Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread
- Thread starter WTC Dust
- Start date
You mean wake turbulence? It is due to creation of lift and it goes down.
The wake turbulance from flight 175 would sink at a rate of several hundred feet per minute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence
Last edited:
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,764
You can normally only see wake in two different situations; if the aircraft is traveling through cloud/smoke/dust, and/or under certain conditions where the wing tip vortices condensate and create a trail behind the wings.
I don't recall seeing either from flight 175
I don't recall seeing either from flight 175
Why not?
Surely there must have been some if it was real aircraft?
Why do I see that white fluffy stuff when they fly over my house?
It stays in the sky for ages and ages and makes pretty patterns.
It sometimes crisscrosses with others.
Why oh why oh why?
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Looks out window at planes in the descent path for O'Hare. I've never seen any wake turbulence, and a huge 747 just went by a minute ago. (Those things are pretty damn cool).
Say, how is the new job, Dusty?
Last edited:
Animal
Master Poster
Why not?
Surely there must have been some if it was real aircraft?
Why do I see that white fluffy stuff when they fly over my house?
It stays in the sky for ages and ages and makes pretty patterns.
It sometimes crisscrosses with others.
Why oh why oh why?
No......those are Chem Trails
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
I have an idea what you are thinking of.
Sorry, but it would not be visible in warm, dry air at that altitude, nor does it continue to advance once the aircraft has stopped. Thus, it would not have blown any of the fuel vapors around after impact with the building.
NoahFence
Banned
Why would you need to see a wake, when the plane is, well, plain to see?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Because the NWO had the technology to fake planes in real time, but they hadn't perfected the faking of the wake yet. Since apparently ALL planes have a wake visible, if there isn't one it means the planes were holograms.
Sheesh. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
Is it the wash/wake that you see on Arnie Swartz films under the Harrier or the Angel created from wings etc.
I'm sure one of the CGI/sfx youboobers can knock one up for ya. Ask femr2. A wizz with the graphics and pixelated stuff. Has a tendency to be incapable of aircraft recognition or FX but is a dab hand at photo manipulation.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
It is blocked in my country... the land of ... I am too lazy to to the IP thing...
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,764
You're not missing much.
Actual answer:
This is Figure 7-9 in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Sourcing is given in the report.
The lighter vertical feature at left of WTC 2 is a vortex core, made visible by entrainment of dust, debris, smoke, and atomized fuel thrown off at impact. This vortex core is a result of the aircraft wake -- indeed, there is no other plausible source for this artifact.
Having said that, the photography of the WTC 2 impact is much less clear than it was for the first, WTC 1 impact. This is because WTC 1 was already burning and creating a very complicated flow pattern due to its thermal plume. By contrast, the first impact happened in relatively stable and calm air, and for it we have extremely good photographs of the resulting vortex:
Figure 6-2 from NIST NCSTAR1-5A
Figure 6-3 from NIST NCSTAR1-5A
I imagine that everyone is looking for something that looks like a "wingtip vortex." This is a mistake -- you're not going to find that. The wingtip vortices are in fact a rather minor part of the aircraft wake. The only reason they're familiar to us is because under normal conditions, they're more likely to become visible. The wingtip vortices are much more organized and predictable than the entire wake. But they're small by comparison.
What exactly is the "wake?" The wake is the flow disturbance behind a moving body, and that goes whether the body has wings or not. Think of a large bus barreling past you: You'll feel a gust of turbulent wind as it passes, even though there are no wings and thus no wingtip vortices. This wake is simply a region of entrained air, a mixture of air accelerated along by the body and the complex mixture of vortices shed off of the body, of which the wingtip vortices are only a part.
For an aircraft, the wingtip vortices are also relatively weaker as the aircraft goes faster. This is because these vortices are directly related to circulation around the wings -- in other words, lift -- and lift remains roughly constant with speed, since the weight of the aircraft isn't changing. The rest of the wake, on the other hand, corresponds to drag. Drag does change as the aircraft speeds up, it in fact scales as the velocity squared. On top of this, the wingtip vortices appear weaker at higher speed because, as speed increases, the total circulation stays the same, but it's spread out over a longer distance per unit time.
Since both of the crashing aircraft were moving rather quickly, we therefore do not expect the wingtip vortices to be much of a factor. The overall wake will be dominated by the entrained air.
Now, what about those shapes? Especially in Figure 6-3 above, what we see is a vertical vortex core (actually a pair of them). How does this happen?
Well, this arises because the entrained air is smacking into the building, just like the airplane did. But unlike the airplane, this air is relatively inviscid and carries less inertia. Instead of punching into the building, the wake instead flows around the sides of the building. It can't flow below it because the ground is there, and it mostly won't flow over the top because the buildings are much higher than the impact. So we see the wake split into two turbulent jets, each turning around the sides of the structure.
When they do this, they acquire vorticity. Now, vorticity is conserved just like any other angular momentum, so as the wake sheds from the building, it is rotating in large scale. This generates a so-called "vortex core," just like a dust devil. The rotation also serves to contain the dust and smoke that got mixed in at impact, so as the vortex core moves away from the structure into clean air, we can still see it for a little while.
The vortex core also tends to stretch vertically, and gets thinner as it does so. This is because the vortex will have some vertical velocity dispersion and will ingest more surrounding air, not to mention having now falling objects within it entraining some air downward, and fire nearby causing an updraft. But remember that the total vorticity is conserved, thus as it grows, it slows. This is achieved by a smaller diameter of the core.
All the while, the vortex core will be losing some of its rotation by creating eddies in the surrounding air, and eventually it will no longer be stable, dissipating into pure turbulence. But we can see it for several seconds after impact, as the photographs demonstrate.
There is no mechanism, other than entrainment by a fast-moving object, for these wakes to form. Not unless there was a ten-story Airzooka on the WFC that we all missed.
---
This is an extremely minor footnote and of no practical value in understanding September 11th, but since every single person in the thread got it wrong, I figured it was worth an explanation. Airzooka, incidentally, generates a ring vortex, which is not the same kind as the ones in the photographs.
This is Figure 7-9 in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Sourcing is given in the report.
The lighter vertical feature at left of WTC 2 is a vortex core, made visible by entrainment of dust, debris, smoke, and atomized fuel thrown off at impact. This vortex core is a result of the aircraft wake -- indeed, there is no other plausible source for this artifact.
Having said that, the photography of the WTC 2 impact is much less clear than it was for the first, WTC 1 impact. This is because WTC 1 was already burning and creating a very complicated flow pattern due to its thermal plume. By contrast, the first impact happened in relatively stable and calm air, and for it we have extremely good photographs of the resulting vortex:
Figure 6-2 from NIST NCSTAR1-5A
Figure 6-3 from NIST NCSTAR1-5A
I imagine that everyone is looking for something that looks like a "wingtip vortex." This is a mistake -- you're not going to find that. The wingtip vortices are in fact a rather minor part of the aircraft wake. The only reason they're familiar to us is because under normal conditions, they're more likely to become visible. The wingtip vortices are much more organized and predictable than the entire wake. But they're small by comparison.
What exactly is the "wake?" The wake is the flow disturbance behind a moving body, and that goes whether the body has wings or not. Think of a large bus barreling past you: You'll feel a gust of turbulent wind as it passes, even though there are no wings and thus no wingtip vortices. This wake is simply a region of entrained air, a mixture of air accelerated along by the body and the complex mixture of vortices shed off of the body, of which the wingtip vortices are only a part.
For an aircraft, the wingtip vortices are also relatively weaker as the aircraft goes faster. This is because these vortices are directly related to circulation around the wings -- in other words, lift -- and lift remains roughly constant with speed, since the weight of the aircraft isn't changing. The rest of the wake, on the other hand, corresponds to drag. Drag does change as the aircraft speeds up, it in fact scales as the velocity squared. On top of this, the wingtip vortices appear weaker at higher speed because, as speed increases, the total circulation stays the same, but it's spread out over a longer distance per unit time.
Since both of the crashing aircraft were moving rather quickly, we therefore do not expect the wingtip vortices to be much of a factor. The overall wake will be dominated by the entrained air.
Now, what about those shapes? Especially in Figure 6-3 above, what we see is a vertical vortex core (actually a pair of them). How does this happen?
Well, this arises because the entrained air is smacking into the building, just like the airplane did. But unlike the airplane, this air is relatively inviscid and carries less inertia. Instead of punching into the building, the wake instead flows around the sides of the building. It can't flow below it because the ground is there, and it mostly won't flow over the top because the buildings are much higher than the impact. So we see the wake split into two turbulent jets, each turning around the sides of the structure.
When they do this, they acquire vorticity. Now, vorticity is conserved just like any other angular momentum, so as the wake sheds from the building, it is rotating in large scale. This generates a so-called "vortex core," just like a dust devil. The rotation also serves to contain the dust and smoke that got mixed in at impact, so as the vortex core moves away from the structure into clean air, we can still see it for a little while.
The vortex core also tends to stretch vertically, and gets thinner as it does so. This is because the vortex will have some vertical velocity dispersion and will ingest more surrounding air, not to mention having now falling objects within it entraining some air downward, and fire nearby causing an updraft. But remember that the total vorticity is conserved, thus as it grows, it slows. This is achieved by a smaller diameter of the core.
All the while, the vortex core will be losing some of its rotation by creating eddies in the surrounding air, and eventually it will no longer be stable, dissipating into pure turbulence. But we can see it for several seconds after impact, as the photographs demonstrate.
There is no mechanism, other than entrainment by a fast-moving object, for these wakes to form. Not unless there was a ten-story Airzooka on the WFC that we all missed.
---
This is an extremely minor footnote and of no practical value in understanding September 11th, but since every single person in the thread got it wrong, I figured it was worth an explanation. Airzooka, incidentally, generates a ring vortex, which is not the same kind as the ones in the photographs.
What was wrong?. The wake turbulence is due to lift, it would stop at impact. The path of wake turbulence would descend as stated. The wake turbulence would be affected by wind. There is still wake turbulence at high speed and it causes problems.
Pilots would be more worried about wake, the disturbed air a plane leaves is not much fun; the engine core exhaust is not nice either when it comes to things that you hit that are air.
Who knows what she is talking about, or why?
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/med...ms/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-OPS_ENV-SEQ07.pdf
Pilots would be more worried about wake, the disturbed air a plane leaves is not much fun; the engine core exhaust is not nice either when it comes to things that you hit that are air.
Who knows what she is talking about, or why?
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/med...ms/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-OPS_ENV-SEQ07.pdf
Minor quibble: A non-lifting object also leaves a wake. Wake turbulence is only partially due to lift.
You are however correct that the wingtip vortices persist for a longer distance than the entrained wake, and thus present a greater hazard to a pursuing aircraft. But in the impacts these vortices will simply be absorbed by the flow shedding around the structure.
You are however correct that the wingtip vortices persist for a longer distance than the entrained wake, and thus present a greater hazard to a pursuing aircraft. But in the impacts these vortices will simply be absorbed by the flow shedding around the structure.
Actual answer:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_91934f8f6da5caea9.jpg[/qimg]
This is Figure 7-9 in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Sourcing is given in the report.
The lighter vertical feature at left of WTC 2 is a vortex core, made visible by entrainment of dust, debris, smoke, and atomized fuel thrown off at impact. This vortex core is a result of the aircraft wake -- indeed, there is no other plausible source for this artifact.
Having said that, the photography of the WTC 2 impact is much less clear than it was for the first, WTC 1 impact. This is because WTC 1 was already burning and creating a very complicated flow pattern due to its thermal plume. By contrast, the first impact happened in relatively stable and calm air, and for it we have extremely good photographs of the resulting vortex:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_91934f8f6e694f35d.jpg[/qimg]
Figure 6-2 from NIST NCSTAR1-5A
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_91934f8f6e88a27c2.jpg[/qimg]
Figure 6-3 from NIST NCSTAR1-5A
I imagine that everyone is looking for something that looks like a "wingtip vortex." This is a mistake -- you're not going to find that. The wingtip vortices are in fact a rather minor part of the aircraft wake. The only reason they're familiar to us is because under normal conditions, they're more likely to become visible. The wingtip vortices are much more organized and predictable than the entire wake. But they're small by comparison.
What exactly is the "wake?" The wake is the flow disturbance behind a moving body, and that goes whether the body has wings or not. Think of a large bus barreling past you: You'll feel a gust of turbulent wind as it passes, even though there are no wings and thus no wingtip vortices. This wake is simply a region of entrained air, a mixture of air accelerated along by the body and the complex mixture of vortices shed off of the body, of which the wingtip vortices are only a part.
For an aircraft, the wingtip vortices are also relatively weaker as the aircraft goes faster. This is because these vortices are directly related to circulation around the wings -- in other words, lift -- and lift remains roughly constant with speed, since the weight of the aircraft isn't changing. The rest of the wake, on the other hand, corresponds to drag. Drag does change as the aircraft speeds up, it in fact scales as the velocity squared. On top of this, the wingtip vortices appear weaker at higher speed because, as speed increases, the total circulation stays the same, but it's spread out over a longer distance per unit time.
Since both of the crashing aircraft were moving rather quickly, we therefore do not expect the wingtip vortices to be much of a factor. The overall wake will be dominated by the entrained air.
Now, what about those shapes? Especially in Figure 6-3 above, what we see is a vertical vortex core (actually a pair of them). How does this happen?
Well, this arises because the entrained air is smacking into the building, just like the airplane did. But unlike the airplane, this air is relatively inviscid and carries less inertia. Instead of punching into the building, the wake instead flows around the sides of the building. It can't flow below it because the ground is there, and it mostly won't flow over the top because the buildings are much higher than the impact. So we see the wake split into two turbulent jets, each turning around the sides of the structure.
When they do this, they acquire vorticity. Now, vorticity is conserved just like any other angular momentum, so as the wake sheds from the building, it is rotating in large scale. This generates a so-called "vortex core," just like a dust devil. The rotation also serves to contain the dust and smoke that got mixed in at impact, so as the vortex core moves away from the structure into clean air, we can still see it for a little while.
The vortex core also tends to stretch vertically, and gets thinner as it does so. This is because the vortex will have some vertical velocity dispersion and will ingest more surrounding air, not to mention having now falling objects within it entraining some air downward, and fire nearby causing an updraft. But remember that the total vorticity is conserved, thus as it grows, it slows. This is achieved by a smaller diameter of the core.
All the while, the vortex core will be losing some of its rotation by creating eddies in the surrounding air, and eventually it will no longer be stable, dissipating into pure turbulence. But we can see it for several seconds after impact, as the photographs demonstrate.
There is no mechanism, other than entrainment by a fast-moving object, for these wakes to form. Not unless there was a ten-story Airzooka on the WFC that we all missed.
---
This is an extremely minor footnote and of no practical value in understanding September 11th, but since every single person in the thread got it wrong, I figured it was worth an explanation. Airzooka, incidentally, generates a ring vortex, which is not the same kind as the ones in the photographs.
Remarkable post. Thanks!
WTC Dust, your question has not been answered
Your query does has not been answered thus far, WTC Dust.
Some posters have relied on segment 1-5A of Ncstar1. However, the word "vortex" appears 8 times in that 392pg. Ncstar segment. Not one of those references refers to WTC2; instead, all refer to NIST assertions concerning the fireball and explosion at WTC1.
You have plainly asked for visual evidence of wake vortex at WTC2 that should have affected the column of light to medium gray smoke emanting from WTC1 at all relevant times, at and prior to 9:03am. What you appear to be questioning is the lack of visual vortex disturbance of that smoke column when the second explosion occured. Is that correct?
If so, your query has not been answered.
Reliance upon Ncstar 1-5A as a source is unpersuasive. NIST, itself, made no such finding or claim. It is odd, therefore, that some posters have lifted photos from that source, without acknowledgment that their claims are unsupported and are no more than speculation that presumes as factual the claim a jetliner was involved at WTC2 without proof and without reliable data, visual or otherwise of a vortex.
Thank you for raising an interesting issue.
Your query does has not been answered thus far, WTC Dust.
Some posters have relied on segment 1-5A of Ncstar1. However, the word "vortex" appears 8 times in that 392pg. Ncstar segment. Not one of those references refers to WTC2; instead, all refer to NIST assertions concerning the fireball and explosion at WTC1.
You have plainly asked for visual evidence of wake vortex at WTC2 that should have affected the column of light to medium gray smoke emanting from WTC1 at all relevant times, at and prior to 9:03am. What you appear to be questioning is the lack of visual vortex disturbance of that smoke column when the second explosion occured. Is that correct?
If so, your query has not been answered.
Reliance upon Ncstar 1-5A as a source is unpersuasive. NIST, itself, made no such finding or claim. It is odd, therefore, that some posters have lifted photos from that source, without acknowledgment that their claims are unsupported and are no more than speculation that presumes as factual the claim a jetliner was involved at WTC2 without proof and without reliable data, visual or otherwise of a vortex.
Thank you for raising an interesting issue.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Actually, Makey's post was the kind of well-thought out response that you folks tend to ignore completely and are seemingly unable to produce to support your own positions.
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 493
If you have a rebuttal to Mackey's assertion that there is no other plausible source for the artifact documented in that image, bring it on. However, it's silly to complain that Mackey should only use evidence in the NIST reports to draw inferences that the reports themselves drew.
The rest of this doesn't require comment at this time.