Un biochimiste explique les concoctions qu'il a participé à mettre au point destinées à l'épandage aérien (chemtrail)

J'ai trouvé cette discussion sur un blog américain dans la nuit d'hier et j'ai saisis les réponses d'un homme à la retraite qui dit avoir travaillé pendant 17 ans comme biochimiste dans une compagnie qui travaille sur des projets secrets de produits destinés à l'épandage par voie aérienne.  Les bloggers se sont fait un vilain plaisir de le discréditer, de le mettre à l'épreuve, de le confondre avec toutes sortes de questions-piège.  Après une dizaines de questions, les attaques ont fait place à des questions-réponses extrêmement intéressantes et pertinentes.

Je vous copie ici les réponses du biochimiste aux questions des bloggers.  En ce qui me concerne, je ne suis pas du tout étonnée de ce que cet homme dévoile, mais je crois que son rôle dans un laboratoire l'a limité à un domaine de connaissance restreint sur l'ampleur du phénomène de l'épandage aérien.  Nous savons que des brevets de chemtrails sont publiés sur le site des brevets américains pour des utilisations de ré-ingénierie environnementale et climatique.  Toutefois, comme le rapporte le biochimiste, les brevets pour les autres utilisations ne sont pas du domaine public.

Est-ce que quelqu'un aurait la gentillesse de me traduire les propos ci-bas?

I spent 17 years developing various chemicals for Chemtrails - ask me almost anything.

I can't say with 100% certainty that the chemicals I worked on ended up in Evergreen planes, but I do know for a fact that cargo airline companies like Evergreen routinely accept large sums of money to load and disperse chemtrails. Much more lucrative than just hauling cargo.

Purpose(s): Too many to count on ten fingers. It really depends on where they are going to be used. Many are calming agents. Others induce a state of haziness. Rarely, we were asked to develop mixtures to incite anger/rash behavior. 90% of what we worked on aimed to alter emotions/mood/state of mind.

Toxicity: In almost all cases, it was made very clear to us that what we were working on should have minimal toxicity. Naturally, a small percent of the population will have allergic tendencies to a chemical compound. But in some cases we even went as far as animal testing to ensure that the chemicals we were working on were relatively non-toxic. I never worked on a project where the intended result was toxic/fatal.

Breakdown/Accumulate: Varies a lot based on the chemical structure. Some of the mixtures we developed were intended to dissipate to concentrations as low as one part per billion by the time they reached ground level. Others were specifically designed to reach ground level and last for up to a year. Even after rain/wind/snow, etc.

I do know that 99% of the time, a commercial pilot is unaware that their plane may be spraying chemtrails. I realized after some time that whatever organization is "behind the scenes" of all this is very good at making sure to directly deal with as few people as possible. I never knew who was contracting my employer's services. Not once.

I do know that North America is not the only continent that uses ADCs (aerially dispersed chemicals) without the knowledge of the population. However, I also know that the chemical technology of other countries are close to a decade behind that of the United States.
I never knew where the chemicals I worked on ended up being used. Like I said before, there is a LOT of secrecy. I only did it for 17 years because the paycheck and benefits were beautiful. All I can say is that sometimes we were given the job of developing chemical mixtures expecting very specific results, which gave me the sense that they would be used for a specific area. State, county, city - I don't know. I do know that it would be very hard to target an area smaller than a city from the altitude of a commercial airliner. Although I did work on a couple projects where the intent was to develop a mixture that would not disperse very far; just drop as fast as possible without spreading out.

We did use Barium in more than one final products. However, for all of these projects, we conducted extensive testing to ensure that the chemicals would dissipate to non-toxic levels by the time they reached ground level. Baritosis was a huge concern of our contractors when developing anything that required Barium. Most of our final mixtures that used Barium were designed to reach ground level in concentrations of one part per million or less.

I don't really want to tell you anything. I've been out of the business for long enough, to the point where I feel safe revealing some of the details of my employment. That, and this glass of scotch.

Reasons for spraying...like I said, we never knew the contractors true "intent". But 9 times out of 10, it was pretty obvious because when asking us to develop chemical compounds, they have to tell us what they want them to do. To name a few: weather modification, emotion suppressants, emotion expectorants, environmental modification. Also, interesting that you should mention "sickness/flu symptoms" - although I said earlier that with 99% of our products we were specifically instructed to ensure non-toxicity, there were more than a few projects we worked on that were meant to create "symptoms", without causing any real harm to the subjects.

Our mixtures were never patented. Mainly because patents are public information. But patents can still be kept private; our mixtures were never patented for the purpose of plausible deniability and lack of a paper trail. Keep in mind that nearly everything we were contracted to do was not legal by nearly any sense of the word. I can, however, remember one project that was designed to work differently based on sunlight levels - it was a weather modification project.


Like I said before, a lot of care was taken to ensure non-toxicity of almost all of our mixtures. We didn't just achieve this with healthy, middle aged people in mind. As far as immuno-compromised individuals, well, that's a pretty broad term. There are hundreds if not thousands of different immuno-compromising diseases and conditions. Most of these leave the person overly susceptible to bacteria and viruses, not chemicals. But as I said before, it was inevitable that there would be a marginal number of ill effects to what we developed.

Am I a chemist: Yes, I received a B.S. in Chemistry, and my PhD in biochemistry.
Is it a worldwide phenomenon: See previous post - North America is not the only continent to use aerially dispersed chemicals.

I would feel much, much worse if non-toxicity had not been as much of a concern as it was. But even so, I've dealt with a great amount of regret since retirement. Developed a drinking problem. But I've managed to come to terms with my nearly two decades of work, and I am ready to accept whatever fate awaits me.

Are you referring to the drug Midazolam? All I know is that it's a somewhat controversial drug, but looking at it's chemical structure, I can say that it shares some reactive properties with chemicals developed for projects with the intent of altering state of mind.


I'll try to summarize the project without getting too specific. We were looking at a specific family of G protein-coupled receptors only found in brain tissue. The headway we made was developing an inhibitor for a specific receptor in this family. This specific receptor is involved in creation and storage of new memories. By developing a compound that bound to the receptor and blocked the binding of the naturally created compound, we achieved mediocre success in the inhibition of creation and storage of new memories. But test mortality rates were too high, and the project was abandoned. One of the more interesting ones we ever got to work on, though.

It's possible that some things we created interact with prescription/over the counter drugs. When testing compounds, we checked for side effects with most major over the counter and prescription drugs (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, etc.). But there was no possible way for us to test interactions with every drug on the market.