Pylon Drain Tubes Not Likely Source of Chemtrails 14

 NOT QUITE DEBUNKED, after all

NOTE: Evidence for debunking was taken from Lufthansa Airbus documents found at untrustworthy “METABUNK” website.  The documents  are therefore, vulnerable to alteration by photoshop.  This is the position of LOOK-UP.ORG.UK who remain skeptical about efforts to use the available Airbus document to “prove” the pylon nozzles are dedicated to drain fluids from the wing areas.

The fact that Airbus refuses to answer probing questions gives us pause to use the “Debunk” label on this story. See more  Airbus A320 family dispersal systems

 

Above:  Page 133 from the Airbus manual depicts three drain tubes fitted to the pylon (Complete Manual)

Above: Page 129 from Airbus manual depicts engine drain tube

_______________

Why would an oil drain tube be installed uphill from the source of the leak?

The answer apparently lies in the confusion between two different sources of drain tubes – some located on the pylon and others below the engine.

The pylon drain tubes are intended to drain jet fuel and hydraulic fluid leaks emanating from within the wing structure/profile and which may discharge into and down the pylon structure, whereas turbofan engine tubes – located at the bottom of the engine housing – release engine oils and possible fuel leaks supplied to the engine.

When you ask Airbus engineer if there are engine drain tubes on the pylon, he/she will correctly say “no”.

This video from Tanker enemy looks persuasive but it’s most likely an error unless you can show evidence that Metabunk trolls photoshopped the Airbus manual.

Airbus A320 family dispersal systems

Smoking Gun in Plain Sight

Aerosols in Turbofan Exhaust Consistent with Bypass Duct Injection 

 

B-737 exhaust show chemtrails dust in bypass duct-B-SBS

Boeing-737B

(Image Source-1)      (Image source-2)

The image above suggests the aerosols are deployed inside the bypass duct of the high-bypass turbofan where it does no damage to the engine and remains out of sight and out of camera view. When the engine is removed for maintenance, the bypass duct remains behind for maintenance on a separate schedule providing opportunity for installing aerosol plumbing.

Dane Wigington at GeoengineeringWatch provides what he thinks is evidence of chemtrail nozzles mounted on the pylon in a letter from Airbus in response to a “Mr. Simpson’s” inquiry where Airbus asserts the engine drains are located at the lower part of the engine cover (nacelle).

If you take this answer to mean that any tubes located on the pylon are likely to be spraying chemtrails, you could be wrong.

Dane seemed assured there were no engine drains on the pylon but that didn’t necessarily mean the aircraft left the factory without “any pipes in the pylon.”

LOOK-UP.ORG.UK

Airbus A320 family dispersal systems

Suspected chemtrail containers.

Chemtrail Containers loaded onto Aircraft

_____________

dane wigington mug bThere is a host of disinformation online that has been produced since we started to publish these images. Rather than waste time trying to counter them, we spoke directly to Airbus. They confirmed in an email to us in August 2014 that Airbus A320 Family aircraft DO NOT leave the factory with any pipes in the pylon.

Below is a communication from Airbus Communications to a Mr. Simpson in response to a question about “pylon drain tubes”.

From: — name removed —

Sent: 26 August 2014 13:07
To: (removed)
Subject: A320 Pylon Drains

Dear Mr Simpson – in response to your recent query on pylon drain pipes please see below the following information.

” Specification and design of our aircraft comply with certification requirements and safety practices to ensure that any potential draining need, linked or not to failure cases, will be adequately performed. As such, Airbus A320 family aircraft have a fuel drain mast fitted as standard in the lower parts of the nacelle (and none for the pylons).  It is an airworthiness requirement that any fuel leak must not pool within the aircraft structure to create a fire risk, must be drained away from the aircraft structure, and must be able to be visibly identified during the preflight safety walk-around checks. The nacelle fuel drain mast only serves to identify the very rare occasion of a failure where a fuel leak has occurred and, in the case of such detected failure, then the aircraft would be repaired before its next flight. The mast has no spraying capability, and is only used to drain aviation fuel, in the very rare case of a fuel leak.”

Yours,

— name removed —

Airbus Communications

_____________

The Geoengineering watch article is located here. (Continue)

14 comments

  1. There is a misunderstanding:
    The upper drain pipes are NOT designated to the engine but to the pylon above.

    See the schematic darawing on page 133 in the Airbus Engine Technical Manual:

    • Fair enough. According to the letter, Airbus also uses a drain at the bottom of the engine nacelle. Apparently the distinction is made between a drain on the engine as opposed to a drain on the air frame pylon as the apparent source of the confusion. Although a drawing on paper does no necessarily rule-out aerosol spraying, this takes me back to suspecting aerosol releases inside the bypass duct. This has always made more sense than external pipes that are vulnerable to contrail distortion by vortices and detection by camera. Concealment of a system inside the bypass duct is always out of public view and is not directly attached to the turbofan when the engine is pulled for maintenance….Cheers

      • The drain at the bottom of the engine nacelle is pictured on page 127 in the manual.
        I’m not sure however how _any_ part of a passenger airplane can be concealed from maintenance or inspection personnel.

  2. I’m also not sure how any part of the Twin Towers could have been rigged with explosives unless many people were involved. — How do you think the aerosols are sprayed. Many aircraft show leaks of aerosols in the belly of the craft. This happens too frequently to be a fluke. I suspect the aircraft is leased or turned over to the perps where seats are removed and a spray system in onloaded.

    • I’ve seen too many sustained aerosol leaks to agree with that. Sounds like the old plausible deniability disinfo method where less likely is promoted as most likely.

      • Well, the pilots at the forum – and other sources – are saying that the Boeing 787 does not have a galley drain mast. Once I see a video of a Dreamliner with a trail coming from the belly, I might reconsider.

        While googling for confirmation of the 787 thing, I stumbled upon a page which states that a missing drain mast may be a problem for VIP-configured plains with showers and dishwashers on-board …

        People taking extensive showers would explain several of the existing videos where the trail from the belly just doesn’t seem to stop – which can’t be explained with tee / coffee / water leftovers

        http://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/whats-cooking-galley-possibilities

  3. It appears that you and Dane and the rest of the chemtrail “leaders” need to get your stories straight! It is unbelievable that Dane would fall for this pylon drain nonsense from Ian Simpson.

  4. Marius kindly provided the documentation and I did the right thing. Wigington saw my correction and re-tweeted my “debunked” post. Neither of us are convinced the Airbus docs are necessary ligit. If you had your own website we could probably sit back and trust you to post all the right stuff, all the time, eh?

    • I agree that there is no guarantee that the Lufthansa docs are genuine.
      The question however is:
      Are the findings of Look-Up _more_ plausible than what the tech docs say? Look-Up quite obviously missed the distinction between the fuel drains referred to in the Airbus letter and the pylon drains. He also says the pylon drain pipes are not part of the plane upon delivery, but are retrofitted later. This is obviously incorrect.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s