there was “no indication” the spray threatened human health.
- 19 Dec 2024confirmed
Congress’s auditor finds cloud seeding in use in nine states, with uncertain results
The GAO says cloud seeding usually adds tiny particles of silver iodide to clouds to raise rain or snow or suppress hail. Estimates of extra precipitation ranged from 0 to 20%, federal involvement is minimal, and ten states have banned or considered banning it.
T1GAO, “Cloud Seeding Technology”, 19 Dec 2024What GAO Found - 14 Apr 2025confirmed
The EPA demands information from Make Sunsets, a start-up releasing sulfur dioxide by balloon
The company launches balloons filled with sulfur dioxide to reflect sunlight and sells “cooling credits”. By May 2025 it reported about 0.1 tons released into the stratosphere, which the EPA calls “an extraordinarily low amount”.
T1EPA letter to Make Sunsets, 14 Apr 2025involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuseT1EPA, Geoengineering “Government Action” (updated 3 Apr 2026)first sectioninvolved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuseT2Inside Climate News, Phil McKenna, 18 Apr 2025 - 23 Jun 2025confirmed
Florida bans geoengineering and weather modification, cloud seeding included
Chapter 2025-157 prohibits releasing any substance “for the express purpose of affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight”, repeals Florida’s old weather-modification licences, and has the state take reports from the public. It took effect 1 July 2025.
T1Florida CS/CS/SB 56 (2025), enrolled; Chapter 2025-157s. 403.411(1), (4); bill history - Jul 2025confirmed
The EPA, FAA and NOAA say the US government is not modifying the weather or releasing harmful agents
Their new fact sheet says persistent contrails “do not indicate an airplane had dispersed harmful chemicals” and that “jet fuel does not contain metal-based compounds”. The EPA adds that Make Sunsets is the only private actor it knows of releasing such material in the US. These are the accused government’s own words.
T1EPA, FAA and NOAA, “Contrails Fact Sheet”, Jul 2025“Are Persistent Contrails Harmful to the Public?”involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuseT1EPA, Geoengineering “Frequent Questions” (updated 19 Aug 2026)“Has large-scale solar geoengineering deployment already happened?”involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse
Branches
Go down oneA branch is only as strong as its weakest step so far. The count is how many sources back each step.
“Planes are secretly spraying us”
Is a secret programme using aircraft to spray chemicals on the public?
A 1999 online essay by William Thomas, which cited the 1996 Air Force “Owning the Weather” paper, is the earliest known writing tying contrails to spraying, a 2017 study finds.
- about 10% US adults who called the chemtrail theory “completely true” (2016 CCES poll, Tingley and Wagner) as of Oct–Nov 2016 T1Tingley and Wagner, Palgrave Communications, Oct 2017Results
- 14% People in an international survey who said a secret spraying programme was “partly true” (Mercer et al., as reported in the 2016 study) as of 2010 survey, reported 2016 T1Shearer, West, Caldeira and Davis, Environmental Research Letters, Aug 2016Introduction
- 2.6% People in the same survey who said it was “completely true” as of 2010 survey, reported 2016 T1Shearer, West, Caldeira and Davis, Environmental Research Letters, Aug 2016Introduction
- 434,958 YouTube views, “CHEM TRAILS PLANE SPRAYING” (SecretAgent33, 2009) as of 1 Nov 2026 T4YouTube: “CHEM TRAILS PLANE SPRAYING” (2009)
The Air Force itself wrote about “owning the weather”
Geoengineering Watch lists the 1996 paper as a government document.
The premise: confirmedThe paper is real. It is a 1996 study by officers, which says it is not official policy and contains fictional scenarios. Nothing read here shows it became a programme or mentions spraying from airliners.
T1Air Force 2025 study, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”, Aug 1996Disclaimer, p. iiinvolved party: US Air ForceLab tests find aluminum, barium and strontium in rain and soil
Believers post water, soil and snow tests as proof.
The premise: unverifiedOver 80% of the experts who reviewed three such tests said spraying was not the simplest explanation. Some called the levels typical of soil or dust, many wanted more data, and one or two saw possible evidence.
T1Shearer, West, Caldeira and Davis, Environmental Research Letters, Aug 2016Results, “Atmospheric deposition”Governments really do spray things into the sky
Believers point to cloud seeding and geoengineering research as proof that spraying happens.
The premise: confirmedTrue. Nine states use cloud seeding, a start-up has released sulfur dioxide balloons, and a university sprayed salt water from a ship until a city stopped it. All are small, public and recorded.
- confirmed
Believers say planes are dumping aluminum, barium and strontium
Geoengineering Watch, the best-known site, says “climate engineering” is “dumping an incendiary dust, aluminum, barium, strontium, manganese”, and lists the 1996 Air Force paper among its “Government Documents”.
StartStrength so far:confirmed· 1 source on this step - confirmed
Some spraying from aircraft is real, documented and low down
Cloud seeding drops particles such as silver iodide into clouds in nine states. Crop dusting and firefighting are done from low-flying aircraft, the EPA notes, not from high-altitude jets.
T1GAO, “Cloud Seeding Technology”, 19 Dec 2024What GAO FoundT1EPA, “Information on Contrails from Aircraft” (updated 1 Jul 2026)“What is intentionally sprayed from airplanes?”involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 2 sources on this step - confirmed
Independent scientists checked the evidence believers offer and found nothing
Of the contrail and geochemistry experts surveyed, 76 of 77 found no evidence of secret spraying. For each of three posted lab tests, more than 80% said spraying was not the simplest explanation, and several called the metal levels typical of soil or dust.
T1Shearer, West, Caldeira and Davis, Environmental Research Letters, Aug 2016Abstract; Results, “Atmospheric deposition”= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 1 source on this step - confirmed
The government denies running any such programme
The 2025 federal fact sheet says “The U.S. Government is not conducting weather modification nor releasing harmful agents into the atmosphere.” As the accused party, its denial cannot settle the question alone.
T1EPA, FAA and NOAA, “Contrails Fact Sheet”, Jul 2025“Are Persistent Contrails Harmful to the Public?”involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse= HoldsStrength so far:confirmed· 1 source on this step - unverified
Key claim: aircraft are secretly spraying chemicals on the public in a large programme
No tier 1 or tier 2 record read here shows one. The evidence offered for it was examined by independent scientists, who found nothing; the flat denials come from the government accused.
T1Shearer, West, Caldeira and Davis, Environmental Research Letters, Aug 2016AbstractT1EPA, FAA and NOAA, “Contrails Fact Sheet”, Jul 2025involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse▼ WeakerStrength so far:unverified· 2 sources on this step
Bullshit meter
- Key claim: aircraft are secretly spraying chemicals on the public in a large programme. Unverified.
- Key claim contradicted by tier 1? No. No record contradicts a secret programme outright, because none has been found to test; but the evidence offered for one was judged by 76 of 77 scientists to show nothing of the kind.
Fluff meter: possibly planted
- Can’t be traced to an original record. Absent: a 2017 study traces it to a named 1999 essay.
- First appeared from new or anonymous accounts. Not measured.
- Coordinated identical wording. Not measured.
- Cited source doesn’t exist. Absent: the 1996 Air Force paper it cites exists and was read.
- Later contradicted. Present: the trails and lab tests offered as proof were examined by independent experts in 2016.
● present · ○ absent · – not measured. Lists signals only. It never accuses anyone.
Personal interest meter
- The US federal government, is the party accused, and wrote the fact sheets denying the programme. T1EPA, FAA and NOAA, “Contrails Fact Sheet”, Jul 2025involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse
- Mick West, co-wrote the 2016 survey and is listed in it as affiliated with Metabunk.org. T1Shearer, West, Caldeira and Davis, Environmental Research Letters, Aug 2016author list
“Has a documented interest” only, each one sourced. Never an implication of guilt.
Correlation meter
- The 1996 “Owning the Weather” paper, is cited by believers here and in the HAARP case; it is a study, not a programme, by its own disclaimer. T1Air Force 2025 study, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”, Aug 1996Disclaimer, p. iiinvolved party: US Air Force
- The 2016 survey of 77 scientists, is the independent check on the spraying claim here and in the HAARP case’s chemtrails branch. T1Shearer, West, Caldeira and Davis, Environmental Research Letters, Aug 2016Abstract
- Make Sunsets, is real, public geoengineering (seeding and geo branches) and the only private actor the EPA says it knows of. T1EPA, Geoengineering “Frequent Questions” (updated 19 Aug 2026)“Has large-scale solar geoengineering deployment already happened?”involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse
Links to other cases appear once those cases exist.
Who worked on this
This case was assembled by the site from public records. Contributions are not open yet. Nothing here is invented, so the counts are zero.
This is the first published version of the case.
Sources
- T1involved party: US Air Force Col Tamzy J. House and six co-authors, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”, research paper presented to Air Force 2025, August 1996 (presented 17 Jun 1996), DTIC AD-A333462. Read as the Internet Archive’s text of the DTIC copy (the DTIC PDF returned a web page to scripted access). apps.dtic.mil · copy read: archive.org
- T1Dustin Tingley and Gernot Wagner, “Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media”, Palgrave Communications (now Humanities and Social Sciences Communications) vol. 3, article 12, published 31 Oct 2017. Includes a 1,000-person national poll run within the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (full text read). www.nature.com
- T1involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse “Aircraft Contrails Factsheet”, EPA430-F-00-005, US Environmental Protection Agency (Air and Radiation), with the FAA, NASA and NOAA, September 2000. Read as the EPA’s own PDF from its NEPIS library. nepis.epa.gov
- T1Christine Shearer, Mick West, Ken Caldeira and Steven J. Davis, “Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program”, Environmental Research Letters 11 (2016) 084011, published 10 Aug 2016, with its corrigendum of 22 Nov 2016 (full text read as the IOP PDF). doi.org · copy read: iopscience.iop.org
- T2Bernd Kärcher (German Aerospace Center, DLR), “Formation and radiative forcing of contrail cirrus”, Nature Communications vol. 9, article 1824, 8 May 2018. A review article; full text read on Europe PMC. doi.org · copy read: europepmc.org
- T1involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse “Contrails Fact Sheet”, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation Administration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, July 2025 (listed on epa.gov/contrails as the “Interagency Contrails Fact Sheet”, 8.69 MB, July 2025). Read as the copy posted by the Utah Division of Water Resources, file dated 18 Jul 2025. www.epa.gov · copy read: water.utah.gov
- T1involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse “Information on Contrails from Aircraft”, US Environmental Protection Agency, last updated 1 Jul 2026 (read 1 Nov 2026). www.epa.gov
- T1involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse “Frequent Questions”, Geoengineering, US Environmental Protection Agency, last updated 19 Aug 2026 (read 1 Nov 2026). www.epa.gov
- T1involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse “Government Action”, Geoengineering, US Environmental Protection Agency, last updated 3 Apr 2026 (read 1 Nov 2026). www.epa.gov
- T1involved party: the US federal government, which chemtrail claims accuse Letter from Abigale Tardif, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, to Luke Iseman and Andrew Song, Make Sunsets, 14 Apr 2025 (an information request under the Clean Air Act). www.epa.gov
- T2Phil McKenna, “As EPA Rolls Back Regulations for Large Industrial Polluters, It Finds a New Target: A Two-Person Geoengineering Startup”, Inside Climate News, 18 Apr 2025 (updated to remove an EPA misstatement about Mexico). insideclimatenews.org
- T1US Government Accountability Office (Congress’s auditor), “Cloud Seeding Technology: Assessing Effectiveness and Other Challenges”, GAO-25-107328, technology assessment published 19 Dec 2024 (summary page read; the PDF returned a web page to scripted access). www.gao.gov
- T1“SCoPEx”, Keutsch Group at Harvard (the research group of the project’s principal investigator), read 1 Nov 2026: “SCoPEx was cancelled in March 2024.”. www.keutschgroup.com
- T2James Temple, “Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment”, MIT Technology Review, 18 Mar 2024. www.technologyreview.com
- T2Chelsea Harvey and E&E News, “High-Profile Geoengineering Experiment Shuts Down”, Scientific American, 19 Mar 2024. www.scientificamerican.com
- T1“City responds to questions about a University of Washington cloud brightening experiment on the U.S.S. Hornet”, City of Alameda, California, published 4 May 2024. www.alamedaca.gov
- T1Tennessee General Assembly, bill information for SB 2691 (companion HB 2063), 113th General Assembly: “Pub. Ch. 709”, signed by the Governor 17 Apr 2024, effective 1 Jul 2024. wapp.capitol.tn.gov
- T1House Agriculture & Natural Resources Amendment No. 1 to HB 2063 / SB 2691 (HA0828), which deletes the bill’s original text and substitutes the geoengineering prohibition. The chaptered Public Chapter 709 PDF could not be fetched (it returned a web page), so the wording is taken from this amendment. www.capitol.tn.gov
- T1Florida Senate, CS/CS/SB 56 (2025), “Geoengineering and Weather Modification Activities”, enrolled text and bill history: approved by the Governor 23 Jun 2025, Chapter No. 2025-157, effective 1 Jul 2025. www.flsenate.gov · copy read: www.flsenate.gov
- T3GeoengineeringWatch.org (Dane Wigington), home page, read 1 Nov 2026. The claimant’s own site, as a record of what it claims. www.geoengineeringwatch.org
- T4“CHEM TRAILS PLANE SPRAYING”, SecretAgent33 channel, YouTube, uploaded 18 Jul 2009 (view count read with yt-dlp, 1 Nov 2026). A record of the claim’s reach. www.youtube.com