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: 19
1
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA!!!! DID you read my post??

"Jet-blast" is nonsense!!!!!!

Jet engines do NOT direct their thrust at an angle downwards!!!

Why not look up a new, way-out theory? The structure of the airplane momentarily broke the Sound Barrier, in the last 1.78 seconds before impact!

Give that one a try, eh?!!

It was already on its way to impact, maybe pieces started to shear off....but momentum did the damage, ultimately......ULTIMA!

WW

[posted, then had a thought....ever heard of Mach Tuck?]

[edit on 4/26/0808 by weedwhacker]




posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Jet engines do NOT direct their thrust at an angle downwards!!!


I never stated they did direct thier thrust at an angle downward. Why do you guys have to misquote me?



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA....no 'mis-quote'.....jsut your incorrect assertions of 'jet-blast'.

You are the one who brought it up, but you don't understand it.

Sad.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA....no 'mis-quote'.....jsut your incorrect assertions of 'jet-blast'.


Then show me where i stated they did direct thier thrust at an angle downward. OR admit you misquoted me.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, oh STOP IT!!!!

You are being deliberately obtuse, and ducking and dodging as usual.

I NEVER quoted you.....I discussed a post you made, nothing more. Do I 'quote'??? No.

You asserted that 'jet-blast' from AAL77 had some effect on cars in the Pentagon parking lot....right???? Or, were you just repeating someone else's assertion, and being sarcastic?

perhaps I misinterpreted?

WW



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I NEVER quoted you.....I discussed a post you made, nothing more. Do I 'quote'???


Show me where i stated direct thier thrust at an angle downward, OR admit you misquoted me.


[edit on 27-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Here's a simple way of solving all of this.

Find some video or picture that is independent of anything to do with 9/11, that shows an airplane similar to a B757 in flight rocking a ground vehicle with its engines as it flies over it.

There has to be one out there if it can happen.

And no, the witness statement doesn't exactly count. I want to see a video or pictures, as that would essentially be undeniable proof that jet blast from a large airplane can rock a ground vehicle.


If I remember correctly, Ultima, you pointed to an FAA document about research of airport signs being sheared off by "wind-loading", as the FAA calls it. The one question I have that isn't distinguished in the report is which signs were being sheared off by jet blast and which ones were sheared by wake turbulence.

Also, if it was just 100% jet blast as you say it is, then why would the FAA keep using the phrase "jet blast and/or wake turbulence" so much and why would they investigate into both jet blast and wake turbulence? Seems like wake turbulence has just as much or more of an effect.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 27-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
With the combined effect of the B757's supercritical wing and ground effect it's very likely that they had a nose down attitude seconds before impact, as the center of pressure moves aft as the speed increases.

So jet blast should play a insignificant role here.

Just a thought



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
What's been proven here

An engine pushed too hard for too long may produce an engine temperature alarm.
Moving aircraft create an air disturbance from a variety of sources including the engines.

Does any of that require proving?

It's a question of how much and that's closely related to altitude if we're looking at the effect on ground-level objects. The examples presented (including the airport signs) show clearly that the aircraft has to virtually be on the ground to have any significant effect at that level like less than say 10'.

Again I don't think anyone is surprised.

AA77 would have been at that altitude or less for perhaps the last 100' or less of its flight which gives a time to observe the direct effects of less than 150 milliseconds.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Also, if it was just 100% jet blast as you say it is, then why would the FAA keep using the phrase "jet blast and/or wake turbulence" so much and why would they investigate into both jet blast and wake turbulence?


Maybe becasue jet blast can be just as distructive as wake turbulence.

Here is the site again.

www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov...

Airport signs at certain critical locations at O’Hare International Airport and other major U.S. airports are being sheared off their mounting legs at the frangible coupling from aircraft jet engine blast and/or wake turbulence forces.This damage to the sign increases the chance of foreign object damage (FOD) as well as the loss of visual guidance for other aircraft. If much stronger couplings are installed, the advantages of frangibility are lost and the sign panel itself is subject to damage. Consequently, there is a need to better understand and to more precisely determine the forces at these locations.

A study to investigate the forces exerted on airport runway signs caused by aircraft jet engine blast and wake turbulence was conducted.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Freaky_Animal
 


Freaky.....please care to explain that again?

I mentioned 'mach-tuck', just in case the airplane approached mach speeds in the last seconds before impact....but the FDR doesn't seem to support this concept.

As you say, the Center of Lift moves aft....the C/G stays the same, so the moment between the two increases, thus the HZ needs to provide more and more downward 'lift'.....eventually the HZ can't trim enough, and the elevator can't provide sufficient force, hence 'mach tuck' in an airplane not designed to exceed Mach 1....

Of course, there is a lot of buffetting, and cockpit warnings (in normal circumstances) before the passenger jet reaches this point, so don't fret!!!

Since I'm not suicidal, I can only imagine the conditions on those fatal airplanes, 11 Sept 2001.

Oh....actually, I don't have to imagine....we have the DFDR from AAL77 and UAL93!!!

WW

ps....but you mentioned it nosed-down at the last split-second....so again, the thrust from the engines would hardly seem to affect anything on the ground....right????/

[edit on 4/27/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
AA77 would have been at that altitude or less for perhaps the last 100' or less


I think it was at low altitude for more then 100 feet, the highway is farther away then 100 feet.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[Since I'm not suicidal, I can only imagine the conditions on those fatal airplanes, 11 Sept 2001.


Well 1 military witness close the the Pentagon reported that the plane looked out of control.

Also that the pilot dropped the landing gear, but you and i both know what dropping the gear at the speed and height would do.



[edit on 27-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Reading further into the PDF report, it states that in a field test, a sign was destroyed by the jet blast of a "B747-200 which rotated adjacent to the sign", which is an airplane on the ground. So this establishes that stationary or taxiing aircraft were what was causing the sign damage, not airplanes in flight.

I believe this, we have no issues on. An airplane throttling its engines up while stationary or moving slowly on the ground has a significant danger from the jet blast, which is what's destroying the signs.

Nowhere in the FAA report does it specifically state that the signs were being destroyed by the jet blast of airplanes flying low over them.

I believe that's where the wake turbulence tests came in. It was done to see the how the effects of an airplane flying low (i.e. landing) impacted the signs.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


The key word there is 'frangible' meaning they're trying to get the perfect balance between the sign's longevity and posing minimal risk to an aircraft actually running into one, in which case they have to shear off at ground level.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
AA77 would have been at that altitude or less for perhaps the last 100' or less


I think it was at low altitude for more then 100 feet, the highway is farther away then 100 feet.


ULTIMA!!!! I tried to pull out, but you just pulled me back in with this statement!!!


'YOU THINK' it was at a low altitude for more than 100 feet?!?!?!?!?

you 'think'?????

I thought you knew everything....that seems to have been your claim, so far, in various threads.

Have you ever BEEN to the Pentagon? Have you ever SEEN the parking lot???

100 feet! BruHaHaHAhAHA!!!ps....which 'highway? Route 110? Columbia Pike? I-395??? Quick, go Google map it!!!!

[edit on 4/27/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Reading further into the PDF report, it states that in a field test, a sign was destroyed by the jet blast of a "B747-200 which rotated adjacent to the sign", which is an airplane on the ground.


What PDF report are you reading from? Not the 1 i posted.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't lowering the landing gear shift more weight to the bottom of the airplane (lowering the CG) and help stabilize it?

Kind of like adding some extra weight to the bottom of a boat. It'll add more stability for the boat when it encounters rough waters.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
'YOU THINK' it was at a low altitude for more than 100 feet?!?!?!?!?


Was i responding to you,, i don't think so?



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I think it was at low altitude for more then 100 feet, the highway is farther away then 100 feet.


At the last highway crossing it was low enough to clip light poles 30'+ high so it had some descending to do past that point to get low enough. It was moving at approx 700'/sec.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join