Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

reply to post by Seymour Butz


I feel sorry for people who must pretend to be something they are not. I don't understand why people just can't be themselves here and have adult, reasonable, open discussions.

Sorry I have to go, my NASA space mission to Jupiter is about to lift off and I haven't even gotten into my flight suit yet

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Sorry to pull off topic again. But really? Mostly steel? If anything, I'd expect a mostly titanium and aluminum airframe and skin and maybe steel for things like the landing gear and engines.

Mostly steel would make for a really heavy airplane.

For comparison, the F-4 is roughly the same size as the F/A-22. The F/A-22 weighs around 31,000 lbs. empty compared to the F-4 weighing in around 30,000 lbs.

I know for a fact that the F/A-22 is mostly aluminum (16%), titanium (39%), composite (24%), thermoplastics (1%), with small bits of steel here and there (being generous giving 10%). How could the F-4 weigh less than the F/A-22 if it was "mostly steel"?

[edit on 29-4-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by HLR53K
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

Sorry to pull off topic again. But really? Mostly steel? If anything, I'd expect a mostly titanium and aluminum airframe and skin and maybe steel for things like the landing gear and engines.

Mostly steel would make for a really heavy airplane.

For comparison, the F-4 is roughly the same size as the F/A-22. The F/A-22 weighs around 31,000 lbs. empty compared to the F-4 weighing in around 30,000 lbs.

I know for a fact that the F/A-22 is mostly aluminum (16%), titanium (39%), composite (24%), thermoplastics (1%), with small bits of steel here and there (being generous giving 10%). How could the F-4 weigh less than the F/A-22 if it was "mostly steel"?

[edit on 29-4-2008 by HLR53K]

I found a good F-4 website.
www.vectorsite.net...

I found this under the "Phantom in detail" header

The Phantom was made mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, but about 10% of the aircraft was built of titanium, a new metals technology at the time.

reply to post by jfj123


Very nice! I didn't expect it to be as much titanium as the F/A-22, but you knew what I was getting at. "Mostly steel" should make it noticeably heavier. Being mostly aviation aluminum would explain how it's still lighter than the F/A-22.

Ok, back on topic.

Originally posted by jfj123
I'll make you a deal.

No, my questions must be answered first, since i have been asking them for a lot longer time.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Also, he claims to work in intel, and has classified sources, yet posts 'new' info on the dead/alive hijackers that is 10 months old.

Do you have any newer sources that all the hijackers are dead?

And show me your sources.

Originally posted by jfj123
I found a good F-4 website.
www.vectorsite.net...
.

You might want to find a better F-4 site to see that was steel used in the building of the F-4, and a good bit of titanium.

How about 8.5% titanium? Does that sound right to you? And the rest was mostly aluminum...

* The Phantom was made mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, but about 10% of the aircraft was built of titanium, a new metals technology at the time. There were seven major aircraft subassemblies, including forward, center, and aft fuselage assemblies; a wing center section; wing outer panels; and the tail assembly. There were initially six fuel cells in the aircraft, four in the fuselage and one in each wing. Flight controls were operated by a triple-redundant hydraulic system.

www.faqs.org...

Boeing puts the titanium content at 8.5% maximum by variant.
www.boeing.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I found a good F-4 website.
www.vectorsite.net...
.

You might want to find a better F-4 site to see that was steel used in the building of the F-4, and a good bit of titanium.

From now on when you make comments like this, I'm going to simply use your quote. If it's ok for you to use, it's ok for me to use-fair is fair

here's my answer/your quote

Well if you did any research you would know this.

Why do i have to do all the research for you, are you too lazy or too scared to do the research? "

[edit on 30-4-2008 by jfj123]

I'm a bit disappointed to not even see the source of the pic I posted earlier come under challenge.

Does the lack of argument over it stem from the fact it gives an excellent indication of the altitude and attitude of the object that took out those poles and hence the height above the cars placing them out of the way in terms of the jet blast?

Not that they wouldn't feel some turbulence but direct jet blast - no.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I'll make you a deal.

No, my questions must be answered first, since i have been asking them for a lot longer time.

gee, how did I know you were going to say that

Ya know, someone can claim he/she is anything they want but their actions or in this case, what they write, indicate what they really are or are not. Just an observation



[edit on 30-4-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by _Del_
How about 8.5% titanium? Does that sound right to you? And the rest was mostly aluminum...

* The Phantom was made mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, but about 10% of the aircraft was built of titanium, a new metals technology at the time. There were seven major aircraft subassemblies, including forward, center, and aft fuselage assemblies; a wing center section; wing outer panels; and the tail assembly. There were initially six fuel cells in the aircraft, four in the fuselage and one in each wing. Flight controls were operated by a triple-redundant hydraulic system.

www.faqs.org...

Boeing puts the titanium content at 8.5% maximum by variant.
www.boeing.com...

Dun dun dun!!!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Also, he claims to work in intel, and has classified sources, yet posts 'new' info on the dead/alive hijackers that is 10 months old.

Do you have any newer sources that all the hijackers are dead?

And show me your sources.

So is info that is 10 months old considered "new" in the intel world?

Are you trying to cover for your NSA employers?

Just asking questions.....

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Unfortunately sometimes people make outrageous claims about their lives that simply are not true.

Oh by the way, I might as well tell you now, I'm santa. Sometimes I'm napoleon. Yet other times I work for the government on super secret projects that I can't tell you about but I can tell you I work for them. See the government doesn't mind if I tease but I just can't tell you any of the good bits or they'll take away my cape

By the way, I guess we now know why all those F-4's have big steel repair patches on them

Originally posted by jfj123
From now on when you make comments like this, I'm going to simply use your quote. If it's ok for you to use, it's ok for me to use-fair is fair

Well here is information about the F-4 that does show it being built with steel.

STRUCTURE: Centre-section and centre wings form one-piece structure from wing fold to wing fold. Portion that passes through fuselage comprises a torsion box between the front and main spars (at 15 per cent and 40 per cent chord) and is sealed to form two integral fuel tanks. Spars are machined from large forgings. Centre wings also have forged rear spar. Centreline rib, wing-fold ribs, two intermediate ribs forward of main spar and two aft of main spar are also made from forgings. Wing skins machined from aluminium panels 0.635 m (2[1/2] in) thick, with integral stiffening. The fuselage is an all-metal semi-monocoque structure. Forward fuselage built in port and starboard halves, so that most internal wiring and finishing can be done before assembly. Keel and rear sections make use of steel and titanium. Double-wall construction under fuel tanks and for lower section of rear fuselage, with ram-air cooling. The tail unit is a cantilever all-metal structure, with 23 of anhedral on one-piece all-moving tailplane which has slotted leading-edges. Ribs and stringers of tailplane are of steel, skin titanium and trailing-edge of steel honeycomb.




[edit on 1-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So is info that is 10 months old considered "new" in the intel world?

Do you have any newer information that shows all the hijackers are dead?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well here is information about the F-4 that does show it being built with steel.

STRUCTURE: Centre-section and centre wings form one-piece structure from wing fold to wing fold. Portion that passes through fuselage comprises a torsion box between the front and main spars (at 15 per cent and 40 per cent chord) and is sealed to form two integral fuel tanks. Spars are machined from large forgings. Centre wings also have forged rear spar. Centreline rib, wing-fold ribs, two intermediate ribs forward of main spar and two aft of main spar are also made from forgings. Wing skins machined from aluminium panels 0.635 m (2[1/2] in) thick, with integral stiffening. The fuselage is an all-metal semi-monocoque structure. Forward fuselage built in port and starboard halves, so that most internal wiring and finishing can be done before assembly. Keel and rear sections make use of steel and titanium. Double-wall construction under fuel tanks and for lower section of rear fuselage, with ram-air cooling. The tail unit is a cantilever all-metal structure, with 23 of anhedral on one-piece all-moving tailplane which has slotted leading-edges. Ribs and stringers of tailplane are of steel, skin titanium and trailing-edge of steel honeycomb.
[edit on 1-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Cite your source.

For your first bolded section, it doesn't say that it's steel. Aluminum can be forged and is done so for aerospace parts. Remember, some grades of aluminum can be as strong as certain grades of steel, but yet much lighter. But if it can be verified that it is steel, I can see why too.

Second bolded section does not say exclusive use of steel and titanium, just that it makes use of it. We know there was roughly 10% titanium in the airframe and I will concede some steel for various places, but not the majority or whole. That would make it way too heavy.

If what is said above is true, it is possible the tailplane has steel and titanium parts.

I still wouldn't call it a vast majority of the F-4 (if that is what you were claiming before, if not, then this whole argument was a misunderstanding). But we all knew that some steel had to reside in it, there was no question in that.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by HLR53K

I still wouldn't call it a vast majority of the F-4 (if that is what you were claiming before, if not, then this whole argument was a misunderstanding). But we all knew that some steel had to reside in it, there was no question in that.

There's no misunderstanding.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ULTIMA1 said:

First off the F-4 is mostly made of steel and the 757 is mostly made of aluminum. So if a plane made mostly of steel can not penatrate a black wall please explain how a plane made from aluminum is going to make it through a reinforced concrete wall and steel reinforced collums.


[edit on 1-5-2008 by Seymour Butz]

reply to post by HLR53K


Using his source: You have portions of the keel using steel and titanium. And the tailplane ribs. It's hard to see this as "mostly" steel. Even if one granted the wing-box and/or spars, which doesn't seem to be entirely merited, one isn't left with anything like "most" of the aircraft. The MiG-25 which WAS built "mostly" of a steel alloy was slightly larger and yet had a seven ton heavier empty weight compared to the F-4.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by C0bzz
Fighter jets don't constantly fly on afterburner.

But the point is airliners do not have afterburners at all.

And just how is that point related to this issue of "conspiracy proving" engine over-temp on 9/11?