It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Salander
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12
You cannot even comprehend that turbo jet engines are comprised of several fan discs. Was the part at the pentagon the inlet fan? From a compression stage? An expansion stage? What fan disc was it from what stage. Turbo jet engines are comprised of serval fan discs of various sizes. Then the one pictured at the pentagon had a majority of the blade lengths knocked off. I would even say there is no working production engine that has blade tips that short! Why? Because the part at the pentagon had its blades broken off.
By this post, you demonstrate a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the differences between a turbojet engine and a turbofan engine. Yes Virginia, they are different.
Such a demonstration of ignorance, and such an arrogant attitude to other posters is why you have absolutely no credibility with me.
The turbojet is an airbreathing jet engine, usually used in aircraft. It consists of a gas turbine with a propelling nozzle. The gas turbine has an air inlet, a compressor, a combustion chamber, and a turbine (that drives the compressor).
A turbofan engine is the most modern variation of the basic gas turbine engine. As with other gas turbines, there is a core engine, whose parts and operation are discussed on a separate page. In the turbofan engine, the core engine is surrounded by a fan in the front and an additional turbine at the rear. The fan and fan turbine are composed of many blades, like the core compressor and core turbine, and are connected to an additional shaft. All of this additional turbomachinery is colored green on the schematic. As with the core compressor and turbine, some of the fan blades turn with the shaft and some blades remain stationary. The fan shaft passes through the core shaft for mechanical reasons. This type of arrangement is called a two spool engine (one "spool" for the fan, one "spool" for the core.) Some advanced engines have additional spools for even higher efficiency.
How does a turbofan engine work? The incoming air is captured by the engine inlet. Some of the incoming air passes through the fan and continues on into the core compressor and then the burner, where it is mixed with fuel and combustion occurs. The hot exhaust passes through the core and fan turbines and then out the nozzle, as in a basic turbojet. The rest of the incoming air passes through the fan and bypasses, or goes around the engine, just like the air through a propeller. The air that goes through the fan has a velocity that is slightly increased from free stream. So a turbofan gets some of its thrust from the core and some of its thrust from the fan. The ratio of the air that goes around the engine to the air that goes through the core is called the bypass ratio.
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: Jacobu12
I come back on later when you might have something to show me? For now i see you.
You had time to post this? But not time to post and link to what you claim is the "smoking gun" the wreckage at the pentagon was wrong?
We only left with 3 options a SLAM hit the Pentagon. A version of the cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Finally a Global hawk crashed at the pentagon and it would have left more engine parts in the debris?
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12
Ok, is it the inlet fan disk, one of the compression disks, or one of the expansion disks?
Which bladed disk are you saying it is from on an engine with multiple bladed disks the vary in size.
What disk from an engine uses that length of blading.
The fan disk would have taken the most damage, had the most blade length knocked off, and be the most deformed. Is that a false statement.
If you don't provide a link to the picture, or post the picture, you have no credibility.
Good eye.....
originally posted by: Jacobu12
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: Jacobu12
I come back on later when you might have something to show me? For now i see you.
You had time to post this? But not time to post and link to what you claim is the "smoking gun" the wreckage at the pentagon was wrong?
The stubby part protruding out it must likely is the disk part of the fan. The blades could have broken off at impact? If it is a Turbonfan and has the characteristics of it. The official narrative a commercial airliner crashed is fake. A 747 turbofan disk will be bigger, length and width and size.
We only left with 3 options a SLAM hit the Pentagon. A version of the cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Finally a Global hawk crashed at the pentagon and it would have left more engine parts in the debris?
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jacobu12
We only left with 3 options a SLAM hit the Pentagon. A version of the cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Finally a Global hawk crashed at the pentagon and it would have left more engine parts in the debris?
No any missile would have blown the internals of the building out onto the lawn.
Did you see chairs-desks-computers-phones laying around on the lawn?
Every Gulf war video where a missile hits a building you see the internals being blown out.
Why were the internals not blown out like every other missile impact ?
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12
Got to hand it to you, you stick to your guns when you are dead wrong. You offer up a photo of a complete engine and cowling as it would look under the wing and ignore that the pieces at the Pentagon had smashed through a wall.
originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12
The official story regarding the cell phone calls associated with 911 is one of the several glaring failures of the story.
Yes, today's cellphone technology is considerably more advanced than it was in 2001. In 2008 the industry basically stopped using the old analog cell phones and supporting ground equipment, but in 2001 they were still in use.
The phone calls that are really the foundation of the official story regarding the hijackings were impossible in those days. The cellphone system was designed for pedestrian traffic on the ground. They were NOT designed for use in airplanes, and would not work at altitudes above about 2000' or less, and speeds above 100knots or so.
The plane at the Pentagon hit at fortified wall (allegedly
What fortified wall is that...???
could it be a missile fuel at the facade and kinetic weapon on through.....that describes a plan for pinpointing,huh!
originally posted by: Jacobu12
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12
Got to hand it to you, you stick to your guns when you are dead wrong. You offer up a photo of a complete engine and cowling as it would look under the wing and ignore that the pieces at the Pentagon had smashed through a wall.
The plane at the Pentagon hit at fortified wall (allegedly). Twin Towers had glass windows, it's the reason the planes went straight in.
Crash a car against a wall, will the car be sucked in by the wall? The plane is going to explode apart upon impact.