Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Lack of Wake Vortex at WTC = No Planes?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Interesting video. This is something I always questioned, why didn't the explosions coming out of the towers show any significant signs of wake turbulence?






en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 13-8-2009 by ATH911]




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   


The vortices are right where they should be.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Maybe because:


...the vortex strength or circulation is proportional to the aircraft weight and inversely proportional to the aircraft speed. Therefore the strongest wakes are found behind heavy aircraft during either the landing approach or the climb out after take-off.


Aircraft wake vortices and their effect on following aircraft

And since the planes that hit the towers were going so fast, maybe the vortices created weren't as strong as one might think. There is a picture in that pdf link that shows the vortices, and they seem pretty far apart, coming more from the wingtips and distant behind the plane. They may have been too far away or dissipated too soon for the smoke which came out later to be directly affected.

Or maybe they were interrupted by the buildings.

I dunno. I do remember this subject though- it was brought up at that "disinfo" forum.
BoneZ


OMG, am I arguing a debunkers point?


lol, just saying, the explanation went something like that, not sure man.

[edit on Thu Aug 13th 2009 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
for me...why not using planes ..why risking that much being caught?

IMO..if planes were so difficult to obtain and use they might have opted for a small nuke in the buildings..but faking planes into the buildings then video games are really effecting our kids if you think it plausable



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
In order to produce significant vortices, and aircraft has to be flying at low speed with a high angle of attack (the aircraft has its nose pointing up), so the wing is inducing large amounts of drag while producing lift. This normally occurs at take off and landing, not during normal cruising attitude/speed. At cruising speed, with the flaps up, and the wings level, the vortices would be negligible. If the aircraft had winglets, that further reduces the size of any wingtip vortices.

[edit on 8/13/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Another interesting video showing wind turbulence of other planes passing through explosions.




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
Another interesting video showing wind turbulence of other planes passing through explosions.


The plane is inside the building at the point shown in the video, it has exploded and is no longer flying. Without it moving it's not producing any movement of the air therefore I believe your video is really reaching for anything to hold onto.

Beside the fact that the no plane theory has got to be the least logical of all of them.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
The plane is inside the building at the point shown in the video, it has exploded and is no longer flying. Without it moving it's not producing any movement of the air therefore I believe your video is really reaching for anything to hold onto.

Um, how did it get inside the building?


Beside the fact that the no plane theory has got to be the least logical of all of them.

Why not?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by eNumbra
The plane is inside the building at the point shown in the video, it has exploded and is no longer flying. Without it moving it's not producing any movement of the air therefore I believe your video is really reaching for anything to hold onto.

Um, how did it get inside the building?


Beside the fact that the no plane theory has got to be the least logical of all of them.

Why not?

1: the turbulent air hits the face of the structure and dissipates before the point at which the video even starts.


2:Witnesses on the ground.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



...interesting video...


No. FAIL video. Read above, several have discussed wingtip vortices.

The video is confusing engine exhaust with wingtip vortices. It is made by someone who is desperate, it would seem.

Look at 1:29 After showing jet blast hazards to equipment on the ground, the video maker tries to equate that to the vortices. WRONG!

The most laughable part is the "up to 30,000 rpm"...he's talking about the internal components of a jet engine, and the exhaust air DOES NOT come spinning out of the tailpipe!!!


THEN, showing an old WWII PROPELLER airplane flying OVER a fire and explosion that was already in progress???


Wingtip vortices are real, but they dissipate quickly, and drift with any prevailing winds.

In the case of the WTC explosions, happening AFTER the airplane has alreadt passed, the energies of the billowing clouds of flame and smoke trump any vortices present, except you CAN see little hints of vortices here and there.

THIS kind of nonsense is what sets the "Truth Movement" back FAR more than they should stand for!!!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
The vortices are right where they should be.


Your video showed no vortex turbulence, but just the natural mushroom cloud formation and gravity effect of an explosion.


"STUPID CONSPIRACT THEORISTS"

Did your parents raise you to be this immature?



[edit on 13-8-2009 by ATH911]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
1: the turbulent air hits the face of the structure and dissipates before the point at which the video even starts.

2:Witnesses on the ground.

1: That's absurd. In one of the videos I posted, it showed how the air turbulence lasted long after the plane had past. Now I think it is YOU who is reaching.

2: Same as the Pentagon?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
do we have Jet Exhaust ...?

second line



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by eNumbra
1: the turbulent air hits the face of the structure and dissipates before the point at which the video even starts.

2:Witnesses on the ground.

1: That's absurd. In one of the videos I posted, it showed how the air turbulence lasted long after the plane had past.

2: Same as the Pentagon?


1: It was also a much larger plane at a different speed and lower to the ground. The vortex also formed, if you were paying attention near the base of the smoking tower. So the observable smoke in the 9/11 video which was emanating from the same height of the plane wouldn't have been affected as proofed by your own video as the vortexes move down and away from the planes.

2: Maybe you should look up the word logic. I didn't say the no plane theory was true or false, I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't I just said it was the least logical.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Look at 1:29 After showing jet blast hazards to equipment on the ground, the video maker tries to equate that to the vortices. WRONG!

I think you are confusing that regardless of what kind of turbulence the video is showing, a 767 going over 500 mph is going to leave a LOT of wind turbulence behind period.



THEN, showing an old WWII PROPELLER airplane flying OVER a fire and explosion that was already in progress???

You think just because a plane is "old" and flies over an existing explosion matters???



Wingtip vortices are real, but they dissipate quickly, and drift with any prevailing winds.

Wrong. At in the first video I posted, it shows how wind turbulence last long after the plane passed. So FAIL to that argument of yours!



In the case of the WTC explosions, happening AFTER the airplane has alreadt passed, the energies of the billowing clouds of flame and smoke trump any vortices present

And your proof of this is just using the WTC videos? Can you demonstrate this using non-WTC videos so we can see if your claims holds any "air."



except you CAN see little hints of vortices here and there.

Oh so now there are vortexes! I wish you would make up your mind.



THIS kind of nonsense is what sets the "Truth Movement" back FAR more than they should stand for!!!

I love when skeptics pretend to be concerned about the truth movement!



Oh and weedwhacker, how did you like my use of immature lol's?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
...I still find it amazing that there are "No plane" believers out there still.

All the eyewitnesses, and live tv coverage, and videos, and photos...are all actually agents of the govt ?

Are you saying they were holograms then? Are we back to that theory?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
OMG, yet another thread claiming 100% of nothing!




Originally posted by TrueAmerican
And since the planes that hit the towers were going so fast, maybe the vortices created weren't as strong as one might think.

Excellent info. Not only that, but looking at the end of the first video where the plane goes through the fire. Notice how long it takes for the vortices to even show up? Also note that the plane flew through the fire at the end of that video and the planes were already stopped inside the towers before the fireball. Since the planes were already stopped, there were no vortices being created to show up in the fireballs.

And that means yet another disinfo claim debunked. That video should be titled "100% proof of disinfo".



Originally posted by ATH911
Another interesting video showing wind turbulence of other planes passing through explosions.

Key words here: "passing through". The planes that hit the towers didn't pass through the fireballs. They were already stopped and the fireballs happened immediately afterwords.



Originally posted by ATH911
Um, how did it get inside the building?

Um, flew? It's too bad the no-planers can't grasp the physics of how the planes impacted the towers. These "theories" wouldn't even exist if it weren't for mostly that fact alone.

The outer columns were bolted and welded together. The very light floor trusses were bolted to the outer columns and inner columns. The planes didn't fly through steel columns, they flew through bolts and welds. None of the columns failed. Those must be some magical bolts and welds for you to think a 300,000 pound object traveling at 500mph can't break them.



Originally posted by ATH911
1: That's absurd. In one of the videos I posted, it showed how the air turbulence lasted long after the plane had past.

THE PLANES DIDN'T PASS THROUGH THE FIREBALLS AT THE WTC. THE PLANES WERE ALREADY STOPPED BEFORE THE FIREBALLS ERUPTED!!!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
...I still find it amazing that there are "No plane" believers out there still.

Yeah, there aren't too many of them left and we don't get to see them really anywhere outside of this forum as there aren't too many places they're allowed to post anymore. It doesn't take much for most people to see disinfo.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Bear with me please, this is my first venture into the 911 theories. Are people really trying to say there were no planes flying into the WTC?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by habfan1968
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

There is only a few people who claim the NPT No Plane Theory as fact.

ATS is one of only a few places that have not banned this line of thinking

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




[edit on 13/8/2009 by Sauron]





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join