Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

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.

Originally posted by mlmijyd
I know its a 747 but the force of a Jet engine at high throttle makes for interesting viewing if there were people and say cars nearby!

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]

Originally posted by mlmijyd
I know its a 747 but the force of a Jet engine at high throttle makes for interesting viewing if there were people and say cars nearby!

747 engine meets a car!

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.

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.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Still waiting for evidence to prove there is no jet blast from a plane flying.

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”.


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:

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 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

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… :bnghd:
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… :bnghd:
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]

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.