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: 32
1
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Well, I certainly haven't seen any to debate mine. In fact, I've seen very little off of your script.


How much more do i need to post?

I mean i know its hard for believers to believe anything but what they are told by the media and TV.



You could start with an official report that shows any evidence the plane that struck the Pentagon was not the flight it was stated to be. Or that any other a/c went missing/unaccounted for that day.




posted on May, 9 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Just wondering, can anyone else see my posts? It seems that Ultima has given up on debating me and clicked on the ignore link. Talk about being afraid of the truth...

Carry on...


Oh,


Wake turbulence is turbulence that forms behind an aircraft as it passes through the air. This turbulence includes various components, the most important of which are wingtip vortices and jetwash. Jetwash refers simply to the rapidly moving gasses expelled from a jet engine; it is extremely turbulent, but of short duration. Wingtip vortices, on the other hand, are much more stable and can remain in the air for up to three minutes after the passage of an aircraft. Wingtip vortices make up the primary and most dangerous component of wake turbulence.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


I see you

Please continue the informed posts, they're much appreciated and it helps to make the flatout denial of facts from some quarters more bearable.

There's much to learn here.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You could start with an official report that shows any evidence the plane that struck the Pentagon was not the flight it was stated to be.


I am looking for the truth. I do not need to show evindece it WAS NOT flight 77, just evidence that shows reasonable doubt that it WAS NOT flight 77.

Its up to the people that believe it was flight 77 to prove it WAS flight 77.

If we were in court the evindece that has been shown so far would not hold up as evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.



[edit on 9-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Jetwash refers simply to the rapidly moving gasses expelled from a jet engine; it is extremely turbulent,


So that statment agrees with what i have been stating.

That jet blast could have rocked cars.





[edit on 9-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I am looking for the truth. I do not need to show evindece it WAS NOT flight 77,


Super. My theory is it was the same type of gigantic purple sugar glider that is seen in the Purdue model.
I am looking for the truth. I don't have to show evidence that it was a purple sugar glider. It's up to people who claim it was flight 77 to prove it wasn't a sugar glider.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Super. My theory is it was the same type of gigantic purple sugar glider that is seen in the Purdue model.


Just like i expected, ask the beleivers for evidnece and look what they post.

Thanks for poving my point about believers.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
You could start with an official report that shows any evidence the plane that struck the Pentagon was not the flight it was stated to be.


I am looking for the truth. I do not need to show evindece it WAS NOT flight 77, just evidence that shows reasonable doubt that it WAS NOT flight 77.


Sounds like you don't really care WHAT hit the Pentagon, as long as it wasn't flight 77. The thought of flight 77 being the plane seems to scare you....and i'm not sure why that is.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Sounds like you don't really care WHAT hit the Pentagon, as long as it wasn't flight 77.


I am looking for the truth, something you seem very afraid of.

Still waiting for evidence not satatements and opinions to support the official story.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I am looking for the truth, something you seem very afraid of.


I know. I'm still waiting for the evidence it was flight 77 as opposed to a gigantic purple sugar glider. It's totally up to them to prove it wasn't the sugar glider.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So that statment agrees with what i have been stating.

That jet blast could have rocked cars.


[edit on 9-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


How's about you actually post the entire quote instead of snipping like you're good at?


Jetwash refers simply to the rapidly moving gases expelled from a jet engine; it is extremely turbulent, but of short duration. ...Wingtip vortices make up the primary and most dangerous component of wake turbulence.


If the jet blast didn't act long enough on the car (as in the short duration as stated above), then it wouldn't have transfered enough energy.

I'm still waiting for you to post any evidence, not statements or opinions, that jet blast from an airplane in low level flight has a significant impact on ground objects.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I know. I'm still waiting for the evidence it was flight 77 as opposed to a gigantic purple sugar glider..


Very simple, there are no official reports, photos, or videos that show it to be flight 77. Its something called reasonable doubt and would hold up in court to disprove a sugar glider or flight 77.

Where is your proof that it was a sugar glider, as you claim?



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I'm still waiting for you to post any evidence, not statements or opinions, that jet blast from an airplane in low level flight has a significant impact on ground objects.


I have posted evidence and witness statments, why do you ignore them?



[edit on 9-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Very simple, there are no official reports, photos, or videos that show it to be flight 77. Its something called reasonable doubt and would hold up in court to disprove a sugar glider or flight 77.

Where is your proof that it was a sugar glider, as you claim?


There are no official reports, photos, or videos that show it to be flight 77. It therefore must be a sugar glider.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
There are no official reports, photos, or videos that show it to be flight 77. It therefore must be a sugar glider.


Well at least you agree there are no official reports, photos or videos.

Now we jsut have to get you to see that the official story has no evindece to support it.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have posted evidence and witness statments, why do you ignore them?
[edit on 9-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I and all the other guys here have posted numerous videos, pictures, and other evidence and I have even gone into academics to prove that jet blast is a limited factor against ground objects when the airplane is in level flight.

Why do you ignore them? I know you don't under my academic explanations, but that's ok.

You still haven't commented on the video of a KC-135 flying extremely low to the dessert without kicking up any dust at all from its jet exhaust.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I and all the other guys here have posted numerous videos, pictures, and other evidence and I have even gone into academics to prove otherwise.


Show me a video of a 757 going 500 mph just feet above cars and then i will not not ignore it.

So you do not beleive the academics of the source i posted? i am stil wating for anything to debate it.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


I have not seen any evidence the dust was not made out of an ultra-heavy rare compound. The combined effect of jet thrust from the four engines and wingtip vortices was more than sufficient to rock a car, but not the ultra-heavy rare compound. How do you know there was really regular dust there? I saw no reports stating what the ground composed of.




[edit on 9-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I have not seen any evidence the dust was not made out of an ultra-heavy rare compound.


Thats it, just keep proving my point about the believers.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Show me a video of a 757 going 500 mph just feet above cars and then i will not not ignore it.

So you do not beleive the academics of the source i posted? i am stil wating for anything to debate it.


I have asked you to post your source numerous times, but you have yet to do that. I will gladly take a look at the academics of that site and its statement.

Until you do, I will regard your statement as just that. A statement that you wrote.

A KC-135 has the same dimensions as a B757 to within a few feet and it's a fact that its four engines (each producing 21,634 lbs. of thrust) equals the thrust of the two B757 engines (each producing 43,500 lbs. of thrust).

Oh, and I asked you to post your video of an airplane flying over cars and rocking them first.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join