Swiss MYSTERIES magazine covers nanothermite-research, did interviews with Niels Harrit and german "debunker" Gunnar Ries
The Swiss MYSTERIES magazine, print edition 3/2010, covers the story of nanothermite and a dispute between Harrit and german "debunker" Dr. Gunnar Ries. Ries made up a blog back in early 2010 and made a bunch of claims why the study wasn't that good at all- and Prof. Harrit responded to his claims. Ries did suggest to do his own testing on the chips, if he get some.
MYSTERIES also asked swiss engineers who once claimed that WTC 7 was controlled demolition again on their standing.
The magazine costs 7,50€ and is now available in germany and switzerland!
Unfortunetaly there is no online version of the article yet, but they promised to deliver at least the interviews on their homepage soon!
I will do a blog entry on my new blog at german 9/11-archiv.net next weekend!
http://www.911-archiv.net/blog/sittingbull/
Stay tuned!
- Sitting-Bull's blog
- Login to post comments
Very interesting - will a
Very interesting - will a English translation (uebersetzung) be available as well?
http://www.mysteries-magazin.com
Yes, I'm curious as to the
Yes, I'm curious as to the "German debunker's" answer. I find it astounding at this point that there are still Europeans with (supposedly) no allegiance to the USA who are openly defending the official theory of the collapse.
Easy To Understand When You Know What's Really Going On
That's because there are persons over in Europe who believe it was necessary to kill 3,000 persons on 9/11 in order to continue the war with the USSR. Again, the War on Terror is a ruse. It's being used to continue the war we're still in with the USSR.
Ask yourself why Russia took out the Polish government last month. First we were told the Polish pilots couldn't speak Russian! Did you believe that? Well, if you didn't, good for you, because it was revealed later that they DID speak Russian, as all Polish commercial pilots do. Then we get audio translation of the voice data recorder where the pilot says there are only four on board. Did you really think the Poles are so stupid to place their top leaders (their government) on one plane? Conclusion: the Polish government was taken-out by Spetsnaz inside Poland, not Russia. As I've been saying for a year now, the USSR does not want missiles near its border and was very unhappy that Poland agreed to host the missiles. Watch now for Romania going back on its deal with the United States to host the missiles.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
manipulation
the "cold war" was always fake. Just another zio/illuminati/NWO/rockeschilder deception to keep the little sheeple mad and fighting with each other so they don't see the puppet masters behind the curtain.
REALLY, get a clue. Study who funded the Russian "revolution" and the whole communist bullcrap "movement".... and you will find the same folks who funded Hitler, Bush, Clinton, etc etc.....
either you are very ignorant or.....fill in the blank.
Hard to say what little factions are killing each other over there. What is sure is it isn't because of the Russians vs the "free world" scam.
That is old news bud and a very dead story.
Your Argument Is Counterintuitive
darkbeforedawn,
And how does the dissolution of the British and French empires fit in with the "puppet masters" theory of yours? With those Empires in existence the Illuminati/NWO/RockeSchildes would have had wars of liberation to keep the sheeple mad and fighting, and the "RockeSchildes" would have made more money then they have since the collapse of those empires. Are you telling me that the British losing its oil concerns in the Middle East was good for the "RockeSchildes"? I think if there were "RockeSchilde" as you mean, they would have come up with a better plan!
Certain aspects of the Cold War were fake. I can go that far in agreement with you, however the so-called Cold War in general was (and is) very real. So-called Capitalists didn't create Communism. Support for Lenin by certain capitalists in Germany was a means to get Russia out of the war. It was political. When Russia went Bolshevik, Capitalists in general lost out. However, to mitigate the disaster of losing Russia, Capitalists naturally (as Lenin predicted) lobbied their respective governments to trade with the USSR.
There is no Illuminati. There is no NWO other than the one the USSR/China have in mind, and Zionists have one thing on their mind....Israel. Israel watches the West and she watches the USSR/China, and will do what is in her national interest.
Read KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn's book 'New Lies For Old':
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13022045/Anatoliy-Golitsyn---New-Lies-for-Ol...
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
chris story's perspective - Youtube -
Chris Story, publisher, editor of International Currency Review, has posted a youtube presentation of his tracking the criminal financial money people and the intelligence leading to how World War 2 never ended, but is being continued now by these international finance ministers to the Military Industrial Complex, including Intelligence agencies, Congress, Parliaments, corporate media, pharmas, etc..
Here is where Story posted this from his recent issue of World Reports:
ENDEMIC CORRUPTION IN BRUSSELS AND HALLIBURTON
[EXCERPT]
VIDEOS OF THE EDITOR'S SPEECH IN LONDON ON 31ST OCTOBER 2009
We append below the links to the videos of the Editor's speech. The Editor had no idea that his speech was being filmed, and neither was he aware that it was rebroadcast on BBC-5 on the 14th November 2009. We didn't post this earlier because the Editor isn't in the business of emulating Peacock Obama. But a malicious distorted image of the Editor is repeatedly shown on a notorious US controlled 'Black' intel Brit-hating disinformation website, which scandalously pumps out dirty, clumsy and fabricated anti-British 'Black' propaganda and lies worse than anything experienced from the Soviets at the height of the Cold War: so by showing this speech (in which the Editor had something very important to say: see below) you will see that the Editor's face doesn't consist of a squashed nose, forty blemishes, ten bunions, horns and a forked tongue.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jug-W-DKcms
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB18PIYbSYw&;feature=related
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJyUKbmBeJs&;feature=related
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Check these videos out!
jm
from FN
New 9/11 Investigation vs New World Order
Perspective - Resources
Still Makes No Sense
johnathan mark,
the existence of the USSR was a bigger money maker then the current 'War on Terror' is. So, again we have "puppet masters" going against their own interests according to Chris Story!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Looks like Operation MindF***
I find much of what Story is saying to be dubious.
One thing that piqued my interest was the allegation that Heinz was a Soviet agent. I suspect Heinz's loyalties are mostly with the International Banking Cartel and his good friends the Rothschilds. Nonetheless, Heinz did conduct some very questionable business with various Communist states; including China, the Soviet Union and North Viet Nam. I would not be surprised at all to learn that Heinz had secret agreements with Hanoi which resulted in the deaths of countless people on both sides of the conflict.
Here's one snippet from Heinz's trail of treachery:
Story may have some valuable things to convey interwoven with his fanciful yarns.
all the major world wars
depressions and many of the so-called "revolutions" etc have been planned and implemented by the elite bankers.
I am not conversant in the historical events you mentioned. I know how the elite started the world wars and the "communist" revolution, the depression and the founding of the zionist state of Israel.
All of these events were planned by people who benefited outrageously from the death and destruction that happened to people all over the world.
They won no matter who died.
That will happen again and keep happening until we stop seeing other "countries" as our enemies.
They are not the enemy.
Your Propositions Are Demonstrably Incorrect
darkbeforedawn,
you say you know, yet you say you don't know the historical events I mentioned. Well, all you need to know is that the British and French empires were destroyed by your "puppet masters" and that makes no logical sense. Better to have revolutions and war with the "puppet masters" in charge through those empires. You need to go back and revise your theories.
It's also counterproductive for the "puppet masters" to have killed the Czar, take Russia out of the war (World War I) and place Bolsheviks in power. Wars and revolutions could still continue with the Czar in power. Under such an arrangement, the "puppet masters" would also have benefited economically better than they did with the Bolsheviks. Why would the "puppet masters" place Bolsheviks in power, who then close off the USSR to most foreign investment? The same goes for China.
Depressions/recessions are caused by the malinvestments brought about by central bank credit expansion. Bankers have nothing to do with credit expansion. Read Murray Rothbard’s 'America's Great Depression':
http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
Dean Jackson/editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
"Then we get audio
"Then we get audio translation of the voice data recorder where the pilot says there are only four on board. Did you really think the Poles are so stupid to place their top leaders (their government) on one plane? Conclusion: the Polish government was taken-out by Spetsnaz inside Poland, not Russia."
Strong arguments, but no supporting links. Would you mind providing some...
Polish Ruling Party in Pickle Over Central Bank
I'm just posting this because it smells funny. Perhaps others can determine what the stench is. I look to the "Russian Mafia".
Same situation in Europe
"I find it astounding at this point that there are still Europeans with (supposedly) no allegiance to the USA who are openly defending the official theory of the collapse."
You shouldn't be astounded. If you asked a hundred Finnish engineers if the WTC skyscrapers were destroyed as the official story claims, very few would say that they weren't. Alas, I don't think the situation is dramatically different in most other European countries.
Never underestimate the awesome raw power of human stupidity
As soon as there will be the full version online
We'll arrange a translation...
The print edition of the magazine is 31.000...and they want to sell some copies, I guess.
More Of The Same
Folks, there is NO debunking angle when it comes to NORAD, thanks to what the 9/11 Commission Report admitted in 2004 concerning NORAD's monitoring of ALL aircraft flying over American domestic airspace on 9/11.
I have a feeling I'll be saying the same thing next year. Maybe when we get to the10th anniversary of 9/11 and nothing has changed, the 9/11 Truth Movement will reassess its strategy. Until then, every time an article is published in the mainstream media on controlled demolitions it will, of course, be 'balanced' by adherents of the official 9/11 narrative. The novice reading the article will scratch his/her head and think "I wonder who's telling the truth". Even if the novice has a 'feeling' that the 9/11 Truth version of events is a better explanation, there is still doubt, because a 'feeling' is not 100% certainty. And unless one can get 100% certainty, the novice to 9/11 truth remains a spectator. With NORAD one has 100% certainty already locked in. Add Operation Northwoods, FBI Special Agent John Anticev's involvement in the building of the 1993 WTC bomb, and the FBI STILL not wanting Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, then one has a new 9/11 Truth ACTIVIST!
THEN when the novice to 9/11 Truth reads about controlled demolitions (or why Flight 77 didn't leave burn makes on the Pentagon's lawn as it glided inches above the lawn), the novice will be reading the article not with doubt in mind, but reading it from the perspective that it is true. Why? Because the novice to 9/11 Truth doesn't need convincing that Truthers are honest persons, thanks to the verifiable MAINSTREAM articles the 9/11 Truth activist initially suggested the novice research! This is called using psychology to slowly wean-in the novice to our side. You don't initially hit the novice over the head with demolitions! You bring them in gently, with verifiable information from mainstream sources.
The 9/11 Truth Movement reminds me of the Wehrmacht during World War II on the Eastern Front. Instead of using its mechanized capability to prevent Soviet forces from retreating east, it concentrated huge percentages of its man power/Panzers to either surrounding cities or fighting within the cities. By not by-passing the cities, the Wehrmacht allowed the Soviet Army to comfortably reform itself east of the Ural mountains and prepare for the massive counter attack against the Wehrmacht that fall.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Wondering and not wondering
Has a large jetliner ever been known to glide a few inches over a lawn?
What would the lawn look like afterward?
How do you know?
Just wondering.
Not wondering about CD, which has in essence been admitted to by NIST in admitting free fall.
I head David Ray Griffin say something that I was not aware of ---- and that is that the phrase "consistent with physical principles," which appears twice in the DRAFT report of WTC 7 - was redacted from the FINAL Report in which free fall is admitted. You can verify this by doing a word search in Adobe Reader for "consistent with physical principles" in both the draft and final report.
Burn Notice
zmzmzm,
good question!
the jet exhaust temperature immediately behind a 757 engine at takeoff is approximately 1560 F (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091126122011AAe3lRh). This exhaust flow field extends aft in a rapidly expanding cone, 45 degrees up/down and outwards (see Figure 4 in following link: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s02txt.html).
Now Flight 77's engines were going full throttle at 530 mph as they flew inches off the Pentagon's lawn, so one would need to adjust the 1560 F temperature upwards, but for simplicity sake, let's just stick with the 1560 F temperature. The ignition temperature of grass is 451 F. Since the engines of Flight 77 were right over the Pentagon's grass emitting 1560 F heat down on the grass, the grass would have caught fire, leaving two black parallel burn marks.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Wouldn't a jet, then make puddles of asphalt
Thanks Brian:
Wouldn't a jet then make puddles of asphalt (that would quickly resolidify) at the point of take off and touchdown?
I don't think this is terribly important, but it is one more "curiosity" to be dealt with.
Personally, one of the things I find not credible about the Pentagon story is the story about Lloyd England and the lightpost.
I find it totally not credible that a lightpost of that weight and length "just happened" to "spear" Lloyd's windshield and end up projecting out above the hood without so much as scratching the hood. I can just picture the enormous torque and force of that thing flying through the air. It would have had to have bounced around smashing the hood to smiithereens before "coming to rest." And the whole story about the "silent stranger" that "helped Lloyd pull it out" just strains credibility way beyond reasonable limits.
Burn Protection/WTC 7 Complexity Same As WTC 1 & 2
zmzmzm,
as the aircraft's engines reeve up at the beginning of the runway (to begin the takeoff roll), just behind the aircraft are blast pads, which aircraft are not allowed to navigate on except for emergencies.
In your previous comment to me, you write:
"I head David Ray Griffin say something that I was not aware of ---- and that is that the phrase "consistent with physical principles," which appears twice in the DRAFT report of WTC 7 - was redacted from the FINAL Report in which free fall is admitted. You can verify this by doing a word search in Adobe Reader for "consistent with physical principles" in both the draft and final report."
Actually NIST said, "The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9." -- http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf (Page 45).
NIST uses three stages to 'explain' the collapse of the top 18 floors. Because the columns from Stage One had already buckled, by the time Stage Two arrived the collapse time was gravitational due to "negligible support to the upper portion of the north face."
NIST still affirms that, "...the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall..."
NIST is saying free fall occurred in Stage Two because in Stage One the columns offering resistance buckled.
I don't see how David Ray Griffin and others in the 9/11 Truth Movement see NIST's Final Report's observations as in any way supporting the proposition that portions of WTC 7 collapsed at free fall speed with RESISTANCE STILL PRESENT.
Now maybe you can understand why I say controlled demolition is just too complicated, and the opposition ALWAYS have a response that will confuse the novice to 9/11 Truth. Why would anyone want to use controlled demolition as a recruiting/propaganda tool is beyond me.
I'm afraid the 9/11 Truth Movement is being manipulated!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
The wings explode on takeoff. Didn't you know that?
Obviously the engines produce so much heat that the wing fuel tanks explode on takeoff. Didn't you know that?
Not convinced
It takes more than just heat, oxygen is also required for something to burn. Jet exhaust is notably lacking in that component. It might very well kill the grass but that would take a while to show up.
Atmosphere Is Oxygen Deprived?
Tony,
what do you think is in the air you breath?
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
The temperature cools down
before it reaches the ground. The temperatures you are speaking of are right at the turbine and cool down rapidly once outside the engine. The temperature is about 100 degrees F when the jet blast reaches the ground.
Take a look at this study of jet blast velocity and temperature potential effects on airport lighting for the Airbus A380. Look at pages 47 and 48 for data on velocity and temperature of jet blast in relation to axial distance away from the rear of the jet engine and its height off the ground. http://www.ecac-ceac.org/nla-forum/IMG/pdf/Jet_blast_tests_report_V1R0.pdf
I worked on fighters in the Navy and had to run the engines in low and high power situations for maintenance purposes. The temperature is only a consideration if you are right behind the engine, which you couldn't get to since the velocity would prevent you from doing it, other than sticking your hand in from the sides. The velocity is actually more of a consideration as it is still fairly high a significant distance from the engine at high power. High power turn-ups are not allowed on the parking ramp, they had to be done at a facility near the end of the runway where there were jet blast deflectors and large holdback fittings were built into the concrete to which a large chain could be attached.
Flight 77's Engines Were Inches Off The Ground
Tony,
150F is the temperature of the jet blast five feet BEHIND the AIRCRAFT blowing OUTWARDS, not the temperature immediately behind the ENGINE that flows DOWNWARD at a 45 degree angle.
As I previously said, this exhaust flow field extends aft in a rapidly expanding cone, 45 degrees up/DOWN and outwards (see Figure 4 in following link: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s02txt.html).
As you said, "I worked on fighters in the Navy and had to run the engines in low and high power situations for maintenance purposes. The temperature is only a consideration if you are right behind the engine, which you couldn't get to since the velocity would prevent you from doing it, other than sticking your hand in from the sides."
I agree, however we are not discussing a person attempting to get immediately behind an engine spewing takeoff blast. We're talking about a 757's engines flying inches above the ground. Since the engines were inches off the ground, the grass would have been subjected to the full effect of the 1560F temperatures being blasted 45 degrees DOWNWARDS by the engines.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
You can't be serious here
The actual temperature at the tailpipe is not 1,560 degrees F. That is the turbine inlet temperature inside the engine and cooling occurs in the turbine due to energy extraction. A significant temperature loss also occurs in the tailpipe after leaving the turbine but before exiting the engine. This is especially true for turbofan engines, like those on a 757, where the fan bypass air mixes with the combustion products. This is why the charts I linked to shows the temperature to be about 350 degrees F right behind the engine, which is lower than the ignition temperature of grass.
Additionally, the lower extremity of the 757 is the bottom of its fuselage and not the tailpipe of its engine. On top of that, the fan nacelle in front of the engine is a much larger diameter than the tailpipe, so the engine exhaust can never be "inches from the ground" as you say. I think it would be several feet above the ground at a minimum and it also doesn't flow down at a 45 degree angle.
The notion that the jet engine exhaust would have ignited the grass at the Pentagon is essentially ludicrous, and there are much more productive ways to show that the events of Sept. 11, 2001 could not have occurred due to 19 hijackers with boxcutters.
Charred
Tony,
Wood will spontaneously ignite with no flame present at 600C or 1110F. With the 757 engines directly over the Pentagon grass blasting down 21.5 tons of 1560F temperature air, the grass WILL burn.
I'm shocked by your response! You should know that if one could get behind a 757 engine at takeoff thrust of 35,000 lbs, you would be charred.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
I think you are out in left field with this notion
and am surprised you insist on trying to make an argument for it after I provided charts showing the exhaust gas leaving the engines of an A380 being 350 degrees F, which is already too low to ignite grass.
It is actually the fan nacelle which is the lowest extremity with wheels up on a 757, and it is about 9 feet in diameter. The tailpipe is about 3 feet in diameter, so the closest distance the tailpipe could have ever gotten to the grass, even at a 90 degree angle, would be about 3 feet. Even if it was dispersing at the 45 degree angle you claim, which it wouldn't be, the closest distance to the end of the tailpipe would be about 5 feet.
The temperature at 5 feet is about 150 degrees F, far below the 451 degrees F ignition temperature of "dry" grass, which is another thing you seem to skip by, but which is a moot point.
Anyone who would go along with this silly notion is being wrongheaded as it is easily dismissed, and I have shown you why.
1560F Temperature Is The Temperature Of The Exhaust!
Tony,
try loading that link to the A380. It doesn't work!
And, as I already said in a comment to you, the 350F temperature is the temperature behind the AIRCRAFT while resting on its landing gear 10 feet off the ground. I'm talking about 1560F temperature EXHAUST immediately aft of the last turbine (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091126122011AAe3lRh), while the aircraft is INCHES off the ground.
One of the persons in the link above who said that the EXHAUST directly behind a 757's engine is 1560F says in his profile, "About me: Work for the USAF as an Avionics Technical Specialist, currently on HC-130Ps. Also work structural issues. Spent 8 years active duty. Have also worked F-4, A-7, AC-130, MC-130E, C-130E, C130H, C-141, C5, & C-9A."
You need to look at Figure 4 in the link below. As you can see, with Flight 77's engines just inches off the ground, the grass would have experienced the full brunt of the 1560F jet blast spewing aft out of the last turbine.
-- http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s02txt.html
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
The 45 degrees is for fan bypass air
not combustion products which have gone through the turbine. Take a good look at the graphic in the link you provided.
It sounds to me like you are jumping off wildly here by not realizing the tailpipe could not be anywhere near the ground due to the fan nacelle, not interpreting the graphic for the exhaust gas and fan air properly, and not having a good source for your exhaust gas temperature. Whoever you got that from didn't have their facts straight. The 1,560 degrees F would be the turbine inlet temperature not the temperature at the end of the tailpipe.
Another problem for your theory is the 451 degree F grass burning assumption. Read this short article and you will see that it is actually a little more complicated than that and the temperatures would be significantly higher for spontaneous ignition without a flame. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env99397.htm
Ignition of the grass would not have occurred and it is a dead end street not worthy of use for proving the official story incorrect.
There are plenty of real ways to show the Pentagon impact could not have occurred the way it has been officially portrayed, like the things Col. George Nelson brings up.
The link I gave for the A380 works fine for me.
Are You Kidding?
Tony,
The Boeing article says, "When modern jet engines are operated at rated thrust levels, the EXHAUST WAKE [emphasis mine] can exceed 375 mi/h (325 kn or 603 km/h) immediately aft of the engine exhaust nozzle. This exhaust flow field extends aft in a rapidly expanding CONE [emphasis mine]..."
The article is talking about Jet Blast, not fan bypass! Take another look at Fugure 4. The caption says, " Takeoff Thrust Power Hazard Areas".
As I said in my earlier comment to you, wood will spontaneously ignite with no flame present at 600C or 1110F. With the 757 engines directly over the Pentagon grass blasting down 21.5 tons of 1560F temperature air, the grass WILL burn.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
The jet blast cone is not 45 degrees per side
that is a bound of the entry corridor if you notice in Figure 4 of your link here http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s02txt.html .
Figure 1 of your link shows the approximate angle at which high velocity exhaust gas diverges. It is about 10 degrees per side.
I also told you that the 1,560 degrees F temperature is the turbine inlet temperature on the 757 engines and is not the temperature at the end of the tailpipe. This link http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/268390-i-need-your-help-boeing-757-200-te... tells you it is 850 degrees C max takeoff and that is 1,562 degrees F, but it is the gas temperature aft of the combustion chambers and high pressure turbine and forward of the low pressure turbine. After going through the low pressure turbine the temperature is decreased due to energy extraction from the gas by the turbine and the gas then goes into the tailpipe.
Temperature of a gas is a function of the kinetic energy of the gas molecules and when some of that energy is extracted the gas will cool. A significant amount of energy is extracted from the combustion gases in the low pressure turbine to turn the forward compressor section and fan, and run the accessories such as the generator, oil pump, fuel pump, fuel control, and hydraulic pump and some other smaller items.
The exhaust gases also mix with fan bypass air just aft of the end of the tailpipe and are cooled an additional amount by this mixing. There is never any 1,560 degree F gases or anywhere near that coming out of the end of the tailpipe from a non-afterburning turbofan engine like those used on commercial airliners. Here is an image of the Rolls-Royce engine used on American Airlines 757s http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-535_5.jpg
Nobody is arguing about the high velocity occurring a significant distance from the rear of the engine. I said that was the more significant issue in an earlier post, but high enough temperatures to ignite the grass never emanate far from the tailpipe if at all and would never even reach the grass.
Why Are You In Denial On This Subject?
Tony,
this is not that difficult. Figure 4 shows the Entry Corridor (which is the center of the engine), then it shows the jet blast coming out of the rear of the engine in a 45 degree arc. The white line next to where it says 45 degrees is where the Entry Corridor ends. As you can see, the Entry Corridor ends right where the jet blast exhaust is spewing out in a 45 degree angle.
As the Boeing article says, "This exhaust flow field extends aft in a rapidly expanding CONE [emphasis mine], with portions of the flow field CONTACTING AND EXTENDING aft along the PAVEMENT surface." The heat in the combustor can reach 2700°F, then the mixer cools down that air to around 1560F .
As RickH says, "At takeoff power, the B757 is limited to about 877C. It never really gets that high, but it does get real hot. If you are a Fahrenheit sort of guy, 877C translates to about 1611F. This is the temperature achieved at the point that it is measured, which is probably just AFT [emphasis mine] of the last turbine." -- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091126122011AAe3lRh
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
No denial on my part
If your proposition had any merit I would be applauding it, but it has no basis.
The term turbine inlet temperature does not mean after the turbine. It means before.
If the jet blast did disperse at a 45 degree angle it would reduce the efficiency of the engine to an unusable state. The 45 degrees on either side is for an entry corrider as there is some residual heat there but it is an extremely small percentage.
It is obvious that you do not understand how a jet engine actually works, what the temperatures at different locations in a jet engine are about, and what the actual temperature profile is once it exits.
The reason I am discussing this is that I don't want to see an erroneous notion promulagated by arguments based on incorrect assumptions that could sound plausible to those who are unfamiliar. There are others here who doubted what you were saying but may not have had the details at their disposal to show why it was wrong.
45 Degree Jet Blast Controversy Solved.....
Tony,
I have to admit it does sound counterintuitive that such a force could be so near the wings and be dispersed at a 45 degree angle. That being said, here is something in the Boeing article we both overlooked:
"High engine thrust during maintenance activity can cause considerable damage to airplanes and other elements in the airport environment. An example of this problem occurred after an airplane arrived at its final destination with a log entry indicating the flight crew had experienced anomalous engine operation. Subsequent evaluation resulted in replacement of an engine control component, followed by an engine test and trim run to verify proper engine operation. The airplane was positioned on an asphalt pad adjacent to a taxiway, with the paved surface extending from the wingtips aft to the empennage. During the high- power portion of the test run, a 20- by 20-ft (6.1- by 6.1-m) piece of the asphalt IMMEDIATELY AFT [emphasis mine] of the engine detached and was lifted from the pad surface. This 4-in (10.2-cm)-thick piece of asphalt drifted up and into the core area of the left engine exhaust wake, where it shattered into numerous smaller pieces. The pieces were driven aft at substantial velocity, striking the aft fuselage and left outboard portion of the horizontal tail. The maintenance crew was alerted to the ramp disintegration and terminated the engine run. Subsequent inspection found that the outboard 4 ft (1.2 m) of the left horizontal stabilizer was missing, as was the entire left elevator. Corrective action included replacing the stabilizer and left elevator and repairing holes in the fuselage."
-- http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s02txt.html
Now fast forward to 0:35 minutes in the YouTube link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7S_QgE5MN8&feature=related
See where the presenter says "its too dangerous to drive them UNDER HERE, behind the engines?" When he said "under here" he was right behind the engines.
Looks like 45 degree, cone shape, jet blast is real, meaning jet blast also blows hard downwards/upwards/sideways.
I'm doing more research on the temperature of that portion of jet blast that blows downwards.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org'
Washington, DC
Yes, but not the way you think
Did you pay attention to the statement " This 4-in (10.2-cm)-thick piece of asphalt drifted up and into the core area of the left engine exhaust wake, where it shattered into numerous smaller pieces."?
It says it drifted up into the left engine exhaust wake. If it was blasted up it wouldn't have drifted into the wake. It was most probably sucked up by the high velocity air right moving so closely over it, and then got caught in the wake, where it got blasted.
The divergence angle of jet blast is no more than about 10 degrees per side or a 20 degree included angle cone when within 50 feet or so of the engine, but you will have large suction forces on areas close to but not in the blast, especially at high power.
Take a look at the photo of this concrete jet blast test http://books.google.com/books?id=plRnBOM30TEC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=jet+... and ask yourself why you think they needed to angle the engine downward so the blast effects would be felt on a pad which starts about 4 feet from the back of the engine.
Additionally, take a look at the F-14 on the catapult on the USS Nimitz in this link http://science.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier.htm/printable and ask yourself if the Jet Blast deflector would be appropriately designed if the blast was at a 90 degree included angle like you are claiming. Also, think about what would happen to the guys well within that 90 degree cone if what you claim were true.
I was an aircraft engine and fuel systems mechanic stationed in an F-14 squadron out of NAS Oceana and made two cruises on the USS John F. Kennedy so I have first hand knowledge here. I was one of the guys wearing a green jersey on the carrier like you see here http://illumin.usc.edu/article.print.php?articleID=171. I went to school for and became a mechanical engineer after getting out of the Navy and the mechanical engineering curriculum includes fluid flow and heat transfer courses.
Take a look at the pictorial cross section of a jet engine showing its major components here http://wapedia.mobi/commons/File:Turbofan_operation.svg which shows the angle of engine exhaust divergence fairly accurately. It is nowhere near 45 degrees on a side and it is the exhaust from the turbojet portion which has the high temperature and high velocity gas.
Here is a photo of an F-15 engine on a test stand that should finally convince you and anyone else that the exhaust angle cone of a jet engine is not 45 degrees per side http://www.solarnavigator.net/aviation_and_space_travel/jet_engine.htm.
The Boeing Article Is About Jet Blast Not High Velocity Air
Yes, the high velocity air above the ground could indeed do what you say with DETACHED pieces of asphalt lying on the ground. However, there were no detached pieces of asphalt lying on the ground before the engine startup. The article says, "During the high- power portion of the test run, a 20- by 20-ft (6.1- by 6.1-m) piece of the asphalt immediately aft of the engine DETACHED [emphasis mine]..." It was the jet blast that caused the asphalt to detach in the first place.
Further down in the Boeing article this point of jet blast causing the detachment of the asphalt is clearer. It comes after the subtitle,
'Jet Blast Damage and Injuries':
"An airplane was stopped 900 ft (274 m) from a parking area on the flight ramp for an engine performance run-up. During run-up of engine no. 3, large sections of asphalt overlay were BROKEN [emphasis mine] loose and BLOWN [emphasis mine] aft, with pieces striking both upper and lower surfaces of the stabilizer leading edge vertical fin and body in the area of the auxiliary power unit inlet." The jet blast broke up the asphalt in three pieces THEN BLEW the pieces back into the tail section.
In the link below, notice how the jet blast begins to expand as soon as it leaves the nozzle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turbofan_operation.svg
The same expansion is in the similar link you provided in your last comment to me (http://wapedia.mobi/commons/File:Turbofan_operation.svg).
The expansion is due to the differential air pressures inside the nozzle and outside the nozzle. Once outside, the extremely pressurized engine exhaust expands rapidly to the pressure in the outside environment.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief Dontice.org
Washington, DC
The expansion is a far cry from 45 degrees
I don't see how you can even attempt to use the small expansion shown in the graphic as being supportive of your claim for a 45 degree per side exhaust cone.
In that graphic it is probably only a few degrees per side and as I have said, in reality would be no more than 10 degrees per side.
I understand why there is a small expansion, and why it would in fact be small, which 45 degrees per side is not. While the expansion is due to a lower pressure outside it is relatively narrow due to the high velocity. As the jet blast slows down the expansion increases and this happens at a significant distance from the tailpipe, where the temperature is also quite low.
There is no chance that a non-afterburning turbofan engine, like those used on commercial airliners, will set the grass on fire as it skims across it. And as the photo of the F-15 afterburning engine shows it is pretty much a straight stream and would not contact the ground quickly. The fact that the non-skid is not melted on a carrier deck, when fighter aircraft take-off with afterburners, proves this to be reality.
I am not against raising potential issues for discussion, and think that needs to be done in any investigation, but they need to be scrutinized to see if they have a legitimate basis. Scrutiny here has shown the notion that the jet engines of Flight 77 should have lit the grass ablaze is unsupportable and shouldn't be promulagated. When a notion is shown to be unsupportable it must be disgarded as it will hurt the case for fraud with the real issues by muddying the waters. There are many real issues that do withstand scrutiny and show the present official explanations for the events of Sept. 11, 2001 to be fraudalent and there is nothing wrong with looking for more, but they need to withstand scrutiny. This one doesn't.
Boeing Says So, Not Me!
Tony,
Tony says, "I don't see how you can even attempt to use the small expansion shown in the graphic as being supportive of your claim for a 45 degree per side exhaust cone."
That's the expansion shown before the diagram stops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turbofan_operation.svg).
Again, you're arguing with Boeing when you say the jet blast doesn't "...extend[s] aft in a rapidly expanding cone, with portions of the flow field contacting and extending aft along the pavement surface." Figure 4 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s02txt.html) shows the cone Boeing is talking about. Now tell me, what angle does Boeing say the jet blast is once it clears the engine?
Tony says, "The fact that the non-skid is not melted on a carrier deck, when fighter aircraft take-off with afterburners, proves this to be reality."
"These coated areas are subjected to aircraft landing gear, tailhooks, arresting wires, safety chains, equipment movement, sun exposure and jet ENGINE EXHAUST [emphasis mine]."
-- http://www.nstcenter.com/writeup.aspx?title=Flight%20Decks,%20Hangar%20D...
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
You don't know
Figure 4 of your link is describing a very conservative general hazard area and shouldn't be used to determine how much blast pressure is in the area.
I have been well within that zone to the side and there is little to no blast effect.
The real jet blast pressure cone is no more than about 10 degrees either side of the tailpipe and that doesn't really come into play until about five feet back.
The large divergence doesn't occur until much further back.
True, but...
Tony,
When it comes to the Pentagon lawn, I really don't care about the zones to the sides of the aircraft (if you say those zones are safe outside of 10 degrees, then they are safe), but I do care about the area immediately aft of the engine exhaust nozzle. The Boeing article says, "This exhaust flow field extends aft in a rapidly expanding cone, with portions of the flow field contacting and extending aft along the pavement surface (fig. 1)." Take a look at Figure 1 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s02txt.html). The streams from the engines hit the ground at about the distance you say...five feet.
Now, RickH says the temperature of jet exhaust is1611 F as it exits the engines (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091126122011AAe3lRh) and Boeing says the temperature of exhaust is150F right behind a 757-200 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/753sec6.pdf). So the question is: what is the temperature of the exhaust that hits the ground five feet DIRECTLY behind the engines?
Remember, Flight 77's engines could only be inches above the ground to have impacted the Pentagon as it did. As a matter of fact, even if Flight 77's engines were riding the Pentagon's grass, the aircraft's fuselage should have impacted more of the second floor then it did (http://physics911.net/omholt).
Off topic:
Note: On page 13 of The Pentagon Building Performance Report it says, “The right engine took out the chain link fence and posts surrounding the generator” (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf), yet the damage to the generator said to have been caused by Flight 77’s starboard engine begins well ABOVE the chain link fence (http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/generator.html)!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
911blogger moderation
I am thankful that the blogger team moved this to the daily news section. Lately I have had blog articles blocked on topics relevant to 9/11, which were not blocked before. I would suggest to the team to allow the blog section to be more open-diverse than too censored or over-moderated. I know there is a balance, and appreciate this valuable service.
Thanks for everyone posting and commenting on real news.. I will be linking from www.FlybyNews.com
Udpate: english summary published
sorry it took so long. My english is not the best and I needed help
http://www.911-archiv.net/blog/sittingbull/swiss-mysteries-magazine-cove...