Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 07:55 AM by defcon5
First you say:
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
check out how big the jet blast would be or if the engine could have handled what the official stroy states.

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


Then you say:
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.

Your still flip-flopping IMHO, so which is it, there was some jet blast (which was probably wing vortexes not jet blast), or there wasn’t? It was enough or not enough in your opinion?

Obviously it was not enough in your opinion or the topic would have never come up. Generally in the business when someone says “jet blasted something” that means significantly damaged or moved it.

As to the airspeed, which is it? Indicated Airspeed, True Airspeed, or Groundspeed? The pilot was descending while flying which would effect the indicated airspeed unless he was adjusting for temperature and pressure altitude on descent. The descent itself and any wind would also have a bearing on the speed without effecting the RPM’s of the engines.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
ground jet blast
www.youtube.com...

On ground, none moving, 747 on take-off run-up, just as I stated above.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Turbulence and jet blast
www.youtube.com...

Not jet blast, but a wingtip vortex, certainly not significant enough to do much to a vehicle or knock down a person.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
jet blast knocks guy over
www.youtube.com...

Yeah he ran 10 feet behind an engine on take off, again on the ground.


reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 08:14 AM by Zaphod58
www.youtube.com...

Two turbofan engines, roughly 19,000lbs of thrust, a person and a camera. This A-10 went MUCH closer than flight 77 got to the cars, and the guy doesn't go tumbling along the ground. He and the camera shake some, but they don't move.


reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 09:22 AM by weemadmental
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by weemadmental
1. a short time is all they needed, plus aircraft engines are very stable, fighter jets during the gulf wars flew at this height on a regular basis to avoid SAM's / AA fire.

2. the period of time the jet was overhead would have been very short, know from experince that a tornado fighter jet at afterburner at 40-45ft ( at end end of runway road runs past it) will rock a panel side van but not blow it over, and these engines produce more thrust than the boeing ever would.



1. Airliners use turbofans, military fighters use turbojets. Fighters fly high to aviod SAMs and AA, not ground level like the plane at the Pentagon.

2. I guess you have not seen all the videos of airliners blowing cars and people around?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


1. doesnt matter, both engines create thrust, and do hug the ground, ever seen a british tornado video from the gulf when they are less that 50ft at 500mph + flying nap of the earth, The best way to avoid sams and aa is ultra low level, not high where you can be picked up on radar from hundreds of miles away, please conduct some research before giving these answers

2. they period of time that the plane is over head is very short, also the planes thrust is put out the back of the engine, not down at the ground, And yes i have seen cars blown to pieces with jet thrust but that was from very short distances.

Wee Mad Mental

[edit on 6/4/2008 by weemadmental]


reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 09:40 AM by weemadmental
Originally posted by weemadmental
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by weemadmental
1. a short time is all they needed, plus aircraft engines are very stable, fighter jets during the gulf wars flew at this height on a regular basis to avoid SAM's / AA fire.

2. the period of time the jet was overhead would have been very short, know from experince that a tornado fighter jet at afterburner at 40-45ft ( at end end of runway road runs past it) will rock a panel side van but not blow it over, and these engines produce more thrust than the boeing ever would.



1. Airliners use turbofans, military fighters use turbojets. Fighters fly high to aviod SAMs and AA, not ground level like the plane at the Pentagon.

2. I guess you have not seen all the videos of airliners blowing cars and people around?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


1. doesnt matter, both engines create thrust, and do hug the ground, ever seen a british tornado video from the gulf when they are less that 50ft at 500mph + flying nap of the earth, The best way to avoid sams and aa is ultra low level, not high where you can be picked up on radar from hundreds of miles away, please conduct some research before giving these answers

2. they period of time that the plane is over head is very short, also the planes thrust is put out the back of the engine, not down at the ground, And yes i have seen cars blown to pieces with jet thrust but that was from very short distances.

Wee Mad Mental

[edit on 6/4/2008 by weemadmental]


Post Wont edit for some reason,

here is edited post

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by weemadmental
1. a short time is all they needed, plus aircraft engines are very stable, fighter jets during the gulf wars flew at this height on a regular basis to avoid SAM's / AA fire.

2. the period of time the jet was overhead would have been very short, know from experince that a tornado fighter jet at afterburner at 40-45ft ( at end end of runway road runs past it) will rock a panel side van but not blow it over, and these engines produce more thrust than the boeing ever would.



1. Airliners use turbofans, military fighters use turbojets. Fighters fly high to aviod SAMs and AA, not ground level like the plane at the Pentagon.

2. I guess you have not seen all the videos of airliners blowing cars and people around?

[edit on 5-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


1. doesnt matter, both engines create thrust, and do hug the ground, ever seen a british tornado video from the gulf when they are less that 50ft at 500mph + flying nap of the earth, The best way to avoid sams and aa is ultra low level, not high where you can be picked up on radar from hundreds of miles away, please conduct some research before giving these answers

2. they period of time that the plane is over head is very short, also the planes thrust is put out the back of the engine, not down at the ground, And yes i have seen cars blown to pieces with jet thrust but that was from very short distances.

www.youtube.com...
point proved above video !!

Other Low Level Videos etc

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


Wee Mad Mental

Edit - Add Videos


reply posted on 6-4-2008 @ 09:53 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by ULTIMA1



Sure there's jet blast. But it's going to be level with the engine. It's not going to blast things along the ground, and rock cars. The wingtip vortices are what does that. If you were able to stand behind the engines THEN jet blast would be a problem, but when they're flying level wake turbulence from the wingtip votices are the concern.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why the Pentagon?
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags
NEVER FORGET 9-11….Maybe we SHOULD forget.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags
The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Note from trapped workers surfaces 10 years after 9/11
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags
Where were you when the world stopped turning...
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags