Lack of Wake Vortex at WTC = No Planes?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron

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



Yep.

Too bad the whole "deny ignorance" thing actually means not a thing here.

Do you allow Holocaust deniers too?




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


As long as members aren't being a smart alec and they abide by the T&C, They have the same rights as any other member has to state there thoughts and opinions.




[edit on 13/8/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


I really don't care to play a stupid game of semantics with you.

You can actually READ my post, my explanation, as can others, and respond to it intelligently and like an adult, or you can look foolish in the eyes of the others who read, it's your choice.

If you don't take the time to go learn to fly, and you can't accept the knowledge base of others here who can point out the flaws in the logic of many of the videos that exist, some that you presented as "factual", then you aren't really investigating properly.

Here, I have a video for you. A large jet, low and slow, generating a ot of liftt, when wake turbulence/wingtip vortices are strongest crashes, and the resulting fireball and smoke come AFTER the impact (logically). About as similar to the 9/11 videos of UAL175 as we have, for comparison. LOOK for the vortices in the resulting fireball.....




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron

As long as members aren't being a smart alec and they abide by the T&C, They have the same rights as any other member has to state there thoughts and opinions.



Wow, that's quite an admission.

So to be clear, nothing is taboo, no matter how reprehensible or ignorant it is, as long as it conforms to T&C rules?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So to be clear, nothing is taboo, no matter how reprehensible or ignorant it is, as long as it conforms to T&C rules?

There's nothing wrong with people making up anything they like and bringing it here for discussion because the rest of us get the chance to tear their fantasies up with real facts from the real world.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

There's nothing wrong with people making up anything they like and bringing it here for discussion



Well obviously.

That's the TM in a nushell.

Make stuff up, then defend it to the death.

To them, it doesn't matter that they implicate the FDNY when they say that Silverstein gave them instructions to "pull" 7.

They don't care when they run down real, professional SE's, FE's, etc when they claim that they're part of the "cover up" about 9/11, since they're all on board (world wide btw) with the NIST report.

Same with the media.

Without places like this, where it's the wild wild west, and anything is allowed, no matter how disrespectful it may be, the TM would disappear.

Kinda like when I log off. The TM hasn't done anything, influenced anybody, that doesn't have maturity issues, and they never will. And that's the way it will always be.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That's the TM in a nushell.
Make stuff up, then defend it to the death.

That's a very strong accusation and I'm going to call you out on it. I challenge you to make a thread and point out the things that the truth movement has purposely made up. That or a debate in the debate forum. Either way, unless you acquiesce, you'll be known from this moment forth as a dishonest person.

I'll be waiting for the debate challenge or the new thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

That's a very strong accusation and I'm going to call you out on it. I challenge you to make a thread and point out the things that the truth movement has purposely made up.



You obviously forget the thread title.

NPT. Made up. You agree.

The end.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


We've already been over this. NPT is not 9/11 truth and therefore doesn't count. I'll be waiting for that thread or debate challenge within a reasonable amount of time for you to gather your "evidence".



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


OIC.

You get to make to the rules and such?

You get to call out of bounds when it suits?

Sorry, but he's a truther. He's part of your clan. Wear it with pride.

But I'll play along some:

Gage STILL claims that the towers collapsed in 9 seconds, IIRC, and cites the 9/11 Comission Report. Or maybe it's the NIST.

Now, it clearly says that the exterior panels took 9 seconds to hit.

Isn't that a lie?

Isn't his quote just a classic case of cherry picking?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Sorry, but he's a truther. He's part of your clan. Wear it with pride.

No where in the truth movement is NPT accepted, so how is he a truther? As far as the rest goes, make a new thread or a debate in the debate forum as we're already off topic. I'm still waiting....



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


What did you actually expect to find in a conspiracy forum?.

Are you the type of guy that watches a T.V. programme and whinges like f*** about it?.

Don`t like it.. go forth and multiply.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

No where in the truth movement is NPT accepted,


Really?

What's the thread title again?

What did Sauron say?

How many supporters did he get again?

Oops...

he's a truther. Just because YOU don't like it means nothing.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I think the vortex issue is an interesting one. It could be an important clue as to what really happened with aircraft on 9/11.

Personally, I think there was manipulation of the video broadcast on 9/11. However that doesn't make me a "no-planer". I just think that it's possible that altered video may have been used to conceal something about the aircraft used on 9/11.

This vortex business is very interesting. People should keep in mind that the downward pressure of an aircraft in flight and the temperature differences within exhaust gases from fires both create vortices. In other words, all the fires on 9/11 had vortices in their exhaust gases.

The real question is, "Were the vortices seen consistent with what one might expect from a Boeing 757 in the situations portrayed by the videos?"

This, I believe would be a very technical area of discussion probably beyond the competence of anyone but an aeronautical engineer or a specialist in the dynamics of gases.

I find it a little disturbing that there is not more turbulence in the smoke or dust cloud below the impact area on the south tower. The dust there seems to hang or to float straight down. That's not what I would expect to occur, given a following vortex caused by a 757.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the vortices that we are mainly talking about are caused by the weight of the aircraft pressing against the air. Whether the aircraft is flying fast or slow has no effect on it's weight or the energy represented by the vortex.

The energy of the vortex remains the same, fast or slow, but in the case of a faster aircraft the wavelength of this energy is elongated and it's amplitude is decreased. It therefore appears to generate less up and down turbulence as the air passes. In fact it is generating the same amount of turbulence but spread out over a much longer wavelength.

The real question goes back to the dynamics of such vortices.To what extent do they follow the aircraft in a real as opposed to an apparent (like a jet contrail) sense.

If there is any significant following of an aircraft by its down force vortices then when these vortices come up against a sudden stop as they did on 9/11, there should be a "tsunami" like event at the wall of the building where the the wave length shortens to zero and its amplitude increases proportional to its energy.

There should be large turbulence created by a following vortex if the vortices really "follow", at the point of impact and a lot of the disturbance of the dust in the air should be below the impact zone.

I'm suspicious of what we see and I would like to hear a competent aeronautical engineer or physicist on the subject.


[edit on 13-8-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I'm sorry, sir/madam. Nothing in this post makes any sense, it is not accurate aerodynamically.

I suggest further research, because somehow you've gotten certain impressions of how airplanes fly, and their effect on the surrounding air, quite wrong. UNLESS it's just your phraseology. Perhaps if the Source of your opinion were offered, we could attempt to examine it more closely, and see your line of reason.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I'm sorry, sir/madam. Nothing in this post makes any sense, it is not accurate aerodynamically.

Not to mention, this person didn't read all the posts in this thread to even know that the vortex "theory" was already debunked on the first page.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm sorry, sir/madam. Nothing in this post makes any sense, it is not accurate aerodynamically.


Esteemed member. I think all of it makes sense myself.

Airplanes fly because of differences in air pressure above and below the wings caused by the curvature of the wing surfaces as the aircraft moves through the air. The low pressure area above the wings is pushed upon by the high pressure air below the wings generating lift. The weight of the aircraft resists this push by pushing downward. The downward push creates the downward flowing vortex.


I suggest further research, because somehow you've gotten certain impressions of how airplanes fly, and their effect on the surrounding air, quite wrong. UNLESS it's just your phraseology. Perhaps if the Source of your opinion were offered, we could attempt to examine it more closely, and see your line of reason.


I'm not an aeronautical engineer and I have said that I would like to hear one, or even more than one, on this subject.

My post above came entirely out of my head. No source. Just thinking for myself as is all too uncommon these days.

You're not convincing me that you could see my line of reasoning, no matter what sources I might cite.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not to mention, this person didn't read all the posts in this thread to even know that the vortex "theory" was already debunked on the first page.


Nope.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Well, you have the basics correct, in the last post. Where you're going off is the notion of the airplane's weight and effect on the surrounding air, sounds like you're thinking more in terms of a boat, on the two-dimensional surface of the water.

NOW, in addition to the 'textbook' description of the "lower' pressure on the upper lifting surfaces, that's merely part of it...look into something called the "Coanda Effect".

BUT, back to vortices: Essentially, they are produced at the wingtips because of the pressure differential, and the air below DOES tend to roll up unimpeded to above the wing, 'around' the end of the wing.

You may be having ideas of air displacement as the airplane flies through it, but it doesn't do something like pushing a "bow wave" ahead of it, or anything like that. The air, although it behaves as a "fluid", is of course so much less viscous than water, for instance, that although there are comparisons, the air, having less mass and inertia, is easily cleaved by the airplane.

IN THIS discussion, though, we assert that the vortices, that some (including the OP are asking about) that seem to be missing, the question is in fact moot, because the airplane had ALREADY PASSED the area, and any lingering vortex disturbance would be miniscule in comparison to the forces of the explosive gases, and the dynamics of that energy, and movement.

BTW...I've flown airplanes for over 35 years, so I understand a thing or two about how they work....so, I will be able to understand your points.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Here is a diagram taken from the FAA's Manual of Aeronautical Information:

www.faa.gov...



If you notice the direction of rotation of the vortices, you will see that they counter rotate, generating a downward flow of air underneath the airplane. I am wondering, (as I said, I'm not an aeronautical engineer), if we shouldn't see evidence of that airflow in the dust beneath the impact zones, which is quite still as opposed to the smoke etc., above the impact, which is disturbed mostly by the force of blast, I think, and thermal convection currents.

I think people who draw attention to the vortex issue are not so way wrong as to be deserving of the amount of contempt they are handed by people in this discussion.

I would like to talk to a real expert, i.e., a very competent aeronautical engineer who understands the complete story of the fluid dynamics invoved in aircraft movement. I'm particularly interested to know if there is any degree to which an aircraft's wake follows it, as a boat's does to some extent.

If it does then I think people who think those impact videos are not tampered with, have a problem.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by ipsedixit]






top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join