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.

 

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why push the engines to overheat and possile damage if you did not need to?
[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Why the hell would they care if they jacked up the engines? They didnt pay for it, and it was his one and only shot at the controls of an airliner, so why the hell not.

I guess you never rented a car from Enterprise. If you want to kind of experience what this terrorist experienced, go to Enterprise and rent yourself a Corvette and see if you dont accelerate that sucker well past 100. I know I did, and I didnt give a rats ass about the engine, cause it wasnt mine.




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


It doesn't MATTER if it increases or decreases as speed does. At the height the plane was flying at it was too high for jet blast to have rocked the cars, and it was so LOW that ANY wake turbulence coming off the wings would have caused an effect. However, just because it decreases as speed increases, that doesn't mean that it gets to the point where it's negligible and can be ignored. Wake turbulence is still something to worry about in flight. If you cross too close behind then you will still be impacted by wake turbulence.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
Why the hell would they care if they jacked up the engines?


But why would the need to push the engines, no one was chasing them. They had time to hit the targets.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It doesn't MATTER if it increases or decreases as speed does.


So show me wake turbulence at that speed, altitude and clean. If you believe it you sould be able to show me.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by DisInfo
Why the hell would they care if they jacked up the engines?


But why would the need to push the engines, no one was chasing them. They had time to hit the targets.


Its not about being chased. More inertia means more damage, as was the goal.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisInfo
Its not about being chased. More inertia means more damage, as was the goal.


By as shown, still could not casue much damage with aluminum airframe against a reinforced wall.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Short of getting my own 757 and crashing it into the Pentagon, your right. However, since I wouldnt do that, the onus is on you to prove that it was a conspiracy, or contrary to the official report.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Why push the engines to overheat and possile damage if you did not need to?






[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Could it be that the terrorists never spent many years learning what each warning light in the cockpit meant? All they knew was that you push the throttle forward, the airplane goes faster. Going faster meant less time for everyone to react against them and for the plane to do more damage.

Also, since you picked 60 feet, it must have been the last minute of the flight before hitting the Pentagon. Like everyone else has been saying, this makes the engine overheat issue irrelevant, since it's not likely that an engine failure in the last minute of flight is going to keep the airplane from hitting.

It has more than enough momentum to carry the mass over that distance.


In the time it took for me to post a reply, I see someone has derailed his own thread!


[edit on 15-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Could it be that the terrorists never spent many years learning what each warning light in the cockpit meant? .


Oh so now you agree the hijackers were not well trained? You guys keep changing your theories.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
No, your theories change as the wind blows. All you are doing now is cherry picking our comments to half-ass support your own kook ideas.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Did the wings suddenly stop producing lift? If the wings are producing lift, they are producing wake turbulence. It's that simple. Wake turbulence is a byproduct of the shape of the wings. Winglets HELP to alleviate the wake turbulence, but it is ALWAYS there when a wing is producing lift.




Clean configuration, wake turbulence.


Every aircraft generates a wake while in flight. Initially, when pilots encountered this wake in flight, the disturbance was attributed to "prop wash." It is known, however, that this disturbance is caused by a pair of counter-rotating vortices trailing from the wing tips. The vortices from larger aircraft pose problems to encountering aircraft. For instance, the wake of these aircraft can impose rolling moments exceeding the roll-control authority of the encountering aircraft. Further, turbulence generated within the vortices can damage aircraft components and equipment if encountered at close range. The pilot must learn to envision the location of the vortex wake generated by larger (transport category) aircraft and adjust the flight path accordingly.



Lift is generated by the creation of a pressure differential over the wing surface. The lowest pressure occurs over the upper wing surface and the highest pressure under the wing. This pressure differential triggers the roll up of the airflow aft of the wing resulting in swirling air masses trailing downstream of the wing tips. After the roll up is completed, the wake consists of two counter-rotating cylindrical vortices. (See
FIG 7-3-1.) Most of the energy is within a few feet of the center of each vortex, but pilots should avoid a region within about 100 feet of the vortex core.



When the vortices of larger aircraft sink close to the ground (within 100 to 200 feet), they tend to move laterally over the ground at a speed of 2 or 3 knots. (See FIG 7-3-5.)

www.faa.gov...



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
Could it be that the terrorists never spent many years learning what each warning light in the cockpit meant? .


Oh so now you agree the hijackers were not well trained? You guys keep changing your theories.



Who's "they"?

All I said was that they didn't know what the warning lights meant.

Are you telling me that if I sat you down in a B787 cockpit simulator and turned on various warning lights, that you would be able to tell me exactly what's wrong?

[edit on 15-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Clean configuration, wake turbulence.


Can you produce evidnece of turbulance at the pentagon , YES or NO?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Clean configuration, wake turbulence.


Can you produce evidnece of turbulance at the pentagon , YES or NO?


Can YOU?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Can you provide evidence that jet blast turned 90 degrees and went straight down to rock the cars? YES or NO

Unless you can prove that jet blast is the ONLY thing that can rock those cars, and it turned 90 degrees to hit the ground, then wake turbulence is the ONLY thing that could have rocked those cars or caused any kind of movement on the ground.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Who's "they"?


They ae people that believe the official story.

Yes i could figure out most of the warning lights, they are called IDIOT lights for a reason.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Clean configuration, wake turbulence.


Can you produce evidnece of turbulance at the pentagon , YES or NO?


YES

Turbulance At The Pentagon



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Can you provide evidence that jet blast turned 90 degrees and went straight down to rock the cars? YES or NO


Why would it have to turn 90 degrees, the plane was right on top of the cars? At least according to reports.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
No, it wasn't. Again it was AT LEAST 25 feet above them. That's at least 5 feet too high for jet blast to do anything for a car. And you would have to be in the main portion of the blast for it to cause your car to rock, not just on the edges.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, it wasn't. Again it was AT LEAST 25 feet above them.


Whos report stated it was 25 feet above them?




top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join