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: 28
1
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.'


No actually it was more for the reading of what the jet blast would be, but the overheat happens when trying to match the speed and alitude.




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, again, you are missing the point!!!

ALL Eyewitness accounts are taken into the mix....but FOCUSING on one, and eliminating the others, to bolster YOUR contentions, is disengenuous.

It is NOT a valid investigation technique.....UNLESS you wish to skew the outcome of the 'investigation'.....

A true investigation takes into account ALL data, without personal biases....



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ALL Eyewitness accounts are taken into the mixA true investigation takes into account ALL data, without personal biases....


I am doing research, trying to find the truth and not jsut believing what we have bene told like a lot of poeple on here. What evidence do you have that i have a personal bias?

Maybe its you that have the personal biases? What research have you done?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.'


No actually it was more for the reading of what the jet blast would be, but the overheat happens when trying to match the speed and alitude.


ULTIMA....again, you 'snipped' out of my entire post....I pulled your relevant 'quote' so that others could back-track and see what I wrote, in its entirety.

For the record.....'jet-blast' is a misnomer, and only applies to airplanes that are on the ground, not those that are already flying.

WW



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I think Newton did that a while ago. The whole equal and opposite reaction thing. I didn't look at the videos, but I'm willing to bet that in each and every one the plane was stationary, not moving. If the thrust is being used to push the aircraft forward, its not going to flip cars over. Shake them, absolutley, but that would be the extent of it.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Ok so you only put witness that do not agree with the official under the microscope.


Not at all as to me, that approach would be dishonest and not in the interests of getting to the truth. I look for commonality through all the accounts to see where the statistical bell-curve points and, as with all data distributions, there will be random points lying outside the curve and that's what this landing gear observation appears to be. It could be still be fact but a salient feature like that is not likely to escape the bulk of observers including those viewing from a much greater distance. It's also possible that an impact with a light pole knocked the nose landing gear cover off making the wheel visible to just this one observer.



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


I think it would be along the lines of 'oops - I shouldn't have done that'.
Do you agree that the plane would travel over a mile at the reported speed in the time it takes to lower the landing gear and the approximately 1 second flight time from the road crossing to the building?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Pilgrum, did you know that when the landing gear lever is in the 'Off' position, all hydraulic pressure is removed from the gear system?

When the gear is retracted, it engages the 'uplocks', and the gear lights don't extinguish until all the gear doors are closed.

The gear doors mechanically lock in place when closed. Because the Gear Lever is placed to 'Off' as part of the after takeoff checklist, the gear will relax and rest on the 'uplocks'. A strike, by a wing, on a light pole, might cause an hydraulic leak, and COULD....I emphasize....COULD have resulted in a gear, or gears, starting to fall if the 'uplock' was released for some reason...first thing that would happen, is the gear would fall through the gear doors...(triggering a cam action to unlock their mechanical lock). In the case of the nose gear, it retracts foreword, hence extends aft...into the airstream. Of course, at high speed, gear doors would likely fail once deployed....but at only a second from impact, makes llittle difference....

Don't people realize there has to be a way to extend the landing gear in the event of a true emergency, such as total hydraulic loss???

In that event, there is an emergency system, with a tiny reservoir of hydraulic fluid, to release the 'uplocks'....and the landing gear 'free-falls'. The nose gear too, but again, the force of the relative wind blows it aft, and it locks. The Mains use gravity, and lock that way. Landing gear use what's called an 'over-center' lock mechanism, guaranteeing stability, even without hydraulic pressure to back it up.

Guess I'll need to send everyone to Boeing Ground Scholl before they will fully understand the complexities involved in ariplane design, and flying airplanes.....

WW

[editing....but, in that one second after hitting a light pole, the only thing that might start to come out would be the nosegear....but, then impact, so the rest is moot....]

[edit on 5/5/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
For the record.....'jet-blast' is a misnomer, and only applies to airplanes that are on the ground, not those that are already flying.


So you are saying there is no thrust coming out the back of the engine as it flies, only on the ground?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Do you agree that the plane would travel over a mile at the reported speed in the time it takes to lower the landing gear and the approximately 1 second flight time from the road crossing to the building?


Yes but then do you agree what would have happened to the plane when he lowered the landing gear, It would have casued the plane to go lower and to impact the ground before hitting the building. Which should have left more debris outside the building.

Also the witness statement about a fireball coming out of the building and destroying the airframe questions the official story.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Don't people realize there has to be a way to extend the landing gear in the event of a true emergency, such as total hydraulic loss???


Yes i know their are emergency systems.

Some planes, like the F-4 have a pneumatic system that blows the gear (or flaps) down in an emergency. Like loss of hydraulic pressure.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for the valuable insights into how these systems actually function under all imaginable conditions

Seems that an involuntary deployment of the nose gear is not totally outside the realm of possibility. Does the hydraulic system have check valves to prevent a local failure at the nose gear affecting the flight control systems?

You have been progressively putting us through the training process for some time now.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Do you agree that the plane would travel over a mile at the reported speed in the time it takes to lower the landing gear and the approximately 1 second flight time from the road crossing to the building?


Yes but then do you agree what would have happened to the plane when he lowered the landing gear, It would have casued the plane to go lower and to impact the ground before hitting the building. Which should have left more debris outside the building.

Also the witness statement about a fireball coming out of the building and destroying the airframe questions the official story.





NOPE!!!!! ULTIMA....IF....and this is a big IFFF!!! the guy flying decided to select the landing gear lever into the 'DOWN' position...from the 'OFF' position, where the real pilots would have placed it in 'After Take-off' checklist....

ULTIMA....you are grasping at straws, now....no WAY would the Hijacker lower the gear....!!!! You are now trying to 'muddy the water' for those who do not fly....you do this on purpose, in order to promote your theories.

ULTIMA, your tactics are clear, to those of us who have brains.....we are trying to expose you for the shill and ultimate tool that you seem to be!!!

ULTIMA, you constantly argue, based on either ad hominem, or just plain stupid grounds....yet, you get away with it!! Why?

WHY does this member get away with one-line posts?!?!?!?!?!?

I haven't seen an answer, yet, to my satisfaction........

Best, WW



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes but then do you agree what would have happened to the plane when he lowered the landing gear, It would have casued the plane to go lower and to impact the ground before hitting the building. Which should have left more debris outside the building.

Also the witness statement about a fireball coming out of the building and destroying the airframe questions the official story.


Do you think ground effect might have compensated a little for the extra drag (if the nose wheel was exposed) ?

It doesn't question the official story at all as far as a 757 type plane hitting poles, hitting the Pentagon and exploding is concerned - he supports it. It's the embellishments he adds to this very brief observation (milliseconds) that are not clear or corroborated. I'd have thought the no-plane/missile/whatever camp would be frantically trying to discredit this witness.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Pilgrum.....LOL!!! See, ULTIMA wishes to keep crying about 'jet-blast'.....and then you, innocently, bring up 'ground effect'.....

Ground Effect is a phenomenon that is so misunderstood, as to be a rallying point for the CT'ers!!

Groud Effect is most prominent when....the ariplane is in the landing configuration....that means, in a jet, slats and flaps fully extended.

This was not the configuration of the AAL77, nor the AAL11 nor UAL 175.

Nor, UAL93.....

NONE of those airplanes EVER extended the Slats, and of course, since no Slats, no Flaps.

(in case you don't fly airplanes.....Slats come out first, on Boeings).....if you select 'FLAPS 1'.....the slats will come out first, before the wing flaps will travel to their position.....if the slats don't deploy properly, there is a warning to the pilots...and appropriate checklists are then followed....

These are procedures that rarely happen...but thery are there, just in case....

WW



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well not totally innocent but more a case of 'tongue in cheek'


It just occurred to me as a point where a CT devotee's claims actually oppose part of the story they're trying to create using factors not completely based on reality.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Do you think ground effect might have compensated a little for the extra drag (if the nose wheel was exposed) ?


What about the drag of the main gear? Would the ground effect overcome the drag of the main gear at that speed?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Pilgrum.....LOL!!! See, ULTIMA wishes to keep crying about 'jet-blast'.....and then you, innocently, bring up 'ground effect'.....
WW


So i guess since he brought up ground effect he must be a CTer, right?

If you believe i am wrong about the jet blast then please be adult enough to post evidence to deabte me, with sources.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, again with the 'one-line post'!!!

So....you posted....but you have no point in your post, at least none that I can see.

It is continued obfuscation....'hit and run'....that's my term, I'm thinking of trademarking it.

ULTIMA....you lied about me, accusing me of something I never did....but you ignore that? Fine.

THEN....you change the subject....your concern seems to be more about confusion, than revelation....fine.

You, SIR....have nothing to contribute.

Done



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You, SIR....have nothing to contribute.


You sir are not adult enough to post evidence when asked. You, like other believers just repeat what you see on TV or have been told.

I feel sad for you for not being able to face reallity.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
asrs.arc.nasa.gov...

I found this site to be an interesting read. What do you guys think?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join