When readers detect misinformation

October 11, 2007

Dominique Delabie

hooked "his brain to his optic nerve" and noticed something that had escaped us.

IThere is

information

and

misinformation.

This reader drew my attention to the video showing the importance of the jet engine's blast on a vehicle passing through the jet of a ground-based aircraft, which is the subject of a link, immediately above it. At first glance, one sees a heavy truck going into the wilderness after passing through the axis of an airplane's jet engine, at a fixed point. However, notes Dominique, this truck ... has no engine! It is ... being pulled by a barely visible cable. A careful examination shows that it has clearly been stripped of all heavy structures, on purpose. Therefore, this image is fake, means nothing, and misleads readers.

The advantage of the Internet is that the reaction to take is not to delete the document, but to keep it on the page, pointing out that it is misinformation.

Qhat is the real effect of a jet engine's blast on cars flying at low altitude under a jet? I could not say precisely. Regarding the 747 and its successors, it is not the ejection speed of the gases that is the main parameter, but the amount of motion related to the important gas flow. Its engines are "double-flow" where the efficiency is increased by mixing the air from the turbine, the exhaust nozzle, with a cold air envelope, drawn in by the "fan".

There were simple jet engines.
There were conventional engines, driving propellers.

The induced speed

behind the propellers was moderate. The ejection speed downstream of a jet engine's nozzle was immediately supersonic.

One then created "turbopropellers" where one connects one or more counter-rotating propellers to a jet engine. The efficiency is increased. Indeed, the higher the speed of the jet, the lower the efficiency. A fast jet dissipates its energy in simple turbulence and "warms the small birds". The most famous aircraft equipped with turbopropellers is the Russian strategic bomber Tu-95, "Bear". An absolutely remarkable technical success, never equaled (this propeller-driven aircraft flew at 900 km/h and at 10,000 meters altitude!).

The Tu-95 Bear, equipped with four turbopropellers

The

induced speed

behind a Bear at a fixed point is certainly less than that produced downstream of the very noisy turbojets of its American equivalent, the famous B-52. But this would not in any way diminish the power of the blast of its four turbopropellers.

Throughout this approach to increase the efficiency of propulsion systems, the idea arose to streamline the propellers of turbopropellers, which gave the "double-flow", "fan", engines now equipping all commercial airplanes, without exception. The thrust of a jet engine is equal to Q V where Q is the mass flow rate of gas, in kilograms per second, and V is the ejection speed, in meters per second. To increase efficiency, V was reduced and Q was increased. Therefore, modern engines have relatively low ejection speeds, but much higher air mass flow rates.

Le problem with the turbopropeller was the reducer's mechanics. One could not, in fact, directly connect propellers to a jet engine, which turns too fast. The larger the object that moves the air, the lower its rotational speed must be. In a "modern" helicopter, the primary energy is provided by a turbine (the French were pioneers in this matter with their famous "Alouette"). The whole problem to solve was to chain speed reduction stages without losing too much efficiency or increasing too much weight. The French were the first to achieve this feat, now implemented on all helicopters that are not light two-seaters with piston engines.

Le fan of the "double-flow" currently gives the best results for a given cruising speed. If you look at a modern engine from the front, you will see that only part of the air flow captured by the "fan" goes into the central turbojet. There are other advantages. By sheathing the hot air flow with cold air, we modify "the acoustic refraction index". The sound waves emitted by the nozzle, very noisy, are reflected by the cold air sheath. Thus, the noise nuisance is reduced.

Chich brings us back to the starting point: could a Boeing 757, flying over crowded roads at low altitude, have lifted vehicles into the air, as shown in the video?

Honestly, I don't know.

But it doesn't change the essence of the problem. There are other points that cast doubt on the fact that a commercial aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, the first being the "entry hole", tiny. How could the aircraft's fuselage, according to the official report, have pierced three concrete walls to emerge dozens of meters further on in an inner courtyard? Here is the nose of a commercial aircraft:

The nose cover of a commercial aircraft: a thin "radome" in a honeycomb structure, protecting its radar.

The "exit hole" of the Boeing 757 fuselage, in an inner courtyard of the Pentagon

The same, in close-up (where is the object that could have caused such a penetration? It too has "vanished" ?)

Frankly, you see a plastic radome capable of making such a hole!?!? (which is written, black on white, in the ... official report)? And it took six years for people to start using their brains while looking at all these photos. This one first appeared on the cover of the courageous Thierry Meyssan's book: "Le Pentagate", later treated with the greatest contempt by the foolish and incompetent journalists who hosted the April 2004 show "Tous manipulés", on which I will go into detail.

Chat is shocking is that a scientific colleague wrote to me two months ago:

We would like to invite you to our scientific assemblies. But there are positions you hold that make people refuse for you to come, such as your absurd thesis that

no aircraft crashed into the Pentagon.

Chis colleague is not himself a scientist, but is the spokesperson for a group of CNRS astrophysicists whose neurons have apparently been frozen for six years (on this subject and on many others as well).

Chis document showing the "blown" truck evokes the existence of "documents"

that are part of a disinformation strategy

. And this is where

the vigilance of readers is essential

and thwarts the actions of

disinformation.

What was the motivation of the people who created this fake document, showing a truck blown by a jet engine? It certainly required resources to achieve that. As Dominique Delabie rightly notes:

I have read and watched almost everything related to 9/11, but this video, lacking rigor, undermines the thesis it claims to defend.

Qven if the authors of this video wanted to give their argument a "boost" to make it more spectacular, we would not be here to answer a brainwashing with another brainwashing by echoing documents...