Afghanistan

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I thought so as well. I'd suggest looking again, specifically at what a jet engine does to nearby objects.

A jet engine at low power does very little to nearby objects. Airliner jets taxiing on the runway are operating at low power. Even at high power, the object would have to be behind the jet to be "blown away". This is easily understood intuitively, and if it can't be understood that way, a quick search of YT videos would prove it to be true. It's frustrating and disappointing to see some people on here falling for what amounts to "actors" theory.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
A jet engine at low power does very little to nearby objects.
At high power, it can destroy cars. At lower power, it can certainly be expected to have a lesser impact.

These engines were at a power level which was moving a C-17. That's one or two hundred tons of force. I'd reference Debra's comment for details. Afghanistan
 

Renaissance

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
A pretty good rule of thumb when looking at conspiracy theories (like this fake plane theory) is to look at what the significance would be if it were true as well as the reasonability of the motivations and execution. Theories like this have a certain flavor that lack depth. It's the same as fake earth, fake moon, fake victims, and fake attacks. These things seem to tap into fear or distrust reactions, where the ability to fully utilize reasoning about the topic is bypassed. These theories are also uniquely consuming of energy while being of little to no consequence. The real issues and lies regarding Afghanistan are much more important and of interest.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Also, in addition to being a distraction from the real issues, such speculations as fake planes (a similar one was circulated for the 911 operation with "holographic planes") and actors etc. often serve a narrative. It discredits anyone who has other legitimate suspicions of foul play (like for instance the miraculous arrival of the ISIS-K) or at the minimum the incompetence of the empire, and for those who buy into such claims, it implents the narrative that "the US/NATO army would never do such a thing as abandoning their local operative and let them die, those images of fake planes are a plot to tarnish its reputation". Our world today is built upon narratives that serve a purpose with mind games within mind games for everyone. One has to be careful not to fall into those traps.
 

Konstantin

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Well, I work with 3D models, renders, and e.t.c for about 20 years. I was looking at the video and I was trying to find some anomaly but I could not. The plane and all that crowd running with the plane. I can see any anomaly, any glitch that will suggest it is CG video.
I am not an expert on stuff like this at all, but I could not find any problem. Everything looks realistic on that video. I know that technology today is very advanced, but there is nothing unusual on that video as I can see.

Then, why a fake plane? Who will get anything with such a thing? They don't even try to hide their intentions anymore. We can see the guys behind the curtain.
it is obvious that these 20 years of a bloody show of the PTB in Afghanistan is over and they opened a new frontline. To the whole of humanity this time. They are fighting the " invisible enemy" as they said last year.
The fight with an "invisible enemy" can last forever. They quit Afghanistan, The whole planet is now Afghanistan for them.

And guess what. They are doing this for our own good. They are fighting this "dangerous virus" for our own good. To save humanity.
In the same way, they bring "democracy" to the Afghan people.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
These engines were at a power level which was moving a C-17. That's one or two hundred tons of force.

What does "one or two hundred tons of force" even mean in this context? An airliner like the one in question can move forward at idle thrust, that's perhaps a couple of thousand lbs of thrust. Sure, it's throws out some wind at that level, but it's not what you are suggesting and does NOT prevent the people in the video in question from walking alongside and behind. Look at the height of the engines. Also, no one gets "sucked into" jet engines at that power level.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
At high power, it can destroy cars. At lower power, it can certainly be expected to have a lesser impact.

These engines were at a power level which was moving a C-17. That's one or two hundred tons of force. I'd reference Debra's comment for details. Afghanistan

Debra's comment is completely untrue. Here's one example that proves that people do not get sucked into jet engines at low power.


Some on this forum appear to rely a little too much on their pattern recognition rather than your critical thinking abilities.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Oh boy. I never thought I'd spend so much time looking at pictures of rocket ships and pentagons and airplanes and such. But here I am once more.

Addressing concerns mentioned above:

The "Cui bono?" element...

Saddam's statue tipping event also looked pretty real, but wasn't. It was a prepared P.R. moment designed to show that the people of Iraq were happy with the Americans arriving to topple an evil regime, justifying further military expenditure.

This airplane P.R. moment, if it was constructed, was presumably designed to show that the people of Afghanistan were unhappy with the Americans leaving to allow the erection of an evil regime. It seems to be from the same mind and general playbook to me.

As to the "distraction from the real issues" concern...

That is sometimes an over-used concept, I think.

Exploring a point may cost energy, and this one may not be relevant in the same manner beside the larger facts on the ground, but that doesn't diminish its objective reality. Or in this case, perhaps its un-reality. Don't you want to be sure? It's too easy to make snap judgements and while Joe may have genuine reason to feel confident in his observation skills and thus make strong declarations, I know that I don't have that skill level, so I'm going to have to do it the hard way; working it out with picky attention to detail:

Screenshot 2021-09-01 at 04-47-26 Watch Afghans Run Alongside U S Military Plane At Kabul Airp...png

That gentleman in beige/yellow on the lower Right is wearing a long gold scarf. It is dangling at his back. He is standing within about eight feet of the air intake of a Pratt & Whitney jet engine which, at it's lowest setting capable of moving a C-17, would be producing a minimum of 1700 lbs of thrust to be moving a plane of that size.

He (and the fellow jogging directly beneath the engine intake) are inside the danger zone for a jet engine of that size, running at that speed. And his scarf is not even moving in the breeze.

I've by now read a fair bit about airport maintenance safety and jet engines, and the engine characteristics of particular model of plane.

These are some basic safety guideline illustrations for airport maintenance people:

GN59V.gif




NCqQp.jpg



Here are some remarks about what to expect from airliner jets from an employee:


Sorry I don't have info for small jets, but I thought information
about airliners might be of interest.

I check the Ramp Proceedures Manual for the major airline that I work
for and got these numbers. All the measurements are from the TIP of
the TAIL and not the engine itself.


A 737-200 at "breakaway" thrust (or the thrust required to start
moving from a full stop) generates a wind of 100 mph 30 feet from the
tail of the plane and 50 mph at 125 feet. And that's if they don't
"goose" it.

Most airliners generate similar breakaway exhaust speeds as this.

Idle thrust, while no where near as forceful is still plenty potent
100 feet away.


The 737-200 at takeoff thrust generates a 300 mph wind at the tail,
200 mph 50 feet away, 100 mph 125 feet away and 70 mph 250 feet away.

A 757-200 at takeoff thrust is 150 mph at 180 feet and stays over 100
mph well over 300 feet away.

IOW, stay WELL CLEAR of the back end of any airliner while in your GA
aircraft!!


Debra's comment is completely untrue. Here's one example that proves that people do not get sucked into jet engines at low power.


Some on this forum appear to rely a little too much on their pattern recognition rather than your critical thinking abilities.
While she may have been indulging in some hyperbole, I didn't get the impression that Debra was being deliberately misleading or even wrong. What she said lines up with airport safety rules and the reports of other ground crew I've seen in discussion forums.

The video you provided is certainly evidence that a jet engine once its power is turned off and spinning down, is not very dangerous; it showed that men could get right up next to the bell of the intake.

There are numerous indications throughout the video that the cameraman was using the zoom feature to good effect, keeping himself out of the danger area, and in particular around the 3:00 mark, captured the amount of wind being produced. -While the engine was actually being powered, nobody was anywhere near the intake. If we had seen a man moving near the intake while the engine was producing thrust, then we would know more.

In the news clip, the engines sounded like they were being turned down to low power, and the plane may have been moving on momentum. If there was a pilot alerted to the fact that there were so many people around the plane, he would likely have taken care to not hurt anybody by powering up. It would have been instructive to see a bit more of the footage.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Joe
Top Bottom