It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are 767's wingtips and tail made of Pentanium Steel?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Hey there's a great demonstration. Let's use a totally different type of plane with more powerful engines, sitting parked to show how powerful jet blast is. A plane in flight is going to have totally different jet blast characteristics than a plane parked on the ground sitting at a gate.

Anok, you have no idea how LITTLE I give a damn if you believe any of the things I've done. *I* know I did them, and I learned a lot from them. If you want to jump all over me and call me a liar, be my guest, your opinion doesn't mean crap to me.

[edit on 4/1/2006 by Zaphod58]




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I've read this page before. First of all, comparing a GIII that clips a pole and crashes to a 757 that clips a pole is like comparing apples and oranges. You've got a plane that takes off at somewhere around 70,000 pounds, in a low power, low altitude, high drag configuration, in one, and a plane that takes off at over 200,000 pounds, in a high speed, low drag configuration in the other.

Whether Anok, or anyone else believes me, I've been behind a four engined jet running at power, in a vehicle, and we were NEVER in danger of flipping, or turning over, or anything else. Yes, certain vehicles, like the one used in the simulation, under certain conditions will get flipped over, but NOT ALL OF THEM. Even Mythbusters couldn't get a car to tip over driving behind a jet engine.
(Yeah, not the most scientific, but eh.)



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Either you didn't read the whole page and just respond only pointing to one LITTLE small paragraph.... or you're demonstrating that you know more than NASA does





When an aircraft wing generates lift, it also produces horizontal, tornado-like vortices that create a potential wake-vortex hazard problem for other aircraft trailing. The powerful, high-velocity airflows contained in the wake behind the generating aircraft are long-lived, invisible, and a serious threat to aircraft encountering the system, especially small general aviation aircraft. Immediately behind the wake-generating aircraft is a region of wake turbulence known as the roll-up region, where the character of the wake that is shed from individual components (wingtips, flaps, landing gear, etc.) is changing rapidly with distance because of self-induced distortions. Farther away from the generating aircraft is an area of the wake known as the plateau region, where the vortices have merged and/or attained a nearly constant structure. Even farther downstream from the generating aircraft is a wake area known as the decay region, where substantial diffusion and decay of the vortices occur due to viscous and turbulence effects. Depending on the relative flight path of a trailing aircraft in the wake-vortex system, extreme excursions in rolling motion, rate of climb, or even structural load factors may be experienced during an encounter with the wake. If the encounter occurs at low altitudes, especially during the landing approach, loss of control and ground impact may occur.


oea.larc.nasa.gov...

But hey, who says all the time? I surely didn't. But if the wake vortex can uproot light poles... they can certainly blow little cars around.

It's more fun to laugh at you than with you...



Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've read this page before. First of all, comparing a GIII that clips a pole and crashes to a 757 that clips a pole is like comparing apples and oranges. You've got a plane that takes off at somewhere around 70,000 pounds, in a low power, low altitude, high drag configuration, in one, and a plane that takes off at over 200,000 pounds, in a high speed, low drag configuration in the other.

Whether Anok, or anyone else believes me, I've been behind a four engined jet running at power, in a vehicle, and we were NEVER in danger of flipping, or turning over, or anything else. Yes, certain vehicles, like the one used in the simulation, under certain conditions will get flipped over, but NOT ALL OF THEM. Even Mythbusters couldn't get a car to tip over driving behind a jet engine.
(Yeah, not the most scientific, but eh.)


[edit on 1-4-2006 by promomag]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   






When an aircraft wing generates lift, it also produces horizontal, tornado-like vortices that create a potential wake-vortex hazard problem for other aircraft trailing. The powerful, high-velocity airflows contained in the wake behind the generating aircraft are long-lived, invisible, and a serious threat to aircraft encountering the system, especially small general aviation aircraft. Immediately behind the wake-generating aircraft is a region of wake turbulence known as the roll-up region, where the character of the wake that is shed from individual components (wingtips, flaps, landing gear, etc.) is changing rapidly with distance because of self-induced distortions. Farther away from the generating aircraft is an area of the wake known as the plateau region, where the vortices have merged and/or attained a nearly constant structure. Even farther downstream from the generating aircraft is a wake area known as the decay region, where substantial diffusion and decay of the vortices occur due to viscous and turbulence effects. Depending on the relative flight path of a trailing aircraft in the wake-vortex system, extreme excursions in rolling motion, rate of climb, or even structural load factors may be experienced during an encounter with the wake. If the encounter occurs at low altitudes, especially during the landing approach, loss of control and ground impact may occur.



Thats all well and good.

If there were an airplane following the 757 I could see where there could be a problem, but what you linked to(unless I missed something) talks about trailing airplanes and nothing about cars.

Got one that pertains, or are you just like the other "truth movement" apologists taking stuff they appear to not even fully read or understand and try to sneak it by even though it does nothing to back them up? My guess would be that you don't know jack about wake vortices, and are just parroting the opinions of your masters (they seem to have pretty tight control of you guys, every time one of the puppet masters comes up with a brand new theory, half a dozen threads are started here about them).



Just another smoke and mirrors show, if you ask me.








[edit on 1/4/06 by Skibum]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   

When the aircraft is close to the surface -- in ground effect -- coming into contact with the surface modifies the almost cylindrical vortex-induced circulation around the wing. This flattens the cylindrical circulation pattern and reduces the downwash angle of the air behind the wing. This flattening of the cylindrical circulation spreads the pattern outwards below the wing and increases the effective span of the wing. The aerodynamic aspect ratio of the wing is also increased. (The aerodynamic aspect ratio of the wing is measured between the cores of the vortices, which occur at about 80% of the geometric wingspan outside of ground effect. This aerodynamic aspect ratio has a strong inverse effect on lift-induced drag.)

When the aircraft flies close enough to the ground that the sag of the vortices trailing the wingtips is restricted by coming in contact with the ground, the backward-tilting angle of the total lift vector is reduced, thereby reducing its horizontal component and reducing induced drag.

The combination of the reduction in the downwash angle of the air behind the wing and the increases of both effective wingspan and aerodynamic aspect ratio of the wing occur when the wing is close to the surface. These increases in aerodynamic efficiency of the wing are what we call ground effect.

www.avweb.com...



Nice video. I hope it was a staged demo with nobldy on board this vehicule... However things were completely different on rd 27 that was crossed by the 757 about one second before hiting the Pentagon.

1 - This is a 747 with four engines. A 757 has two engines.

2 - A 747 is an older jet, with a lower bypass ratio, thus the stream output of it's engine is faster than the stream output from a 757's engine, which has a higher bypass ratio.

3 - The 747 is stopped on a runway, then the relative speed of the jet engine streams regarding to the hit vehicle is maximum. The 757 overflew rd 27 at ~350 mph (if speed released from black boxes is accurate). Thus the speed of the engine stream relative to the ground is less important. This effect combines with effect N° 2 to give a much lower absolute engine stream speed regarding to the ground.

4 - The engines of the 747 in the video are very close of ground (~2m), and the engines of the 757 which flew over rd 27 were probably at least at ~5m.

5 - There is a ground effect, with a smooth ground which concentrates the stream of the engines and makes a much higher pressure on the vehicle. On rd 27, there were many natural or artificial obstacles to the streams of the engines : road signs, security barriers, embankments...

6 - The vehicule in the staged demo doesn't drive fast, and thus stays a long time in the engines stream, say several seconds. It is thus submitted to a strong acceleration during a long time, which allows it to take a high speed on the deadly path where it is pushed. The time during which the vehicles on rd 27 were submitted to the engines stream of the 757 was very short, say something like one or two tenth of a second, and they coulnd't take such a lateral speed.

For all these reasons, the effects of the 757 engines were much weaker and, it is normal than the vehicules on rd 27 were just shocked (a witness said his vehicle was pushed aside on the rd), and not blown over security barriers like in this demo.

www.earth-citizens.net...

Promomag, I have the same answer for you that I have for Anok. You have no idea how little I care if you want to laugh at me. I know the things I've done, and if you don't believe me it doesn't bother me in the least.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Are you people lazy? Some of you talk a lot of smack but never provide any links to back up your statements. I'm not lazy, and I'll give you links that might educate you a little.

Like this one:
asrs.arc.nasa.gov...

You can even play with Jet Blast!
www.grc.nasa.gov...

Like I said.... All you seem to know more than NASA does.



And guys, please provide to at least something to back up your rebuttals... the responses alone without links are a joke.... very funny jokes.


Originally posted by Skibum


When an aircraft wing generates lift, it also produces horizontal, tornado-like vortices that create a potential wake-vortex hazard problem for other aircraft trailing. The powerful, high-velocity airflows contained in the wake behind the generating aircraft are long-lived, invisible, and a serious threat to aircraft encountering the system, especially small general aviation aircraft. Immediately behind the wake-generating aircraft is a region of wake turbulence known as the roll-up region, where the character of the wake that is shed from individual components (wingtips, flaps, landing gear, etc.) is changing rapidly with distance because of self-induced distortions. Farther away from the generating aircraft is an area of the wake known as the plateau region, where the vortices have merged and/or attained a nearly constant structure. Even farther downstream from the generating aircraft is a wake area known as the decay region, where substantial diffusion and decay of the vortices occur due to viscous and turbulence effects. Depending on the relative flight path of a trailing aircraft in the wake-vortex system, extreme excursions in rolling motion, rate of climb, or even structural load factors may be experienced during an encounter with the wake. If the encounter occurs at low altitudes, especially during the landing approach, loss of control and ground impact may occur.


Thats all well and good.

If there were an airplane following the 757 I could see where there could be a problem, but what you linked to(unless I missed something) talks about trailing airplanes and nothing about cars.

Got one that pertains, or are you just like the other "truth movement" apologists taking stuff they appear to not even fully read or understand and try to sneak it by even though it does nothing to back them up? My guess would be that you don't know jack about wake vortices, and are just parroting the opinions of your masters.

Just another smoke and mirrors show, if you ask me.
[edit on 1/4/06 by Skibum]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Two things for you

#1

The demonstration video with the little truck that gets blown out to sea shows 2 different planes. The plane in the first image is a headon shot of a 747 although it looks nothing like the plane that demonstrates a jet blast on the little truck which is obviously a United Airlines plane.

#2
757 jet wake data from Boeing:
www.boeing.com...


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Promomag, I have the same answer for you that I have for Anok. You have no idea how little I care if you want to laugh at me. I know the things I've done, and if you don't believe me it doesn't bother me in the least.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   
From your own link from Boeing, a 757 at take off thrust.:

At sea level, with zero wind, STATIC AIRPLANE, both engines operating at 35,500lbs of thrust, the exhaust will be travelling at 250mph at 40 feet, 200mph at 80 feet, all the way down to 50mph out to 1200 feet. 250mph MIGHT be enough to flip a car, but 50 certainly wouldn't be. Also notice that this is for a STATIC plane (NOT MOVING).



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   


Are you people lazy? Some of you talk a lot of smack but never provide any links to back up your statements. I'm not lazy, and I'll give you links that might educate you a little.


So, now we have jumped from wake vortices to jet blast. Two separate things.


Question, are you claiming that anything (cars, people, small animals etc)that the plane flys over at a close distance will be effected (blown over uprooted etc..)? Or is it only in the case of the pentagon, that these objects would have had to have been blown over?
FYI, its a trick question.









[edit on 1/4/06 by Skibum]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Noted the Static data Zaphod58

In the meantime, and since it's late, I need to get to bed I'll just make a small simple point about 757 planes and the excessive wake behind them *yawn*



Most airplane wings produce multiple vortices that interact with each other in ways that lessen their overall severity. Not so with the Boeing 757 says Aviation Safety Magazine (July, 2005). The 757's wing creates a more even distribution of lift than most other wings. This, in turn, creates wing tip vortices that are 50 percent stronger than other aircraft with similar wingspans and weight!

The vortices coming off the Boeing 757 are so strong that the FAA has created separate avoidance criteria for aircraft trailing the 757.


www.rjma.com...

I will be back to touch more on this tomorrow when I have some free time.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
From your own link from Boeing, a 757 at take off thrust.:

At sea level, with zero wind, STATIC AIRPLANE, both engines operating at 35,500lbs of thrust, the exhaust will be travelling at 250mph at 40 feet, 200mph at 80 feet, all the way down to 50mph out to 1200 feet. 250mph MIGHT be enough to flip a car, but 50 certainly wouldn't be. Also notice that this is for a STATIC plane (NOT MOVING).



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Yes Skibum.... two seperate things

But it should be obvious that both are in play in the case of a very low altitude 757 cruising at 450+ mph....

Anyways, I'm not playing your silly games Skibum, it's late and I'm tired.

goodnight.


Originally posted by Skibum
So, now we have jumped from wake vortices to jet blast. Two separate things.


Question, are you claiming that anything (cars, people, small animals etc)that the plane flys over at a close distance will be effected (blown over uprooted etc..)? Or is it only in the case of the pentagon, that these objects would have had to have been blown over?
FYI, its a trick question.









[edit on 1/4/06 by Skibum]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Wingtip vortices trail upward and outward from the wingtips of a "heavy" and spin in a counterclockwise motion. When they reach their highest point (depending on weight and speed of the "heavy") they start to sink towards the ground. Once they hit the ground they will roll laterally at about 2 or 3 knots. A crosswind may keep the upwind vortice in the runway area for an extended time. The worst condition is a light quartering tailwind. In this case the upwind vortice will move towards and up the runway making the judgment of where to touchdown difficult.

If you were following a "heavy" on an ILS approach, it is possible to experience wake turbulence as you proceed down the glideslope. In this case you would fly your approach descending "one dot" below the glideslope center position (fly above the glideslope). In a previous post I stated that the autopilot should be used down to minimums. Here is one case where you would "hand fly" the approach - keeping your glideslope path "one dot below" to avoid any wake turbulence.

www.flywestwind.com...

Wingtip vortices roll along the ground after they hit, and are barely even noticable. Even for a 757, they wouldn't be much stronger than a few knots of wind rolling around.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   


Anyways, I'm not playing your silly games Skibum, it's late and I'm tired.


No games here, I'm serious.
I'm just trying to pin you down to a definite answer.
Care to answer the question?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   
What do you think the approach and take off vortices are like compared to a full throttled 757 maintaining an EXTREMELY low altitude going 450+ miles is?

I am just thinking out loud to your post, but I think it requires some investigation, so more later because I REALLY have to go to bed.


Originally posted by Zaphod58

Wingtip vortices trail upward and outward from the wingtips of a "heavy" and spin in a counterclockwise motion. When they reach their highest point (depending on weight and speed of the "heavy") they start to sink towards the ground. Once they hit the ground they will roll laterally at about 2 or 3 knots. A crosswind may keep the upwind vortice in the runway area for an extended time. The worst condition is a light quartering tailwind. In this case the upwind vortice will move towards and up the runway making the judgment of where to touchdown difficult.

If you were following a "heavy" on an ILS approach, it is possible to experience wake turbulence as you proceed down the glideslope. In this case you would fly your approach descending "one dot" below the glideslope center position (fly above the glideslope). In a previous post I stated that the autopilot should be used down to minimums. Here is one case where you would "hand fly" the approach - keeping your glideslope path "one dot below" to avoid any wake turbulence.

www.flywestwind.com...

Wingtip vortices roll along the ground after they hit, and are barely even noticable. Even for a 757, they wouldn't be much stronger than a few knots of wind rolling around.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Please everybody, stay on the topic.

Could the tips of the wings and tail of the 767's be able to slice through the multiple steel girders and floor slabs?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
Please everybody, stay on the topic.

Could the tips of the wings and tail of the 767's be able to slice through the multiple steel girders and floor slabs?


ok - lets stick on topic - and before you get carried away - with fantasy talk of " slicing through floor slabs "

lets look CAREFULLY at the facade - real life physics is not ` looney toons ` where everyting punches a perfect profile through solid objects

look carefully at the pics that YOU posted - the vert.stabiliser does not punch THROUGH even the facade - never mind anything else

the planes shape changes when it impacts the structural beams of the WTC - you do realise that - so pasting a profile over the hole is hardly scientific

bear in mind that the facade is just that - a decorative aluminium panel - what happens behid it is largely unseen - just like when a bullet goes through the cordura cover of a protective vest - the hole is visible from the outside - but the integrity of the vest unseen



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Uh, I thought the pro-explosive argument was that not many support coumns were damaged? So really the 'loony toons' hole is mainly just in the aluminium facade and the glass, otherwise the building would have collapsed there and then, huh?
I think you'll find the plane started shredding on impact..

Of course, if the hole wasn't made by the aircraft, then what was it? Also what sort of aircraft do you know which could be made out of a strong enough metal to punch through columns yet remain light enouhg to get off the ground anyway?

Of course, if there had beena similar hole the other side there may be a point to make, but there wasn't.

Out of curiosity, what would you expect to see from a 767 hitting the tower? If not what we did.

EDIT: Sorry didn't notice the post before mine somehow.. Too early..

[edit on 2-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape


1. ok - lets stick on topic - and before you get carried away - with fantasy talk of " slicing through floor slabs "

lets look CAREFULLY at the facade - real life physics is not ` looney toons ` where everyting punches a perfect profile through solid objects

2. look carefully at the pics that YOU posted - the vert.stabiliser does not punch THROUGH even the facade - never mind anything else

3. the planes shape changes when it impacts the structural beams of the WTC - you do realise that - so pasting a profile over the hole is hardly scientific

4. bear in mind that the facade is just that - a decorative aluminium panel - what happens behid it is largely unseen - just like when a bullet goes through the cordura cover of a protective vest - the hole is visible from the outside - but the integrity of the vest unseen



1. " fantasy talk" "looney toons", did they teach you to use those words in debate school?

2. The video clearly shows the ENTIRE plane going through the building.

3. The video clearly shows the plane doesn't crumple or change shape.

4. You can clearly see the steel girders have been sliced through.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
What steel girders? The outside facade was aluminum and glass. You CERTAINLY could NOT see the inner steel girders get split at the time of impact.

As far as changing shape, how much do you EXPECT them to change shape in the split seconds we see before they go into the buildings? Did you expect the planes to just hit the outside and explode instantly?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What steel girders? The outside facade was aluminum and glass. You CERTAINLY could NOT see the inner steel girders get split at the time of impact.

As far as changing shape, how much do you EXPECT them to change shape in the split seconds we see before they go into the buildings? Did you expect the planes to just hit the outside and explode instantly?



No, but afterwards you can see the steel girders have been sliced through. Could the wings and tail do that?

The plane doesn't change at all. It clearly disappears into the building without changing shape.

AND NO PLANE DEBRIS IS SEEN SHEERING OF AND BOUNCING BACK!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join