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: 27
1
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Perhaps one or two of these 'truthers' should get off their butts and come to Alexandria, or perhaps to one of his speaking engagements.


Perhaps the people that believe the official story should jsut do a little reasech instead of just believing everything they hear and are told.

Another military witness that was close to the Pentagon also got medals. But his testimony is a little different then the official story. Mainly when it comes to most of the plane sticking out of the Pentagon and a fireball came out of the building and destroyed the plane.

www.puertorico-herald.org...

said Sepulveda, who was presented the Airman's Medal and Purple Heart by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper at the Pentagon April 15, 2002.

Sepulveda said the wings disintegrated, and then disappeared. "For a brief second, you could see the fuselage sticking out of the side of the Pentagon," Sepulveda recalls. "Then, all of a sudden, this ball of fire comes out from inside. It looked like it was just coming from inside the building, engulfing the fuselage. And then the fuselage was all gone."




posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



This 'eyewitness', Sepulveda, has been thoroughly discredited. this kind of 'witness' testimony is notoriously shaky anyway, since the way the human brain interprets what it is seeing can vary greatly. Ever experienced that feeling of 'slow-motion' when the adrenaline kicks in? Your perceptions and sense of timing can get thrown off.

Anyway, in NO WAY did the article claim that Mr. Braman saw the actual impact....he was on the scene just minutes afterwards. SO, ask him what he saw, wreckage of the airplane, etc.

Problem is, 'truthers' hang on to any shred, any one or two 'eyewitnesses', and then discount dozens of others who disagree.

"Eyewitness" accounts must all be taken into account, since they vary so widely. Then, the crucible can burn away the BS....and this is true in bank robberies, car crashes, you name it.

There is an interesting video to illustrate how the mind can focus, to the exclusion of all else. About ten people, some in white shirts, some in black, bounce white and black balls to each other...the observer is tasked with counting how many times a white-shirt catches a black ball....this lasts a few minutes....at the end, the number count varies greatly....but what most people don't notice is the man in an ape suit who saunters through the scene about half-way through....

So much for eyewitnessess....

WW



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This 'eyewitness', Sepulveda, has been thoroughly discredited.


Can you show the source for your claim, please?

Sounds to me like your just trying to discredit someone who does not agree with you.



[edit on 4-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


My mistake, jumped on the wrong Sepulveda....Richard Sepulveda, trashed the History Channel in a rewiew....

WW



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
My mistake, jumped on the wrong Sepulveda....Richard Sepulveda, trashed the History Channel in a rewiew....


Wow, first time one of you guys admitted a mistake. Thanks for that.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I have to agree that some eyewitnesses tend to 'fill in the blanks' from their imagination and those blanks get more elaborate over time. The fact here is that the plane that hit the Pentagon took about 1 second from hitting the poles to hitting the building and people see all sorts of details like the landing gear lowering in that time?

Still wondering whether the engine simulator has actually proven anything here



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Wow, first time one of you guys admitted a mistake. Thanks for that.


What? I don't count? Haha, I'm just kidding.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Wow, first time one of you guys admitted a mistake. Thanks for that.


Yeah, that's what honest people do, you see.

They don't continue to make up stories and never admit they were wrong. There is no reason not to admit error when the error is coincidental and not the result of intent.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Yeah, that's what honest people do, you see.


You people that beleive the offical story should be more like him and be honest enough to admit you have no evidnece to support the official story.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Yeah, that's what honest people do, you see.


You people that beleive the offical story should be more like him and be honest enough to admit you have no evidnece to support the official story.



You should be honest enough to admit you've (to be generous) "misstated" several things in the course of selling a theory/book.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I have to agree that some eyewitnesses tend to 'fill in the blanks' from their imagination and those blanks get more elaborate over time. The fact here is that the plane that hit the Pentagon took about 1 second from hitting the poles to hitting the building and people see all sorts of details like the landing gear lowering in that time?

Still wondering whether the engine simulator has actually proven anything here


Yes Pilgrum, the baloney about seeing the landing gear is either honest eyewitness mistakes, or deliberate mis-info to muddy the waters.

There is no reason to lower the gear at that point, he was concentrating on just aiming and hitting...besides, the gear takes a full 8 or 9 seconds to fully extend...

Anyway, as I believe you and others have pointed out....darn, it was pages and pages ago, and it got lost in the rhetoric, a modern jet engine will not suddenly self-destruct the moment it exceeds it's maximum safe design operating temps. The EGT limits that we adhere to as part of the 'Limitations' section of the Flight Manual are designed to allow for maximum energy extraction while also providing maximum useful life of the engine....not only for long-term safety, but because of MONEY!!!

So, this so-called jet engine sim, even if valid, is moot, in this instance.

WW



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
"misstated" several things in the course of selling a theory/book.


Last warning. If i see 1 more post about me selling a book i will have no choice but to ask the mods to ban you for trolling.



[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yes Pilgrum, the baloney about seeing the landing gear is either honest eyewitness mistakes, or deliberate mis-info to muddy the waters.

There is no reason to lower the gear at that point, he was concentrating on just aiming and hitting...


Oh i see only the witnesses that statements go along with the official story are right and all other witnesses are wrong.

So you know exactly what the pilot was thinking and doing? You should be able to end this dispute anad tell us all exactly what happened that day then.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, isn't it logical that if you wish to cause maximum devastation you'd want as much kinetic energy as possible to penetrate deep, along with the combustible (the fuel) to further cause destruction by subsequent fires??

Lowering the landing gear is last thing you'd want to do, it causes drag....despite the fact that it would, at that airspeed, tear off the gear doors and compromise the hydraulic system.

ULTIMA, you are tired of people accusing you of writing a book ( of course, I never have said that ) but I, personally, am tired of your ad hominem attacks, I call them a 'hit and run' tactic....you like to cherry-pick out of someone's earlier post, and point to one aspect of it and cry 'ah hah!' Then, you completely ignore any other points that were made, and run to your refuge of claims....that YOU have 'credable' (sic) sources, but no one else does.

BTW, you have gotten away with more one-line posts on this thread, with no Moderator reminder notes, than anyone else I have ever seen on any thread.

WW

edit for after-thought....I ended my immediate post, the one ULTIMA replied to, with a reference about the POINT of this thread, the 'jet engine sim'.....but, in usual form, ULTIMA completely ignored that, and drove the topic back off the rails, in order to further whatever agenda is trying to be pursued here. This thread has been allowed an incredible amount of leeway...I admit, it's been interesting, ultimately to no real purpose......

[edit on 5/5/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, isn't it logical that if you wish to cause maximum devastation you'd want as much kinetic energy as possible to penetrate deep, along with the combustible (the fuel) to further cause destructin by subsequent fires??

ULTIMA, you are tired of people accusing you of writing a book ( of course, I never have said that )



You do not know what the pilot was thinking. As the witness stated it looked the pilot was fighting for controll of the plane and might have thought that lowering the landing gear was a way of regaining control. Remeber the pilots of these planes had very little training in flying these planes.

You implied that i write and sell books. Something that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.



[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, isn't it logical that if you wish to cause maximum devastation you'd want as much kinetic energy as possible to penetrate deep, along with the combustible (the fuel) to further cause destructin by subsequent fires??

ULTIMA, you are tired of people accusing you of writing a book ( of course, I never have said that )



You do not know what the pilot was thinking. As the witness stated it looked the pilot was fighting for controll of the plane and might have thought that lowering the landing gear was a way of regaining control. Remeber the pilots of these planes had very little training in flying these planes.

You implied that i write and sell books. Something that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.



[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


SORRY, to the Moderators....for the large quote. Is necessary.

ULTIMA1 just insinuated that I implied that he writes and sells books. Blatant lie. He has no 'credable' (sic) sources to back that up, it is again, ad hominem. [my edit here] I made fun of his spelling there, and I let it stand (stet). BUT, I also stand by his lie, claiming I said he is writing a book. No where on this thread, in any of my posts, to I claim this. [end of edit]

This forum is not designed for bickering, but that's what this thread has turned into, since ULTIMA refuses to do anything else but bicker. he brings up red herrings, and diverts the subject in a way that boggles the mind.

BTW, ULTIMA....not to get personal....but I don't think, never thought you write books, because of your spelling mistakes (yes, I know....I'm encroaching on 'ad hominem', but it is in my own defence).

Again, lest I get a warning....please let's focus on this jet engine simulator...what does it prove...no, let me rephrase....how could it possibly have any bearing on the AAL77 Boeing 757 that struck the Pentagon??? My entire, well written (in my mind) post regarding jet engines? Swept under the rug, not even addressed, although it bore a direct reference to the OP of this thread!

Anyone else see anything wrong here?!?!?


[edit on 5/5/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...how could it possibly have any bearing on the AAL77 Boeing 757 that struck the Pentagon??? !


Well maybe you should advise your buddies not to take threads off topic.

My OP was to show what the engines would be going through at the speed and ailitude of the plane at the Pentagon. The simulator was part of a source about what the jet blast would be at the Pentagon.

Thats the bearing it has on AA77 Boeing 757 (no proof it was) at the Pentagon

[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh i see only the witnesses that statements go along with the official story are right and all other witnesses are wrong.

So you know exactly what the pilot was thinking and doing? You should be able to end this dispute anad tell us all exactly what happened that day then.


It's just a sign of testing the various stories for plausibility and that shouldn't be a threat to an unbiassed observer. I don't see a problem with putting everyone's story, for or against whatever personal stance you favour, under the microscope but you have to be prepared to find things you perhaps didn't want to find.

A little maths reveals that the plane would have travelled a mile or more in the time the landing gear takes to deploy so, were any observers making that statement capable of viewing the plane in detail for long enough to notice landing gear lowering? I'd be very skeptical about anyone who observed it through binoculars (certain sign of being prepared for it IE foreknowledge).

Weedwhacker is correct in that it would be a counterproductive thing to do if the objective is to cause maximum damage - lowering landing gear would have acted like an airbrake at that speed. Remember that principle of drag being proportional to the square of velocity?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
whatever personal stance you favour, under the microscope but you have to be prepared to find things you perhaps didn't want to find.

Weedwhacker is correct in that it would be a counterproductive thing to do if the objective is to cause maximum damage - lowering landing gear would have acted like an airbrake at that speed.


1. Ok so you only put witness that do not agree with the official under the microscope.

2. So you also know what the pilot was thinking if he did lower the landing gear?

[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...how could it possibly have any bearing on the AAL77 Boeing 757 that struck the Pentagon??? !


Well maybe you should advise your buddies not to take threads off topic.

My OP was to show what the engines would be going through at the speed and ailitude of the plane at the Pentagon. The simulator was part of a source about what the jet blast would be at the Pentagon.

Thats the bearing it has on AA77 Boeing 757 (no proof it was) at the Pentagon

[edit on 5-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


OK, ULTIMA....fair enough (not sure about the "buddies" comment...???)

So, your Sim was to show that the engines would be....overheating for the last few seconds just prior to impact? Am I correct? At, in your words, '...the speed and altitude of the plane at the Pentagon.'

Well, did you not ever learn that there are limiting computers and systems on modern airliner engines to prevent overspeed and over-temp conditions???

BUT, you seem to be concerned so much about this 'jet-blast' concept....it is nonsense, as you've been told by others who are using far more scientific terms than I can muster.

You've seen, no doubt, the various video links to high-speed, power-on low passes of B757s at airshows or military bases, etc????

The concept of 'jet-blast' is commonly related to an airplane, while ON THE GROUND, and the effects of the exhaust speeds on objects directly behind the engines. We learn this, as airline pilots, to be cognizant of our 'break-away' thrust levels, to begin a taxi from a dead stop. Once pushed-back, and saluted, we begin the taxi, since we've been given clearance from the ground crew. Even then, if at Max Taxi weight, we spool up to what is a basic thrust level....and wait....when we start to move, we can then recuce thrust and let momentum, and idle thrust, carry us along.

In some cramped ramp situations, a heavy airplane will be towed out so as to not damage terminals or equipment behind, since it is known that the area is to close confined....depends on the airport.

NOW....an airplane in flight....'jet blast' is such a misnomer, it is laughable!!!!

WW




top topics



 
1
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join