this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
831 points (98.0% liked)
Not The Onion
16706 readers
1104 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The "chemtrail" conspiracy is particularly stupid. Like, you've got to put effort into your own duncefuckery to make the moronic leaps necessary.
"Jetliners are spraying mind control juice"
Uh huh, so, where on the jetliner is it stored? The belly is full of avionics and baggage compartment, the passenger compartment is full of seats, the wings are full of fuel, the tail has maybe a little void space, but enough to crop dust entire time zones? Can you show me any evidence of a jet aircraft equipped with such a dispersion system?
Oh they're flying special flights just for this? Okay, can you show me such a flight that obviously isn't what it says it is? There hasn't been a single air crew, maintenance tech, parts supplier, chemical plant janitor, etc. come forward about any of this?
Oh it's mixed straight into the fuel! Okay, so the Vote For Obama juice still works after spending hours to days dissolved in kerosene and PRIST, and then burned in a jet engine. Again, nobody anywhere in the fuel supply infrastructure has said anything about this. There hasn't been a single Youtube video or Reddit thread about "what are my bosses pumping into the jet fuel?"
I guess they've also paid off all the chemical labs that analyze fuel, oil and other fluid samples. Because that's a thing, aircraft mechanics take samples of engine oil and such and send them to labs for gas chromatography. It's kinda cool, they'll send you a report that says "We're seeing elevated levels of tin and copper consistent with accelerated wear of the intake valve bushings." Nobody has gotten a report back from a lab like that talking about exotic molecules ?
Why would you bother using jet airliners for this that fly extremely high? Some of the particles dispersed would outright NEVER land, some of them will drift hundreds if not thousands of miles before coming to rest in the ocean or a desert. Why not mix the Vote For Obama juice into diesel fuel to be burned by semi-trucks, down near the ground usually where you can find people? Or into automotive gasoline? Surely you could use much less of the chemical that way because it's being burned so close to people.
Maybe that's why Big They are so fucking keen to keep Republicans driving big gas guzzling micropenis trucks around? So that Republican areas get basted with Vote For Obama juice.
Oh, also: There's tetraethyl lead in aviation gasoline. Added as an octane booster and anti-knock additive, it's a POTENT neurotoxin that makes people stupid and asocial. The fuel pumps have a big sign on them saying as much. It shows up in those chromatography tests of engine oil...and in fact you can see it. A bucket of used aviation piston engine oil has a dull metallic sheen on the surface from the lead that didn't make it out of the engine. It's not burned in the quantities that we burn jet fuel, but piston-powered planes do fly lower and closer to civilization in most cases.
But you can't care about any of that, you've got third generation fetal alcohol syndrome so you're just scared of the lines in the sky.
Truck exhaust blows away. They can't see it anymore. Contrails linger for a while. They can see that.
They can see planes. They can't see inside planes. Therefore, they can imagine anything they want inside because they can't verify it themselves.
The things they can't see anymore are gone. The things they can't see into contain the worst possible scenario.
And that litter box in schools things for the kid identifying as a cat? The story is ALWAYS about someone else's schools. They can picture a different school. They can imagine the worst scenario in there.
This whole political ideology is an exercise in failed object permanence.
It takes more than just failed object permanence to think like they do. They're also scared of everything they don't understand, which is everything. They're underdeveloped children who only think they are a respectable adult.
"We already knew that. The microchips are in on the lead in the fuel. The lead protects the chips from burning up in the engine. Why do you think they put metal in a fuel, huh?"
*Conspiracy theory shortcut happens *
Serious congratulations on typing an actual response to brain damaging shit like this. I couldn't even get past a few sentences of this dipshit theory without just completely shutting down and moving on
dont listen to this guy. they're in on it!
Just today I learned that the fuel Cessnas use has lead in it, because the engines were developed when lead was in all gasoline and they have not found it worthwhile to certify all of those tens or hundreds of thousands of planes with new engines.
In fact, I was at a fly-in today and there were several Cessnas that were 60 and 70 years old. no unleaded fuel, and no added ethanol, either.
So in the specific case of Cessnas, the first Cessna 172 to require leaded fuel was built in 1977. That was the year they switched from a 6 cylinder Continental O-300 engine to that goddamn 4 cylinder Lycoming O-320 H2AD engine. Bigger displacement, two fewer cylinders, more compression, required leaded fuel.
I gave flight instruction in a new built light sport aircraft equipped with a Rotax 912 engine. Instead of Lycoming and Continental's 1930's era tech, BRP-Rotax's aircraft engines are basically 1980's motorcycle engines. Water cooled, Nikasil cylinder linings, electronic ignition, constant velocity carburetors or EFI, gear reduction, and they run absolutely fantastic on regular automotive gasoline. No lead.
Thanks for the additional information. Everything newer seems to be Rotax now. Except there was one guy who had a Corvette engine in his Cessna. Other pilots were talking about how it has so much torque his rudder isn't big enough to compensate.
Hopefully in 5 or 10 years, everything will be electric!
I mean Rotax is kicking some ass, they've got a 160 horsepower engine now, weirdly enough out of the same displacement as the 912S. Imagine if they made a 6 cylinder variant, damn thing could make 300 horsepower easy.
I cannot think of a reason to use a Corvette engine in an airplane other than "fuck it."
It’s an issue with machining tolerances of block/cylinder/piston/piston rings, older planes need lead to reduce the piston knock or it could damage itself. Modern engines have much tighter tolerances, but it would mean essentially rebuilding or replacing the whole engine on every piston engine plane. It would be great if we could phase out leaded Avgas but it won’t be going anywhere anytime soon
False! The industry is phasing out leaded gasoline in 2030. California signed a ban on leaded gasoline after 2031 into law. There are some aircraft out there that I wonder what's going to happen, but a lot of the GA fleet is going to be well supported.
In addition to that, there's an expansion of the light sport rule in the works which should allow most of general aviation to advance past the 1970's.
I knew we were moving away from it but didn’t know Cali set a date, thanks for the info. I imagine there will be a big market for grease monkeys to put all this in place
There's gonna be a lot of pencil whipping by A&Ps I think. If I understand correctly, the way they're gonna deal with it is roll out a high octane lead-free fuel that just works, so most of the mechanic's job is going to be putting new stickers next to gas caps and signing logbooks.
Well...
There is this thing where maybe we could use jetliners to emit a little bit of sulfuric oxides, through their fuel.
The result of that would be a moderate amount of that in the upper atmosphere, which will reflect away some of the solar radiation, like that pollution did back in the 80s and 90s, lowering the global temperatures slightly, and with that the impact of the CO2 crisis that were in.
It'll produce acid rains but that is the trade off they we might have to make.
Aeons ago I read something about scientists monitoring weather temperature data in September 2001. A lot of aircraft were grounded that month, and they detected an uptick in temperatures because there were fewer contrails, Earth's albedo decreased very slightly.
Interesting!
tetraethyl lead - if used - is only for piston aircraft, not large commercial jets
Correct, it's an ingredient in aviation gasoline, not in kerosene-based jet fuel.
yep... jet engines do not need to worry about knocking as they have no pistons
Not all jetliners. Just some.
In tanks.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-25-2017-1.4219055/can-geoengineering-technology-combat-extreme-weather-1.4219301
Why would you bother using jet airliners for this that fly extremely high?
SAI could be achieved using existing aircraft injecting aerosols at an altitude of 8 miles high but at this lower altitude three times more aerosol would be needed
No.
Now there we're talking about cloud seeding. That is at least mostly real.
If I understand correctly, the object is to spray chemicals into the air which strongly encourages moisture to condense into clouds, either blocking sunlight or causing rain. The USAF experimented with this during the Vietnam war to some success, it's not exactly the cartoon idea of "Airplane flies by, airplane farts, there's a rumble of thunder and an instant summer rain shower". Though for various reasons to include "the chemicals you have to spray to make this work aren't very nice" it's probably a bad idea. I gather that's what the legislation in question is actually about, and it's honestly not a bad idea to regulate or ban this practice.
The word "Chemtrail" isn't associated with that, it's tinfoil hat ivermectin sucking 5G fearing moron talk for "the airlines are spraying chemicals that make you vote Democrat. Wake up sheeple." Which is 1. complete and utter donkey shit, 2. makes conversations about cloud seeding worse, and 3. makes conversations about General Aviation still using leaded gasoline worse.
This is your interpretation of a fictional persons opinion. There is no conspiracy that links ivermectin to 5G.
Step back. Are you using your own words or are you just repeating what someone wrote on a forum somewhere?
Conspiracy theorists are often inconsistent and illogical, but there is sometimes a nugget of truth under all the madness.
I was somewhat flippantly lumping conspiracy theorists together as a community, expressing an observation that the idiots who believe jet liners are spraying mind control chemicals are likely to also believe in bullshit like flat earth or anti-vax or all manner of other shit we just should not tolerate as a society.
But welcome to the internet where casual discussions must also be MLA formatted research papers because somebody's going to take your words as ridiculously literal as they can.
Those nuggets of truth are absolutely real. It's why I bring up TEL in AVGAS, there are airplanes hosing the place down with neurotoxins, it's a real problem. Fortunately there's a robust plan to fix it, and I'm surprised it hasn't been canceled by the Trump regime already.
Fair enough. It just annoys me when conspiracies are lumped together.
One person believing the earth is flat has no relation to someone believing that industry executives hide the harmful effects of their products. Yet both are labelled conspiracy theorists.
Folks who buy into conspiracy theories may buy into more than one, often for similar reasons. A lot of them boil down to "Big They is trying to control you by putting X in the Y, so don't eat the Y" and if you're willing to buy that story once you're probably willing to buy it again. While I don't think the myths have much to do with each other, I bet you'll find a lot of "chemtrail" believers also...being afraid of 5G cell networks? Vaccines. Whatever they don't understand.
Industry executives hiding the harmful effects of their products definitely happens though. It's quite well documented.
The reason I gave those two examples was to highlight that conspiracy can range from false to (almost certainly) true.
I have no data on this but suspect it is more true for lower IQ than higher IQ.
However, I don't believe it should be a standard assumption. Considering one topic to be possible doesn't automatically imply a person believes in something else.