Debunked: Look-Up.org.uk Alleged "spray pipes" on A-320 are Pylon Drains

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
The Claim:

Look-Up.org.uk These pipes do not appear on the drawings for these planes. They have been retrofitted specifically for the delivery of aerosols
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1431878723709532&id=1410029482561123

look-up.org1.jpg



Reality:

pylon drains1.jpg

pylon drains1a.jpg



pylon drains.jpg


pylon drains2.jpg

pylon drains3.jpg


Images are from pages 16-19:
http://atconsortium-indonesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/paksoni1.pdf
[mod add: working link
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104431928/A-320-Engine ] pg 140

Conclusion:

The pipes are standard equipment pylon drains which appear on official Airbus drawings from 1998.


Screenshot from the A320 production video also clearly show pipes on the pylon.

http://videos.airbus.com/video/iLyROoaf2AH3.html
At 02:22 (and similar shot at 02:37)


At 02:29


Screenshot from the A330 production video, also clearly showing pipes on the pylon.


View attachment 8919
(At 02:18)


And at 02:00


At 01:19, the pylon can be seen pre-assembly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
It didn't take very long for look-up.org.uk to delete my comments and ban me from ever posting there again. I see that other folks have become aware of that site's deceptive practices and covering up of their mistakes and are driving the point home again and again.

Whoever runs that site, and it looks like it's one Ian Simpson needs to understand that when a person makes mistakes, the worst thing to do is to cover them up and not correct them.

Ian, I'm sure you have read this page and I challenge you to debate this issue or correct it.

I'm calling you out, Ian. Please explain yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JFDee

Senior Member
It didn't take very long for look-up.org.uk to delete my comments and ban me from ever posting there again.
I have read your comments, and some could have been perceived as personal attacks.

Others are posting opposing views while staying polite, and the posts are still up and are even discussed.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
I may be wrong but I think that Look Up sponsored or boosted their Virgin post. That seems to have attracted an unwanted audience. Things had been pretty quiet on there until yesterday.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
While not being actually impolite (that was probably bad wording on my part) several of the posts come across as reproachful or reprehensive, like the bit about "sticking out the tongue". However, looking at the sheer number of your comments I assume this may have added to a feeling of being attacked.

All I'm saying is that this approach is not always effective. I firmly believe that tone does matter.

BTW, see how Michael Glynn was treated - not an indication of malice and lying.
Michael Glynn was not addressed by Look up.org.uk but by someone calling themselves Look Up and the entire discussion seems to have been removed.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Yes my conversation was removed. I had a private conversation with "look up". The belief that the FR24 glitch is something sinister runs very strong. I don't believe in posting private conversations, this person took the trouble to do that so it should be respected, so lets just leave it at that.

Retraction: the posts are still there.
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member
I will however repeat the public posts about what they believe is happening. FR24 presents major airports as a silvery blue dot on the map. When the glitch began FR24 actually had one of these dots at the 00'00.0N 000'00.0W coordinates when the erroneous track happened.

The glitch has obviously been reported to FR24 and the dot no longer appears there.

In the meantime however it appears that jets flying that particular route still lose ADSB tracking over Brazil and the erroneous track still appears for these flights. This is the spur for the theory.

Some points.

1. The "diversion" is approx 5600 nautical miles and would take an airliner, including landing and refuel, about 12-13 hours to complete. I believe that if people actually watched the flight in real time, they would simply see it appear again over Brazil on FR24 about an hour after the ADSB signal was originally lost.

2. These are commercial aircraft doing commercial flights and nothing about the diversion makes any sense from a commercial point of view.

3. There is no island or airport at the coordinates.

4. There is no land capable of hosting an ADSB receiver within range of those coordinates.

Lookup has mentioned publicly that they also have used FR24 to identify what they believe are hypersonic military flights. I haven't got the details but I believe their suspicions are related to FR24 glitches and lack of understanding about the FR24 operation. In most parts of the world FR24 uses data from volunteers with ADSB receivers. These are not in the control of FR24. The FAQs of the FR24 website spell out the technical problems that can ensue.

The only way this particular flight could fly this erroneous route in real time would be in hypersonic flight, so faced with the choice between a FR24 glitch and a secret military flight broadcasting its hypersonic characteristics on an amateur ADSB site where none can exist, Lookup, have gone for the latter.

Be guided accordingly.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I have seen an ATC service provider reporting incorrect and null ATSB codes to a regulator.

ATSB is a great tool - but it certainly isn't perfect!
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
Ross,
I noticed that you posted a question to Ian Simpson reference the website.

It is this website.

http://www.look-up.org.uk/

You can see why Ian Simpson is making it up as he goes along. The more he generates this gibberish he knows he can suck in the gullible for donations.

http://www.look-up.org.uk/donate/

Metabunk gets a mention on the following pages :)

http://www.look-up.org.uk/what-can-i-do-to-help/

http://www.look-up.org.uk/misinformation/
Yes, I know.

I was trying to get him to be a bit more helpful in his replies. He seems to assume that everyone is completely up with his efforts, and has seen everything he has seen (or claimed to have seen). Most of my comments there are asking for him to produce the images and information he is relying on for his claims.
 

JFDee

Senior Member
Look up, if you are reading this, I urge you to view our attempts to examine your claims critically as helpful.

If you intend to launch any kind of legal action, the first thing your own attorney will do is exactly this: dissect your claims just like the opposite side would do.
You want to know which claims can stand in a cross examination.

If you prefer to have a private exchange, give me or someone else around here a personal message. Note that you can register without actually posting anything publicly.

I'm German. No MI5 ties.
 
Last edited:

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
Look up, you know where I live, so no MI5 ties with me either.
And I emphasise what JFDee says about topics on Metabunk being helpful, and I said as much in an email to you at public@look-up.org.uk (at Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:37 PM NZDT)
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Look-up.org.uk:

Sad to see you deleted my posts and banned me from your site for explaining why your claims were bunk(which means incorrect).
Not exactly sure why that happened, and never got a response from you.
I see you have made a posting showing lots of flight tracks which you say seem unusual.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1434463180117753.1073741833.1410029482561123&type=1

I'm not exactly sure why you would see a flight track and think the plane was a "US Government Sprayer".

It looks to me as if you don't understand the reason why flight tracks might become messed up when they become completely out of range of all ADS-B receivers. Additionally, you may not be familiar with the navigation concept of a "Great Circle" route. Check it out.

On the first issue, I'd suggest that you not take our word for it, but instead submit each image to Flightradar24 itself and ask some questions about them. You will probably gain some insight into why you see what you see. Believe it or not, they have a Facebook page where you can do exactly that, and most likely they will be quite pleased to respond to you.

https://www.facebook.com/flightradar24

Don't overload them, just try some images which share commonalities to limit the explanations they have to give at one time. They would know best about their feed.

Now, if we see that you don't ask or if you do and don't correct your misconceptions, it will indicate an unwillingness for self correction, a very bad sort of thing to do if you have been entrusted with or expect donations of other people's money.

Lastly, if you won't ask Flightradar24, someone else eventually will........

PS: I see that you took offense at my debunking of your claim, and feel that I should not have used your real name. Your friends at chemtrailsproject let that cat out of the bag, and your site is registered in your name, so blame them and yourself for putting out publicly what you both did. Out here in the real world, someone publicly seeking donations of funds from others generally means that the person making the solicitation doesn't use a pseudonym.
 
Last edited:

JFDee

Senior Member
Look Up,

if you are searching confirmation for the authenticity of the "Technical Training Manual" PDF linked in the first post, note that this document was probably made available unintentionally. It's very likely that Airbus is charging for it, so you may not be able to get your confirmation for free.

There is a larger manual available at the same site, this time for a different engine (A320 can have at least three different engine types). It's a maintenance manual, with plenty of details:
http://atconsortium-indonesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Airbus_A320_CFM56-Wartungs-Manual_71-80-30-20-CFM56-5A-L3-e.pdf

Pylon drains are discussed from page 132 onward.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member
Look Up,

if you are searching confirmation for the authenticity of the "Technical Training Manual" PDF linked in the first post, note that this document was probably made available unintentionally. It's very likely that Airbus is charging for it, so you may not be able to get your confirmation for free.

There is a larger manual available at the same site, this time for a different engine (A320 can have at least three different engine types). It's a maintenance manual, with plenty of details:
http://atconsortium-indonesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Airbus_A320_CFM56-Wartungs-Manual_71-80-30-20-CFM56-5A-L3-e.pdf

Pylon drains are discussed from page 132 onward.
Look up claims to have already downloaded all of the aircraft drawings from Airbus and Boeing months ago but has as yet been unable to figure out how to post these for others to see. I notice the post with that claim has disappeared now though, along with all the posts pointing out their error.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Another reference to pylon drains and how they work-Page 126


pylon1.JPG

pylon2.JPG

Ian and others on that page seem to have difficulty with the concept of small drops of fuel being released into a hot exhaust. On most engines the fuel drain mast is the one pictured at the base of the actual engine, pictured here as the drain mast. We check that every flight and there are allowable limits for the number of drops that can appear there every minute. When the small amount of fuel gets released at 200 knots it is atomised instantaneously and never reaches the exhaust.

Also there is reference on the page to fuel dumping. This is not fuel dumping. Fuel dumping is the deliberate release of large amounts of fuel through a dedicated specific dump system, in order to rapidly achieve a reduction in landing weight below the maximum certified landing weight. Fuel dumping can be carried out any time there is a need to do it such as an emergency or an unplanned diversion. The fuel evaporates quickly and the preferred min heights are 6000 feet over land and 2000 feet over open water such as an ocean. Fuel dumping is never done as a matter of routine, the stuff is far too expensive.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Mr Look-up. You wish to take legal action?
Ian, guess who told the world who you were?
https://www.facebook.com/ChemtrailsProjectUK/posts/686479498053043

ianisanass.JPG


PS,
Ian, I am not afraid of you. In my opinion you don't know much about the subjects you speak of, and show that on a continuing basis. You also make claims and say you have this or that but when asked politely you don't seem able to show what you claim to have. If you wish I can show you some examples, one of which is seen in the original post of this thread. Would you like more?

You have many excuses and rationalizations for your failures but still you fail to produce. Every day that you claim to have drawings which differ from those presented here but don't produce them it seems that you fail yet again. In fact, every day which goes by we see even more of your failures. If this continues, it would not be untrue to say you are a failure at what you are doing.

Trying to convince your friends that your personal failures are due to things beyond your control is preposterous. If you make false claims and can't back them up that is no one else's fault but only your own.

So if you don't like me writing factual things which can be shown true why not just sue me too? Why not simply sue everyone who you don't like or who don't agree with? Hey you banned us from your FB page and deleted our posts, now you want to stalk us and threaten lawsuits? Considering past performance I expect more failure even in that.
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member
A few more out and out lies from Ian Simpson, as well as some embarrassing spelling errors. There is not an ounce of truth in anything said here, and no evidence offered.

Chris Frostick as far as we know, most pilots are not (officially) aware as the systems are automated or remote controlled, though many secretly know or suspect at least. As far as leaked, well the industry is awash with rumour, but fear abounds as many have been threatened we hear. It does seem strange, but them compartmentalisation, bribery, financial incentives, blackmail or bullying... we don't know exactly, but we feel the damn will burst soon, as so many people are putting pressure on the authorities and airlines to speak up. All it takes is one, and we are off. Look-Up has been considering a whistle-blower compensation program, but we need some major backing before we can do this. Soon hopefully
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Look-Uporguk/1410029482561123#

Fuel dumps Ian. Copied from bona fide videos elsewhere on Youtube that explain they are fuel dumps.


This is a great video. It clearly shows a passenger jet spraying 'something' into the atmosphere. We can conclude from this that it is very likely aerosols designed specifically for chemtrails. I would guess this was in the US, as UK planes do not use that system, but prefer the systems we have shown that are housed in the pylon above the engine. Being a passenger jet in mid flight this cannot be a fuel dump, or any kind of agricultural spraying either, so there is really no other explanation that we can think of. It would be interesting to know the flight number, model of plane and location too if anyone can fins out.
 

hemi

Active Member
And, as pointed out by someone in the comments, this one (first in sequence shown in the longer compilation that Ian has posted, 0:00 - 1:25): a flight from Europe to the USA that got diverted to Heathrow back when one of the passengers got sick...

 
Last edited:

hemi

Active Member
And, surprise surprise, the fuel dump videos that were posted pointing out his mistake have now deleted from that thread.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member
He has retained one recently posted fuel dump video. He is leaving it up in order to preach to his followers. :)

 

David Fraser

Senior Member
There are plenty of fuel dump videos like this one Tankerenemy falsified to claim spraying over London.


But yet again Look up gives a reply of "we'll get back to you" or research it yourself as we are busy. This has the smell of a scam (address available on request)
 
Last edited:

hemi

Active Member
He has retained one recently posted fuel dump video. He is leaving it up in order to preach to his followers. :)

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1413380088901183&id=1410029482561123&stream_ref=10

And now that's gone too. All dissenting voices removed and (presumably) banned. Here's a screen grab of some of the comments that have since disappeared.

fuel-dumps.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:

TEEJ

Senior Member
Hi Hemi,
Not really surprising! He banned me too! I see that he has started an e-petition and wonders why not many people have signed it! :)

No doubt when the 100,000 figure has not been met it will be the fault of Metabunk and MI5!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/58686

100,000 signatures and it could be debated in the House of Commons.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/how-it-works
 

Balance

Senior Member
He has retained one recently posted fuel dump video. He is leaving it up in order to preach to his followers. :)

Emphasis is mine.
Lookup lied. He/she could not bear to leave the truth on his/her page as he/she does not intend to publish any "answer" that could possibly refute the fuel dump argument.

From lookup's FB page, Oct 18 2013
 
Last edited:

hemi

Active Member
I don't quite get the rationale. This is someone who appears to be reasonably serious about getting this sort of thing "out in the open": there's talk of lawsuits, and a petition to get the topic discussed in UK parliament.

So let's say a lawsuit ends up in court (against who, exactly, I know not, but for arguments's sake), and this 'hard-core' evidence of chemtrail spraying is presented. Surely, at that point, he must know that the very same evidence that has been presented on his facebook page is going to be used against him there. And this time he's not going to be able to delete it and pretend it doesn't exist.

What does he do at this point? Claim the airplane schematics are faked? That pilots and airlines are lying about the need to dump fuel? That the entire legal system is in on it?

Baffling.
 
Last edited:

Balance

Senior Member
So Lookup is a male named Ian Simpson? (I see a profile pic of a bloke with a camera and big lens so would assume it's male but on the FB page https://www.facebook.com/look.up.96387 all the status comments regarding the profile read "changed her profile pic" indicating they've profiled themselves as female. In this day and age that's nothing unusual I guess or perhaps Ian has a female admin running the page).

In regards to the question of rationale (I hope I'm not getting OT but feel free to delete or move this comment): Not that I understand psychology well but the ego is a formidable force and the likes of Alex Jones, David Icke etc are famous for their shock-jock shows. However, there's a fine art in propoganda studied over centuries and it's been suggested to me many times that these sort of people could be what's called controlled-opposition. That is, they give the appearance of being against the government, so allying with anit-governement activists but, like the pied-piper, leads them away from their intentions.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So Lookup is a male named Ian Simpson? (I see a profile pic of a bloke with a camera and big lens so would assume it's male but on the FB page https://www.facebook.com/look.up.96387 all the status comments regarding the profile read "changed her profile pic" indicating they've profiled themselves as female. In this day and age that's nothing unusual I guess or perhaps Ian has a female admin running the page).

In regards to the question of rationale (I hope I'm not getting OT but feel free to delete or move this comment): Not that I understand psychology well but the ego is a formidable force and the likes of Alex Jones, David Icke etc are famous for their shock-jock shows. However, there's a fine art in propoganda studied over centuries and it's been suggested to me many times that these sort of people could be what's called controlled-opposition. That is, they give the appearance of being against the government, so allying with anit-governement activists but, like the pied-piper, leads them away from their intentions.
That is a tad off topic, as are some of the preceding posts.

New topics in new threads please.
 

Balance

Senior Member
Sorry this is strictly off-topic as it doesn't pertain to the pylons but it is from Look-up who've reposted this video.


Am I seriously expected to believe a Former FBI Chief (you know, people supposedly trained and experienced in detective work, getting to the facts etc) does not understand persistent contrails or has a misunderstanding of them?
Am I seriously expected to believe that Look UP does not understand persistent contrails either?

If we know what Look Up know, the answer is clearly no, he/she/they surely know what a persistent contrail is. Therefore, am I correct in believing that reposting this vidoe is intentional disinformation? Can there be a more innocent explanation?
 

Strawman

Active Member
Gunderson left the FBI in the early 80s. During his retirement, he got into theories of satanic ritual abuse in the establishment, chemtrails, etc. etc.
 

JFDee

Senior Member
Am I seriously expected to believe that Look UP does not understand persistent contrails either?
Look-Up had gotten plenty of FB replies to his posts which contradicted his claims in a fair way, quoting and linking evidence.

It was shown to him that the pylons are in fact included with the A320 plans, that humidity conditions can vary enough to make one plane create trails and annother one 1000 ft. below or above not, and that his secret island from flightradar24 is just a known software glitch at the world coordinates 0° N and 0° W.

He deleted all of these replies after failing to counter the arguments (while letting the more attack- and ridicule-oriented replies stay).

My impression is that he does not want to understand persistent contrails with all their peculiarities, having invested far too much now in his initial conviction.
 
Top