While I'd love to see that happen too (I'd actually consider donating if they could guarantee the money would be used to back it ), I doubt it's anything more than bluster. I've seen threats to sue Facebook because they think FB is suppressing their content - obviously hundreds of thousands would flock to the cause if only they knew about it, so the fact they haven't must be because FB is up to shenanigans, not because people can see it for what it is (or just can't be arsed). I suppose that's just the risk inherent in openly coordinating and publicising a campaign to expose a massive global conspiracy using the world's largest social media network.
Their Legal Action page states that their primary aim is to initiate action in the courts, if only they could find a legal practice "brave enough" to take the job on. While I don't want to disparage the entire legal profession, in my experience the only barrier to engaging a solicitor is the client's lack of funds. Bravery (or even a complete absence of merit) is the last thing you'd need to worry about.
In fairness they do admit to knowing little about the law, evidenced by the suggestion to use Money Claim Online to open proceedings, a service for recovering specified sums of money, not for claims for compensation.
Okay, has this ever happened on a large civilian plane? Because that would look pretty awesome.
(and I imagine would be somewhat alarming for passengers but not actually plane-threatening).
While I'd love to see that happen too (I'd actually consider donating if they could guarantee the money would be used to back it ), I doubt it's anything more than bluster.
(Snip)
Their Legal Action page states that their primary aim is to initiate action in the courts, if only they could find a legal practice "brave enough" to take the job on. While I don't want to disparage the entire legal profession, in my experience the only barrier to engaging a solicitor is the client's lack of funds. Bravery (or even a complete absence of merit) is the last thing you'd need to worry about.
Look-Up would like to force the police to open a plane at one of Britain’s hub airports to prove conclusively that these airlines have been fitted with sophisticated delivery systems.
I would actually pay good money to see that, as long as Mr Simpson was personally in attendance. Open up the pylon of an EasyJet "sprayer" and watch his face.
Okay, has this ever happened on a large civilian plane? Because that would look pretty awesome.
(and I imagine would be somewhat alarming for passengers but not actually plane-threatening).
I imagine you could dump all sorts of fuel into that exhaust stream and it would not ignite. You need a very specific ratio and specific environment for jet fuel to ignite. Plus... I suspect that if there was ever a time when fuel was venting from those drains, there would have been a prior reason t have already shut down that engine... Or at the very least it would have flamed out due to lack of fuel pressure.
I imagine you could dump all sorts of fuel into that exhaust stream and it would not ignite. You need a very specific ratio and specific environment for jet fuel to ignite. Plus... I suspect that if there was ever a time when fuel was venting from those drains, there would have been a prior reason t have already shut down that engine... Or at the very least it would have flamed out due to lack of fuel pressure.
But these drains are nothing to do with fuel dumping, are they? He is confused about that too. Fuel isn't dumped via the pylon drains; they are just for incidental leaks.
But these drains are nothing to do with fuel dumping, are they? He is confused about that too. Fuel isn't dumped via the pylon drains; they are just for incidental leaks.
Look-Up would like to force the police to open a plane at one of Britain’s hub airports to prove conclusively that these airlines have been fitted with sophisticated delivery systems.
I would actually pay good money to see that, as long as Mr Simpson was personally in attendance. Open up the pylon of an EasyJet "sprayer" and watch his face.
I'm sure he plays a mental movie of himself standing triumphantly amongst a group of coppers as they thrust a warrant into the hands of an Easyjet suit and push past to rip the cowlings off a plane to reveal the "smoking gun".
Of course, in reality all that would happen when they didn't find it would be that he'd claim the police tipped them off, the plane was cherry picked and so on.
BTW, there's a link on their site to audio files of him reporting "chemtrails" it to the police, but the link is missing. Shame.
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.
So now he has moved on to fuel dumping? I guess he would be surprised to know that the A319/320/321 do not have fuel dumping capability since it is not required because of their gross weight. Moving the goalposts I see.
The UK government and complicit press are promoting the Islamic threat with a vengance now as it gives them powers to introduce emergency measures to use against chemtrail campaigners.
So now he has moved on to fuel dumping? I guess he would be surprised to know that the A319/320/321 do not have fuel dumping capability since it is not required because of their gross weight. Moving the goalposts I see.
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."
Ian Simpson will likely be punching the air with excitement after the following post. It appears to be from a worker at the Broughton Airbus line in the UK.
Of course this is the wing production line with other components being made at other facilities, but Ian will totally disregard this.
The Airbus site in St. Eloi in Toulouse, France manufactures all engine pylons for the entire Airbus aircraft lineup. Engine pylons attach the engine to the wing structure.
For example. The first pylon for the A320neo being built at Toulouse.
Airbus has assembled the first major airframe component assembly: the engine pylon for the first A320neo to fly. The pylon was assembled at the dedicated pylon facility in St Eloi in Toulouse.
Heh. I made my first post there yesterday, politely asking how the "Smokers" video could match their claim that it was evidence of more CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, when CO2 is colourless and "smoke" would likely indicate inefficient combustion and therefore less CO2. My post was deleted in short order and I was blocked.
There's a fair chance the Look-Up.org.uk block list is longer than their subscriber list, and almost certainly larger than the number who have signed their e-petition
Ian,
You should have checked this forum before you posted on Facebook. You do realize that Marc works at Broughton in the UK where the wings are made. The pylons are manufactured in St. Eloi, Toulouse, France. They only come together on final assembly. Why is this so hard to understand?
Ian,
Watch the following videos taken at Broughton, UK where Marc works. It shows the A320 wings being manufactured and transported for final assembly. Note that there are no engine pylons on the wings. Yes you've guessed it the pylons are made elsewhere (France)! That is why Marc never sees the pylons containing the pylon drains.
OK here's my adventure with lookup. I posted a couple of messages as Peter Laros, which is my facebook account. I posted a link to the A320 production video.
I also posted a tip where to look for 'the pipes'
I also carefully asked what concrete evidence they have for 'chemtrails'
Well, perhaps unsurprisingly, when I checked back about an hour later,this was the result. All my posts have been deleted, and I'm blocked.
Anyway, at least Ian had had the chance to watch the production video. No idea if he did actually watch it.. if he did, I wonder how it affected his 'retrofit' theory.
I also sent him a link to the video and various other information via the comment submission form on his website. So he can't say he hasn't seen the evidence.
It's a particular shame about the links to the videos being deleted, since they contradict the Airbus correspondence they claim to have (but still haven't shown) saying that pylon drains aren't factory-fitted. Also, the Airbus wing assembly guy, Marc Francis, has linked to someone else (Bryn Jones), presumably a colleague, to ask him to look at the pylon drains in the video, but now the video is no longer there.
Marc had previously asked Bryn what the picture shows -
"Bryn Jones No idea. Some airbus do have something like this but a lot smaller from what I remember"
That's perhaps explained by the close-up picture of the pylon drains making them look massive in isolation, whereas in the wider shots of their location on the plane they're actually comparatively small.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the comments from the Airbus guys removed since it looks like that's not going to go the way Look-Up hoped.
It's a particular shame about the links to the videos being deleted, since they contradict the Airbus correspondence they claim to have (but still haven't shown) saying that pylon drains aren't factory-fitted. Also, the Airbus wing assembly guy, Marc Francis, has linked to someone else (Bryn Jones), presumably a colleague, to ask him to look at the pylon drains in the video, but now the video is no longer there.
Marc had previously asked Bryn what the picture shows -
"Bryn Jones No idea. Some airbus do have something like this but a lot smaller from what I remember"
That's perhaps explained by the close-up picture of the pylon drains making them look massive in isolation, whereas in the wider shots of their location on the plane they're actually comparatively small.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the comments from the Airbus guys removed since it looks like that's not going to go the way Look-Up hoped.
I would really like to know whether Mr. Look-up.org.uk truly believes in Chemtrails or he has some other agenda. But it sure seems he is deliberately misleading his followers. The way he is deleting every piece of materiel or comments who can give people the slightest doubt about his theory. Which is a shame. It doesn't matter if chemtrails exist or not, if he really wanted to get to the bottom of this, all evidence, for or against, is useful. He is being counter-productive towards his own course. I get so frustrated when we can't even get a constructive dialogue going on his FB page. How will he handle a courtroom, if he can't handle FB comments? My inner debater is screaming to get out!
I would really like to know whether Mr. Look-up.org.uk truly believes in Chemtrails or he has some other agenda. But it sure seems he is deliberately misleading his followers. The way he is deleting every piece of materiel or comments who can give people the slightest doubt about his theory. Which is a shame. It doesn't matter if chemtrails exist or not, if he really wanted to get to the bottom of this, all evidence, for or against, is useful. He is being counter-productive towards his own course. I get so frustrated when we can't even get a constructive dialogue going on his FB page. How will he handle a courtroom, if he can't handle FB comments? My inner debater is screaming to get out!
Honestly, I think if they tried they'd fall into the same hole as L Ron Hubbard. Or hey, maybe they already have and this is what came out the other side.
Getting published means accepting feedback, and changing your story to suit somebody else. That's a hard step for a lot of writers to take, some of them are just too invested in their story to take it. The other day I made a comment somewhere around here comparing CTs to comic book fanboys for the same reason. They're often deeply, personally invested in their personal headcanon version of the story, and they actively avoid or attack editorial input.
