I went to David's website and it he states (among others)...

"I am very confident that there is no currently active program to actually test or implement geoengineering outdoors.

I am not now involved in outdoor experimentation, but I am actively developing a proposal for a field experiment. This experiment will proceed only if most of the funding is public and only if it passes a comprehensive independent safety review. The experimental plans, operations and results will be publicly available and freely usable (no patenting)".

http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails/

Waiting for an answer:
Well 9th Marines; you inadvertently exposed your intellectual limitation;
"They only thing I go to YouTube for is music"
Do you do any research? Where? From Who?
Do you rely on the MSM to get to the truth?
Do you really care about getting to the truth?

Obviously every thing on you tube is not true.
There are even planted videos to discredit the honest research.
One thing is for sure; the MSM is bought, and lies continually.
A bunch of Talking Heads, reading the same scrips on all the stations.

How do you? Maybe the engines burn the fuel more efficiently? How many planes have you studied to even ask that question?

Go to David's website: and he suggests these.

There are a number of websites listed below that critique or debunk the chemtrail conspiracy theories. See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/chemtrails/
https://www.metabunk.org/forums/contrails-and-chemtrails.9/
http://contrailscience.com/
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9423

I was having issues with my internet connection.

I can look up any fundamental element you want to keep making the same point, but I would like to point out, that I am a degree'd Chemical and Mechanical Engineer. I was an Electrician's Mate on two different nuclear submarines, the first was the USS Plunger and then the USS Pintado. Navy subs use a thermal fuel matrix, that is: Uranium 235. As you might be aware, Westinghouse and GE provide and provided the reactors or reactor vessels for the Navy. The Navy uses a high pressure system that incorporates water as the moderator. A moderator stabilizes neutron bombardment of the fuel. Or keeps them captured, some escape, but don't travel very far. The reason the Navy uses Thermal fuel, is that as the moderator temperature increases more neutrons escape, thus it a self correcting. Uranium 235 is not as available in nature, and it separated from Uranium 238 via centrifuges. Hanford, Washington was an area of the country where much of the Nuclear waste is chemically and mechanically "sifted".

All of that being said, was in fact to support my belief that I do actually know what I'm talking about.

I have numerous friends, phD's, pilots, engineers and one guy that worked for the NRC that won't and don't support anyone's claims concerning chemicals being dumped on the US by planes.

But let's look at some other incidents that have occurred in the last few years. Fukishima, Numerous volcanoes erupting all over the world (fissionable uranium in the earth's crust contributes to volcanism, in addition to tectonic plate shifts). The volcanoes spew numerous gases into the atmosphere, Hydrogen Sulfide, CO2, Nitrogen Sulfide, all of which carry radioactive components into the atmosphere. In addition, the earth's crust is filled with yellow cake. Which provides uranium and it's subsequent decay products, such as strontium. One of the largest strip mining, yellow cake operations in the US is in Texas. They have been in drought, and drought produce particulates that can carry all kinds naturally occurring substances (see your aforementioned list).

All of that seems more likely, since no one has reported a high incidence of radioactive sickness from people that work for the airlines than anything else. The union and OSHA would be all over that one, don't you think?

What expertise do you bring, you're good with a keyboard and search criteria?

If you went to David Keith's site he states:

"If you think that aircraft contrails “look different” or are “behaving strangely” consider that regular aircraft condensation trails (contrails) are sometimes long-lasting and the way they look can change suddenly along a flight path as aircraft fly through regions with different temperature and humidity. This is well understood and has been demonstrated by ground observation and by scientific research performed by thousands of people over many decades. Of course it's possible that something else is going on, but to prove it one would need more than simple photographs of something that looks entirely consistent with normal contrails."

If you went to David Keith's site he states:

"If you think that aircraft contrails “look different” or are “behaving strangely” consider that regular aircraft condensation trails (contrails) are sometimes long-lasting and the way they look can change suddenly along a flight path as aircraft fly through regions with different temperature and humidity. This is well understood and has been demonstrated by ground observation and by scientific research performed by thousands of people over many decades. Of course it's possible that something else is going on, but to prove it one would need more than simple photographs of something that looks entirely consistent with normal contrails."