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

Ian, have you decided yet why three pipes are required? Let me guess... one for barium, one for aluminium oxide and one for strontium? If so you have just tripled the complexity of the pumping system/storage requirements. :oops:

These pipes are a little over 1 cm in diameter. Please explain how pipes of that diameter create trails of this size, and the gap behind the pipes?

A320 contrails.jpg
 
Not to mention how about actually putting up the alleged "confirmation from Airbus" that these are modifications??
 
This is PAGE #4 of the thread, and as often pointed out, most never read a thread this deep in. Seems almost pointless, at this juncture.

Still, it is important to note that not only the Airbus A319/320/321 class of airplanes have these pylon drain tubes. They are outfitted on numerous other airplane types. The attempt to imply that these TINY pipes are able to produce IMMENSE so-called "chem"trails is, de-facto, ridiculous.

Tubes that are of a diameter in the approximately 1/2-inch (or 1.75 Cm) radius? (OR, even allowing for a 'slight' benefit of doubt....even "IF" the "1/2-inch or 1.75CM" as a radius is considered in the diameter....)....even TWICE the radius mentioned, to give a diameter, based on the value mentioned previously??.

What nonsense!!!!
 
Belfrey said:
Archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20140826031240/http://www.look-up.org.uk/easyjet-response/
Click to expand...

It's still on their own web page - http://www.look-up.org.uk/easyjet-response/

So they are saying Airbus and Easy jet are not agreeing with each other.....

lookupeasyjet.jpg

It is of course possible that these particular drains are only fitted for which ever engine option Easyjet has - and are Engine equipment, along with the pylon, and Airbus does not consider them part of the airframe.

Various engines are available - CFM56's, PW6122 and 6124's, and a couple of marks of IAE V2500's.

Easyjet apparently have CFM56-5B's fitted

Will check some of those tomorrow if no-one has beaten me to it :)

This page shows an IAEW2500 engined A320 - any drains are not immediately visible -

 
Last edited:
MikeC said:
Cool thanks - just posted this on the FB page in response to the assertion that they are a modification - will see how long that lasts!!
Click to expand...
I notice the emails in the link are from EasyJet, yet they talk about having correspondence from Airbus saying the drains are modifications. Surely the Airbus correspondence would be vital to their case, yet they haven't presented it?

I'm unsure what the point of asking EasyJet was if they were just going to disregard the answer. The EasyJet engineer's response matches exactly what others had told them, but instead of accepting it they're just trying to paint it as further proof of a conspiracy.

The statement that "The real killer would be an A320 without one" is interesting - "The Perpetrators" page on their website says:-

It is interesting to note also that A320s that do not belong to the airlines known to be involved in this, do not have these pipes.
Content from External Source
If they don't already have the evidence to say that, presumably they just made it up?

Ray Von
 

Attachments

  • upload_2014-8-27_0-31-52.png
    upload_2014-8-27_0-31-52.png
    10.3 KB · Views: 502
lol.. I hope he really takes them to court. I for one will be watching with abated breath and a big bag of popcorn.
 
TEEJ said:
Now he is off to the courts! :rolleyes::D

upload_2014-8-27_0-35-22.png

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Look-Uporguk/1410029482561123
Click to expand...

On what grounds I wonder?

Ian you are lucky they have indulged you this far. A commercial organisation like an airline is under no legal compunction to supply you with ANY information about its operations. It is called commercial-in-confidence.

If you suspect them of a crime you will have to provide prima-facie evidence of such and photos of ice crystals won't do it.
 
But he has showed no actual document from Airbus, right? I think it's great that he might be attempting a legal challenge. It will force him/them to show actual evidence.

PS: It tends to make one suspect that he actually believes what he says.
 
Last edited:
Abated turned into bated.... Very interesting.

There will be no court case. You need a lawyer and no lawyer would take such a client.
 
captfitch said:
Abated turned into bated.... Very interesting.

There will be no court case. You need a lawyer and no lawyer would take such a client.
Click to expand...

Dont count on it.. if an up and coming lawyer wants to make a name for himself/herself and realizes there's a way to make a SHIT load of money milking ppl for this crap.. they'll jump on it. Odds are itll end up being monetary lawsuits instead of legal proceedings, but ANY win for ANY thing will be enough to bilk ppl for billions and tie up the courts for decades.
 
Svartbjørn said:
if an up and coming lawyer wants to make a name for himself/herself and realizes there's a way to make a SHIT load of money milking ppl for this crap.. t
Click to expand...
But there's nothing resembling the slightest legal basis for a case, a lawyer no matter how corrupt still needs that.


abate(d) - make (something) less intense.
Still sort of works in a way to say holding one's breath.
bated - late 16th century: from the past participle of obsolete bate 'restrain', from abate.'
 
Pete Tar said:
But there's nothing resembling the slightest legal basis for a case, a lawyer no matter how corrupt still needs that.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Seems this is all fluff, no substance (the "claim" of 'legal action').

Does anyone else smell "concocted drama" here?

However, I will add that 'if' Mr. Simpson finds a counsel to pursue this "case", and presses for a civil legal action of some sort (I am not familiar with the laws of the U.K. vis-a-vis the U.S.)....here in the USA there is a 'remedy' for what are deemed "frivolous litigation" in civil-court cases.
 
Pete Tar said:
But there's nothing resembling the slightest legal basis for a case, a lawyer no matter how corrupt still needs that.
Click to expand...

Since when do facts have anything to do with winning a court case? Its SUPPOSED to be that way, but in reality it boils down to who can spin the best story to a jury. Dont get me wrong, I completely agree with ya Pete.. I do.. but I also have a good understanding of how courts and lawyers work (have family in the business).. it all really and truly boils down to who can make whatever side they're pushing, the most beleivable
 
Sure a case could be spun to a jury in such a way as to convince them if they were uninformed of the facts, but wouldn't there have to be a preliminary presentation to a judge to see if there's actually justification for a case? I think a judge would conclude it was baseless so it would never get to that point where a lawyer could befuddle a jury with the usual gish gallop and misrepresentation of various hypotheticals.
 
Pete Tar said:
Sure a case could be spun to a jury in such a way as to convince them if they were uninformed of the facts, but wouldn't there have to be a preliminary presentation to a judge to see if there's actually justification for a case? I think a judge would conclude it was baseless so it would never get to that point where a lawyer could befuddle a jury with the usual gish gallop and misrepresentation of various hypotheticals.
Click to expand...

Judges are just like everyone else Pete, just because you're a Cop, or a Doctor, or a Pilot, Soldier, Marine, Airman or Sailor it doesnt preclude you from having your own beliefs. If you have a judge, that's like us, and skeptical and well educated in the theories/evidence, then yes itll proably get thrown out.. but all you need is ONE Judge that isnt well versed, or is just versed enough to have a very basic understanding or have their own predilection to the theory to let it play out in court. Talking to a judge is just like making a pitch at an office meeting.. you just have to show that there's SOME kind of credibility, ANY credibility to the claim.. even if the credibility isnt really credible at all, to have it go before the courts.

Hell, until I came here Id never heard of these exhaust ports..didnt even know what they were or that they were a thing... how many judges are well versed enough to actually KNOW without a doubt? Maybe a few that are pilots, or who have flown, etc.. but Im willing to wager the vast majority DONT know what they are. Put that in the right hands of an expert pitcher, and you have a court case. Again.. Im not disagreeing with you guys in the LEAST.. we know its crap, but putting myself in their shoes, I can see how it COULD happen.

Recent example... the McDonald's Coffee lady.. load of utter crap, but made it into court and she WON.
 
Pete Tar said:
I think a judge would conclude it was baseless so it would never get to that point where a lawyer could befuddle a jury with the usual gish gallop and misrepresentation of various hypotheticals.
Click to expand...

Evidence. A properly educated counsel would provide it, and leave the jury laughing at the claimant (in this instance, "Look-Up").

A judge who summarily 'dismissed' it might play into the hands of the claimant. This might be a hidden "strategy" (?) (Of "Look-Up")?
 
Svartbjørn said:
Hell, until I came here Id never heard of these exhaust ports..didnt even know what they were or that they were a thing...
Click to expand...
I've kind of lost track of what their claim would be in presentation of a case?
Apparently Airbus's statement will be their evidence that these pipes are not standard equipment, and they are suing who exactly? Easyjet for fitting sinister pipes to their planes?
Despite that, Airbus's statement actually shows they are standard, so in this case, there can be no case, no matter how conspiracy sympathetic a judge might be.
Theoretically at some point in the future a case may get past a judge to court, but I cannot see this being the one.
 
Last edited:
Pete Tar said:
I've kind of lost track of what their claim would be in presentation?
Apparently Airbus's statement will be their evidence that these pipes are not standard equipment, and they are suing who exactly? Easyjet for fitting sinister pipes to their planes?
Click to expand...

Easyjet if I recall correctly and will be using airbus as a witness that the exhaust are aftermarket addons that the airline company added after purchase.
 
Pete Tar said:
Apparently Airbus's statement will be their evidence that these pipes are not standard equipment, and they are suing who exactly? Easyjet for fitting sinister pipes to their planes?
Click to expand...

The precise answer was a bit up-thread.

The A319/320/321 product is offered (by Airbus) with different engine options, per the customer (buyer) preference. Thus, these pylon drains configuration will VARY, according to the installed Power-Plant. It is really THAT simple.

The VARIETY of engines ("Power-Plants", as we pilots see them described in training materials) on the Airbus A-320 "family" of airliners:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#Engines_2


BUT, in any case.....these pylon drains are a TINY diameter....less than one inch, only a centimeter (about) in diameter.

Yet, "Look-Up"'s owner (Ian Simpson) would have their audience believe that these TINY pipes can "spray" volumes of "material" that amount to (AS I've pointed out many times) a cylindrical shape that...."IF" 50-feet wide (let's say) and only ONE mile long would encompass a physical volume of almost 12 MILLION cubic feet. Just one mile, at only 50 feet diameter.

I'd suggest that ANY engineer who was educated in fluid dynamics would immediately see this as nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Svartbjørn said:
Easyjet if I recall correctly and will be using airbus as a witness that the exhaust are aftermarket addons that the airline company added after purchase.
Click to expand...

But, this is patently incorrect. As shown above, it is specific to each engine (or power-plant) option, and is installed DURING construction, at the factory.

FURTHERMORE....(to play along)....modifications to a passenger airliner CANNOT be done "willy-nilly"!! There is ALWAYS a ton of paperwork, as well as regulatory restrictions and requirements. Obviously, those who are lay-persons have NO concept of this...hence the common misconceptions that continue to "infect" the so-called "chem"trail community.
 
WeedWhacker said:
The precise answer was a bit up-thread.

The A319/320/321 product is offered (by Airbus) with different engine options, per the customer (buyer) preference. Thus, these pylon drains configuration will VARY, according to the installed Power-Plant. It is really THAT simple.

The VARIETY of engines ("Power-Plants", as we pilots see them described in training materials) on the Airbus A-320 "family" of airliners:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#Engines_2


BUT, in any case.....these pylon drains are a TINY diameter....less than one inch, only a centimeter (about) in diameter.

Yet, "Look-Up"'s owner (Ian Simpson) would have their audience believe that these TINY pipes can "spray" volumes of "material" that amount to (AS I've pointed out many times) a cylindrical shape that...."IF" 50-feet wide (let's say) and only ONE mile long would encompass a physical volume of almost 12 MILLION cubic feet. Just one mile, at only 50 feet diameter.

I'd suggest that ANY engineer who was educated in fluid dynamics would immediately see this as nonsense.
Click to expand...

I think their latest tack is to say that chemicals are being added to the exhaust via those tiny pipes.
 
Hama Neggs said:
I think their latest tack is to say that chemicals are being added to the exhaust via those tiny pipes.
Click to expand...

That IS the "claim", but it remains nonsense. Furthermore, as seen in ALL photos and videos of CONtrails, there is the significant gap....since it is mere condensation, it takes time (depending on ambient conditions) to condense.
 
MikeC said:
It's still on their own web page - http://www.look-up.org.uk/easyjet-response/

So they are saying Airbus and Easy jet are not agreeing with each other.....

lookupeasyjet.jpg
Click to expand...
Is Ian really quoting his OWN assertion that Airbus say they are retrofitted as evidence to back up that same assertion? That is taking circular logic to new extremes!

That sentence "Airbus recently confirmed to us that their aircraft are NOT fitted with these pipes!" is taken from the post written BY IAN SIMPSON! He seems to be trying to misattribute it to EasyJet by saying "read the post". The link he provides goes to emails from EasyJet stating unequivocally that they ARE original.

That's the problem with lying: it's very easy to lose track of your story.
 
Last edited:
I took it to mean he has something from Airbus that says this ..... or that he thinks says this.
 
Ian's been busy getting caught out in his lies recently. Although not really providing too much of value beyond humour, I don't know if you saw that he lost a FB bet recently. As usual is doing his best to wriggle out of acknowledging that he lost, let alone paying up.
On a MET office page post about Mammatus clouds he posted:
"Oh look, it's one of the new clouds the MET Office made up. I will pay £100 to anyone who can find any reference to a Mammatus cloud in a printed encyclopedia dated pre-1990."
Content from External Source
This was quite quickly followed up with photos taken from the 11th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, printed 1910/11. He never posted back, but has lied about both the bet and the proof offered on his page.
Enjoy.
https://www.facebook.com/metoffice/...741843.287501884208/10152423045654209/?type=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Trailblazer
Debunked: Ian Simpson's Presentation at the 2015 Cambridge SRM Conference
2 3 4
Replies
127
Views
31K
Pete Tar
Pete Tar

Latest posts

Back
Top