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.

 

NIST: Flight 77's left engine hit the ground

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   



3.7 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT

At that time the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15)







Killtown: Where?


Photo Source: DoD





The size of a Boeing's left engine.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Killtown]

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Killtown]




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Ever get the feeling that your
.
Like no one is listening i11.photobucket.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>.
I sure do every time that I have to re-answer these same questions over and over..

Well anyway, this question again. Thought we went over this in the Pentalawn Thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and the Pentagon thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well let me re-explain this a bit then, using the way back machine to save on typing: (I think this is legal, *scratches head and does it anyway…)



thewebfairy.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Posted Originally By Defcon5
An airplane is smooth on the bottom and designed to be able to belly slide if the gears fail. The weight is dispersed over a wider area then that truck, by way of example, so there is most likely less pounds per inch in contact then you have on that truck. The truck has all its weight including the water and chemicals it holds concentrated into an area the width of its tires and it’s not even making large ruts in the grass.

Obviously the damage to the grass is going to depend on how soft the dirt below it is. That is why you can run a lawn tractor over your yard on a normal day and not make ruts, but try it after it rains out and you will have a muddy mess. If you look at the pictures from later in the day you will see that as the water from the fire trucks absorbs into the ground, it softens and you have muddy ruts…

So with that in mind I would have to guess that the dirt around the pentagon is both very dry and packed down pretty hard, most likely from all the construction equipment that had been running all over it before the incident. The grass was then literally stuck between a rock and a hard place, it would provide some lubrication to the aircraft passing over it, and would have just ended up being matted down flat.


Now I know that there are no 757’s in these pictures and that some are on the cement. Most of the pics I could find on this were from WWII since it is slightly rare to have a gear fail to the point of needing to belly slide except combat damaged aircraft. Either way though some of these weight in at roughly the same as that engine and I don’t see any damage there either, show me any….










external image

external image







Killtown’s Picture below has that much in common with my pictures above, no 757’s….




PS Killtown IF you want anyone to take you seriously here, then at least ensure that your supporting photo is of the correct plane not a 767 (might even be an 777 or a A300 Hard to say from that pic, some are even hard to tell apart on the ground like the 767 and A300, let alone with only half the body in the photo) but its defiantly a Wide Body aircraft...

Here I will help you out a bit this is a 757 narrow body aircraft, see the difference:

www.luftfahrt.net..." target='_new' class='postlink' style='color: #ff0000; font-size: 14px;'>external image



[edit on 12/16/2005 by defcon5]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 16/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Ever get the feeling that your
Like no one is listening
I sure do every time that I have to re-answer these same questions over and over..


Yeah, insults really contribute to quality research.



Well anyway, this question again. Thought we went over this in the Pentalawn Thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and the Pentagon thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well let me re-explain this a bit then, using the way back machine to save on typing: (I think this is legal, *scratches head and does it anyway…)


Um, this thread has nothing to do with my Penta-Lawn 2000! page. Although with the look of the undisturbed pavement right in front of the Pentagon where the NIST said Flight 77's left engine hit the ground, this thread may become The Amazing Penta-Pavement!





An airplane is smooth on the bottom and designed to be able to belly slide if the gears fail.


That is so nice. What in the &@%! does that have to do with this thread? Please go back and read the title.




Killtown’s Picture below has that much in common with my pictures above, no 757’s

PS Killtown IF you want anyone to take you seriously here, then at least ensure that your supporting photo is of the correct plane not a 767...


Now it's really becoming hard to take you seriously. Where did I say that pic of the Boeing's left engine was from a 757? I posted it because it it is a similar size of a 757 and it's left engine and for it's scale purpose. Do you disagree?

Thanks for the post though, I had a good laugh.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
(I forgot to post this pic!)





Where did Flight 77's left engine (not fuselage) hit the ground near the building as the Pentagon Building Performance Report claims?




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
What the hell killtown? You just got a perfectly good explination and you clouded it with stupidity and ignorance. When they say it 'hit' the ground it didn't smash into it with the power of one thousand stampeding rhinos... It scraped the ground and as the person above said, the bottom is smooth. Plus it says 'at the time of impact'... So it touched the floor for about half a second then... Half a second of lightly rubbing the floor... I wonder too why there is not crater



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
What the hell killtown? You just got a perfectly good explination and you clouded it with stupidity and ignorance.


A perfectly good explaination of something that had nothing to do with this thread.



When they say it 'hit' the ground it didn't smash into it with the power of one thousand stampeding rhinos...


The plane was said to have traveled at 530 mph. The engine is the heaviest and strongest part of that plane.



It scraped the ground and as the person above said, the bottom is smooth. Plus it says 'at the time of impact'... So it touched the floor for about half a second then... Half a second of lightly rubbing the floor


It "scraped the ground"? A "half a second of lightly rubbing the floor"? Did you not see this pic of theirs showing the engine BURIED HALFWAY UNDER THE GROUND???





... I wonder too why there is not crater


Me too, me too!



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   


A perfectly good explaination of something that had nothing to do with this thread.


So his explanation of why no mark was left ahd nothing to do with why no mark was left? Ok that makes perfect sense.



The plane was said to have traveled at 530 mph. The engine is the heaviest and strongest part of that plane.


And there is no evidence of how much pressure was put on the ground... the plane was still partially in the air, there is still uplift.



It "scraped the ground"? A "half a second of lightly rubbing the floor"? Did you not see this pic of theirs showing the engine BURIED HALFWAY UNDER THE GROUND???




And other graphics representations don't show it buried halfway into the ground... whats your point? It's not a real life video of the attack so it isnt perfect! I wound go and find some of them but your argument is not worth debunking...



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
So his explanation of why no mark was left ahd nothing to do with why no mark was left? Ok that makes perfect sense.


It makes perfect sense if we were talking about Flight 77's fuselage. Since this thread is about Flight 77's left engine, it makes no sense.




And there is no evidence of how much pressure was put on the ground... the plane was still partially in the air, there is still uplift.


Officials said the plane was going downwards and angled to the left which would put all of its pressure on its left wing.




And other graphics representations don't show it buried halfway into the ground... whats your point? It's not a real life video of the attack so it isnt perfect!


Such as the Purdue one that is not how gov't officials said it came in?




I wound go and find some of them but your argument is not worth debunking...


Not worth it, or because you cant?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
Um, this thread has nothing to do with my Penta-Lawn 2000! page. Although with the look of the undisturbed pavement right in front of the Pentagon where the NIST said Flight 77's left engine hit the ground, this thread may become The Amazing Penta-Pavement!


Yes, it has everything to do with this thread. Aircraft are designed to be able to survive a belly slide or gear up landing. The angle of approach would be the same, unlike a normal crash that occurs at a steeper angle, thus no permanent damage to the runways, grass, snow, and dirt in my photos same as the lawn, cement, and dirt in yours.


Originally posted by Killtown
That is so nice. What in the &@%! does that have to do with this thread? Please go back and read the title.


Since a 757 has its engines slightly lower then the rest of the fuselage, when it has to belly slide the engines hit the ground before the rest of the body would. At some point, the weight of the plane is being supported on those two engines. The engines, if they remain attached, would most likely crush in at the bottoms since they are mostly empty space rather then dig into the ground, and would slide like the aircraft above did.


Originally posted by Killtown
Now it's really becoming hard to take you seriously. Where did I say that pic of the Boeing's left engine was from a 757? I posted it because it it is a similar size of a 757 and it's left engine and for it's scale purpose. Do you disagree?

Thanks for the post though, I had a good laugh.


Since the photo is labeled 757eftengine3vt.jpg, And I am sure that the next set of question is going to be how it could leave such a small hole in the building. You see I have danced this dance before, repeatedly.

Yes it is true that the engines on a 767 are the same or very similar to those on a 757. I would have to look at the specs on the plane to tell you if they are exactly the same.


Originally posted by Killtown
Where did Flight 77's left engine (not fuselage) hit the ground near the building as the Pentagon Building Performance Report claims?


Where are the scrapes from the construction equipment moving around that area?
Unless you are there in person and can look at it up close, what do you expect to see?
How do you even know that the engine passed over that exact location that you are showing in your picture?
Can you definitively prove to me that the engine was in contact with the ground at that exact point, and that it had not hit earlier, skipped into the air, and passed over this area?


Originally posted by Killtown
A perfectly good explaination of something that had nothing to do with this thread.


In what way does an explanation of how a belly slide works not involve this thread?

Or is it that you just don’t want to acknowledge that it does because it debunks your theory and that is why I got a U2U from you asking me to remove my pictures and trying to tell me this was not relative to the thread?

All that U2U told me is that I hit too close to the mark and you don’t care for my honest post on the subject, since others obviously see the connection.

It’s a moot point anyway since I cannot change my post over 2 hours later anyway. Even if I could change it at this point it would only be the oversized pics, as a courtesy, not the rest since they are relevant…
As you said in your U2U, Wink Wink…

I am not a member of this site because I want to propagate BS, no matter how popular it may be, but because I want to let truth be known.


Originally posted by Killtown
The plane was said to have traveled at 530 mph. The engine is the heaviest and strongest part of that plane.


Actually, to my knowledge the landing gear assembly is the heaviest strongest part of the plane…


Originally posted by Killtown
It "scraped the ground"? A "half a second of lightly rubbing the floor"? Did you not see this pic of theirs showing the engine BURIED HALFWAY UNDER THE GROUND???


Or its halfway smashed flat.



Originally posted by Killtown


I wonder too why there is not crater


Me too, me too!


Obviously, ihatescifi was being sarcastic with this remark, he obviously realizes the same thing that I do, and that is the angle of attack would not allow it to make a crater. It was like a stone skipping across a pond, not like dropping a stone straight down into a pond.


Originally posted by Killtown
It makes perfect sense if we were talking about Flight 77's fuselage. Since this thread is about Flight 77's left engine, it makes no sense.


It has to do with a heavy cylindrical aircraft aluminum object skidding across both the grass and cement at the correct angle of attack. Whether that cylinder is the engine, or the body makes no difference, now does it?



Originally posted by Killtown
Such as the Purdue one that is not how gov't officials said it came in?


Funny I looked at their site and they seem to agree that a 757 hit the building, not a missile, drone, or UFO.



[edit on 12/16/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I will keep saying it until I am blue in the face........MISSILE!

NUF SAID



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I beleive that the engine mounts are desinged so that the engines detach from the wing in a crash.

I can't find where I read this, so I can't guarantee the accuracy of that.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

yarchive.net...
Given the enormous
amount of rotational energy stored in the rotating parts of a turbine
engine that would have to be reacted out through the strut, wing, and
fuselage, it is more economical (lighter by tons) to design the
engine/strut to depart the airplane in a controlled manner….

We want the engine to depart safely, which means
without rupturing the fuel tanks in the wings. The single most critical
condition of a safe evacuation is the lack of jet fuel mingling with hot
engine parts at the crash site….

The usual design for a wing-mounted engine intentionally puts the weak
point in the mount at the rear of the engine. This way, if something
happens that causes the mount to break, it'll break at the rear. The
engine then rotates up around the front mount, breaking it too, and
the residual thrust carries the engine up, over the wing, and out of
harm's way. (The trajectory is also designed to avoid the horizontal
stabilizers.)

Let us postulate two possible failure modes. First, the front mount fails
first, and the engine continues to run normally. The engine would most
likely hammer against the remaining strut until parts of it fail or against
the bottom of the front spar if the strut fails totally. This is
considered undesireable for those who were wondering. A more innocuous
version of that failure would be for the engine to find another
equilibrium position using the failed structure above it to transmit those
upward loads (which are alleviated to some extent by the weight of the
engine).
The second scenario is for the front mount to fail, and the fuel lines to
crimp and break. The engine will run normally for several seconds as the
fuel in the line below the break continues to feed in. The crimped and
broken fuel lines will blow exciting amounts of raw fuel into the strut and
out into the airflow, causing a truly inspiring white cloud of vaporized
fuel to trail the airplane - right above the engine. This would be a severe
fire hazard....

>>>(1) They are designed in a ditching situation to shear off and flip over
>>> the top of the wing rather than dig into the water & pull the wing off.

Not so. Engines will shear off in the aft direction in a ditching (or at
least, that is how we analyze it).

>Karl Swartz wrote:
>
>>This is also for landings on runways without landing gear, but I think
>>the concern is more to keep the aircraft from flipping than it is for
>>tearing off the wings.
>
>How can an engine shear off and go *over* wing? In situations such as
>described above, I would expect the engine wreckage to go *under* the
>wing. (Especially for the water landing.) Also, what is meant by
>"flipping" the aircraft when landing without gear?

An engine can shear off and depart the airplane by going over the wing
if it is still generating thrust and the rear emgine mount failed first,
as it is designed to do.



This thread was about all I can find on the subject online. I know this from hanging around engine changes with the mechanics. I cannot say that I have ever read it anywhere though.


[edit on 12/17/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Detachable engine mounts are what caused an American Airlines DC-10 to crash in Chicago. The mounts were damaged during maintenance, and the back broke off, and the engine detached as normal, but ripped out some wiring and caused the crash. It's just like the engine in newer cars. If it travels a certain distance, it shears and the engine falls out.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown

Officials said the plane was going downwards and angled to the left which would put all of its pressure on its left wing.



This is such an utterly stupid statement. Because the engine is touching the floor the whole aircrafts weight is on it? Oh come on grow some common sense. The plane is still mostly in the air. Going on your logic the plane has just broken the laws of physics.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I find the incredible conclusions that some people come to absolutely astounding. I wasn't aware that this engine was fired vertically into the ground, which is what practically would have to happen. In addition to everything mentioned above the wings are pretty flexible. When you watch them before and during take-off they lift considerably. I reckon in flight the wings must lift a good couple of feet at the tips minimum compared to when they are not generating lift, so I imagine this flexability in combination with the angle of attack and mounting design would account for the minimal damage, which can't accurately be ascertained without having been there anyway.
Maybe I just take my ability to visualise things for granted, but I sincerely find it hard to understand how anyone cannot understand this and would even consider anything else really.

The plane might have been doing about 500mph horizontally, but the effective speed and force of the engine hitting the ground vertically would have been relatively low.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Image Size – Please Review This Link.[/url]

[edit on 16/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



Thank you! Even though these pics have nothing to do with the question at hand, at least now we don't have to go through to pain of scrolling over to read everybody else's comments.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
Thank you! Even though these pics have nothing to do with the question at hand, at least now we don't have to go through to pain of scrolling over to read everybody else's comments.


Please explain to me how these have nothing to do with the thread; apparently everyone else seems to understand the relationship, except you? Is that maybe because your biased and no matter what evidence is placed in front of you your still going to believe in nonsense? So what is the point of anyone even continuing to post in this thread if you are going to dismiss logical evidence to the contrary of your theory?

As to your picture with the red circle on it, there was a fire, and there was water used to extinguish it. Know what that means? Ash, mud and dirt is covering that cement and discoloring it to begin with, so even if there where some scrapes on the cement how would you see them in the picture? To me the light gray area looks like drying mud and ash, and the darker areas look like wet mud and ash. If you’re expecting to see some sort of trench dug in the ground, then take off your blinders and go back and look at those non-relevant pictures…



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killtown
Thank you! Even though these pics have nothing to do with the question at hand, at least now we don't have to go through to pain of scrolling over to read everybody else's comments.



Originally posted by Defcon5
Please explain to me how these have nothing to do with the thread; apparently everyone else seems to understand the relationship, except you?


Yes, pray tell? I am interested in why you ignore everything against your argument? :[



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5


Please explain to me how these have nothing to do with the thread


You posted about 7 different planes that landed on their bellies.

1) How many of these planes have their engines lower than the bottom of their fuselage?

2) How many of them landed going 530 mph (the official speed Flight 77 was said to have flown in)?

3) How many of them landed with their nose pointed down as Flight 77 would have had to?




As to your picture with the red circle on it, there was a fire, and there was water used to extinguish it. Know what that means? Ash, mud and dirt is covering that cement and discoloring it to begin with, so even if there where some scrapes on the cement how would you see them in the picture?


First, I really really enjoy hearing official believer's explainations!


Second, where would the scrape marks be if the "ash/mud/dirt" were not covering them up?



To me the light gray area looks like drying mud and ash, and the darker areas look like wet mud and ash.


To me in the circle, the bottom half looks like dirt/lawn and the top half looks where the pavement starts. Concur?



If you’re expecting to see some sort of trench dug in the ground, then take off your blinders and go back and look at those non-relevant pictures…


*Sigh*

Let's put your photos to rest. Here's a comparison of a fuselage and an engine and what it would do if it hit the dirt with the nose down first:

This cup is essentially the shape of a fuselage and an engine.

If a fuselage hits the dirt with it's nose down (like Flight 77 was said to have), your photos could be relevent (even though I doubt any of them landed with their nose down) since the fuselage would have hit at it's narrower front part then could have done the belly-slide as your photos show (although I doubt it would do a belly-slide like your other photos if it hit going 530 mph).

However, if an engine hits the dirt with it's front angled down, hey guess what? A trench would have been dug in the dirt!





posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   


The part you circles is concrete and your comparing it to a cup and dirt?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join