What About Wake Vortex?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Duppy has made an excellent observation. The explosions from both twin towers do not show any signs of wake vortex, only a second or two after aircraft allegedly came through at top speed.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=116&st=0&#entry13511615

Explanation?

[Pardalis]

Explanation?

You and Duppy are delusional and don't know what you are talking about.

[Corsair 115]

Because it would seem you are not understanding what wake vortex is and what it means, and also do not seem to be accounting for the atmospheric effects which would have been generated from the impacts and explosions themselves.

[Alareth]

What about unicorns?

[Pardalis]

What about unicorns?

Now you are being silly. Leprechauns maybe, but unicorns... I think not. Don't stretch it. ;)

[Alareth]

Now you are being silly. Leprechauns maybe, but unicorns... I think not. Don't stretch it. ;)

You are correct, I meant to Alicorns. Those are the winged unicorns.

[Pardalis]

You are correct, I meant to Alicorns. Those are the winged unicorns.

Right, this makes more sense. And we all know that Alicorns don't produce wake vortices when they are engulfed and disintegrated into a building.

[cloudshipsrule]

Explanation?

Show me a picture of a plane flying below cloud level and it's 'wake vortex'.

[beachnut]

Duppy has made an excellent observation. The explosions from both twin towers do not show any signs of wake vortex, only a second or two after aircraft allegedly came through at top speed.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=116&st=0&#entry13511615

Explanation?
A speeding plane has less wake vortex than a heavy taking off plane, you do not understand lift. The lift stops when the plane stops. As soon as the plane hits the building there are zero wake vortex generated, sorry.

The wake vortex go down and out, they do not go where they have not been.

etc

De no plane, beam weapons, and now, the no wake; what will be next in your delusional world of lies from 9/11 truth?

The wake vortex on these planes was not very much, it is worse on takeoff and climb out on heavy jets, a jet doing 470 mph to 590 mph in a slight dive would have wake, but the blast from the exploding fuel would win and the wakes travel down. Since the wake stops as soon as the plane hits the building, the last wake would be moving down from the wing tips, and the blast from the fuel would have to be disturbed by the wake, but since the old wake goes down, and the blast smoke kind of goes up, never the twain will meet. Sorry, you now have a no wake, no plane, beam weapons and what else? Next. Government agent needs input. You are such a kid, saying let me see what the government agents have to say. What a kid. Are you taking medication? Do you have any facts to go with your false stuff about 9/11?

Quick review for those who do not listen, truther that is: Plane hit building, then blast and smoke. If smoke was around the building first you would see wake as plane goes through. But since the wake was going down form the plane, and the blast came later, then you have lost another point on the 9/11 stuff. So far you are batting 0. BTW, stop bring up stuff planes do since you are a no plane guy. If you contiue talking about planes, they we have to assume you are telling lies about no planes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ESmvyAmOs Watch this, the smoke was there first.

[VespaGuy]

Explanation?

You don't really want one, so why bother asking?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Show me a picture of a plane flying below cloud level and it's 'wake vortex'.

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/graphics/fig158.jpghttp://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ubinger/wtc1_fireball_zoom_in.jpghttp://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ubinger/wtc1_fireball.jpg

[Terry]

Since the planes were flying hella-fast (technical term) they would be operating at a very low Cl and hence would not be shedding very much vorticity into the flow.

ETA: also the point that others make about there not being any smoke to visualise the flow until after the planes have hit the building, is completely apropos.

[Terry]

Notice the angle of attack on your crop duster there.

[Darth Rotor]

Duppy has made an excellent observation. The explosions from both twin towers do not show any signs of wake vortex, only a second or two after aircraft allegedly came through at top speed.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=116&st=0&#entry13511615

Explanation?
Wing tip vortices manifest themselves behind and below an aircraft as it flies through the air. They are directly associated with the creation of lift. They fall, and are generally below the aircraft's altitude. If you wanted to look for a wing tip vortex trail at the WTC, you would have to look back, and below in a sloping line as the vortex descended, along the flight path the planes followed to the towers.

When the airplanes hit the towers, the wings stopped generating lift, thus stopped generating wingtip vortices. Note, the previous vortex trail is somewhere along the flight path to the building, not in close proximitiy to it.

Duppy makes a non point. Did any of you mental midgets bother to google "wingtip vortices" on any of dozens of "how airplanes fly (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Vortex/TH15.htm)" sites to learn what they are and how they behave?

Once again, with feeling: when the wing stops producing lift, no vortex is created. Stopping, as in hitting the building, yields zero velocity. Without velocity, airfoil/wing produces no lift.

Airfoil also makes no lift when it dissintegrates. The crash formed mangled mass of metal is no longer an air foil flying at any velocity, thanks to a sudden decceleration and stop induced by a collision with WTC, which means no wing tip vortices in and around the tower's point of impact.

Since no one set up a smoke generator before hand, as NASA did for the picture Duppy borrowed from wikipedia, the air, generally invisible, that may have been disturbed, and descending below path to the impact site, is not visible to the camera, nor to the naked eye.

The energy of the explosion can be calcuated as well over the local energy of a given wing tip vortex, and thus any hope of flame adapting to the pattern of wing tip vortices formed in the instant before impact, per the pretty picture that used smoke (low energy state), is trumped by a thing called physics.

Duppy is wrong, and you are wrong.

Bye.

ETA: looks like I was too wordy, and slow on the draw. Good one, beech, good point on high versus low angle of attack Terry. :) Sorry I missed that point.

DR

[Stellafane]

You and Duppy are delusional and don't know what you are talking about.


Hmm, pretty much sums it up for me. In fact, this explanation could probably be trotted out to truthfully and effectively counter virtually any 9/11 CTer claim. But I guess that would be too easy.

[cloudshipsrule]

So Truthseeker. You're implying that if the plane that struck the WTC had been spraying pesticides on crops just before it struck the building we should have seen wake vortexes?

Agreed.:)

[TruthSeeker1234]

If you wanted to look for a wing tip vortex trail at the WTC, you would have to look back, and below in a sloping line as the vortex descended, along the flight path the planes followed to the towers.


OK. Let's.

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/lawn/wtc2_blast.jpg
We're looking at the left hand explosion. It appears to be comparable to the width of the tower, I'd say it's about 180 feet back into the flight path, and dust and smoke have fallen downwards for around 200 feet. All in that area is where you say the vortex would be.

[jhunter1163]

Since the planes were flying hella-fast <snip>

Oh, sure, throw that technical jargon at us Neanderthals.

[mortimer]

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/graphics/fig158.jpghttp://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ubinger/wtc1_fireball_zoom_in.jpghttp://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ubinger/wtc1_fireball.jpg

Stundied! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2693724#post2693724)

[cloudshipsrule]

All in that area is where you say the vortex would be.
Listen TS. A wake vortex, IF one were even created by 175 at that altitude, is NOT like a vapor trail. It would not linger in the air after the impact. Do you understand this?

Do you also understand that the wake vortex IS NOT EVER VISIBLE. Only the effects of the wake vortex are visible. Get it?

[lapman]

The thing is that wingtip vortices are a danger when a large aircraft is flying at slow speeds. At high speeds, the vortices are not an issue. If they were, you wouldn't have in-air refueling or formation flying. Add to that the fact that they descend at 500 fpm, they would have been below the blast.

[Pardalis]

Do you also understand that the wake vortex IS NOT EVER VISIBLE. Only the effects of the wake vortex are visible. Get it?

I might add that it's visible if you create a cloud of smoke before the plane passes through it.

[HyJinX]

Notice the angle of attack on your crop duster there.

Also notice that your crop duster isn't exploding. Heat, fire and explosive force would probably have an critical altering effect on such things as the vortex following the plane ....anyone?

[cloudshipsrule]

I might add that it's visible if you create a cloud of smoke before the plane passes through it.

I still say that what you're seeing is the effect that the wake vortex has on that smoke, not the actual vortex.

My piont being it's not unexpected that there was no sign of a wake vortex in the wake of 175 because atmospheric conditions at that altitude were not conducive to one being visible, there was no smoke before impact for the flight to fly through, and 175 was not spraying pesticides.

[Pardalis]

My piont being it's not unexpected that there was no sign of a wake vortex in the wake of 175 because atmospheric conditions at that altitude were not conducive to one being visible

Also, couldn't the building itself nullify any residual vortex forming in the wake of the plane's passing?

[Terry]

Do you also understand that the wake vortex IS NOT EVER VISIBLE. Only the effects of the wake vortex are visible. Get it?

well... depending what you mean by "effects"... the center of a wingtip vortex can be marked by condensation if there is sufficient atmospheric moisture present.

[TruthSeeker1234]

An aircraft, like a ship, will leave a wake behind it. An aircraft's wake is in the form of two counter-rotating swirling rolls of air—the wake vortices—that trail from the wings of the aircraft. The wake vortex pair may last for several minutes and stretch for many kilometers (km) behind the aircraft. The strength of the vortices basically depends on the aircraft weight divided by the product of air density, flying speed, and wingspan. This property generally increases with aircraft weight.

http://www.nasaexplores.com/show_912_teacher_sh.php?id=030103130242

[Darth Rotor]

OK. Let's.

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/lawn/wtc2_blast.jpg
We're looking at the left hand explosion. It appears to be comparable to the width of the tower, I'd say it's about 180 feet back into the flight path, and dust and smoke have fallen downwards for around 200 feet. All in that area is where you say the vortex would be.
Did you bother to read the part about relative energy between a blast and a descending wing tip vortex? Did you understand it? No.

The picture you use is useless for discussing this phenomenon. You need to draw a line on a 500 fpm slope away from the building on precisely the flight path of the aircraft. See also Terry's point to you about smaller vortices at lower angles of attack. The plane was a full speed, that means lower angle of attack.

Truth, go learn about what wingtip vortices are. Take the link I gave you. Then, use Google. No more spoon feeding.

DR

[Terry]

Note "divided by flying speed". Since the planes were going fast, the vorticity being shed was weak.

[Darth Rotor]

An aircraft, like a ship, will leave a wake behind it. An aircraft's wake is in the form of two counter-rotating swirling rolls of air—the wake vortices—that trail from the wings of the aircraft. The wake vortex pair may last for several minutes and stretch for many kilometers (km) behind the aircraft. The strength of the vortices basically depends on the aircraft weight divided by the product of air density, flying speed, and wingspan. This property generally increases with aircraft weight.




You missed the footnote in your cut and paste job, Truth, and you still have said nothing relevant to the OP's insinuation: absence of evidence, visual, in camera shots, of a non visible phenomenon taking place along the path to the building, not at the building, is apparently, evidence of absence of an airplane?

Where's a woodchipper when I need one?

DR

[lapman]

Oh great, he's using killtown. Ever read killtown's explanation of how FLT 93 wings could not have made the gouge in the field? He ignores both gravity and the negative lift vector of an inverted aircraft.

[TruthSeeker1234]

In this picture we see dust and smoke falling gently down. The blast force pushed material sideways, but now it is falling down. It is falling down into the area directly underneath the flight path. Directly underneath the flight path is where the wake vortex is. A 757 is a heavy plane, which was banking left. Behind the right wing, particularly, we would expect a significant vortex.

These vortexes are enough to flip small planes. Surely there would be a visible swirling effect on the smoke, dust, and debris falling (not being blasted, falling) down through this zone.


http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/lawn/wtc2_blast.jpg

[negativ]

Notice the angle of attack on your crop duster there.

Don't be insane. A single-engine, prop-driven crop duster is identical in every way that matters to a 757 at full throttle.

Some people, I swear. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

[negativ]

Oh great, he's using killtown. Ever read killtown's explanation of how FLT 93 wings could not have made the gouge in the field? He ignores both gravity and the negative lift vector of an inverted aircraft.

Have you ever seen Killtown and TS1234 in the same place at the same time?

Case closed.

[cloudshipsrule]

These vortexes are enough to flip small planes. Surely there would be a visible swirling effect on the smoke, dust, and debris falling (not being blasted, falling) down through this zone.

Surely based on what scientific evidence? Your best guess?

[jaydeehess]

In this picture we see dust and smoke falling gently down. The blast force pushed material sideways, but now it is falling down. It is falling down into the area directly underneath the flight path. Directly underneath the flight path is where the wake vortex is. A 757 is a heavy plane, which was banking left. Behind the right wing, particularly, we would expect a significant vortex.

These vortexes are enough to flip small planes. Surely there would be a visible swirling effect on the smoke, dust, and debris falling (not being blasted, falling) down through this zone.


http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/lawn/wtc2_blast.jpg


OFCS

The material that is falling out of the blast is obviously larger and denser material, that is why it is falling out and down in the first place. the wingtip vortices by this time have had a few seconds to dissapate against the surrounding air and against the side of the building. In fact the blast itself comes about a half second after the impact of and subsequent destruction of, the wings with its inherent abrupt ending of the generation of lift and any vortices.

The larger , denser material, the only material that is anywhere near where the vortices would be interacting with the side of the building, are simply going to be moved very little by any dissapating vortices. That material in no way represents the smoke in the NASA photo.

The blast front itself is going to be affected very little by a wing generated vortice even if it encounters one since the energy behind the blast is so much greater than the energy within the vortex. You might as well ask why a flag in a 20 MPH wind does not stray from its downwind pointing when you are blowing at it as hard as you can.

[rcronk]

So let me take this to its conclusion...

Truthseeker1234 - are you saying that there really wasn't an airplane? If so, how do you explain the thousands of witnesses, photos, and video by non-government people from every conceivable angle showing you and I planes hitting the buildings? It would seem that you're no plane theory (if that's what you're implying) is just wrong simply because of the overwhelming evidence against the theory.

I think Occam's razor dictates that your inexpert assumptions about how the smoke should have looked that day are just wrong in the face of all of this other evidence. Could that explain it more simply than inventing a no-plane theory out of thin air? Pun intended.

[3bodyproblem]

All these pictures are taken significantly after the plane entered the building. The overpressure from the fuel combustion has already canceled out any wake vortex. You're looking for a fart in a windstorm TS, good luck.

[DGM]

This is still a pointless argument considering thousands of people saw the airplanes!

Although a discussion of wing vortexes could be interesting

[Swing Dangler]

This is still a pointless argument considering thousands of people saw the airplanes!

Although a discussion of wing vortexes could be interesting

Then you believe in UFO's correct? Considering the vast number of people who see UFO's then they must exists.

For the record, I'm not a no planer, but I'm waiting to see how this all pans out.

[Darth Rotor]

This is still a pointless argument considering thousands of people saw the airplanes!

Although a discussion of wing vortexes could be interesting
Vortices. :)
/pedant

DR

[Anti-sophist]

So far I remain entirely unconvinced that what we see in the videos is incorrect. You've done nothing to establish what we -should- see. If your claim is that we should see an effect roughly equal to the crop-duster, you're going to need to justify that, give how fundamentally different the two scenarios are.

I think this is just more false-analogy fallacy, to be honest. Take an observable effect and pretend it exists, unchanged, at parameters far beyond those in the original experiment.

[ob986s]

Please go here

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA389851

and read this study conducted on behalf of the British Government. The study was to determine if the Boeing 767-300 (I am not as on top of the 9/11 issues as some but wasn't one of the planes that struck the towers a 767-300?) could be used as a mid air refueling platform for the RAF. You will see that they found the wake vortex's acceptable enough to study further. The full test (a pdf linked in the abstract) is an interesting read. in my opinion after a very brief scan on the test doc the wake vortex of a 767-300 at speed (as it obviously was when 1000's of people watched it crash into the tower) is minimal

To the troothers reading, feel free to read and cherry pick anything that you feel supports your case while ignoring everything else that doesn't

[3bodyproblem]

For the record, I'm not a no planer, but I'm waiting to see how this all pans out.

Thank god. There's a 2 drink minimum and a 1 "no planer" maximum in this forum at any given time.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Then you believe in UFO's correct? Considering the vast number of people who see UFO's then they must exists.

There's quite a difference between, "I watched the plane hit the building," and, "I saw an object I've never seen before."

[DGM]

Then you believe in UFO's correct? Considering the vast number of people who see UFO's then they must exists.

For the record, I'm not a no planer, but I'm waiting to see how this all pans out.
Yes, I believe that there are objects that have been seen that are unidentified.

[DGM]

Vortices. :)
/pedant

DR
Them too!:D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You and Duppy are delusional and don't know what you are talking about.
2nded

[gumboot]

This is one of the stupidest CT claims I have come across. Why do you Conspiracy Theorists insist on talking about things you know nothing about?

-Gumboot

[CptColumbo]

This is one of the stupidest CT claims I have come across. Why do you Conspiracy Theorists insist on talking about things you know nothing about?

-Gumboot
There is not a lot that they do know.

[Dr. Seuss mode]
They have no Degree, they have a Degrot.
It tells not what they know, but what they know not.
[/Dr. Seuss mode]

[Corsair 115]

In this picture we see dust and smoke falling gently down. The blast force pushed material sideways, but now it is falling down. It is falling down into the area directly underneath the flight path. Directly underneath the flight path is where the wake vortex is. A 757 is a heavy plane, which was banking left. Behind the right wing, particularly, we would expect a significant vortex.I think you've missed one significant thing: in order for the wake vortex to affect a cloud of smoke the aircraft has to fly through that cloud of smoke. You can see a great example of this from the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! where the planes playing the role of Japanese Zeroes fly low over rows of burning U.S. fighters. The columns of smoke are unaffected until after the Zero has flown through the columns of smoke; after it has passed through the smoke columns then the characteristic swirls appear.

On 9/11, the smoke wasn't there until after the jets had impacted the building and exploded. Since there was no passage through the smoke, there is no wake vortex effect visible on the smoke.


To the physics experts here: if I've goofed up on this, please correct me!

[TjW]

To sum up:
The vortices were small, because of the high speed/low angle of attack of the aircraft.
The vortices stopped being generated when lift stopped being generated.
The vortices sink behind the aircraft.
The vortices spread apart behind the aircraft.
The vortices are simply moving air. Other moving air, such as the pressure wave from a fuel explosion, can overcome them.
There is a lot more power in a fuel explosion that uses a significant fraction of the aircraft's fuel load in a fraction of a second then there is in wake vortices, whose power is ultimately supplied by the engines (and to some extent, the sink rate of the aircraft). The engines burn a very small fraction of the aircraft's fuel load per second.
So it's not unreasonable for a high power event such as a fuel explosion to disrupt a lower power phenomena such as wake turbulence.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm not a physics expert, but the wake vortices exist whether there's smoke to pass through or not. Therefore, you could pump smoke into the area behind the plane and watch it get caught up in the vortices.

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/030904-M-7837W-001.jpg
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060516-F-9712C-956.JPG

Of course, the effect seen in those pictures doesn't involve a highly disruptive overpressure, unlike on 9/11.

[Hokulele]

It seems like this is a compelling point for a CT'ist due to the fact that many of them have some personal experience with boat wakes, and are mistaking the dynamics involved there with those in aerodynamics. TS1234 himself mentioned boat wakes in an earlier post.

TS, what you may have seen in the wake of a boat does not apply to aircraft. Just as dynamics involved in volcanic eruptions does not apply to building collapse conditions.

Gah. Next the CT'ists will probably start generating theories based on an analogy between expanding dust clouds and yeast-driven expansion in bread dough.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I think you've missed one significant thing: in order for the wake vortex to affect a cloud of smoke the aircraft has to fly through that cloud of smoke. You can see a great example of this from the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! where the planes playing the role of Japanese Zeroes fly low over rows of burning U.S. fighters. The columns of smoke are unaffected until after the Zero has flown through the columns of smoke; after it has passed through the smoke columns then the characteristic swirls appear.

On 9/11, the smoke wasn't there until after the jets had impacted the building and exploded. Since there was no passage through the smoke, there is no wake vortex effect visible on the smoke.


To the physics experts here: if I've goofed up on this, please correct me!


I don't think you're right. Those vortices persist for awhile. The question would be whether the smoke, dust and debris drift down into it.

The magnitude of the vortex has to do with the amount of lift. Therefore the weight of the aircraft is the most important factor in trying to estimate the magnitude, this from a NASA website. Speed and wingspan factor in as well, but NASA says weight is the most important variable.

I'd say the weight of a 767 is a lot more than a crop duster.

[MG1962]

Perhaps a touch off topic but Sprintcars racing at Eldora speedeway have been reported to produce observable wingtip vorticies on humid nights. And in one extremely rare occurance, produced contrails. Unfortunately they were too faint to be photographed at the time

[Corsair 115]

I don't think you're right. Those vortices persist for awhile. The question would be whether the smoke, dust and debris drift down into it.Remember this important point: in those vortex pictures, the aircraft continues to fly along well after the vortex is seen affecting the smoke, and there was nothing interrupting or in the way of the aircraft flightpath. Neither of these is the case on 9/11; the aircraft didn't carry on after striking the buildings, and the buildings were there to interrupt and change the air patterns. That's what I'm really getting at when I mention flying through the smoke to reveal the effect.

[SpitfireIX]

Grade Report

Student: Baker, Ace

Courses:

Aerodynamics: F

Fluid Mechanics: F

[gumboot]

I don't think you're right. Those vortices persist for awhile. The question would be whether the smoke, dust and debris drift down into it.

The magnitude of the vortex has to do with the amount of lift. Therefore the weight of the aircraft is the most important factor in trying to estimate the magnitude, this from a NASA website. Speed and wingspan factor in as well, but NASA says weight is the most important variable.

I'd say the weight of a 767 is a lot more than a crop duster.



Please stop embarrassing yourself.

-Gumboot

[rwguinn]

Remember this important point: in those vortex pictures, the aircraft continues to fly along well after the vortex is seen affecting the smoke, and there was nothing interrupting or in the way of the aircraft flightpath. Neither of these is the case on 9/11; the aircraft didn't carry on after striking the buildings, and the buildings were there to interrupt and change the air patterns. That's what I'm really getting at when I mention flying through the smoke to reveal the effect.

from 1970/75, I was a Cooperative education student at NASA Flight Research Center (now Dryden) when we mapped the wake vortices off of several aircraft, most notably the 727.
From the research (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2004-14-DFRC.html)
... The strongest -- and most dangerous vortices -- are generated by aircraft that are heavy, are in a clean gear and flaps-up condition, and are flying at slow speeds like those of landing approaches.and
NASA research has shown that as large aircraft move through the air, trailing vortices tend to remain spaced less than a wingspan apart while sinking at a rate of several hundred feet per minute. Over time, the sink rate will slow and their strength will taper off. Research has shown, however, that vortices can also rise during conditions of ambient thermal lifting.
Vortices of large aircraft often move laterally at speeds of 2-3 knots when they sink to within 100-200 feet of the ground.
In calm wind conditions, vortices created by large aircraft during landing operations can remain for many minutes over the normal touchdown area. They can also slowly drift from one runway to a nearby parallel or crossing runway.
The third round of flights was in 1973, when a 727-200 three-engine jetliner was the wake generating aircraft and a PA-30, a Learjet, and an F-104 was the probing aircraft. The effort of this round of tests was to study changes occurring in vortex characteristics during the steeper descent path used in a two-stage noise abatement landing approach. Smoke generators were attached to the wing tips of the 727-200 to help chart differences between vortex flows created during normal landing approaches and the noise abatement approaches.These are the ones I was involved with. We were on the lakebed with movie cameras mounted on transits, and recorded the things from wingtip to ground.
They move fast, and can actually bounce!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The magnitude of the vortex has to do with the amount of lift. Therefore the weight of the aircraft is the most important factor in trying to estimate the magnitude, this from a NASA website. Speed and wingspan factor in as well, but NASA says weight is the most important variable.

You really need to stop this idiocy...

The strength of the vortices basically depends on the aircraft weight divided by the product of air density, flying speed, and wingspan. This property generally increases with aircraft weight.

http://www.nasaexplores.com/show_912_teacher_sh.php?id=030103130242

First of all, no where in that link does NASA say or even imply that "weight is the most important variable." Attributing that claim to them is a blatant misrepresentation of the information, misinformation.

Second, if you understood a damn thing about grade-school math, you'd understand why the "[strength of the vortices] generally increases with aircraft weight," and that it's not nearly as significant as your attempts to delude yourself.

Is this what truth is to you? You are an ignorant fool...

ETA: The link also says, "Vortices last longer in calm air, and atmospheric turbulence hastens their decay." The exploding fuel would be quite a [localized] atmospheric disturbance, wouldn't you agree?

[NeoRicen]

Ace, please please please Go away, you have no idea what you're on aboutn and you clearly have parnoid delusions. IF the 9/11 conspiracy is true someone much saner that you would point it out, I don't want to hear it from you.

[PhantomWolf]

Then you believe in UFO's correct? Considering the vast number of people who see UFO's then they must exists.

For the record, I'm not a no planer, but I'm waiting to see how this all pans out.

Of course they exist. However having said that, just because a UFO is unidentifiable by one person doesn't mean that another person seeing it can't identify it, or that no one knows what it was. And even if no-one can determine what it likely was, doesn't mean that it has to have been alien. So while UFO's do exist, UFO != Alien Spaceship

[I Am He]

Ace

Could you please tell me where you are posting from??

Thank You,
I Am He

[Foster Zygote]

Duppy has made an excellent observation. The explosions from both twin towers do not show any signs of wake vortex, only a second or two after aircraft allegedly came through at top speed.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=116&st=0&#entry13511615

Explanation?

Well obviously they were only holographic jets.

[Redtail]

Of course they exist. However having said that, just because a UFO is unidentifiable by one person doesn't mean that another person seeing it can't identify it, or that no one knows what it was. And even if no-one can determine what it likely was, doesn't mean that it has to have been alien. So while UFO's do exist, UFO != Alien Spaceship

What he said.

[steve s]

Duppy has made an excellent observation. The explosions from both twin towers do not show any signs of wake vortex, only a second or two after aircraft allegedly came through at top speed.


Here's something for you to chew on. According to the coriolis effect the water in my toilet should go counterclockwise as it flushes. But it doesn't. Why? Becuase the coriolis effect is overwhelmed by greater forces causing the water to go clockwise.

Is it so hard to grasp that the explosive force of thousands of gallons of jet fuel might overwhelm whatever influence the wake vortices might have? Also take into account that the smoke and fireball rise upward while the wake trails behind and below the plane.

Steve S.

[A W Smith]

Duppy has made an excellent observation. The explosions from both twin towers do not show any signs of wake vortex, only a second or two after aircraft allegedly came through at top speed.



are you suggesting the blast wave from exploding fuel is of insufficient force to effect or cancel out altogether wing tip vortices's? are you that stupid?

[beachnut]

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/graphics/fig158.jpg
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ubinger/wtc1_fireball_zoom_in.jpg

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ubinger/wtc1_fireball.jpg
Hello.

The wake turbulence is created by lift. Wake turbulence is strongest at take off and landing. The high speed impact on 9/11 had wake turbulence, but a level less than takeoff and landing. The wakes move down. The wakes stop at impact. The wakes move down and thus are not in the explosions. The wakes do not move forward, they move down from where they were made. The wakes on 9/11 stopped at the building, on impact. There are no wakes on the other side of the building Sherlock.

Plus since you are a no planer, there is no wake, silly man.

Wake goes down, wake can not show up where plane has not been.

The picture you show is cute, but the smoke was there already. Sorry you do not understand basic stuff, try again never. You could try to get a refund for any education you have had, it was a failure. Just an observation based on your posts.

The wingtip vortices descent up to 900 feet below where they were generated, they move down. So in your photos, the wake is on the other side of the building below the blast zone. What is your point?