blowback from a commercial jet. look at the people on the beach.

[DemInDistress]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1208113432572686065

This is a 15 second clip from an airport in St. Maartens. From 60-80 yards away people are blown into the ocean.
This is video footage of a plane taking off at the Princess Juliana Airport at St Maarten. Look at what happens to the people on the beach.


Then we have skeptics who claim a commercial jet flew into the Pentagon. That jet also took down some street lamps and flew over passing automobiles yet not the faintest trace of any jet blowback. Why?

[Sinti]

1. I thought it blew the cars all over the freeway

turned them upside down and whatnot - a horrible mess it was.

[mirandapriestly]

2. I saw one where a car was blown over, but

everything seemed to stay in place on the Pentagon lawn..

[Sinti]

5. Found some photos taken at the time here

It really doesn't look like these cars suffered any blowback. The taxi has a broken window, but that's about all. I see no cars blown off the road, but I'm not sure that this mean much. Keep in mind, for those that don't live there, the Pentagon is downhill from 395. Check it out.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. Its called physics

I jet moving at 500 kts produces a fraction of the air displacement due to thrust to a jet starting from a standing start, which must displace it's own mass in air to get it moving.

If you think about, it is easy to understand...but then theres the rub. :eyes:

[DemInDistress]

8. yes miranda, I saw a car blown off the road and into a lake/pond

body of water. Yet on the amazing Pentalawn not a thing was disturbed,not the spools,not a blade of grass,even those downed lightpoles stayed in place. Then think about the massive thunderous sounds those jet engines make. Supposedly flight 77 flew as low as 5ft. off the ground. why didn't the wings or engines disturb those spools sitting on the lawn?

I also noticed some of the windows on the Pentagon weren't broken. It's bizarre, a jet which crashed into the
90th floor of WT1 could break the glass in the lobby 90 floors below yet the Pentagon windows which should have broke where the engines and wings collided didn't... how'd they do that?

[Klimmer]

3. If a 757 went into the Pentagon, everyone would know it.

Nice find with this film clip.

No commercial jet airliner can land going at normal flight speed due to ground effect. It is impossible to bring it down in a landing approach at those speeds; can't even get close to the path that flight 77 was supposed to fly into the Pentagon at.

And "they" have to continue the the official lie going with this flight approach since the Pentagon film shows something moving toward the Pentagon at that approach (we know it isn't a 757). And they have to also continue the approach as indicated, because any other steeper approach other than level, would have left a giant crater in the Earth at the impact point, and that didn't happen at the Pentalawn obviously.

You are absolutely right, blow-back and wing/wake turbulence from a commercial airliner at that low level to the ground would have created amazing damage, and cars and people would have been thrown all over the place and there would have been many more deaths and incredible damage and mayhem. What we have instead are people arguing over whether it was a big commercial jet, small military jet, or a Global-Hawk like missile. Well, since people "I witnessed" something as it flew over them, and they didn't get thrown by wing turbulence, jet blow back, or ground effect, then whatever it was, was small in structure with minimal or non-existant ground effects, wing/wake turbulence, or blow-back.

Like I said, if a 757 went into the Pentagon, everyone would know it. There would be no doubt. Yet all the evidence is consistant with a small flying craft and missile --- perhaps a Global-Hawk.

It would be something to hear these people interviewed that witnessed first-hand this blow-back phenomenon. I would say many were seriosly hurt if not killed by this event.

[Carefulplease]

4. Ground effect is reduced with speed.

By the time the pressure wave (traveling at the speed of sound) is reflected by the ground, the plane has moved forward quite a bit. Blowback is also reduced with speed. The speed of the exhaust gases relative to the ground is reduced by the speed of the aircraft. That makes for a ~500 mph difference as compared with the blowback in the video referenced in the first message of this thread.

[DemInDistress]

7. I hope your not saying that a commercial jet traveling at 500 MPH

and as low as 20'ft. above ground wouldn't have caused that downed lightpole not to fly as a missile or any cars underneath not to feel any effect is ludicrous. The photo offered up by the BFEE of what hit the Pentagon shows me "something flew by as low as 5'ft. off the ground.
Judging from the way these people in the above video were blown into the ocean the thought that no materials on the ground on the highway or the spools in front of the Pentagon didn't move make the BFEE's case for Arabs alone did it even more "ludicrous" but thanks for the feedback.

500 MPH and as low as 5 to 20'ft. off the ground and no blow back evidence..wow.

I live in the shadow of La Guardia Airport. Did you ever hear the thunderous roar of 2 commercial jet engines as well as the vibrations when it passes overhead? It's unmistakable.

[Carefulplease]

12. The faster it moves, the least effect the jet blast has...

As I've said, the speed of the aircraft is subtracted from the speed of the exhaust gas. Further, the exposure time is reduced. There is no time for a steady current to establish itself, as was the case in the video referenced above.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=505764

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=1075

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5648951

[Ezlivin]

10. Correction: Ground effect is reduced with reduced speed

Ground effect is also influential in landing. As the airplane flies down from free air into ground effect, the reduction of induced drag as it nears the runway comes into effect to make the airplane float past the point of intended touchdown. In the common case of an airplane coming in with excessive speed, the usable portion of the runway may slip by with the airplane refusing to settle down to land. A go around will probably be necessary. On short fields, approach as slowly as is consistent with safety. (http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aft_perf.htm)

The hijackers wanted to "land" the 757 at the Pentagon. The touchdown point would be on the ground just before the building, in this case, since the aircraft impacted the bottom floor. (Graphic depictions as well as the Pentagon videos show an aircraft very close to the ground.) To get the aircraft down to the ground while traveling at high speed (400+ knots) and in ground effect would be highly improbable.

[Carefulplease]

11. I stand by what I said...

Your reference does *not* say that ground effect increases with speed, only that the runway may slip by too fast if the approach is too fast and the effect wasn't anticipated by the pilot.

Here is a more detailed explanation:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

"A second factor that influences the impact of trailing vortices on an aircraft is the speed at which it travels. A common misconception about ground effect is that a "bubble" or "cushion" of air forms between the aircraft and ground that somehow prevents the aircraft from landing or even forces the plane upward away from the ground. Furthermore, many believe that the strength of this cushion grows the faster an aircraft flies when near the ground. Both of these beliefs are wrong."

"Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies."

[savemefromdumbya]

14. so therefore you would see ground impact @ that speed

trees were still intact/not burnt by the Pentagon wall even though there was a fireball, the lawn was golf-perfect.

[DemInDistress]

9. thanks kilmmer..for the encouragement.. OCT-er's like to denounce

every find not conforming to the Official Story. Having lived in the shadows of LaGuardia airport's flight path we often have our home shake from the vibrations not to forget the deafening roar of those engines. How could people not realize that.
Some witnesses say,"I heard a swoosh" or "it sounded like a missile" few if any claimed,"a thunderous roar"...


thanks again my friend..

[Carefulplease]

13. "(...) few if any claimed,'a thunderous roar' ..."

Few is any?

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

"Once in her room,she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window"

"I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine."

"As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up."

"Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet."

"Dennis Smith, a building inspector and former Marine, was smoking a cigarette in the center courtyard when he heard the roar of engines and looked up in time to see the tail of a plane seconds before it exploded into the building."

"I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening."

"I heard an airplane. A very loud airplane. ... I heard the airplane coming from behind me. ... So I looked up, and I saw this airplane coming, heading straight down toward the ground. It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly."

There are many more...