Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

Ok.

Propulsion of the F-15 is supplied by two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 afterburning turbofan engines of 23,904/14,780 pounds thrust each. Developed especially for the F-15, these high-pressure-ratio engines are reported to have much improved efficiency over earlier engines for fighter aircraft.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The F100-PW-200 is an afterburning turbofan engine with a maximum thrust of approximately 25000 pounds. The basic weight of the aircraft with full internal fuel is 24700 pounds, so the f16 actually has a thrust to weight ratio of more than one to one in some configurations.

www.avitop.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NO jet blast is not jet blast. We are talking about a specific type engines on a specific tpye of aircraft.

By the way i was a crew chief on F-4s that had some of the biggest turbojets, so in know a little about jet blast.

And I used to crawl on my hands and knees between two running 737 turbofan engines to do pneumatic airstarts many times a week for years. don’t lecture me on the ingestion or jet blast hazards of a turbofan. What your stating here is false, plain and simple.

Heck guys used to drive out to the end of runway 36R with planes landing right over them all the time. The danger is much greater on the ground at take off when the blast is at the same level as the vehicle, it does not drop down to the ground from an aircraft that is in the air. Vortexes do drop to the ground, but are only a danger to other aircraft as it generates lift under their wing surfaces and can flip them. The danger from any such force of air is from it getting under the vehicle and generating lift, or where the vehicle was already top heavy with a large flat surface to capture the blast. An aircraft that is passing over a car is not going to generate significant lift under the body to cause it to flip over.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ok sure.

F-15 Eagle - 2× Pratt & Whitney F100-100,-220 or -229 afterburning turbofans

F-16 - 1× Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 afterburning turbofan or 1× General Electric F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan

Eurofighter Typhoon - 2× Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofans

MiG-29 - 2× Klimov RD-33 afterburning turbofans

Su-27 - 2× Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F turbofans

F-14 - 2× General Electric F110-GE-400 afterburning turbofans

F-22 - 2× Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 afterburning turbofans

F-35 - 1× Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
or General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 afterburning turbofan

F-18 - 2× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofans.

globalsecurity.org

[edit on 6/4/2008 by C0bzz]

According to the ASCE building performance report Frank Probst was right in the flight path of the 757 and did not get hit by jet blast or turbulence.

There are so many facts and information that questions the official story.

Originally posted by C0bzz

Ok sure.

Airliners do not use afterburning turbofans.

reply to post by C0bzz

reply to post by Zaphod58

I think the problem here is the same that I have mentioned in the past. All the truth movement aviation experts who seem to have an issue with 911 are all people with older aviation experience.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Fighter jets don't constantly fly on afterburner.

Originally posted by defcon5
I think the problem here is the same that I have mentioned in the past. All the truth movement aviation experts who seem to have an issue with 911 are all people with older aviation experience.

I am not the only person with aviation experience that has a problem with the official story. People with some of the most aviation experience question the official story

But yes the planes i worked on were older planes with turbojet engines.

Originally posted by C0bzz
Fighter jets don't constantly fly on afterburner.

But the point is airliners do not have afterburners at all.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why are you so upset at my site, because it supports what i posted? At least i can post facts and evidence, more then i can say for the people that still believe the official story.

Nope, I certainly did not know it was your site either. I simply opened the link, saw it was a truthers site with evidence based on peoples opinions, and closed it again. I find truth sites to be lacking in any oversight and even after being debunked to heck and gone, they are never changed to update to the current information. If you had linked to something which was based in scientific facts I might have actually read it all the way through.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes and i have seen people and equipment blasted around just by an aircraft throttle up to leave the parking area.

Again, when on the ground, Jetblast is a greater hazard then when they are in the air. The air that is close to the ground can funnel under a near-by vehicle and generate lift under its body. Still the vehicle must be close, we used to drive easily 30 to 50 feet behind the tail of aircraft with running engines all the time. An aircraft that is in the air is not going to generate significant lift or force to lift a car or truck. Lets see you find a video of a flying aircraft flipping a vehicle.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I am not the only person with aviation experience that has a problem with the official story. People with some of the most aviation experience question the official story

Every person on this site that I have had contact with in the 911 department, who believe in the truth movement, was an older aviation person. I can name quite a few, and Mr Lear is certainly one who comes to mind.

Originally posted by defcon5
[Again, when on the ground, Jetblast is a greater hazard then when they are in the air. The air that is close to the ground can funnel under a near-by vehicle and generate lift under its body. .

But jet blast still jet blast even if it is in the air.

I never said anything about jet blast in the air flipping a car. As stated by the site i posted witnesses in cars did have cars rocked by plane flying over them.

Originally posted by defcon5
[Every person on this site that I have had contact with in the 911 department, who believe in the truth movement, was an older aviation person. I can name quite a few, and Mr Lear is certainly one who comes to mind.

Yes, and Mr Lear has some of the most aviation experience of anyoen on here. Although i do not agree with some of his theories i cannot debate his aviation experience.




[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the point is airliners do not have afterburners at all.

Which makes the 757 engine less powerful, not more so.
Your grabbing at straws on this one.

This is why I hate debating 911, because even when a movement person gets shown to be incorrect they still have to find some angle to show that their theory must be correct.

Originally posted by defcon5
This is why I hate debating 911, because even when a movement person gets shown to be incorrect they still have to find some angle to show that their theory must be correct.

I have not been shown to be incorrect. I have not seen any facts and eviidence that debates that fact that there is jet blast if a plane is flying.

Well at least i do research, not like most of the people that believe the offical story that just go along with what they have been told even though they have no real evidnece to support the official story.



[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But jet blast still jet blast even if it is in the air.

Yes, jet blast is still jet blast, but when its in the air it will not effect a car that is below it. If the plane is 50 feet in the air and you put the car on a platform that is 50 feet in the air your theory might work. Even at a very low altitude the air would actually push down on the car and make it stick to the ground better rather then move it. I take it you have never dealt with spoilers and such on cars.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I never said anything about jet blast in the air flipping a car. As stated by the site i posted witnesses in cars did have cars rocked by plane flying over them.

Yeah I see that you went back and edited your original post without saying anything to anyone. It used to say this

1. The altitude and speed the pilots were flying at would have probably destroyed the engines in a short time.

2. The jet blast from the plane at the Pentagon would have blasted people and cars.

I see that as a very untruthful tactic. This further proves my point about the way that the truth movement operates. Its all about being right, even if they have to lie.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have not been shown to be incorrect.

As we have shown that a similar engine passing right over both people and vehicles, at low altitude and high speed, did not throw them around. Your original topic line before you altered it:

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
2. The jet blast from the plane at the Pentagon would have blasted people and cars.

HAS been shown to be incorrect.

I know its a 747 but the force of a Jet engine at high throttle makes for interesting viewing if there were people and say cars nearby!

747 engine meets a car!

Sorry, wrong video, and I can't watch all of it right now because my connection is horrifying.

[edit on 4/6/2008 by Zaphod58]

Stupid connection.

[edit on 4/6/2008 by Zaphod58]