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: 14
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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]


It's really sad that when you reinforce your theory time and again with the same planks, and everytime your "proof" gets turned into kindling you trot out another bolstering set of splinters already disputed. Then you look at the mighty pile of toothpicks in aggregate as though you have constructed an impregnable stockade or log cabin, and declare as you gaze upon it, "Look what I have wrought, with mine own hands, wisest and smartest of men. I am winning."



[edit on 20-4-2008 by _Del_]




posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


OK, ULTIMA....sorry I was off-topic, got caught up in the latest discussions, thought I would contribute.

The original point of this thread, though...was about the computer Sim for the engine(s), right?

Maybe pointed out already, too many pages to scroll through...an engine over-temp doesn't mean it melts immediately and stops producing thrust, but you know that already, with all of your experience.

All we can see in the cockpit is the EGT. We know our various maximums (maxima?) depending on whether it's the max starting temp, or MAX T/O (5 minute limit) or Max Continuous, or whatever. It is certainly possible to exceed these temps...when it happens, it's a write-up in the logbook, and the first thing the mechanic wants to know is "how long was it overtemped?" Because they can go into their books and determine whether or not it can be signed off within parameters, and monitored, or whether it needs to be boroscoped, and signed off....or if it needs an engine change and overhaul (after the boroscope, if warranted).

So, we do not overtemp the engines (emergencies excepted) because we don't want a note to come see the Chief Pilot.....


WW



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
The one thing I want to add about wingtip vortices is that they are much larger in magnitude than the "jet blast". As I've shown in the B747 video, the engine exhaust gets overpowered by the vortices and blend in. It is not strictly the jet blast that is rocking the cars.

If you do a cross-sectional "cut" of the jet exhaust and the vortices coming off the wings, even at the 20 foot diameter "cone" you argued, it's still many times smaller than the huge wingspan of the airplane.

And from that article I posted, wingtip vortices have been documented to gather strength as it gets further away from the airplane and will start settling as much as 1,000 feet below the flight altitude of the airplane. That is why it's advised for smaller (or any aircraft, actually) to fly at a higher altitude than the airplane in front of it.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And you didn't bring up turbulence you said from the start that it was JET BLAST,


YES, i brought up turbulence years ago, people like you stated i was nuts. Now when i talk about jet blast you and them change thier story and state it was turbulence.

Do not make me go back and quote from old posts.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The original point of this thread, though...was about the computer Sim for the engine(s), right?


Yes, it was for the overtemp of the engine AND the jet blast.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Go ahead. Show me where I said you were nuts Ultima. Your OP stated JET BLAST. You have NEVER stated it was wake turbulence. When we said wake turbulence and not jet blast you have come up with all kinds of different arguments stating that it was jet blast. Please, bring up quotes from previous posts, I'd love to see where I said you were nuts.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You have NEVER stated it was wake turbulence.


I stated a long time their was wake turbulence and i also brought up jet blast.

So you would agree then that their were tubulence at the Pentagon?

Anyone stating that their wasn;t would be wrong, correct ?

[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Show me where you did Ultima. When we brought up wake turbulence, you stuck to jet blast. Your argument was that wake turbulence is much less significant when a plane is in a clean fast configuration, and that jet blast caused the cars to rock. If you admitted it was wake turbulence the thread wouldn't be 14 pages long.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Show me where you did Ultima. When we brought up wake turbulence,


I brought up wake turbuleance a while back. Several times in fact.

posted on 6-12-2007 @ 15:49

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well if you think thats bad what kind of turbulence do you think the plane at the Pentagon should have casued?

A 757 going about 500 mph just several feet off the ground, you should have a lot more types of turbulence.



[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
The only time you mentioned the word turbulence to my recollection was when stating the "turbulence" from low altitude flight would make a low level pass impossible. Which is demonstrably untrue. So if you're going to twist it by saying we said wake turbulence didn't exist, let me save you the breath. We said wake turbulence would not make the plane uncontrollable.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Well guys, i am just going to keep posting facts and evidence, if you do not want to look at it thats fine. Just proves my point about people that believe the official story.

investigate911.bravehost.com...

"The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping alight pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator.
(Lee Evey Manager of the Pentagon Renovtion)

If a planes wing actually clipped a car antenna, the car would have flipped over. Dont believe me? Download this video which is a "staged demonstration" showing an automobile being blown about like a tumbleweed by the blast of an aircraft engine exhaust.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Like the others have been saying, we don't disagree that the jet blast on a stationary, ground level airplane couldn't flip cars and the such. This comment is in relation to the video the guy posted.

If that was true all the time, then this guy shooting these videos won't be standing and the cars on the highway in front of the runway would have been blown off.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


Here's a great article I found too:

www.prisonplanet.com...

[edit on 20-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Like the others have been saying, we don't disagree that the jet blast on a stationary, ground level airplane couldn't flip cars and the such.


If a planes wing actually clipped a car antenna, the car would have flipped over. Dont believe me? Download this video which is a "staged demonstration" showing an automobile being blown about like a tumbleweed by the blast of an aircraft engine exhaust.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


If a planes wing actually clipped a car antenna, the car would have flipped over. Dont believe me? Download this video which is a "staged demonstration" showing an automobile being blown about like a tumbleweed by the blast of an aircraft engine exhaust.


[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


See the article link with pictures of low-flying aircraft. They may not be going full throttle, but like you said, going slow and with control surfaces extended, they should be creating much more turbulence.


I'll try to explain the difference between the staged demonstration in the video and a moving airplane using the law of conservation of energy (the total energy output of the engines is fixed).

A static airplane is not moving anywhere (obviously). So all of the energy of the engines are not producing any work on the airplane itself. Thus, all the energy is forced backwards and imparted onto the object on the ground.

However, when an airplane is moving in steady, forward flight, the energy of the engines must be being directed into causing this forward flight, correct? The airplane will need most, if not all, of this energy to maintain flight.

L = 1/2*ro*S*Cl*velocity^2. To get the wings to produce lift at least equal to the weight of the airplane, the airplane needs to be going above a certain velocity. To go above this certain velocity, the airplane needs to use at least a certain amount of energy from the engines.

This "flight energy" would then have to be subtracted from the total energy output of the engines. The resulting amount of energy would be what's imparted onto the ground object. Since an airplane is much, much larger than any car, it needs, again, most if not all of the engine energy to keep moving.

This is why the direct jet blast from an airplane in flight will not cause things to be so dramatically blown away as in the staged demonstration video.

Hopefully this quick explanation makes sense to everyone?

[edit on 20-4-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 20-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
This is why the direct jet blast from an airplane in flight will not cause things to be so dramatically blown away as in the staged demonstration video.


Thats why i never stated the cars were blown away, i stated they were rocked as per witness statements.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Thats why i never stated the cars were blown away, i stated they were rocked as per witness statements.


Then...the website you posted is incorrect, no? I was responding to you posting information from that website which said that the cars should have been blown away (otherwise he wouldn't have posted that video?).

So I'll confirm that you are not switching back and forth between "blown away" and "rocked" but asking that "rocked" is your final answer?


Oh I see. I made a mistype, which is probably why we went down this course. I meant that there was no disagreement that a static engine could blow a car over. Oops!


But if you accept my energy explanation, then it still applies to why the engine blast couldn't be rocking the cars at that height. Most, if not all, of the energy was being directed into keeping the airplane moving forward. The rocking is the result of the vortices from airplane passing through the air.

You'd have to be pretty close to the engines while it's in flight to feel its effects. And since it's moving forward at a substantial speed, the impulse time on the object on the ground is very small.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 20-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Then...the website you posted is incorrect, no?


No, please read the first sentence again. I will bold the word you need to notice.

"If" a planes wing actually clipped a car antenna.



[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No, please read the first sentence again. I will bold the word you need to notice.

"If" a planes wing actually clipped a car antenna.



[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Ah, then yes, if. I misread it as going back to the light pole height. The car antenna is new to me. All I've been reading so far is 60 feet (from the thread's beginning) and the light pole height.

That's pretty low. Where the hell was this car parked?


[edit on 20-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
That's pretty low. Where the hell was this car parked?



Well it was not parked, it was on the highway.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well it was not parked, it was on the highway.



I did some searching and found no reference to this car being on the highway.

The most I've found is just the original quote of that witness saying it clipped the light poles and a car antenna on the way in.

Since the placement of this witness is unknown to me, in my mind, I assumed that he was on the ground somewhere (i.e. between the highway and the Pentagon), so it would have been hard for him to see it clip the antenna on a moving car (much less the antenna itself on the moving car). That's the reason I asked where it was parked.

Mind posting a link to where it says that this car was on the highway?


More on my thoughts:

Since the quote included a construction trailer and generator, I remember that those two objects were right next to the Pentagon itself (from the various photos of the two). That's where I'm getting the idea that the car was not on the highway, but parked close to the Pentagon.

I also see that the quote is by Lee Evey, the renovation manager. As such, would it not be safe to assume that he was close to the Pentagon working on that day? Thus, it's my reasoning that unless he had binocular vision, it would have been hard for him to see a moving car antenna being clipped on the highway. Isn't it more reasonable that the car he was talking about was not on the highway?

[edit on 20-4-2008 by HLR53K]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join