Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

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.

There are plenty of videos of people and cars being thrown around by jet blast.

ground jet blast
www.youtube.com...

Turbulence and jet blast
www.youtube.com...

jet blast knocks guy over
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

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

[edit on 6-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

First you say:

And:


Then you say:

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.



On ground, none moving, 747 on take-off run-up, just as I stated above.

Not jet blast, but a wingtip vortex, certainly not significant enough to do much to a vehicle or knock down a person.

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

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]

... 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.

A couple of us have already shown videos of that in this thread,. What you’re looking for is wingtip vortex stuff, not jet blast. That is why there is no significant blast from the small winged fighter aircraft that passed even closer to people without damage, despite them having engines just as powerful as the 757. Significant vortexes only come from large aircraft with a large wing. Generally vortexes only will only flip something that they can generate lift under, regardless of what they showed in the movie “pushing tin”.
external image

This whole concept it silly, its like saying that any cars on roads that pass close to a runway should be getting thrown around in some way. Where I am at Hillsborough Ave runs within a couple of hundred feet of the runway, Wick Rd in DTW is similarly close to the end of one runway.

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.

So here you go:


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.

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.

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



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

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.

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?

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

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]

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.