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: 18
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's another low landing 747 right over top calm water and people having a grand ole time


www.youtube.com...


This is clearly fake. Ultima has already explained to you that these people would be crushed and tossed about by the exhaust plumes and vortices of that aircraft. He also read something somewhere that said this cannot happen for somereason. Please stop posting lies.

Brought to you by "Del" -- an equal opportunity smart-ass.


(Yes, I'm feeling snarky today...)


Of course, my bad. I will contact these people, the pilot and the camera person to explain this never happened and they should apologize to Ultima for their deceptions. My most humblest of apologies


[edit on 25-4-2008 by jfj123]




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Great vids, jfj!!

Speed is life! I'll drink to that!

WW



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
In the first video, you can see the minimal impact the turbulence of the B747 has on the surface of the water.

To others, I don't have to explain this, but you Ultima, I might have to. See, water is a liquid that will displace when a significant force is applied to it. In that video, we only see a minimal impact of the vortices on the surface of the water. At that height (60 feet, as you claim), if the engines do push cars as you claim, then there should be a massive disturbance on the ocean surface no?

All this seems to validate what those other guys have been saying all along. At altitude, the impact of the vortices and engine blast isn't significant enough to start shove cars "sidely".


Oh he's going to be pissed when he checks back at 3am.

Of course, none of the videos you posted are actually facts and evidence about your side of the debate happening in real life.

We all know that Ultima's the say-all-end-all in what is and is not fact and evidence. He's been in the Air Force and has seen all this and obviously knows a lot more than the combined knowledge of a guy with common sense, a pilot, and an aerospace engineer...



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
This is clearly fake. Ultima has already explained to you that these people would be crushed and tossed about by the exhaust plumes and vortices of that aircraft.


Please do not lie and misquote me.

We are supposed to be having an adult discussion here.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Will you admit then, good sir, that it is possible for a large aircraft to fly low to the ground causing little or no disturbance to objects on the ground? Perhaps enough to cause a wind gust (as you can hear in the video) or even to rattle a car's windows, but not enough to "move them" as you stated earlier? Please note I am talking about the combined effect of jet blast and wake turbulence, as is evidenced in the video; I am not interested in playing semantics and redefining all the terms to fit whatever angle you are pursuing.

[quote=ULTIMA1]
No i am just stating facts about what happened with the engines.

And that the jet blast was more then enough to move cars and cause damage.



[edit on 26-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Will you admit then, good sir, that it is possible for a large aircraft to fly low to the ground causing little or no disturbance to objects on the ground?


No, because their are such things as,

Ground effect

Jet blast

Wake turbulence

You really should do some research before posting about something you seem to know very little about.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
here's a video of a low flying 757


1. Arfe any of the plazne doing 500 mph ?

2. Are any flying within feet of cars on a highway?

I believe the answers are NO and NO.




Since you know this to be true, please tell me the following:
1. Exactly how far up these planes were from the ground.
2. How far they were from said people, planes, etc.
3. How fast they were going.

Since you know the answer is NO and NO, you must be able to answer these 3 questions. I anxiously await your responses.



You seem to have forgotten to answer my questions so I'm going to repost them for your convenience. Please read my quote above. Thank you.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Great videos and pics people

Spectacular actually

Sort of wraps this up as a bit of a dead end as far as evidence goes in the way of the OP intention. As for wake turbulence, that 747 with flaps down would be causing a relatively large amount of it yet there's no swimmers being blown out of the water.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No, because their are such things as,

Ground effect

Jet blast

Wake turbulence

You really should do some research before posting about something you seem to know very little about.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Yep, exactly what I expected to see him post when he's been cornered. He uses his "I'm just obviously smarter than you" card. Apparently, you only know how to "research" if you are one of two things:

1. Ultima, himself
2. You agree with him blindly

Odd...

How he believes the videos that were posted did not address all three of his issues (jet blast, ground effect, wake turbulence) is beyond me. They clearly show multiple aircraft making very (maybe dangerously) close approaches and no one being seriously moved around. Like I said earlier (which he conveniently ignored), not even the water surface was disturbed that much from a B747. This is clear, plain-as-day, video evidence! How hard is it to accept????


The ironic thing is that as you say this, I look back at the thread and you really haven't done anything more than just post sections of another person's website as your "research".

Whatever happened to "not believing everything that they're told"? Seems like you're taking his word for it, just because he wrote what he did on this website. Oh wait...that's right! Your quote only pertains to any site that says things to support the official story. All websites that you use are automatically immune to any scrutiny.

The guy who wrote the website is clearly a professional with many years of experience (sarcasm).

[edit on 26-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
How he believes the videos that were posted did not address all three of his issues (jet blast, ground effect, wake turbulence) is beyond me.


So you are saying that the evidnece and the FAA are all wrong and only you are right ?

I am still waiting for evidence to debate the evidence and the site posted (along with the FAA). But then i know you wont becasue you live in a fantasy world and only believe what you are told and do not do any research.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


His other option is that he will refuse to answer questions after making silly statements and/or claim they are irrelevent. This makes it very hard to have an adult conversation as he wants to lead a cult of personality and not an investigation.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
His other option is that he will refuse to answer questions after making silly statements and/or claim they are irrelevent. This makes it very hard to have an adult conversation as he wants to lead a cult of personality and not an investigation.


Still waiting for evidence that the evidence and the FAA are wrong.



[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
His other option is that he will refuse to answer questions after making silly statements and/or claim they are irrelevent. This makes it very hard to have an adult conversation as he wants to lead a cult of personality and not an investigation.


Still waiting for evidence that the evidence and the FAA are wrong.



[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


still waiting for you to answer my questions as posted 3 times now.

[edit on 26-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Hahahaha. Oh?! Truly?! Maybe all the people getting whipped around by the jet blast (and the turbulence which would be worse if the plane was dirty) happened just off screen? Or perhaps that's why the video ends when it does? MAYBE the videographer was hit by a rogue vortex (or some very irregular jet blast, since you prefer that as a powerful force) and sent out to sea thus killing the video. I'm sure that's it....
youtube.com...

Why would you lie and ignore evidence? Why?

Your insulting the memory of hundreds of people (to say nothing of the intelligence of the posters on this board). You're blindly ignoring the testimony of several people who have experience in the field. Experience (to be generous to you) atleast as valid as your own.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'm still waiting for evidence that the low flying aircraft would produce more than enough jet blast (and vortices, because I feel generous) to move cars or cause damage in light of the fact fine sand on the beach and water in the ocean appear to be relatively uneffected.



No i am just stating facts about what happened with the engines.

And that the jet blast was more then enough to move cars and cause damage.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you are saying that the evidnece and the FAA are all wrong and only you are right ?

I am still waiting for evidence to debate the evidence and the site posted (along with the FAA). But then i know you wont becasue you live in a fantasy world and only believe what you are told and do not do any research.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


First, I'm believing the video evidence that was shown to me. If you watch them, they show exactly what the others are trying to explain to you. This video evidence has a lot more weight to their side than your random clips of a random website that is based completely on another person's opinion.

Second, you haven't made reference to any FAA documents that I know of. Please refresh my memory as to what FAA "evidence" you are referring to.

Third, I don't know what you're talking about, but I live in the aerospace world. I have studied and applied the hows and whys of airplane design, fluid analysis, structural analysis, and propulsion analysis. Maybe 100 years ago this would have been called a "fantasy" world, but look where we are now. Not so much a fantasy anymore.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
First, I'm believing the video evidence that was shown to me.


But i am basing my statement on factual reports from agencies like the FAA and NASA.

I am still waiting for actual evidence to debate my statements.



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Why would you lie and ignore evidence? Why?


I could ask you the same questoin.

Are you stating that official reports are wrong and only you are right just from what you see on videos ?

A video has been psoted that shows a plane has major turbulence at slow speeds with gear and flaps down (but there are still turbulence when clean but not as major) . I suggest you go back and look at it, but you probably wont since it proves what i have stated.





[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....wake turbulence....worse when dirty, heavy and slow.

In a no-wind situation, the wingtip vortices will spread out slightly, as they swirl and eventually dissipate.

In a crosswind, the vortex 'upwind' may be 'blown' over the runway itself, hence a pilot of a light airplane landing behind a larger, heavier airplane should be cognizant of this. ALSO, vortices dissipate very, very quickly (a few minutes) when they inter-act with the ground....they lose their 'potency'.

The vortices do not affect much on the ground....most that I've seen, for instance, is in a parking lot at LAX.....calm day, jet in the landing config flies over at about 300-400 feet....and about 3 seconds later, the trees move a little....the TOPS of the trees!!! That effect lasts for about 2 seconds.

Cars don't move, windshields don't break.

AND.....the exhaust from the engines does not move 'downwards'!

If the derned airplane is on the ground, and running the engines at a high power setting, and you're directly behind, then yes, depending on your distance (forces diminishes rapidly, I think on the order of the square root of distance) there will be 'jet-blast'.

We are put into 'Position and Hold' seconds after the preceeding airplane has been cleared for takeoff. If the preceeding airplane is a 'heavy' (over 300,000 lbs) there is a need for mmore separation.....horizontal (5 miles)....but we will still be cleared 'into position and hold'....or the British version, so quaint....'Line Up and Wait'....

SO, get off this nonsense about 'jet-blast' as it relates to AAL77....please.

WW



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA.....wake turbulence....worse when dirty, heavy and slow.


Yes as stated wake turbulence are worse when dirty, heavy and slow. NOT fast and clean like Flight 77.

So it would seem that the jet blast would have been a cause of rocking the cars since the wake turbulence would not have been that major.


We are put into 'Position and Hold' seconds after the preceeding airplane has been cleared for takeoff. If the preceeding airplane is a 'heavy' (over 300,000 lbs) there is a need for mmore separation.....


Yes, this 'Position and Hold' is due to the jet blast from the plane ahead as it takesoff (takeoff means gettinng into the air, there is jet blast in the air after takeoff), at least according to the FAA.


[edit on 26-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join