Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I tried, I really did try to walk away from this....but, "they keep pullin' me back in!"

No....we DO NOT AGREE!!! ULTIMA, I grow weary of your dishonest tactics, and fear for your soul.

Your own, earlier source...an eyewitness pilot from another airplane, said he saw a four-foot section of the wing break off, as relates to NWA255. So, NO, the wing did not 'shear off'....

BTW....where was this eyewitness pilot? Was he at the departure end of the same runway?? A runway is an average of 10000 feet long....that's two MILES! And, by the time the doomed airplane reached the rental car parking lot, it was past the end of the runway....two mies is a very long dstance to estimate how large a section of the tip of the wing broke off...

But, no matter....I've already, three times (now) told you how the MD-80 wing has tips on the wings....segments that contain the 'surge' tanks....these are small fuel tanks to contain any sloppage from the main wing tank...and these tips can break off, and not (normal circumstances) appreciably affect the flight performance of the airplane. They are OUTBOARD of the ailerons.

OK, three times, maybe you can understand it now???

Again...comparing NWA255 from 21 years ago to AAL77 is not a valid comparison, it is grasping at straws....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Your own, earlier source...an eyewitness pilot from another airplane, said he saw a four-foot section of the wing break off, as relates to NWA255. So, NO, the wing did not 'shear off'....
....

Please explain to me what the difference bettween a wing breaking or shearing off. The fact is the wing came off because of hitting a light pole.

Lets look the fact that supports my claim that hitting a light pole can cause a wing to be sheared off.

and struck a lamppost in the lot of a nearby National Car Rental office. The impact sheared off part of the wing,

END OF STORY.



[edit on 22-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA....you are not getting it!!!

A 'wing shearing off' statement, on its surface, brings to the mind of the reader....that the WHOLE wing 'sheared' off.

A few feet of a wingtip breaking off is not the same as a WHOLE WING 'shearing off'!!

I've explained this now....at least FOUR times, how the MD-80 wing is different from the B757 wing...could you please try to understand??

Why do we always end up using examples of crashes where the pilots were desperately trying to avoid crashing or to at least minimise the impact to increase the survivability? These crashes are not a valid comparison to what happened on 9/11.

More valid and informative would be examples where aircraft were flown at approx 500mph into buildings or even frangible light poles.

I still don't get the point about turbulence and jet wash in the case of AA77. Witnesses reported feeling the disturbance so does that support the notion that a 757 flew over them? It hardly proves there was no plane.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I still don't get the point about turbulence and jet wash in the case of AA77. Witnesses reported feeling the disturbance so does that support the notion that a 757 flew over them? It hardly proves there was no plane.

I'm curious as well. In fact, I'm not sure what he is trying to argue really. I propose he start a new thread with a detailed account of the events of the day as he sees them. Hopefully outlined with as much citation as possible. Then I could see the merit of the proposal he is advocating. So far I've heard a lot of "too bad you believers can't prove anything" and not a lot of alternative theory.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Why do we always end up using examples of crashes where the pilots were desperately trying to avoid crashing or to at least minimise the impact to increase the survivability? .

But we can compare what the planes are made of and how they react in accidents to show how the 9/11 planes would have also reacted.

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm curious as well. In fact, I'm not sure what he is trying to argue really. I propose he start a new thread with a detailed account of the events of the day as he sees them. Hopefully outlined with as much citation as possible.

Sorry in am not into theories i am looking for the truth of what happened.

Well if you would read my posts i am stating how the turbulence and jet blast should have been the Pentagon becasue of what we know about turbulence and jet blast.

Becasue of the different reports from the witnesses and the lack of debris and parts matched to the planes we have to use other sources to try to figure out what happened.


[edit on 22-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm curious as well. In fact, I'm not sure what he is trying to argue really. I propose he start a new thread with a detailed account of the events of the day as he sees them. Hopefully outlined with as much citation as possible.

Sorry in am not into theories i am looking for the truth of what happened.

Well if you would read my posts i am stating how the turbulence and jet blast should have been the Pentagon becasue of what we know about turbulence and jet blast.

Ok, I'll abandon all semblance of the meaning of the words in english, and play your game: What is your version of the "truth" then?

How does turbulence and jet blast become the Pentagon?

Originally posted by _Del_
How does turbulence and jet blast become the Pentagon?

Please do not be childish. You know what i meant.

Turbulence and jet blast AT the Pentagon.

As far as what heppened, i do not know because i (like most people) was not there so i do research to find out what happened.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But we can compare what the planes are made of and how they react in accidents to show how the 9/11 planes would have also reacted.

The comparison is completely invalid if you ignore the kinetic energy that has to be dissipated on impact. If the total KE of the moving object is applied over a surface area small enough to exceed the UTS of the stationary object, it fails regardless of what material either object is made of.

Back to jet blast - the witnesses reported feeling effects of turbulence so what's the problem there?

I checked the attitude of the plane at that point and it was pitched down at about 5 degrees travelling at around 460 knots. If its height above the roadway was about 20' and the angle of spread of the blast is estimated at a uniform 10 degrees around the engine centreline, the blast of the engines does not reach ground level until the plane is approx 200' past them. The question is then how strong is the blast at that distance.

The blast is strongest immediately behind the engine naturally as the total exhaust is concentrated into the minimum circular area at that point. At the point where that diameter of main blast reaches ground level it is spread over sufficient area to reduce the intensity to about 3% of maximum, probably far less than that if dissipation factors are brought into it.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Back to jet blast - the witnesses reported feeling effects of turbulence so what's the problem there?

Well as usaual trying to get to the truth of what happened that day.

Trying to find what hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well as usaual trying to get to the truth of what happened that day.

Trying to find what hit the Pentagon.

No challenge to the rest of my post?

Can I take that as acceptance in lieu of any evidence of disagreement?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Can I take that as acceptance in lieu of any evidence of disagreement?

As long as i take you not posting any information to debate me or support the official story as admiting you cannot prove your claims or the official story.


[edit on 24-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As long as i take you not posting any information to debate me or support the official story as admiting you cannot prove your claims or the official story.

Well, as you can see, I have posted some relevant factual information which appears to be at odds with your position. One point was related to simple physics and the other concerned the possible strength of the jet blast/turbulence that could be felt at ground level. I could update my calculations if you can provide a better estimate of the angle of dispersion behind the subject jet engines or the height above the vehicles. I took the pitch angle from the DFDR data BTW which raises another question -

Why would a jet at 460K close to the ground require a -ve pitch all the way to it's target?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Well, as you can see, I have posted some relevant factual information which appears to be at odds with your position.

Wrong, you have no actual, relevant, or factual information.

As stated about 100 times, the FAA, FBI and NTSB has not released most of the actual information. So what you post is only an opinion or theory.




[edit on 24-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Wrong, you have no actual, relevant, or factual information.

As stated about 100 times, the FAA, FBI and NTSB has not released most of the actual information. So what you post is only an opinion or theory.

Surely you're not denying kinetic energy and trigonometry now although it wouldn't surprise me. Is there a problem with the data from the flight recorder in relation to speed or pitch?

NTSB seems to be convinced that it's the genuine article and that it was recovered from the wreckage at the Pentagon. That would make it one of those N644AA specific parts you claim don't exist (officially).

Any thoughts on how it got there?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Surely you're not denying kinetic energy and trigonometry now although it wouldn't surprise me. Is there a problem with the data from the flight recorder in relation to speed or pitch?

Again you post statments and opinions, NO ACTUAL EVDIDENCE.

If you are going to state something as fact please show evidence to suport it. IF I HAVE TO POST EVIDNECE TO SUPPORT WHAT I POST YOU SHOULD BE ADULT ENOUGH TO POST EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU POST

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Again you post statments and opinions, NO ACTUAL EVDIDENCE.

If you are going to state something as fact please show evidence to suport it. IF I HAVE TO POST EVIDNECE TO SUPPORT WHAT I POST YOU SHOULD BE ADULT ENOUGH TO POST EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU POST

Did I hit a nerve or something?

I put physics and the flight recorder on the table as evidence. Do you have proof enough to exclude either as valid?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Again you post statments and opinions, NO ACTUAL EVDIDENCE.

So the recorder (matched to the airplane) is not evidence? That's an official report right? That they found it there? Why do you keep saying no reports have matched parts to that particular a/c? It's patently untrue.
What does one have to do to be evidence? Hundreds of eye witnesses are not acceptable evidence for you, but one eye witness who claimed that he saw gear being deployed is evidence according to you. It seems you pick and choose what is ACTUAL EVDIDENCE[sic] based on whether it supports your story or not. I'm still interested to hear your version of events on that day. I'd love a thread with a nice outline from someone who has done all this research.
Again you post statments[sic] and opinions, NO ACTUAL EVDIDENCE.[sic]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I put physics and the flight recorder on the table as evidence. Do you have proof enough to exclude either as valid?

I asked for evidence, not opinions and theories.

Please do more research to catch up on whats going on, there are reports of the FDR data being comprimised.