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: 13
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's another pic floating around showing the exact original location of the damaged light poles but I couldn't find it at short notice.


The Flight 77 FDR shows a flight path that it would not have hit the light poles.




posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But still no reports of wake turbulenace at the pentagon only the cars being rocked on the highway.


And what do you think caused it? Here's a hint.....it WASN'T jet blast. Cars being rocked would have been because of wingtip vortices when the plane passed overhead.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's another pic floating around showing the exact original location of the damaged light poles but I couldn't find it at short notice.


The Flight 77 FDR shows a flight path that it would not have hit the light poles.



In what respect?

Sorry for the one liner.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And what do you think caused it? Here's a hint.....it WASN'T jet blast. Cars being rocked would have been because of wingtip vortices when the plane passed overhead.


Which causes more turbulence, slow and dirty or fast and clean ?

[edit on 19-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
It. Does. Not. Matter. At the altitude the plane was at there was nowhere to go for the wingtip vortices BUT into the ground. Once they hit the ground they had to go somewhere. You keep acting like them being in a clean configuration means that there were no wingtip vortices. Just because a clean configuration has a LESSER effect from the vortices that doesn't mean that they are GONE. You STILL don't take a smaller plane and fly close to a 757 at cruising speed/altitude. If you do then the wingtip vortices will flip you. It happened several times before they found that the vortices off a 757 are as bad or worse than the ones from a larger plane. And that was in a configuration that according to you means there should be hardly any effect from them.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Which causes more turbulence, slow and dirty or fast and clean ?

[edit on 19-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Isn't this akin to saying to someone who claimed to read by candle light, "You couldn't have read by candle light. Which causes more light? The sun, or candles?"

I'm still waiting for the proof of your sanity which you haven't provided, despite the proof I provided for your being irrational.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You keep acting like them being in a clean configuration means that there were no wingtip vortices.


I did not say there would be no vortices, i asked which is worse.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm still waiting for the proof of your sanity which you haven't provided,


Are you really that immature?

I have over 25 years combined military and government service and can post documents to support it.

Do you have any work or life experience? It sure does not seem like it.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
And for the 5th time....it does not matter which is worse. At the altitude that flight 77 was flying at when it crossed the highway EITHER configuration would have caused the same effect. At low altitude the vortices go into the ground and roll along the ground.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And for the 5th time....it does not matter which is worse.


Why can't you answer a simple question?

Didn't you and others state before that the plane would not have been that close to the highway, now which is it, you cannot have it both ways?



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The Flight 77 FDR shows a flight path that it would not have hit the light poles.

That is a false statement.

Please show why, and how you can show where 77 was with nav numbers that are at best 1/4 mile off, and started 3000 feet off.

So how does the FDR show a path that does not hit the light posts when it has a true track heading of 61.2 degrees which lines up perfect to hit all poles. The last data points.

Then explain why, like many aircraft crashes, some data may be missing? Did the generators go out when the terrorist pushed the stick over forward on the last data point, shutting down the systems the FDR records. Or was it a system backlog. What makes you think you can tell where the FDR says 77 was?

But the Jet engines stuff is not a factor for 9/11. Does not matter if the engines overheated with a simulator that is not the engines on 77. And if it is similar, the 8 seconds in overheat are trivial for a crash done on purpose.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
That is a false statement.


Show me how it is false. I have the Flight 77 FDR data from the NTSB.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Good try at twisting my words. I said it would not have been close enough for the JET BLAST to have affected the cars, which means it had to be wingtip vortices causing them to rock.

You want a simple answer, fine, clean and fast has a lesser effect from wingtip vortices. But in the case of flight 77, it does not matter which had the lesser effect.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Are you really that immature?


If I applied the same elusive burden of proof to your sanity as you do to anything else, you'll never prove your sanity. That's my point.
You'd never be able to prove sanity, because I will reject anything evidence toward that effect because it conflicts with my view point. Then I will repeat over and over again, that you're obviously not rational and that I've never seen rational people act like you do.. Over and over and over again.
All this despite I have no training in psychology and I would reject anything from psychologists as suspect because of the source.

The same fallacies you see above, are what everyone here sees in your clockwork repetition that "there is no evidence the plane hit the pentagon" and "I've never seen x,y,z"



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, perhaps I can help with one of your questions re: wingtip vortices.

Basically, the heavier the airplane, the stronger the vortex off each wingtip. The vortices will get strongest in the heavy, low-speed landing configuration, i.e., full flaps and slats. The wing is producing the most lift in this configuration.

Remember how the vortices swirl...and remember that they trail behind the airplane. As to rotation direction, when viewed from behind, the left one rotates clockwise, the right counter-clockwise.

I think what trips people up about the low-flight 'impossibility' is the confusion with a phenomenon called 'ground effect'. This is most pronounced when flaps/slats extended, and usually within one-half the wingspan of the airplane above ground. In the clean config, the effect is negligible.

Hope this clears it up?

WW



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I said it would not have been close enough for the JET BLAST to have affected the cars, which means it had to be wingtip vortices causing them to rock.


So what was the distance the plane was above the highway? Close enough for jet blast to hit or not ?

Thanks for supporting my point that turbulence is worse low and dirty vs fast and clean.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
First of all, at this point I have to believe you are deliberately trolling. You CAN'T be this obtuse.

Secondly, for the 10th time, NO the plane was NOT CLOSE ENOUGH FOR THE JET BLAST TO HIT THE CARS.

Thirdly, what difference does it make if it's worse slow and dirty, or fast and clean. The wingtip vortices are there NO MATTER WHAT.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, perhaps I can help with one of your questions re: wingtip vortices.


I have no question about wing vortices or ground effect, i know what they are. I can even quote all the FAA regs on all of them including jet blast. I am posting facts , evidence and eyewitness testimony about jet blast.

Its really sad thet when i originally brought up turbulence at the Pentagon most people stated i retarded for bringing anything about turbulence up, then when i bring up about jet blast everyone say OH NO it has to be wake turbulence or wintip vortices.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Thirdly, what difference does it make if it's worse slow and dirty, or fast and clean. The wingtip vortices are there NO MATTER WHAT.


Its really sad thet when i originally brought up turbulence at the Pentagon most people stated i was retarded for bringing anything about turbulence up, then when i bring up about jet blast everyone say OH NO it has to be wake turbulence or wintip vortices.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
If you know all about wake turbulence then why did you say "wake turbulence OR wingtip vortices"? They're the same thing.

And you didn't bring up turbulence you said from the start that it was JET BLAST, and brought up a temp warning you got on the engine simulator. The plane crossed the highway too high for it to have been jet blast, so it HAD to be wingtip vortices.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join