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

TEEJ said:
:rolleyes: Come on Ian! Did you even watch the Airbus videos?

upload_2014-9-2_17-33-17.png

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Look-Uporguk/1410029482561123
Click to expand...
They've been calling it fake and have deleted most/all the posts referring to it, including the ones from the guy who claimed to work for Airbus UK who said he'd checked and they were indeed pylon drains and that Easyjet's explanation was correct.

It sounds like the natives are getting restless. There were a few posts asking how they can have correspondence from Airbus saying the pipes aren't fitted at the factory when Airbus' own video shows that they are.

They're really backed into a corner and don't have any choice but to cover it up. As one poster pointed out it's on their leaflet and they've had 200,000 of them printed.

Ray Von
 
Brand new Vueling airlines A320 at Toulouse pre-delivery. Pylon drains!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Vuel...69213/L/&sid=58c0b9685300b8764c3f0b1a012ab509

Brand new A320 Neo prototype. Pylon drains!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airb...69134/L/&sid=58c0b9685300b8764c3f0b1a012ab509

New Avianca A320 at Toulouse. Pylon Drains!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Avia...67238/L/&sid=58c0b9685300b8764c3f0b1a012ab509

New Air Arabia A320, PRE-Delivery with french registration. Pylon Drains!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-...65113/L/&sid=58c0b9685300b8764c3f0b1a012ab509

New Tianjin Airlines A320 at Toulouse. Pylon Drains!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Tian...69232/L/&sid=58e74eda5b49553ac85b05570c3cb4fe

Batik Air new A320 at Toulouse. Pylon Drains!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Bati...55555/L/&sid=58e74eda5b49553ac85b05570c3cb4fe

Are you going to add all these airlines to your court case Ian? Or have we just saved you a lot of embarrassment and money?
 
TWCobra said:
Are you going to add all these airlines to your court case Ian?
Click to expand...

I vote "Yes!". But, that's just me......

ALSO if I might add....it bears a repeat, at this juncture.

All assertions of these Pylon Drain pipes in the engine struts as a "method" for distributing some sort of "chemicals"?

NEVER has "Look-Up" managed to address the actual other implications.

(1) The added "payload" to the total Operating Weight and CG of these airliners (those knowledgeable in aviation will grasp this significance immediately);

(2) The "mechanisms" (that have not been shown to exist) to 'spray' from these Pylon Drains. I mean, the full "plumbing", to include the "storage tanks", the "pumps" and associated lines to feed these alleged "chemicals" to be "sprayed". (I mean, in ALL of the Airbus documentation, where are these "systems"?;

(3) The Flight Deck (or "cockpit") controls for these alleged "systems"? (The faked videos and photos do not count as "evidence"....).
 
Last edited:
WeedWhacker said:
(1) The added "payload" to the total Operating Weight and CG of these airliners (those knowledgeable in aviation will grasp this significance immediately)
Click to expand...

Correct: This was just published today. 5 tonnes of Aluminium oxide takes up a little more than 1 cubic metre. How long of a visibly dense "chemtrail" are you going to get from a volume such as that? Yet that unaccounted for weight almost caused an accident. The whole theory is absurd!!
 
TWCobra said:
Correct: This was just published today. 5 tonnes of Aluminium oxide takes up a little more than 1 cubic metre. How long of a visibly dense "chemtrail" are you going to get from a volume such as that? Yet that unaccounted for weight almost caused an accident. The whole theory is absurd!!
Click to expand...

Well done that pilot. I take it they wouldn't have realised something was wrong until they tried to take off?
 
TWCobra said:
5 tonnes of Aluminium oxide takes up a little more than 1 cubic metre.
Click to expand...

For audiences in the U.S.

"5 tonnes" is equal to 5,000 KILOGRAMS...converting to pounds.....ONE kg = 2.2 pounds. (ETA: IS this correct???)

Nope...5,000 kg = 11.000 pounds.

{Pilots who fly using what are (sorry) U.S. measurements are more familiar with measurements in "pounds"}. This is what I tend to be most familiar with. No disrespect to our other fellow pilots. It's just....I need to convert, either in my head or using online math tools.

BUT!!! The point (of payload, weight & balance, and airplane performance capabilities) remain the same, REGARDLESS of the weight units used...."pounds", "tonnes"....or "metric" units.....just do the conversions, and understand the FACT that sometimes these conversion factors are used to "confuse" people. I've seen it employed, previously.

BUT OF COURSE....back to topic! "Pylon drains".....yes, MOST modern jets have them, although the "problem" here is....not "every" engine installation the the Airbus A-320 is the same.

THIS is an issue that Mr. Ian Simpson should (please) read more about. It is something that ALL airline pilots understand....adding....(as a personal aside):

Perhaps Mr. Ian Simpson, IF he happens to read this some time, might wish to follow some suggestions/advice that I have offered before:

I suggest for those who think that "chem"trails are 'real'....I suggest that those individuals take a bit of effort and GO TO AN AIRPORT...a major airport (of course). And seek out some 'obvious' airline pilots (I say 'obvious' because they are in uniform).

Some of these pilots that you approach might just laugh in your face. But, others may be "Human" enough to feel, and to actually recall how "they" used to teach....and be empathic enough to reply (if they have a few minutes to spare).

Really, THIS is the best way to dispute this ridiculous "chem"trail nonsense.....once you have the opportunity to "seek out" and ask actual pilots (who you can verify, visually) and then ASK them....when they have a few minutes of "down time" (I guarantee that we ALL have those minutes, at some point!!).
 
Last edited:
Ian Simpson is going to be a very busy. He was claiming the other day that he wants to take Facebook to court. Now it is every British Airline!:rolleyes:

upload_2014-9-3_11-3-0.png
 
TWCobra said:
5 tonnes of Aluminium oxide takes up a little more than 1 cubic metre.
Click to expand...

OK....let's play with this.

Imagine (and we haven't even described, yet, some sort of liquid medium to facilitate the "spraying" of this (imaginary) "chemical":

NOW WHAT???

HOW is this "so-called stuff" 'dispensed'????

There are NO tanks, nor plumbing, nor ANYTHING on ANY airliner. (ONLY a few "videos" taken from Ground Level). Along with the (already disputed) "pylon drains" claim.

Sorry. ACTUAL airline pilots (and no....I realize that it's not "OK" to profess experience...but, well....I profess experience ...SORRY @Mick West). I think that 'TWCobra' complies within this category as well. I know that it "pushes" the boundaries of evidence, in terms of "Argument from Authority" as a potential jeopardy....but, well. YOU be the "judge".
 
TEEJ said:
Ian Simpson is going to be a very busy. He was claiming the other day that he wants to take Facebook to court. Now it is every British Airline!:rolleyes:

upload_2014-9-3_11-3-0.png
Click to expand...
lol.. What's he talking about? Attacked by whom? Is he referring to people posting critical questions that keep him busy deleting anything that compromises his chem-pipes-theory?

I hope sooner or later the penny will drop.. But will he be man enough to admit his error? I guess in many ways the chemtrail belief is like any religion in that if you have to admit to one error, that may open the floodgates and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down (that's enough metaphores I suppose eh?). Too deep in the rabbit hole he is!
 
TEEJ said:
Ian Simpson is going to be a very busy. He was claiming the other day that he wants to take Facebook to court. Now it is every British Airline!:rolleyes:

upload_2014-9-3_11-3-0.png
Click to expand...
Defender? With the hits their delete button has been taking recently I'd say Track & Field would be far more fitting.

Ray Von
 
Peter said:
Too deep in the rabbit hole he is!
Click to expand...

There is another possibility in that he is just going through the motions. Perhaps his donate guideline and appeals are paying off quite nicely and he has to keep the wheels in motion?

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

Sadly this type of conspiracy can suck in those with mental illness all too easily. Has his style and theories hit the right button with several solvent believers?


Donate
My money is disappearing fast, and when the legal cases start in earnest it will really start to evaporate so please donate generously if you can. Selling up may seem drastic to some and has raised many eyebrows I can assure you, but I would rather end up living in a caravan with my son, being free and breathing clean air than face what awaits us if this continues. In time some of you may begin to understand that mentality as you learn more and more about what is really happening around us and above us, but until you do, or if you chose not to become so involved, then you just have to entrust us to fight on your behalf. Collectively there are some very clever people working on this. They are mostly average people like myself who are simply concerned and not prepared to sit back and watch this unfold. We are now starting to become very organised and produce results, so please support us.
Content from External Source
http://www.look-up.org.uk/about/

He's already claimed that he has spent tens of thousands of pounds during his "research".
 
Ian's fellow activist Terry Lawton took this picture of a 737 pylon drain on the flight to CEC14 that Ian paid for

737.JPG

Of course he has the usual confirmation from Bowing ( :rolleyes: ) that these pipes aren't part of the original design

bowing.png

Which he obviously can't reveal due to the upcoming court action

court.png

I presume he must have seen this reply and he's not just taking someone's word for it



http://www.b737.org.uk/powerplant.htm

b737org.JPG

Could all go horribly wrong if one of these were to fail


Background:

The FAA received reports of failure of the drain tube assembly and clamp on the aft fairings of an engine strut. Such a failure could allow leaked flammable fluids in the drain systems to discharge on to the heat shields of the aft fairings of the engine struts, which could result in an undetected and uncontrollable fire.
Content from External Source
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2008L01517
 
cloudspotter said:
Ian's fellow activist Terry Lawton took this picture of a 737 pylon drain on the flight to CEC14 that Ian paid for

737.JPG

Of course he has the usual confirmation from Bowing ( :rolleyes: ) that these pipes aren't part of the original design

bowing.png

Which he obviously can't reveal due to the upcoming court action

court.png

I presume he must have seen this reply and he's not just taking someone's word for it



http://www.b737.org.uk/powerplant.htm

b737org.JPG

Could all go horribly wrong if one of these were to fail


Background:

The FAA received reports of failure of the drain tube assembly and clamp on the aft fairings of an engine strut. Such a failure could allow leaked flammable fluids in the drain systems to discharge on to the heat shields of the aft fairings of the engine struts, which could result in an undetected and uncontrollable fire.
Content from External Source
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2008L01517
Click to expand...

Dang!

Proof once again elusive due to mysterious "stuff going on in the courts" which is, of course, totally believable
and in no way sounds like a lame excuse for why--once again--actual evidence is just...beyond...our...reach... :rolleyes:
 
NoParty said:
Dang!

Proof once again elusive due to mysterious "stuff going on in the courts" which is, of course, totally believable
and in no way sounds like a lame excuse for why--once again--actual evidence is just...beyond...our...reach... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to wait for it all to be revealed.
 
cloudspotter said:
I guess we'll just have to wait for it all to be revealed.
Click to expand...
Oh definitely.
I'm totally holding my breath because I'm sure that as soon as the pesky "stuff" hurdle is cleared,
transparency will reign and Lawton's story will be proven to be true.
I'm sure it won't be a long wait...

Screen Shot 2014-09-04 at 1.33.24 AM.png
 
You know, "stuff" happening in court is public record. The actual stuff may not be, but the fact that stuff is there is something you can just look up. Anyone know what jurisdiction they fall under?

I could probably find that out myself, but... Well, this is the very sort of behavior that the term "lawlsuit" was created to describe, and I hate wasting my own time.
 
Hevach said:
You know, "stuff" happening in court is public record. The actual stuff may not be, but the fact that stuff is there is something you can just look up. Anyone know what jurisdiction they fall under?

I could probably find that out myself, but... Well, this is the very sort of behavior that the term "lawlsuit" was created to describe, and I hate wasting my own time.
Click to expand...

Ian is London based
 
Look-up.org.uk have released their "UK Climate Engineering Dossier 2014" which was apparently handed in at Downing Street on Saturday 27th.

It's basically a compilation of their previous claims, most/all of which I believe have already been debunked. It may merit a separate thread with a blow-by-blow debunking of each point made, but that's for someone far less feckless than myself ;)

I know a few of us were keen to see the "Airbus evidence" of pylon drains being non-standard, and on that point Ian has this to say (quoted for the purpose of critical review :) ):-

Section 7
Those pipes are not standard to the design of the aircraft. We know this to be the case, at least for Airbus, as Airbus recently confirmed to us that their aircraft do not leave the factory with pylon pipes.
Content from External Source
Section 19

Industry sources have tried to explain the true purpose for the pipes, but failed miserably and contradicted each other. This paints a very poor impression of the industry and suggests a very high level of confusion and fear about what to say about the pylon pipes, which in turn suggests that the industry itself is not to blame here, but in fact under great pressure to cover up their existence from external forces. Airbus initially admitted them, but as soon as I hinted at this fact online, they clammed up and denied it, and even reverted to trying to change their story. Someone had spoken to them.
Content from External Source
The "evidence" that Airbus provided that supposedly could not be released to the public due to legal reasons is not shown or referenced, other than the claim that Airbus "clammed up". If the evidence was presented, along with Airbus changing their story, then surely it would demonstrate that Airbus may be attempting to cover things up?

In short, Ian/Look-up.org.uk has once again failed to present anything contradicting the freely available evidence from Airbus that these are standard, factory fitted pylon drains. Further, it seems the "proof" is so sensitive that even the Prime Minister of the UK can't see it.

Ian also quotes the following response from Ian Davies at EasyJet which Ian describes as "very interesting", but doesn't actually say why:-

"These are standard production fit on all Airbus A320 aircraft which is the first thing to clarify and there purpose is to vent and drain engine Pylon compartments in the event of any leakage of pipes hoses and valves contained within these areas. The leaks could be hot air from the engine bleed air system, fuel, as fuel feed pipes run through the compartments and lastly hydraulic fluid if any of the hydraulic system components have failed. It is important prevent the compartment flooding which could be a fire hazard in such a hot area. Al commercial aircraft are required by design regulation to have a venting system."
Content from External Source
The only interesting thing for me is that it precisely matches what other sources said the "pipes" were. Perhaps examples of the industry "failing miserably" to explain them would have been useful?

Ray Von
 

Attachments

  • UK-Climate-Engineering-Dossier-2014-Version-1.pdf
    4.3 MB · Views: 1,571
Ray Von Geezer said:
Ian also quotes the following response from Ian Davies at EasyJet which Ian describes as "very interesting", but doesn't actually say why:-

"These are standard production fit on all Airbus A320 aircraft which is the first thing to clarify and there purpose is to vent and drain engine Pylon compartments in the event of any leakage of pipes hoses and valves contained within these areas. The leaks could be hot air from the engine bleed air system, fuel, as fuel feed pipes run through the compartments and lastly hydraulic fluid if any of the hydraulic system components have failed. It is important prevent the compartment flooding which could be a fire hazard in such a hot area. Al commercial aircraft are required by design regulation to have a venting system."
Content from External Source
The only interesting thing for me is that it precisely matches what other sources said the "pipes" were. Perhaps examples of the industry "failing miserably" to explain them would have been useful?

Ray Von
Click to expand...

That part really puzzled me, too. Why has Ian quoted this email, when it perfectly explains what the pylon drains actually are? Does he not understand what the email actually says? It seems very odd that he would include an email response that basically blows his "spray pipe" theory out of the water completely.
 
Ray Von Geezer said:
It's basically a compilation of their previous claims, most/all of which I believe have already been debunked. It may merit a separate thread with a blow-by-blow debunking of each point made, but that's for someone far less feckless than myself ;)
Click to expand...

It's a huge Gish Gallop. Pretty much all his points have been fully explained before. A point by point debunking would just be a huge mess. Better to have a single post that acts as an index to the more detailed debunking of the individual point.

I'm not sure it's a good use of time though. His points are generally so silly - like claiming "Mammatus" is a new type of cloud, that the "report" really has no credibility.

Some of it makes so little sense, that it's actually confusing to debunk. Like his puzzlement as to why hole punch clouds are "sprayed" only in thin layers of clouds.
 
Mick West said:
It's a huge Gish Gallop. Pretty much all his points have been fully explained before. A point by point debunking would just be a huge mess. Better to have a single post that acts as an index to the more detailed debunking of the individual point.

I'm not sure it's a good use of time though. His points are generally so silly - like claiming "Mammatus" is a new type of cloud, that the "report" really has no credibility.

Some of it makes so little sense, that it's actually confusing to debunk. Like his puzzlement as to why hole punch clouds are "sprayed" only in thin layers of clouds.
Click to expand...

I agree about confusion from debunking. When SO many things are SO wrong it just makes it look like there is a real argument taking place if you try to address them all. The chemtrail movement has become SO convinced that there is SO much evidence on their side, that anything you do just reinforces their notions.
 
It's such a mish-mash of fabrication and misinformation that I doubt there's much chance of him receiving the response he demands within 28 days. No chance whatsoever that they will "officially and publicly acknowledge the issue".

Deliberate CO2, "smoking" airliners, Morgellons, pylon drains, made up clouds - the same old baseless guff presented once again.

Did anyone else notice he completely avoided using "chemtrail" within the text?

Ray Von
 
Ray Von Geezer said:
Did anyone else notice he completely avoided using "chemtrail" within the text?
Click to expand...
It's the "intelligent design" feint. When the word you're using becomes associated with crazy or just invokes the implication of "disproven," rather than fix your ideas, just stop using the word and insist the word you replaced it with isn't the same thing.
 
I believe 'climate engineering' is the preferred nomenclature these days, because it sounds more like the legitimate concerns regarding climate change. I think the theory is, get them hooked before you talk about chemtrails and they'll ignore all the shill sites denying their existence.
 
cloudspotter said:
Ian's fellow activist Terry Lawton took this picture of a 737 pylon drain on the flight to CEC14 that Ian paid for

737.JPG
Click to expand...

Terry is off again down the same path. He has just made the following video.




Published on 2 Mar 2015
This pipe has been retro fitted. It is not an original feature on the CFM56-7 boeing 737 engine schematics. On the Boeing 737 technical website it is referred to as the 'Aft Fairing Drain Tube'.
This 'Drain tube' happens to be situated in the perfect location to deliver materials on demand into the hot exhaust fumes for contrail smoke generation, as described in US patent 3899144.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?
url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US3899144.pdf.
Content from External Source
He has used a cutaway as proof, but this is an old cutaway originally appearing in Flight International in 1981.
It was the CFM-56 Pylon design for the DC-8 Series 70.

upload_2015-3-3_22-25-57.png

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981 - 1842.html?search=DC-3

The graphic was later used during 2006 by Flight International. The url still contained the DC-8 description.

"cfm56-mdd-dc8-engine-installation-cutaway"

upload_2015-3-3_22-41-1.png
 
TEEJ said:
Terry is off again down the same path. He has just made the following video.




Published on 2 Mar 2015
This pipe has been retro fitted. It is not an original feature on the CFM56-7 boeing 737 engine schematics. On the Boeing 737 technical website it is referred to as the 'Aft Fairing Drain Tube'.
This 'Drain tube' happens to be situated in the perfect location to deliver materials on demand into the hot exhaust fumes for contrail smoke generation, as described in US patent 3899144.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?
url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US3899144.pdf.
Content from External Source
He has used a cutaway as proof, but this is an old cutaway originally appearing in Flight International in 1981.
It was the CFM-56 Pylon design for the DC-8 Series 70.

upload_2015-3-3_22-25-57.png

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981 - 1842.html?search=DC-3

The graphic was later used during 2006 by Flight International. The url still contained the DC-8 description.

"cfm56-mdd-dc8-engine-installation-cutaway"

upload_2015-3-3_22-41-1.png
Click to expand...


So did that older installation not utilize pylon drains?
 
TEEJ said:
He has used a cutaway as proof, but this is an old cutaway originally appearing in Flight International in 1981.
It was the CFM-56 Pylon design for the DC-8 Series 70.
Click to expand...

It is increasing difficult to know how to appropriately respond to such bunk (not your post of course)....but how to respond to the use of easily refuted facts that are being mis-represented today.

Not (again) to represent an 'argument from authority' but I am old enough to recall when United Airlines in the late 1970s-to early 1980s were keen to re-fit their DC-8 fleet with quieter AND more fuel-efficient engines. They had a large DC-8 fleet in inventory. New United States EPA regulations were being imposed...on 'NOISE' primarily. The era of the older engines that used to power the DC-8s, the normal "turbo-jet"....(which was extremely noisy)...was over.

Though? That type of engine (the older 'turbo-jet' style of engine) did NOT create many persistent contrails as often as the modern High-Bypass engines do, which are ever more common....well, they are the only ones, now!....hmmmm....isn't that interesting?

(Editing to the topic): Of course turbine engines have had drains of various sorts ever since they were invented! They are there for specific purposes, relative to the operation of the specific engine. Nothing more, nothing less. You can ask any pilot who has been trained on the airplane equipped with those engines, or any aviation mechanic with experience working on those engines. The answers will remain the same.
 
Last edited:
Well, not to quibble....the range of conditions for contrail formation, meaning temperature and altitude variances when considering the modern high-bypass turbo fan engines, compared to the older low bypass turbojets?

Two aspects....the change in engine design, and the increase in actual flights, overall. These tend to have contributed to the increase in observed contrails, and especially persistent contrails, over a few decades.

I never implied that the older turbo jets could 'not' make a persistent contrail... (they did, as proven by other sources).

(Edit) - Again....this thread is about pylon drains as a so-called 'source' of so-called "chem"trails?

Well, this has been beaten to death already....astonished that it still 'comes-to-life'....
 
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