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: 35
1
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
.that is laughable, based on the bad spelling....


What laughable is the fact that you like most believers post about my spelling and other things instead of posting evidence to debate me or support your claims.

Seems like your just proving my point that you cannot post evidence.


ULTIMA....see? You did it again!!! Lied....claimed I brought nothing to the discussion!!! You lied a few days ago, about me.....said I accused you of writing a book!! I NEVER said that. It was YOUR lie!!!

I guarantee that anyone who cares to spend a few minutes of their time can scroll through, and see the posts I've made, and compare them to yours.

We all make spelling mistakes, it's the nature of the keyboard.....but, when someone posts so many one-liners, and I hate to repeat myself, it's the 'hit-and-run' approach....and ULTIMA, you are the King of the one-liners, at least in these forae!!

We, the few who respond to this thread, are still waiting for your so-called 'research' that has been promised for a few weeks....or even months....WHERE is it???

You claim to work at the NSA....(as far as I know, the existence of the nsA has not ever been ackowledged by the US Gov't)

Even though they have the sign, right there on the BW Parkway, to denote the exit ramp, for the NSA (employees only)....would be funny if it wasn't so true.

The Gov't denied the existence of Area 51....'GroomLake'....'DreamLand'....the 'Nellis Range'.....'Area 53'....even though, as a pilot, I knew it was there. I saw the 737s from Las Vegas, all white, every day.....back in the late 1970s....I had a 'Q' clearance, for god's sake!!!!

Later, I chatted with fellow aviators, ex-military types....pieced together the stories......read books.....

ULTIMA....you may have inside knowledge that you cannot convey, lest you be exposed....because it's TS or 'eyes only'....

However....you tease, and never provide...tidbits. If I had a pet dog, and teased him, without ever giving a treat....I think he'd eventually bite my butt!!

Best, WW




posted on May, 10 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Well, to be clear, I did accuse him of trying to sell a book or video currently or in the future. I also said the issue could be put to rest with a simple denial that he was considering or was now selling an associated product, which he has not given.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


_Del_.....

IT WAS YOU!!! J'accuse!!!!!!

kidding.....see, I got accused, no apology, not even an indication of an apology......hmmmmmpht!

He's done!

WW



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA....see? You did it again!!! Lied....claimed I brought nothing to the discussion!!!


I can and have posted lots of material but in usual beleiver manner you just avoid it and have to change the subject by talking about my spelling.

I have already asked several times for you to hsow the resources you use because i can show a whole big list ofm y sources.

So why don't you show your sources?






Originally posted by _Del_
Well, to be clear, I did accuse him of trying to sell a book or video currently or in the future.


quote]Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by _Del_
 


_Del_.....

IT WAS YOU!!! J'accuse!!!!!!

kidding.....see, I got accused, no apology, not even an indication of an apology......hmmmmmpht!

He's done!


And i told you that if you or your believer buddies ever lied about me like selling books or videos i would talk to the mods about banning you.

You were warned. Now you guys are DONE.



[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


So this is a denial, then? I'm just trying to be clear. Because what you didn't say was "I am not now or considering selling a book" If you say that, I shall take you at your word and mention it no more, as I've stated before. The only response you made was that it was insulting, which was ambiguous at best.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
. Because what you didn't say was "I am not now or considering selling a book" .


Oh its to late to try to back out of what you stated i am making a nice note for the mods, including the warnings i gave you believers..

Nice try though with the part about wanting to take me for my word when you have not done it before. But its too late.





[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


_del_

I think you must have hit the nail on the head. Otherwise, a simple "No" would have sufficed. Interesting how people profit off such a disaster, isnt it?



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
. Because what you didn't say was "I am not now or considering selling a book" .


Oh its to late to try to back out of what you stated i am making a nice note for the mods, including the warnings i gave you believers..

Nice try though with the part about wanting to take me for my word when you have not done it before. But its too late.


I'm happy to stand by my comments, especially in light of the fact that I still haven't heard a denial. I made an earlier offer to drop it with a denial that was never responded to. I don't think I mentioned it since that post, until WW brought it up. I think the question has relevance, and your unwillingness to address it with anything other than name calling and threats is (un?)surprising.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
I think you must have hit the nail on the head. Otherwise, a simple "No" would have sufficed.


Now you just got added to the mods list.


Originally posted by _Del_
I'm happy to stand by my comments,]


If you and your beleiver buddies would read post you would have seen that i challenged you guys to quote where i stated i wrote or sold books and videos.

Since you cannot then you lied. WHY MUST YOU LIE?



[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I think I've figured out the whole wake turbulence thing. I would like a second opinion on this.

An aircraft in straight and level flight produces a wake comprised of a mixture of the wingtip vortices, engine exhaust, and the wash from the whole wing itself (also the fuselage and tail and elevators/stabilizers).

The wash from the trailing edge of the wing comes from a phenomenon called flow separation. This has a lot to do with the Reynolds Number concept I posted earlier.

What happens is that at lower velocities, the flow has a viscous region which "sticks" to the wing (laminar flow) and that keeps the rest of the flow relatively smooth over the entire wing. But there can be a small portion at the trailing edge of the wing that separates from the surface of the wing and becomes more turbulent (generating eddies, reverse flows and the such).

As velocity increases, the separation point slowly starts to creep towards the leading edge of the wing. This is due to the pressure at the top of the wing dropping. Thus, increasing the amount of flow over that wing that is fully turbulent. This would lead to a more turbulent wake.

This also happens at low speeds at high angles of attack for landing or take-off. The wing is angle such that it's just physically impossible for the flow to "stick" to the wing for a long duration of time, and thus separates very early, resulting in a large turbulent area. Which is part of the reason why an airplane stalls.

So in summary. For an airplane flying straight and level or at a constant AoA, an increase in velocity will cause the separation point of the flow to advance towards the leading edge, resulting in a larger turbulent wake behind the airplane.

There are some good equations that Prandtl came up with, but they're very complicated (partial differentials, Greek variables, and the such). I'll spare you all the equations (as much for myself as it would be damned hard to type them in a post).

A simple explanation:
madmonster.williams.edu...

[edit on 11-5-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 11-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I think I've figured out the whole wake turbulence thing. I would like a second opinion on this.


What a surprise, you actually added the engine exhaust. I thought you gys stated there was no engine exhaust when the plane is flying fast?

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I didn't say you said that you sold books. Why must you lie? (In my best shrill voice). I also failed to see any posts where you denied considering or actively selling a product related to the subject.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


No, if you had bothered to read we said that jet blast was only really strong on the ground. It's still there in flight, but it's only directly behind the aircraft and very close to the engines. In flight it's not nearly as dangerous as it is on the ground.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

What a surprise, you actually added the engine exhaust. I thought you gys stated there was no engine exhaust when the plane is flying fast?

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


For the last time, stop grouping me into the "you guys". I have never said that there was no engine exhaust.

I do believe you even thanked me in a post for saying that it didn't disappear.

But that aside, what do you think of my explanation? Does it have merit?


I found the post where you thanked me for stating that engine exhaust doesn't disappear:


Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
No, of course it doesn't "disappear". I just believe jet blast becomes less and less of a factor on objects on the ground as the airplane goes higher. Wake turbulence takes over as the primary force.



But doesn't the FA have a rule for takeoff distance becasue of jet blast on the ground and in the air at takeoff?

Thanks for being truthful about the jet blast not disappering.

But wake turbulence is at its highest at slow speed, gear and flaps down, wake turbulence decrease as speed increases. Where jet blast would be a constant.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


You posted this on 4/27/2008 at 1: 32 AM. Now stop grouping me with the "you guys".

[edit on 11-5-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 11-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA....see? You did it again!!! Lied....claimed I brought nothing to the discussion!!!


I can and have posted lots of material but in usual beleiver manner you just avoid it and have to change the subject by talking about my spelling.

I have already asked several times for you to hsow the resources you use because i can show a whole big list ofm y sources.

So why don't you show your sources?

I am so sorry, apologies to the Mods....but the full quote MUST be pulled, to see the lies that ULTIMA makes, at least as it regards me......

it is as I've mentioned.....maybe not on this particular thread.....but maybe on another....

I was personally accused.....and never got an apology. Personally accused of saying something about a poster....Mr. ULTIMA....that wasn't true....again, no apology.....just back water comments....and If I said something that led to those comments, then I'll accept whatever punishment should be directed at me!!

I just hope other voices will keep a clear 'eye' on these discussions....and make their opinions known.....

Best, WW










Originally posted by _Del_
Well, to be clear, I did accuse him of trying to sell a book or video currently or in the future.


quote]Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by _Del_
 


_Del_.....

IT WAS YOU!!! J'accuse!!!!!!

kidding.....see, I got accused, no apology, not even an indication of an apology......hmmmmmpht!

He's done!



And i told you that if you or your believer buddies ever lied about me like selling books or videos i would talk to the mods about banning you.

You were warned. Now you guys are DONE.



[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I didn't say you said that you sold books. Why must you lie? (In my best shrill voice). I also failed to see any posts where you denied considering or actively selling a product related to the subject.


Well i guess i just have to quote the beleivers post and show everyone what liers you guys are.

Oh and also show were i challenged you guys to quote where i wrote or sold books.



[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well i guess i just have to quote the beleivers post and show everyone what liers you guys are.

Oh and also show were i challenged you guys to quote where i wrote or sold books.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Am I included in your "liers" group? I don't think I should be. I haven't posted anything but facts so far to my knowledge.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   


Um...so are we still talking about the jet engine sim at all? What happened to all that? Has it been completely debunked? If so...perhaps this thread should just be closed.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I haven't posted anything but facts so far to my knowledge.


But you believers like to gang up and keep posting the same thing from the official story (that you cannot post evidence to suport) so i put you guys together.



[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But you believers like to gang up and keep posting the same thing from the official story (that you cannot post evidence to suport) so i put you guys together.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I've been posting nothing but things related to aerospace. How does that put me into the "believers" group?

I still have that door open for you to read and question the specifics of my posts. You have yet to truly debate them.

Whenever you feel ready.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join