Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

Originally posted by HLR53K
Mind posting a link to where it says that this car was on the highway?

I believe it was suppposed to be one of the cars in this quote.

www.earth-citizens.net...

Some witnesses who were inside cars on rd 27 said that their car was rocked and pushed sidely on the road. This limited effect is coherent with the overfly of a Boeing 757 plane flying at approximately 350 mph with engines at full throttle. The case presented in the video quoted above is completely different. This "no cars were pushed over the safety barrier of rd 27" statement is by no way an argument to say that the Pentagon was not hit by a B 757.

There is also a witness that was close to the Pentagon that stated it did not look like the pilot had control of the plane as it hit the light poles.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I believe it was suppposed to be one of the cars in this quote.

www.earth-citizens.net...

Some witnesses who were inside cars on rd 27 said that their car was rocked and pushed sidely on the road. This limited effect is coherent with the overfly of a Boeing 757 plane flying at approximately 350 mph with engines at full throttle. The case presented in the video quoted above is completely different. This "no cars were pushed over the safety barrier of rd 27" statement is by no way an argument to say that the Pentagon was not hit by a B 757.

There is also a witness that was close to the Pentagon that stated it did not look like the pilot had control of the plane as it hit the light poles.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Wait...if you're using this site and it says that the B757 was only going at 350 - 400 mph, then why are you asking us to set the engine simulation applet to 480 mph?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ok, I'm very confused on what you are trying to accomplish in this thread. What are you bringing to the table here?

1.) Overheating engines
2.) Jet blast
3.) Wing tip vortexes

All imply a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, which is exactly what is stated in the 9/11 commission report. So I guess my question is, what is your problem with the official story?

I personally see many gaps and inconsistencies in the story they have fed us. However the questions you are posing and the evidence you are demanding have no bearing on changing that official story.

1.) Overheating engines mean nothing. A plane can still crash with hot engines.

2.) Jet blast, if it occurred only proves a jet hit the pentagon nothing else. If jet blast was not a cause of the cars moving, it still proves nothing.

3.) Wing tip vortexes also prove a large plane passed overhead. Their absence proves nothing again.


Also, you should not take your eyewitness information as more then a grain of salt. Many eyewitnesses also said what hit Pentagon was no 757. Fact is there are dozens of contradicting eyewittness reports of the events of 9/11.

If you are trying to prove something here that has not already been "proven" by what "they tell us," then please tell me what it is. Otherwise you are just reaching for something to argue about. Countless things could have caused cars to move, unless you are trying to prove it was or wasn't an aircraft, missle, ufo, rocket, or other air vehicle you are bringing nothing to the table IMHO.

Sway.

Originally posted by DisInfo
Another common tactic. If you dont have a PHD is areodynamics and are a aircraft engineer, they wont listen. Silly premise.

I just watched a rerun of American Dad. It's the episode where Roger the alien dresses up as Kevin Bacon and everyone believes him.

The setup is that Roger, Hayley, and Steve are at a restaurant and he's getting free food only because everyone believes he's Kevin Bacon.


Steve: Roger, we can't keep doing this.
Hayley: Yeah, I mean, it's stealing.
Roger: Oh, oh, excuse me, are you an ethicist? Are you? Is there an ethicist in the house?!
Woman: I'm an ethicist.
Roger: Well, screw you, I'm Kevin Bacon!


Reminds me of the response we usually see regarding DisInfo's quote above. Sorry to detract, I just had to. A bit of forum humor (please don't attack me for it).

[edit on 20-4-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by Sway33
1.) Overheating engines
2.) Jet blast
3.) Wing tip vortexes

All imply a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, which is exactly what is stated in the 9/11 commission report. So I guess my question is, what is your problem with the official story?

Well i am simply bringing up many things that question the official story.

1. If there was turbulence casued by a large jet why was it not reported by those close to the Pentagon?

2. A large plane flying that low and that fast would be hard to control with all the forces and turbulences at work. (as stated by 1 witness near the Pentagon).

3. If a large palne was flying that low there should be more reports of jet blast.

4. Would the hijackers take a chance of causing engine failure before hitting their targets ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i am simply bringing up many things that question the official story.

1. If there was turbulence casued by a large jet why was it not reported by those close to the Pentagon?

2. A large plane flying that low and that fast would be hard to control with all the forces and turbulences at work. (as stated by 1 witness near the Pentagon).

3. If a large palne was flying that low there should be more reports of jet blast.

4. Would the hijackers take a chance of causing engine failure before hitting their targets ?

I love the fact that you are trying to get to the bottom of things, however It is just my opinion that you are asking the wrong questions.

1.) If you seen a plane fly over your head and smash into the most protected building in the united states would you remember a slight air disturbance or the explosion, which was probably felt and heard for miles? Like I said, the absence or lack of reports on air turbulence does not prove it was or was not a jet that passed overhead.

2.) And that means what? It means nothing again. Just because something might be hard to do does not mean it cant be done.

3.)Why should there be more reports of jet blast? You know this how? Jet blast is simply as stated many times here, not a factor for a fast moving airborne craft, many videos have shown this to be the case. You have no evidence that a fully throttled 757 produces enough jet blast while in flight to produce enough of a disturbance to do anything more then blow your hair around, no matter how high off the ground the plane is flying.

And yet again the absence of jet blast simply mean no one reported it or it wasn't there, each of which does not mean a 757 did or did not fly overhead.

4.) First off you have no evidence that the engines in question overheated at all. A simulator is hardly evidence especially when its not even the same engine being tested.

Asking could of, would of, questions also leads to nothing. You can not possibly know what someone will do or not do at any given point in time. So asking if the hijackers would have risked it is a pointless question for this investigation.

If you look at the crash at the Pentagon there are a ton more relevant questions that could actually prove or disprove a hypothesis on what happened. The questions you are posing could neither prove nor disprove a 757 jetliner crashed into the Pentagon.

Which is why I asked what you are trying to prove. Collecting evidence means nothing if it can't point to an answer.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


1. You've said those in cars felt the turbulence so that requirement appears satisfied.

2. It would definitely be hard fighting the ground effect but not impossible, requiring some nose-down attitude to overcome it - angling the engine blast above the horizontal, not below.

3. Your figure of a 20' cone of turbulence due to jet blast would require the engine to be within 10' of the ground if flying horizontal and at about 700ft/sec how long would it fulfill that condition?

4. They wouldn't be worried about damaging an engine in the last seconds of flight considering the objective. From the FDR, is there a temperature alarm recorded?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA...your 'quote from external source' attributed to something called 'earth-citizens.net' is so suspect, you should double- and triple-check before you use these sources.

From this 'external source'....they twice used the term 'rd 27'....when, in fact it is 'Route' 27, otherwise known as Washington Boulevard....a highway I drive all the time.

AND, to use an eyewitness 'testimony' that his car was moved "sidely"....come on! That isn't even a word!!!

Eyewitnesses who can tell, from the ground, that the jet was 'at full throttle'?

It is not useful to use 'eyewitness' accounts from unqualified individuals, sorry.

WW

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is not useful to use 'eyewitness' accounts from unqualified individuals, sorry.

So that would rule out almost all of the eyewitness testimony about the Pentagon wouldn't it ? That would really question the officail story.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
That would really question the officail story.

Exactly!

Everyone perceives everything differently. So reasonable doubt has to be taken into consideration when dealing with eyewitness testimony.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA...

NO, eyewitnessess' testimony would not 'rule out' everything...

My point is....'eyewitness' observations are inherently inaccurate.

A: They are not 'expert' witnesses

B: They are not in a position to see everything

C: There are always conflicts in 'eyewitness' accounts, because it is based on perspective and perception....very subjective parameters.

Take a step away from the 9/11 controversy, for just a moment.....

Every time you examine 'eyewitness' accounts of any accident, whether it's a bicycle or a car....you will see how the 'eyewitness' is not verifiable, in most cases.

My point is....we just cannot use these accounts, even if you wish to, because they are from 'amateurs/, if you will. They are not 'vetted' by qualified observors....

WW

[my spelling, changed two words....'form' to 'from' and 'becaquase' to 'because'

edit over.



[edit on 4/21/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
My point is....'eyewitness' observations are inherently inaccurate.

But most of the official story relies on the witnesses at the Pentagon.

So that would mean the official story needs to be questioned more.

Originally posted by Sway33
Everyone perceives everything differently. So reasonable doubt has to be taken into consideration when dealing with eyewitness testimony.

Thats why i keep asking for evidence when people that believe the official story claim it is correct.

I have yet to see any hard evidnece that supports the official story.


[edit on 21-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, most of the 'official' story has nothing to do with 'eyewitnesses'....

stop changing your story, please.

We can all scroll up and see what you wrote before, so stop it!!

WW

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, most of the 'official' story has nothing to do with 'eyewitnesses'....

Most of the official story of what happened at the Pentagon is based on eywitness testimony.

I have seen no official reports and physical evidence, mostly only witness testimony.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1So that would rule out almost all of the eyewitness testimony about the Pentagon wouldn't it ? That would really question the officail story.

No, that just means that there's mechanisms at work evaluating eyewitness testimonys that you so called amateur internet investigators dont have a clue about, while investigators from various state departments involved in 9/11
have proper training and long experience and because of that will reach conclusions that's different from yours.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats why i keep asking for evidence when people that believe the official story claim it is correct.

I have yet to see any hard evidnece that supports the official story.

I do not think the official story is correct either. But your looking for hard evidence where none can exist, as I have been saying. Whether or not engine overheating, jet blast, or wing tip vortexes occurred, the answer has no hard evidence impact on the investigation, and can only be verified by eyewitness accounts. That is not hard evidence, circumstantial at best.


[edit on 21-4-2008 by Sway33]

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal
No, that just means that there's mechanisms at work evaluating eyewitness testimonys that you so called amateur internet investigators dont have a clue about, while investigators from various state departments involved in 9/11
have proper training and long experience and because of that will reach conclusions that's different from yours.

But anyone with basic common sense can see that most of the witnesses are not experts and thier testimonies would not hold up in court, specailly when they could not decide what type of plane it was or if it hit the ground or building.

So again, since most of the official story about the Pentagon is based on witness testimony we really have to question its validity.

Originally posted by Sway33 But your looking for hard evidence where none can exist, as I have been saying.

But the evidnece does exist we just have to keep digging untill we get it.

We knw the FBI has over 40,00 crime scene photos, we know they have the videos from all the cameras in the area around the Pentagon.

The buildings were a crime scene so there had to be a criminal investigation done.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the evidnece does exist we just have to keep digging untill we get it.

We knw the FBI has over 40,00 crime scene photos, we know they have the videos from all the cameras in the area around the Pentagon.

The buildings were a crime scene so there had to be a criminal investigation done.

Evidence exists on other subjects on 9/11, but NO evidence to prove or disprove jet blast, wing tip vortexes and engine overheating occurred. The only evidence you have on these subjects is eyewitness testimony which is not really evidence that can withstand scrutiny.

Ultima, as much as I like your willingness to dig for the truth, I have to agree with the recent posters. You're asking questions that are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Whether or not an engine overheated and if witnesses did or did not "feel" (feeling is highly, highly subjective) the air turbulence from an airplane doesn't really answer any "truth questions" at all.

Us in the engineering world all know that white paper specs and simulations are only a very close approximation to the real world. Close, but not 100% exact.

Just because a simulation that's based on equations that were derived from plotting best fit lines to a bunch of experimental points said an engine should have overheated, doesn't necessarily mean that it really did.

The difference between the temperature at 480 mph and 500 mph was only about 9 K, which is really insignificant rise over the range that the engine materials can handle (it's already withstanding 1,600 K, so a .5625% increase is meaningless). Like we've all said, engines do not fail and cause the airplane to fall out of the sky.

But "why would the terrorists risk overheating the engine?" Like Sway asked, do you know for a fact that they did?