Originally posted by defcon5
[2. The jet blast from the plane at the Pentagon would have blasted people and cars.

As stated would have blasted people and cars, i did not say flip cars.





[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Not only that, but they drove that car right behind the tail with the engines running full throttle on a 4 engine 747.

Still waiting for evidence to prove there is no jet blast from a plane flying.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by defcon5
Your still flip-flopping IMHO, so which is it, there was some jet blast

NO i am not flip-flopping please show me where i made the exact statment word for word that the jet blast from the air would flip cars.

YOU CANNOT.



[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by defcon5
Not only that, but they drove that car right behind the tail with the engines running full throttle on a 4 engine 747.

... and the point if you watch it closely is that it only took 1 engine to do that sort of damage. It continued to blow the car apart and backwards way way backwards behind the tail. So what (might) a 757 engine (I’m sure it’s a pretty powerful engine also?) do to nearby cars, people, and buildings plus any loose equipment?

Look until they release all the video footage that they have (or had) we are all P...... into the wind. But that's the point, apparently showing a charred body is ok (planted or not) but the plane hitting the building is off limits, why?

Your government has proven over and over that it would do anything to further its aims and a little matter of several thousands dead people isn’t much in their ‘grand scheme’. We have more road deaths per year than that in the UK, how many die in the US with fire arms, on your roads, negligence in your hospitals (10’s no 100’s thousand every year).

Jet blast ON THE GROUND is vastly different than jet blast in flight. But even on the ground I've driven two different types of vehicles behind a C-135 running all four engines at full power, and did nothing but rock back and forth. It depends on HOW FAR behind the aircraft you are when you drive behind it, and the type of engines.

So here you go:

Wingtip vortices can also pose a severe hazard to light aircraft, especially during the landing and take off phases of flight. The intensity or strength of the vortex is a function of aircraft size, speed, and configuration (flap setting, etc.). The strongest vortices are produced by heavy aircraft, flying slowly, with wing flaps extended. Large jet aircraft can generate vortices which are larger than an entire light aircraft. These vortices can persist for several minutes, drifting with the wind. The hazardous aspects of wingtip vortices are most often discussed in the context of wake turbulence. If a light aircraft is immediately preceded by a heavy aircraft, wake turbulence from the heavy aircraft can roll the light aircraft faster than can be resisted by use of ailerons. At low altitudes, particularly during takeoff and landing, this can lead to an upset from which recovery is not possible. Air Traffic Controllers ensure an adequate separate between departing and arriving aircraft, particularly where a heavy aircraft is preceding a light aircraft.

Vortexes are worst on a large, slow moving, aircraft with the flaps extended. Since the aircraft on 911 met none of these criteria it would not have generated significant vortexes.

Originally posted by defcon5
A couple of us have already shown videos of that in this thread,.

Sorry, i am looking for facts and evidence that debates the fact the there is jet blast from a plane in the air.

As shown in the sim the amount of thrust coming from the engine at the speed and altitude of the plane at the Pentagon would have moved people or rocked cars.

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]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Sorry, i am looking for facts and evidence that debates the fact the there is jet blast from a plane in the air.

Yeah prove a negative…
I have better things to do with my time, like catching flies with chopsticks.

As i said, what rocks things is wake turbulence/wingtip vortexes, those come down to the surface of the ground.

Originally posted by defcon5
As i said, what rocks things is wake turbulence/wingtip vortexes, those come down to the surface of the ground.

So your stating there would be no jet blast coming from the engine even though the sim shows a lot of thrust coming from the engine?

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Sorry, i am looking for facts and evidence that debates the fact the there is jet blast from a plane in the air.

Yeah prove a negative…
I have better things to do with my time, like catching flies with chopsticks.

As i said, what rocks things is wake turbulence/wingtip vortexes, those come down to the surface of the ground.

look at the first video of the low flying french pilot, there is a sequance when he is being filmed flying along at dirt road, if the vortexes and wake turbulance was a big issue there would be a massive dirt cloud behind him.

Wee Mad Mental

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by defcon5
As i said, what rocks things is wake turbulence/wingtip vortexes, those come down to the surface of the ground.

So your stating there would be no jet blast coming from the engine even though the sim shows a lot of thrust coming from the engine?

Engine thrust is engine thrust, it doesn't point down at the ground after it leaves the tail pipe of the engine it goes straight back, if the plane is in a dive the thrust would point up into the air, if the plane flys level then the thrust goes straight back, for the thrust to be pointed down the aircraft would have to be in upward flight.

Wee Mad Mental

Edit - Spelling

[edit on 6/4/2008 by weemadmental]