Debunked: Look-up.org.uk's"Smokers" video

[Ian Simpson]

Oh, that is brilliant!! Thanks much!!

I don't think posting my personal information is useful, professional, needed or responsible. I am happy to answer any questions you have. The only advantage it might have is to prove that at least one person in this website is real, and has a provable history.

 

[Balance]

The fact that we have witnessed many planes travelling at hypersonic speed on FR24 (Flighradar24.com), and under commercial passenger flight details, would suggest that either military craft are operating covert missions under civilian guises, or that some commercial jets, and we suspect the larger Boeings, have been modified to travel at least faster than their normal stated speeds if not actually at hypersonic speeds. The catch is exactly as stated... how do large cumbersome craft manage to travel so fast, or if they are military craft, then how do they carry the cargo as they would be smaller if fast, or also slow if large.

That said we have seen hypersonic activity by 'craft' operating under commercial flight numbers, so it IS happening. What we don't know at this stage is if these videos are those planes. We do say that in the video, so we have not made any outlandish claims at all, quite the opposite. We know we are onto something because the shills have gone crazy, so the shillometer has once again flagged up a line of enquiry worth pursuing.

If it will help, I have some constructive criticism on your presentation methods. I see this a lot so it's not specific to this quote, it's just a typical example, imo akin to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

I believe your first mistake is to begin a sentence of conjecture with "The fact we have witnessed planes travelling at hypersonic speed..." As I understand it, (please correct me if I'm wrong) you (whoever "we" are) have only witnessed a mapped representation of the tracking of a commercial jet make a sudden, unusual and huge leap of distance from one location to another in a seeming impossible short time space of time; Due to just the number of sensible possible theories of this alone, that is what I would say the only fact in this is, yes?

Whether other non-commercial aircraft can attain hypersonic speed or whatever other theories you'd like to interject to fit your belief of why this strange event occured in front of your eyes, they are still theory, not fact, and as such, should not be preceded with "The fact..." "We have seen..." or "...it IS happening." and it would be astute to be followed by evidential reasoning, as opposed to any wild imaginations that could fit your theories, would it not?

 

[Ian Simpson]

Hi Ian, I'm fairly new here myself but it's good to see you posting responses directly, thank you.

I don't think I've contributed anything (yet) that you could use but I do hope this is the start of something good for all... as we know, it is entirely possible for people with opposing views to productively work together, should the will be there.

Yes wise words. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me and questioning my opinions or evidence, and am the first to admit that much of what I discuss is hard to prove, but despite that I have learned a lot in the past year, and am determined to discuss things intelligently, so as to ensure balanced debate, rather than incestuous propaganda that can sometime emanate form certain sources.

 

[Pete Tar]

Utter nonsense of course

Hang on, what? Are you seriously disputing that the angle of light does not have a bearing on whether clouds appear light or dark?!

 

[Balance]

...and am the first to admit that much of what I discuss is hard to prove

I appreciate that, hence my post above which does address why I believe you're creating needless problems for yourself and others... if you wish to engage others with differening ideas.

 

[Pete Tar]

I don't think posting my personal information is useful, professional, needed or responsible

You mean your 'personal information' that *you* posted on the internet? Or was it hidden away somewhere on your home computer or something?
(however, I agree, it's off-topic. I doubt it was meant as anything other than an aside.)

 

[Ian Simpson]

That said we have seen hypersonic activity by 'craft' operating under commercial flight numbers, so it IS happening. What we don't know at this stage is if these videos are those planes. We do say that in the video, so we have not made any outlandish claims at all, quite the opposite. We know we are onto something because the shills have gone crazy, so the shillometer has once again flagged up a line of enquiry worth pursuing.

If it will help, I have some constructive criticism on your presentation methods. I see this a lot so it's not specific to this quote, it's just a typical example, imo akin to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

I believe your first mistake is to begin a sentence of conjecture with "The fact we have witnessed planes travelling at hypersonic speed..." As I understand it, (please correct me if I'm wrong) you (whoever "we" are) have only witnessed a mapped representation of the tracking of a commercial jet make a sudden, unusual and huge leap of distance from one location to another in a seeming impossible short time space of time; Due to just the number of sensible possible theories of this alone, that is what I would say the only fact in this is, yes?

Whether other non-commercial aircraft can attain hypersonic speed or whatever other theories you'd like to interject to fit your belief of why this strange event occurred in front of your eyes, they are still theory, not fact, and as such, should not be preceded with "The fact..." "We have seen..." or "...it IS happening." and it would be astute to be followed by evidential reasoning, as opposed to any wild imaginations that could fit your theories, would it not?

I referred to images I have of planes that have been seen travelling at much higher speeds, I would estimate double the usual, so maybe 1000mph, over Africa. These planes were listed as large Boeings and operated under commercial flight numbers. I have also witnessed others travelling much faster over France UK, Eastern Europe. I have many images and even a couple of videos, which I will post eventually. So, I can safely say that either passenger planes are travelling very fast, or military craft capable of very high speeds are using civilian flight details. Either one is very suspicious. Obviously until we actually manage to film one then it is impossible to know exactly what is going on.

Look-Up.org.uk

 

[Ian Simpson]

You are seeing "proof" of a pulse detonation propulsion system that is supposedly now in use on commercial jets making them hypersonic so they can refill their tanks with no one noticing, which now explains 30 years of "chemtrailing"..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_detonation_engine

I did not claim it was proof. Misrepresentation as usual. Try using the exact words like you do in other examples when you feel you can.

 

[Ian Simpson]

Fixed @TEEJ's post with clearer screenshots.

Just before that there's a nice shot with three planes at once, including the Thai Airlines plane closest:

 

[Balance]

...which I will post eventually.

Until you do, your claims can only be seen by others (for reasons you've already stated) as conjecture on your part - see what I'm saying?

 

[Ian Simpson]

This is an amazing image. Here we see 3 planes, all commercial jets, leaving massive long, thick, black trails of smoke. Now unless technology has reverted back to coal in recent months, this really should never happen. I think anyone with a reasonably well functioning brain, even without any knowledge of jet propulsion, will understand that. Thank you again for sharing this. Very helpful.

Let us just clarify for the audiences here that all the debunkers of chemtrails have been screaming condensation for the last few years... need I say more.

Loo-Up.org.uk

 

[cloudspotter]

Let us just clarify for the audiences here that all the debunkers of chemtrails have been screaming condensation for the last few years... need I say more.

Loo-Up.org.uk

What colour are clouds Ian?

 

[pseacraft]

How can these images reflect that actual speed of the aircraft? Let along let you estimate it? If you are referring again to screen captures of jumps in 'time/position' then you should also be aware that reporting sites (receivers for the ADSB signal in Africa are not as densely populated as Europe or North America which again reflects what Balance has stated. There are plenty of dead zones and the aircraft's positions are projected until an updated position report is received.

I have seen aircraft traveling at supersonic speeds and I can tell you the only pictures that related this fact were the ones that captured the aerodynamic condensation cloud.

 

[Balance]

This is an amazing image. Here we see 3 planes, all commercial jets, leaving massive long, thick, black trails of smoke. Now unless technology has reverted back to coal in recent months, this really should never happen. I think anyone with a reasonably well functioning brain, even without any knowledge of jet propulsion, will understand that. Thank you again for sharing this. Very helpful.

Let us just clarify for the audiences here that all the debunkers of chemtrails have been screaming condensation for the last few years... need I say more.

Loo-Up.org.uk

Perhaps this will help. I have no real in-depth knowledge of turbine engines other than how some of the mechanisms need to work together. I do have experience of combustion and know that highly visible smoke like that which you claim you're seeing, would contain so much soot that the engine breaks and stops working in double-short time. The only way to avoid engine damage and produce visible "smoke" would be from an additional after-exhaust injection system, which I believe you've alluded to elsewhere but not included it here for some reason. However, that addtional theory brings about yet more astute doubts.

 

[Ian Simpson]

Until you do, your claims can only be seen by others (who, for reasons you've already stated) as conjecture on your part - see what I'm saying?

Absolutely, and I agree. Most is conjecture, but conjecture is often enough to make people realise what is going on. That is our purpose. To make people realise what is going on. When they do, they may take action. Also to make them realise your purpose, which is to try and hide what is going on and convince people everything is fine, nothing to see here. You often do a good job yourselves with some of the outlandish explanations you invent, but I am here partly to ensure the more convincing explanations are also explained from the reality side of things.

Unlike you (collectively) though, and it is a crucial difference, I will admit when you raise a valid point and genuinely cast reasonable doubt on something I have proposed. The structural strength aspect of the large jets was a recent example of this. that is not to say it is not possible still, but obviously I will need to do much more investigation before I can reasonably claim this to be a realistic theory. So, yes good work guys, and as always thank you.

I refer you all to our motto. "You can fool all of the people some of the time..." I think you know the rest.

Look-Up.org.uk

 

[pseacraft]

Now I regret not taking that picture a couple weeks back that had awesome shadows in the clouds...damn...and as has been pointed out those three contrails are in shadow which makes them appear dark. Perspective, lighting angle, etc...all things a photographer should be acutely aware of...

 

[Pete Tar]

You often do a good job yourselves with some of the outlandish explanations you invent,

Examples.

 

[cloudspotter]

Examples.

Things like ADSB only having a limited range instead of hypersonic passenger jets. Ridiculous explanations like that

 

[Balance]

Absolutely, and I agree

Excellent. Progress, I see.

 

[Ian Simpson]

Ian's filming of the Flight Radar portion is very poor, but with the help of the registration of the Boeing 737 it is easy enough to work out the events. He has busted himself with the non-sense in regards to the aircraft not appearing on Flight Radar.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/TCJGY/history/20140224/1120Z/LTBA/EGBB/tracklog

http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-02-24/13:34/12x/THY1969/2c59d04

The following snapshot from 05:21 in the video. This is Flight THA931 / TG931, registration HS-TUF, Thai Airways Airbus A380

From

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30058910@N08/12351783955/sizes/l/in/photostream/

You can see from the Flight Radar 24 link the sequence of events and the identities of the aircraft that he filmed!

How can these images reflect that actual speed of the aircraft? Let along let you estimate it? If you are referring again to screen captures of jumps in 'time/position' then you should also be aware that reporting sites (receivers for the ADSB signal in Africa are not as densely populated as Europe or North America which again reflects what Balance has stated. There are plenty of dead zones and the aircraft's positions are projected until an updated position report is received.

I have seen aircraft traveling at supersonic speeds and I can tell you the only pictures that related this fact were the ones that captured the aerodynamic condensation cloud.

I have made no claims about the speeds of the aircraft in this particular video. They are all travelling at normal commercial operator speeds. the claim was specifically that the smoke ring effects we see in the unusual trails left by certain planes, is indicative of pulse detonation propulsion. There was a further claim that PDPS have been reported (elsewhere) as being capable of supersonic speeds (we said hypersonic but supersonic is probably more accurate). I then went on to speculate that IF THAT WERE THE CASE AND IT COULD BE PROVEN it would resolve a long-standing flaw in my theory of supersonic activity in the chemical distribution network. Nothing particularly outlandish there really, just sensible discussion and speculating based on observation.

I think your attempts to brand me a paranoid fantasist are outlandish if anything.

Look-Up.org.uk

 

[Ian Simpson]

Things like ADSB only having a limited range instead of hypersonic passenger jets. Ridiculous explanations like that

Several hundred miles, dependant on altitude. The higher the plane, the longer the reach essentially.

 

[cloudspotter]

Several hundred miles, dependant on altitude. The higher the plane, the longer the reach essentially.

http://www.ads-b.com/faq-12.htm

You need to check your assumptions. Like the statement at the start of your film about the regulations

 

[Ian Simpson]

Perhaps this will help. I have no real in-depth knowledge of turbine engines other than how some of the mechanisms need to work together. I do have experience of combustion and know that highly visible smoke like that which you claim you're seeing, would contain so much soot that the engine breaks and stops working in double-short time. The only way to avoid engine damage and produce visible "smoke" would be from an additional after-exhaust injection system, which I believe you've alluded to elsewhere but not included it here for some reason. However, that additional theory brings about yet more astute doubts.

It would appear you are confirming the theory of aerosol injection with this comment? That is exactly what we believe to be happening. The 3 nozzles located on the pylon of Airbus belonging specifically to members of the 3 airline alliances, are being used to eject matter into the exhaust plume of the engines. We even see clearly the 3-part composition of the trails left by those planes. As you say, for a plane to leave that much black smoke in the air would be impossible unless tey have been asked to dispose of coal dust in a new recycling program we are not aware of.

In this, and many other images, we clearly see the 3 pipes, surrounded by metalwork that is clearly not original, and evidence of welding. This retro-fitted system fits perfectly with observations of the trails that we now see lingering in our skies. Try as people might, it is extremely difficult not to associate one with the other.

Despite our efforts we have been unsuccessful in obtaining detailed CAD plans for these planes from Airbus, so we can't prove conclusively yet that these systems were not on the plane when delivered to the client, but even if they were it is ludicrous to suggest a craft costing $100m would need 3 pipes to expel anything, let alone hydraulic fluid as suggested by members of this forum some time ago. Hydraulics underpin all systems on the plane, and they rely on pressure. If those multimillion dollar systems were leaking so much fluid that the planes needed 3 pipes to eject it, we would see a lot of planes crashing haha. Laughable.

 

[Balance]

It would appear you are confirming the theory of aerosol injection with this comment?

My only frame of reference is my interest in Air Shows, which use a lot smoke, military strategies that use smoke for cover (tanks and ships) and, as stated, my knowledge of combustion. I can confirm they exist, yes. It's beyond theory.

As for your theory of smoke production from commercial airliners, where to start with the doubts? Are you really interested in balancing your theory or only looking for supportive evidence of it and damn the rest, as I see no hints you sincerely are from the posts you're making?

 

[Jazzy]

the smoke ring effects (are) indicative of pulse detonation propulsion.

No, they aren't. They are instances of Crow Instability in the wing wake vortex. Vortices in any media interact with each other at right angles, if of equal power.

This is instructive:



And this is where computer calculation can take it.

IF THAT WERE THE CASE AND IT COULD BE PROVEN it would resolve a long-standing flaw in my theory of supersonic activity in the chemical distribution network.

I can only proffer an argument from incredulity for that.

I think your attempts to brand me a paranoid fantasist are outlandish if anything.

I'm sure we can leave you to get on with that on your own.

* I smile as I remember JAY straightening me out about CROW.

 

[cloudspotter]

Despite our efforts we have been unsuccessful in obtaining detailed CAD plans for these planes from Airbus

So you're dropping your claims to have seen and downloaded the original drawings. Jolly good.

 

[Balance]

..attempts to brand me a paranoid fantasist...

I'm sure we can leave you to get on with that on your own.

I was hesitant to like your post only because of this last retort, but having just now seen this (link) , I have no qualms.

I am very concerned about this video by MI5K WEST of Metabunk, the website run by MI5 that attempts to undermine what people find out about their government by using elaborate lies to fool the less astute members of society. He refers to several books that all claim contrails can persist and spread, which is obviously nonsense. Anyone can publish a book, and if we accept that this is a huge government sponsored program that has been planned for many years, then this is probably the easiest bit of it to do... put in place disinformation you can refer to at a later stage to 'prove' you point. Indeed this is a very common tactic of these organisations. Bilderberg are not stupid, and will have planned for every aspect of what is happening now.

This is not even conjecture, as pleaded in earlier posts.

 

[cloudspotter]

Bilderberg are not stupid, and will have planned for every aspect of what is happening now.

Would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky ADS-B signals giving away the position of our secret island and the speed of our hypersonic A320s

 

[George B]

Bilderberg are not stupid, and will have planned for every aspect of what is happening now.

Would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky ADS-B signals giving away the position of our secret island and the speed of our hypersonic A320s

Wow! If they can dictate what is to be published 50 years before something is needed, how can anyone fight against such diabolical minions!! Time to give up and accept one's servitude.

 

[TEEJ]

This is a good point and one we don't have the answer to yet, so we have to concede. The fact that we have witnessed many planes travelling at hypersonic speed on FR24 (Flighradar24.com)..

Ian,
Have you tried your theories on the various flight tracking website forums? Remember these are dedicated individuals and groups totally immersed in the hobby. There are also radio enthusiasts monitoring voice and data. These forums will assist you with your research into flights that you think are disappearing and reappearing, etc.

http://forum.flightradar24.com/

Scroll down for a list at following link.

http://www.radarspotting.com/forum/

 

[TEEJ]

Ian,
The drain pipes haven't been retrofitted. The following link will take you to a post showing the prototype A320 in 1988 on public show. The pylon drains have always been part of the system on the Airbus and many other types.

https://173.255.252.84/threads/debu...a-320-are-pylon-drains.2855/page-2#post-90065

 

[pseacraft]

I have made no claims about the speeds of the aircraft in this particular video. They are all travelling at normal commercial operator speeds. the claim was specifically that the smoke ring effects we see in the unusual trails left by certain planes, is indicative of pulse detonation propulsion. There was a further claim that PDPS have been reported (elsewhere) as being capable of supersonic speeds (we said hypersonic but supersonic is probably more accurate). I then went on to speculate that IF THAT WERE THE CASE AND IT COULD BE PROVEN it would resolve a long-standing flaw in my theory of supersonic activity in the chemical distribution network. Nothing particularly outlandish there really, just sensible discussion and speculating based on observation.

I think your attempts to brand me a paranoid fantasist are outlandish if anything.

Look-Up.org.uk

Ian - Maybe I was not clear enough but I was referring to what you stated in Post #47 where you said "I referred to images I have of planes that have been seen travelling at much higher speeds, I would estimate double the usual, so maybe 1000mph, over Africa. These planes were listed as large Boeings and operated under commercial flight numbers. I have also witnessed others travelling much faster over France UK, Eastern Europe. I have many images and even a couple of videos, which I will post eventually. So, I can safely say that either passenger planes are travelling very fast, or military craft capable of very high speeds are using civilian flight details. Either one is very suspicious. Obviously until we actually manage to film one then it is impossible to know exactly what is going on."

Also where did I attempt to brand you anything?

 

[pseacraft]

It would appear you are confirming the theory of aerosol injection with this comment? That is exactly what we believe to be happening. The 3 nozzles located on the pylon of Airbus belonging specifically to members of the 3 airline alliances, are being used to eject matter into the exhaust plume of the engines. We even see clearly the 3-part composition of the trails left by those planes. As you say, for a plane to leave that much black smoke in the air would be impossible unless tey have been asked to dispose of coal dust in a new recycling program we are not aware of.

In this, and many other images, we clearly see the 3 pipes, surrounded by metalwork that is clearly not original, and evidence of welding. This retro-fitted system fits perfectly with observations of the trails that we now see lingering in our skies. Try as people might, it is extremely difficult not to associate one with the other.

Despite our efforts we have been unsuccessful in obtaining detailed CAD plans for these planes from Airbus, so we can't prove conclusively yet that these systems were not on the plane when delivered to the client, but even if they were it is ludicrous to suggest a craft costing $100m would need 3 pipes to expel anything, let alone hydraulic fluid as suggested by members of this forum some time ago. Hydraulics underpin all systems on the plane, and they rely on pressure. If those multimillion dollar systems were leaking so much fluid that the planes needed 3 pipes to eject it, we would see a lot of planes crashing haha. Laughable.

Ian - Aircraft leak hydro and engine oils all the time to think not is actually laughable! Do not construction equipment leak hydro? God knows my hydro on my farm equipment does! Do not automobiles leak oil and other fluids? Even the cooling systems for the electronics leak. That is why they are serviced frequently. I battle hydro and engine oil penetration of my electronics on the aircraft I support ever freaking day. Just look at an aircraft parking pad, why is there always oil stains showing exactly where the aircraft park? You can see this on nearly all overhead images of airfields. In the Navy we always said that when the bird stops leaking oil get the hell off of it! There are drains also to shed water from condensation as well as precipitation. We once had to open a compartment to drain it as it had over 50 gallons of rain water inside.

 

[cloudspotter]

Ian - Aircraft leak hydro and engine oils all the time to think not is actually laughable! Do not construction equipment leak hydro? God knows my hydro on my farm equipment does! Do not automobiles leak oil and other fluids? Even the cooling systems for the electronics leak. That is why they are serviced frequently. I battle hydro and engine oil penetration of my electronics on the aircraft I support ever freaking day. Just look at an aircraft parking pad, why is there always oil stains showing exactly where the aircraft park? You can see this on nearly all overhead images of airfields. In the Navy we always said that when the bird stops leaking oil get the hell off of it! There are drains also to shed water from condensation as well as precipitation. We once had to open a compartment to drain it as it had over 50 gallons of rain water inside.

Heathrow

 

[TEEJ]

Ian, in post #60 you have not made any claims about speed, but you have made specific claims in reference to them not appearing on Flight Radar 24. Can you explain? In the updated and re-edited video will you still be making these claims?

Watch the data from FR24 which ties up with your video.

http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-02-24/13:34/12x/THY1969/2c59d04

So in reality the aircraft do appear on Flight Radar 24 and were clearly not violating any rules in regards to separation, formation, etc. Will these facts be included in the updated video?

 

[David Fraser]

I don't think posting my personal information is useful, professional, needed or responsible. I am happy to answer any questions you have. The only advantage it might have is to prove that at least one person in this website is real, and has a provable history.

I did provide my personal details on this site for your upcoming court action against us. I presumed that you would need a UK member to base your claim against. If you want my personal details now please PM me and we will share information. Obviously if you are represented I will be unable to deal with you directly so if you include your solicitors details.

 

[TEEJ]

Here is the data so that there is no confusion.

The flight you were filming from.

The Boeing 737 that leads the group of aircraft passing your aircraft.

The Airbus

Snapshot from your video showing the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A380. Note the altitude data. Is this illegal as you state?

The Boeing 777

Snapshot from your video showing the Boeing 777. Again note the altitude!

 

[Hama Neggs]

Utter nonsense of course, but I will try and accept the challenge and ask an image expert. Thank you for your comments. They are as always, very helpful.

You could perhaps show some "smokers" where the sun is high overhead?

 

[deirdre]

I want to know why a bunch of 'evil looking' planes would be buzzing around a commercial flight in the first place!

 

[solrey]

Here is the data so that there is no confusion.

The flight you were filming from.

View attachment 6370

The Boeing 737 that leads the group of aircraft passing your aircraft.

View attachment 6371

The Airbus

View attachment 6372

Snapshot from your video showing the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A380. Note the altitude data. Is this illegal as you state?
View attachment 6374

The Boeing 777

View attachment 6373

Snapshot from your video showing the Boeing 777. Again note the altitude!
View attachment 6375

Here's an infrared satellite view of Europe from 24/02/2014 1400UTC. At the time of those pics the planes would have been just inside Germany along the Czech border just south of the point that's like the tip of an arrowhead in eastern Germany. That brighter and therefore higher band of clouds draped from N-S through north central France looks like a good candidate for cloud tops that could cast shadows across the scene. My question to Ian would be if he remembers the sun shining brightly through the other side of the plane or was the sun hidden behind a cloud?

I'm somewhat baffled at the apparent lack of grasping light and shadow in photography from somebody who allegedly wants to make a living in that realm. I mean understanding light is like one of the first and most important things one learns about photography.

http://www.shadowsgalore.com/2011/11/photography-lessons-understanding-light/