Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
Of course an airplane flying straight and level will create less wake than an airplane with a high (or low) AoA.

So what was the AoA of the plane at the Pentagon?

There was an airplane at the Pentagon?

The boat theory is decent because air is modeled as a liquid; the principles are the same.
I'd imagine the angle of attack for an aircraft diving on it's target would be negative. You can, of course, descend with a nose high altitude, but that is usually because you are trying to decrease flight speed and increase lift. This was not the case here. So the "jet blast" was likely pointed slightly away from the ground to start with.

reply to post by _Del_


Del, I've seen a computer simulation that showed the airplane almost level, in the last few seconds...meaning, the 'pilot' followed a highway (Columbia Pike, here in Virginia), and dove down to near ground level....shearing off light poles, but at that point, the deed was done. Even IF the wings came off (I'm not suggesting this, just using it as an example) the momentum, the kinetic energy, is there already. It's a fait accomplis!

WW

Originally posted by darkbluesky
There was an airplane at the Pentagon?

Well , no one has been able to show evidence of a plane or what plane it was. I am just going by what the believers think.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky
There was an airplane at the Pentagon?

Well , no one has been able to show evidence of a plane or what plane it was. I am just going by what the believers think.

You can't really believe what you're saying can you?... "No one has been able to show evidence of a plane?"

Maybe you'd like to restate your opinion to something like....

No one has been able to show evidence of a plane that I choose to accept as authentic

Because surely you've seen the hundreds of photos of American Airlines fusleage scraps, and the 757 landing gear pieces, and RB211 engine components, etc.

You can go into "the hole's too small"..."why isnt the lawn burnt?"... "where's the tungsten counter wieght?".... "how did the fragile nose cone go thru to AE drive?"..." where are the FBI reports?" all you want. I won't respond. I've been around that track too many times.

But let me offer some friendly advice.....no one is going to take anything you say seriously if you continue to say things like....."No one has been able to show evidence of a plane"...that's just ridiculous.

I like how he completely jumped off of the wake turbulence discussion like it never happened. Either we were throwing around technical and conceptual terms that he can't argue against or doesn't understand.

I like the way you think, darkbluesky. Just because he doesn't believe in something, doesn't mean that it isn't there.


So no comments on the KC-135 video? Let me post it again:
www.youtube.com...

If jet blast is really that powerful against ground objects while the airplane is in the air, where is the big cloud of sand/dust behind the KC-135?

[edit on 7-5-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You can't really believe what you're saying can you?... "No one has been able to show evidence of a plane?"

Then show me official reports or hard evidecne of the plane and what plane it was.

Originally posted by HLR53K
I like how he completely jumped off of the wake turbulence discussion like it never happened. Either we were throwing around technical and conceptual terms that he can't argue against or doesn't understand.

I already have stated to you many times about wake turbulence and the fact that the decrease when speed increases. Do not misquote or lie about what i post.

Also please show me a report that states jet blast does not occur when the plane is flying.


[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by _Del_
The boat theory is decent because air is modeled as a liquid; the principles are the same.
I'd imagine the angle of attack for an aircraft diving on it's target would be negative. You can, of course, descend with a nose high attitude, but that is usually because you are trying to decrease flight speed and increase lift. This was not the case here. So the "jet blast" was likely pointed slightly away from the ground to start with.

Haha. I just noticed that my post said nose high "altitude", which is of course nonsense. It should read "attitude." I'm pointing it out to correct it (I can't edit it), and show that I'm both capable of both of making a mistake and of admitting it.
*cough*

Here we have a plane at high speed, high angle of attack and high thrust.
It shows just how focussed the exhaust from an efficient jet engine is and also that the blast only affects things pretty much aligned with the engine.





And yes I know it's not a 757 or even a high-bypass turbofan engine but the principle is the same is it not?


[edit on 8/5/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I already have stated to you many times about wake turbulence and the fact that the decrease when speed increases. Do not misquote or lie about what i post.

Also please show me a report that states jet blast does not occur when the plane is flying.

First, I'm not sure what the first statement is actually trying to say. My attempts to decipher it leave me baffled as the only way I read to make sense is not true; so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to restate it please. Second, several people have pointed out that jet blast is exponentially more powerful when the aircraft is stationary. It decreases as the airspeed increases due to Newtonian principles. No one has denied that it does not occur in flight, only that it is very much less powerful than it is when stationary.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Here we have a plane at high speed, high angle of attack and high thrust.
It shows just how focussed the exhaust from an efficient jet engine is and also that the blast only affects things pretty much aligned with the engine.

Also it is no longer powerful enough to move the water at a very low altitude. Look how low it is when the "rooster tail" stops being formed. Also a visible lack of wake turbulence buffeting the water...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I already have stated to you many times about wake turbulence and the fact that the decrease when speed increases. Do not misquote or lie about what i post.

Also please show me a report that states jet blast does not occur when the plane is flying.


[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

And I have posted a lengthy thought process of mine using aerodynamic concepts, principles and facts to reasonably doubt that wake turbulence decreases with speed.

If you go back and look at the video of the railgun test fire, you can see that an object traveling at hypersonic velocities creates a massive wake in proportion to the object.

So far, you have not cited your source for your "wake turbulence fact" even though I had asked many times. Have you actually done research into this yourself (i.e. read some textbooks on the subject or talked to professors) or are you in your own words "accepting what you are told".

I believe what you are doing is comparing the same aircraft at two different speeds and two different configurations and AoAs (landing/take-off and level flight). As I have posted and WW before me, an airplane with a high or low AoA (with control surfaces extended) will have a larger wake than one flying straight and level.

However, to truly discern the relationship between speed and the resulting wake turbulence, you have to hold all the other variables constant (altitude, wing planform area, and AoA). The is something even a high school student should understand.

I will state my hypothesis again. An airplane traveling at a fixed altitude and AoA will have a larger wake as it increases its velocity, again, keeping the altitude and AoA fixed.

As usual, when someone offers an explanation that goes over your level of understanding or is hard for you to refute, you just ignore it and continue on with your beliefs.

Again, I ask you to please post your source where it says that wake turbulence decreases when velocity increases.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then show me official reports or hard evidecne of the plane and what plane it was.

This single photograph is "harder" evidence of an airplane impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/01, than your little jet engine simulator is, that there was no airplane involved.




Photograph of airplane wreckage being recovered by FBI on Pentagon lawn = no evidence of a plane?

but, apparently to your way of thinking....

A crappy sim that shows an engine similar to an RB211 would overheat during the last few seconds of flight = strong eveidence of no airplane?

OK, fine.

[edit on 5/8/2008 by darkbluesky]

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Ultima.........you can continue to make one line posts or you can actually answer some questions put forth in this discussion. That is what adults do in a discussion.

As I have said before in this post, which as I can tell you never read, jet blast, engine overheating, wake turbulence and ground effect having occurred or not proves and disproves nothing. If you are trying to prove or disprove a plane hit the pentagon, you are on the wrong track.

You beg for evidence to disprove you, which we have given more then plenty. You simply ignore it, and then demand for evidence to disprove you. Worse yet you do not even reply to people with an actual paragraph stating why you are discrediting this information. Do you not see anything wrong with this?

To say that no one has shown evidence that a plane hit the pentagon truly shows your knowledge of the subject. You say you have done all this research and you are not biased in any way yet you are denying the evidence that contradicts your theory. That is a biased viewpoint.

You simply only accept the "evidence" that agrees with your theory. You don't even try to discredit the evidence that is put before you. Man up and admit your wrong or simply debate the evidence that you do not agree with. Enough with the one line post about how we all only believe the official story, that is simply not true.

Prove what you want to prove, but prove it!

reply to post by darkbluesky


This breaks my heart.....

I knew the F/O on AAL 77.....he was killed before the airplane was flown into the Pentagon.

I also know that there was a group of schoolchildren, on AAL 77....excited about their first trip, their first airline flight, of course, but their trip to Los Angeles....to think of those lost little kids, I just sit here and cry....

But, people come around, who have no idea, and they use their paranoia to imagine these deeds were done by our own government??

Make no mistake, I have no love for Bush (Shrub) and company. None whatsoever. (except, Colin Powell.....the only true Patriot!)

It's just.....we've seen all the 'debunkers' come around, and spout their nonsense, but never bother to come to the area where it happened....like Monday-morning Quauterbacks, they think they know everything...

disgusting....

WW


spelling edit....damn phone!!!


[edit on 5/8/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Sway33
To say that no one has shown evidence that a plane hit the pentagon truly shows your knowledge of the subject.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Photograph of airplane wreckage being recovered by FBI on Pentagon lawn = no evidence of a plane?

but, apparently to your way of thinking....

Proof that no one has shown evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.

1. NO SOURCE for the photos of parts at the Pentagon.

2. No OFFICIAL reports matching parts found to the 9/11 aircraft.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This breaks my heart.....

I knew the F/O on AAL 77.....he was killed before the airplane was flown into the Pentagon.

I guess you did not see this infomration about the pilots being held at the back of the plane (not killed)

www.satp.org...(2)/CN_ghosh.htm

The wife of the Solicitor General, Barbara K Olson called her husband, at the Justice Department at 09:25 hrs from the ‘plane to tell him about the hijacking and to report that the passengers and pilots were being held towards the rear of the plane.

PLease tell me how can people still beleive the official story with all the information that questions it? Sounds a lot more like Monday-Morning Quarterbacking.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Proof that no one has shown evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.

1. NO SOURCE for the photos of parts at the Pentagon.

2. No OFFICIAL reports matching parts found to the 9/11 aircraft.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Here's one example of a SOURCE credited photo:



photographer was Sgt. Carmen Burgess - DOD photographer

Here is a link establishing that Sgt Burgess was in fact a DOD photographer.

www.defenselink.mil...

On this page you can download another hi-res image credited to Sgt. Burgess that cleary shows airplane debris.

Can't wait to hear your reasons for dismissing this evidence of an airplane.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Can't wait to hear your reasons for dismissing this evidence of an airplane.

Well for if you would have read my post i stated photos of PARTS not DEBRIS. I guess if posted a photo of a aircraft part and stated it was at the Pentagon you would jsut believe it.

The deris could be from anything, the parts is what would prove if and what plane hit the pentagon.

Also if you had done any reaserch you would know that the FBI confiscated all photos taken at the Pentagon.




[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]