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.

 

Flight77.info - Pentagon video release imminent?

page: 21
1
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:
SMR

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Well YOUR link says otherwise! So I guess now you have no trust in YOUR source anymore? Figures




posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Powering over 600 757 aircraft around the world, a 535 powered 757 takes off or lands every 25 seconds
70 per cent of Boeing 757 operators have selected -535 engines
-535 engines have logged over 40 million hours of highly reliable service
In service with more than 80 operators
The world's most reliable large turbofan
19,000 hours average to first shop visit

www.rolls-royce.com...


The -535 is a highly successful member of the RB211 family of three-shaft turbofans. Its first version, the -535C, was launch engine for the Boeing 757 and entered service in 1983.

100.rolls-royce.com...

Sure looks like they use them on 757s.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Well YOUR link says otherwise! So I guess now you have no trust in YOUR source anymore? Figures

Holy molly....:shk:
Hey, you reckon you can twist and refute the sources Zaphod58 linked, as well?
Good grief.....




seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I must agree with seekerof, the text shows that the part is most likely of a Rolls engine that was built into this 757-200 by choice of AA. This is actually a pretty good link. SMR, sorry just re-read it, he´s right.

Anyway, to answer seekerof about the tail and the nose not showing, it is all about proportions. If you do the math, the nose should have been sticking out from behind the post. Really. But I guess for every argument you have a counter argument and vice-versa. This discussion is exactly what the real perps want.

Seriously, why allow for speculation? Did you ever ask yourself that question?

Bet ya the wolfpack is laughing their butts off reading these discussions as was mentioned before.
To anyone with 9/11 inside intell reading this , well, **** and ****.


SMR

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

I am twisting things around? Please explain how I am doing this by COPY/PASTE from YOUR LINK !! Man, classic turn around when things get tough for skeptics.See it all the time so your not the first


So a 535 is used in a 757...great! Now was that fan type deal in the image from a 535?
There was an article posted in the CH thread and that article stated did it not, that P&W and R-R both said that the part in the wreckage image did NOT come from any engine they built.Did they change their minds?

[edit on 17-5-2006 by SMR]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
There was an article posted in the CH thread and that article stated did it not, that P&W and R-R both said that the part in the wreckage image did NOT come from any engine they built.Did they change their minds?
You really should accept the advice given to you by the above member who mentioned that you should re-read the link provided, cause at this juncture in this discussion, you are grabbing at straws...





seekerof



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
please note that we still have a second FOIA request active for the other 84 flight 77 recordings. we WILL get those also. they should include the citgo tape and the doubletree hotel tape (there's no sheraton hotel tape, BTW).

from flight 77 website


this is the real stuff, all 84 acknowledged recordings. this is what i want to see.

[edit on 17-5-2006 by AdamJ]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
What caught my attention about these two frames is the difference in quality. In the first, the nose cone of the object seems to appear somewhat clearly, but in the second all that is visible is a flash of light, with no detail at all apparent. I assume that the object would be traveling at much the same speed in both frames, and that the camera would be at the same speed, so why the difference?

Anyone else notice this?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
please note that we still have a second FOIA request active for the other 84 flight 77 recordings. we WILL get those also.


Are you positive? How can you be sure you will get them? Keeping my fingers crossed here...



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet

Originally posted by AdamJ
please note that we still have a second FOIA request active for the other 84 flight 77 recordings. we WILL get those also.


Are you positive? How can you be sure you will get them? Keeping my fingers crossed here...


Yeah, how sure are you just because they gave us these two POS videos? I'm of the opinion that they'll drag their feet even more some how and we won't see anything substainsial from this point on, this would have been the time to show us the plane and they don't show crap.


SMR

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by SMR
There was an article posted in the CH thread and that article stated did it not, that P&W and R-R both said that the part in the wreckage image did NOT come from any engine they built.Did they change their minds?
You really should accept the advice given to you by the above member who mentioned that you should re-read the link provided, cause at this juncture in this discussion, you are grabbing at straws...





seekerof

Um......... I like to work on my own thank you.
Maybe you could just answer the question and stop dodging them.
Seeing as you display a little thick-headedness, I will post for you.Fact, I will copy/paste from the post CH made.



What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is)

John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military�s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman�s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999.

Lets go over and ask Honeywell shall we !
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...


AFP contacted Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent high-resolution photos for their examination. “There’s no way that’s an APU wheel,” an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: “That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came out of an APU.”


So, who is right and who is wrong? Did CH post a lie? In fact, I even posted stuff on this he LEFT OUT ! here ya go, read it up!



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HardToGet
No, sorry even with VLC it clearly shows a thinnish cone, divided into three sections by two black lines, and pointed at a downward angle. No airliner, where the nose is much, much thicker.




This is taken from the 2nd Video. Much bigger body. VLC is skipping the frame. I used WINDOWS MOVIE MAKER and it works great to see the frames with.





[edit on 17-5-2006 by ThePieMaN]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Having worked on APU's (C-130/P-3 Orion) in the Navy in 'I' level enviroment (Engines Out of the plane) I would doubt very much that rotor is from an APU.

The rotors are usually one solid piece, rather then a hub and seperate blades like the rotor in that pic.
Here is what the rotor in an APU looks like...


Here is a Honeywell APU (not from 757 but they are all simular in design)


No way IMO did that rotor come from an APU, way too big, but also way too small to have come from a 757 engine. Global Hawk anyone?

[edit on 17/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   



1) You cannot control a 757 at that speed. Overshoot 100 yards, and Cheney is toast. The horizontal angle of attack is scientifically impossible for a 757.
2) Even when you do hit the right spot with a 757, you cannot be sure 100% what the damage will be, and to what extent


Overshoot? Why is a pilot going to overshoot such a vast building? Why is an angle needed? You just aim and hit. Why do you need to be sure of the extent of the damage? Why would it matter? Why would the attack have to happen when Cheney was there?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I think people are assuming far too much in saying that, the white piece visible is the nosecone, I see something different, the colors change.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
www.infowars.com...


Anyone else see this on infowars? Looks like they must pay attention to these boards..



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
While thinking about the video something occured to me. Since it was sunny that day and an American Airlines aircraft has the high shine silver paint job, wouldn't we see a "streak" of light (the sun reflecting off of the body) on the video?? Ya know what I mean


BTW if anybody wants some close up shots of a 757 (landing gear, side of engines etc.) for comparison, I have a few I took.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is)

John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military�s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman�s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999.

Lets go over and ask Honeywell shall we !
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...


AFP contacted Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent high-resolution photos for their examination. “There’s no way that’s an APU wheel,” an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: “That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came out of an APU.”



Umm, lets try this concerning that APU and Global Hawk:


The Global Hawk, meanwhile, is powered by a single Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan. The AE3007 is built by the Allison Engine division of Rolls-Royce located in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Using photos and cut-away drawings of these three engines, we can estimate the diameters of the compressor and turbine rotors just as we did for the RB211. The results of these comparisons are summarized in the following table.


Engine--Overall Diameter--Compressor Hub Diameter--Turbine Hub Diameter
PW J57--40.5 in (102.9 cm)--16 in (40.6 cm)--18 in (45.7 cm)
PW JT8D--49.2 in (125 cm)--21.5 in (54.6 cm)--22.5 in (57.1 cm)
RR AE3007H--43.5 in (110.5 cm)--14 in (35.6 cm)--15 in (38.1 cm)

This analysis indicates that all three of these engines are too small to match the engine component photographed at the Pentagon. Some sites also suggest the part might be from the aircraft's auxiliary power unit (APU). An APU is essentially a small jet engine mounted in the tail of an aircraft that provides additional power, particularly during an emergency. However, APUs tend to be much smaller than jet engines, and the component pictured at the Pentagon is too large to match any found in an APU. It has also been suggested that the attack was conducted by a cruise missile like the Tomahawk or Storm Shadow, but these and other weapons are powered by engines no more than 15 inches (38 m) across. These powerplants are obviously far too small to account for the Pentagon wreckage.

Whatever piece this is, it appears to be only the central hub of a compressor or turbine stage. Normally, each of these rotating stages would be fitted with several curved blades mounted along its circumference. These blades were apparently knocked off the rotor hub found in the wreckage due to the force of the impact. The loss of these blades is unfortunate since different manufacturers often adopt unique shapes for their fan, compressor, and turbine blades that would make the source of the component much easier to identify. Nonetheless, we have been able to locate the following picture of the intermediate pressure compressor section of the RB211 that appears to match several characteristics of the Pentagon debris. Note that this photo appears to be from the RB211-524 which is an uprated relative of the RB211-535 used on the Boeing 747 and 767. This engine model contains seven intermediate pressure compressor stages compared to the six of the RB211-535. However, the compressor disks used on both engines are believed to be nearly identical.

One similarity between the two photos can be seen in the cleats along the edge of the Pentagon object. These devices are called dovetail slots and provide attachment points for the compressor blades. The shapes of these slots on the Pentagon wreckage appear to match those on the RB211 assembly shown on the left. Furthermore, the "nosepiece" jutting out from the center of the disk in the Pentagon photo shares commonalities with the central shaft visible in the RB211 photo.

Based on the above analysis, the closest match to the debris at the Pentagon appears to be a rotor disk from a Rolls-Royce RB211-535. The wreckage is most likely a compressor stage given the shape of the doevetail slots. It is difficult to be certain exactly which compressor disk it is since the six rotors of the intermediate pressure section and six high pressure compressor disks are of similar size. The primary difference from one compressor to the next is the smaller span of the compressor blades as the air flows further into the engine, and these blades are no longer attached to the wreckage. However, we suspect that this rotor disk is probably from the high pressure section or perhaps the very last disk of the intermediate pressure compressors.


For more refuting of SMR, see: "Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation"








seekerof

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Ok heres what it really is all about people. It's a mind control experiment, the pentagon thinks like this. Lets just suppose here now. Lets suppose they carry out this attack using something other then a 757. Now if they can get the PUBLIC to BELIEVE that a 757 actually did hit it, that in itself would be mind control. Because therefore you are then believing it no matter what your EYES may tell you what actually ISN'T THERE. It's a big experiment. I'm sure most can see this. The problem is lol, they must think we are really stupid, I mean tons of people still buy the government story, but we know the underground movement they'll never control. It'll take a lot more then these little mind games.


SMR

posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


Based on the above analysis, the closest match to the debris at the Pentagon appears to be a rotor disk from a Rolls-Royce RB211-535. The wreckage is most likely a compressor stage given the shape of the doevetail slots. It is difficult to be certain exactly which compressor disk it is since the six rotors of the intermediate pressure section and six high pressure compressor disks are of similar size. The primary difference from one compressor to the next is the smaller span of the compressor blades as the air flows further into the engine, and these blades are no longer attached to the wreckage. However, we suspect that this rotor disk is probably from the high pressure section or perhaps the very last disk of the intermediate pressure compressors.


For more refuting of SMR, see: "Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation"



Again, you didnt pay attention to your LINK or external quote did you?
From your HUGE quote ( which some of us always get punished for ) ....

Note that this photo appears to be from the RB211-524 which is an uprated relative of the RB211-535 used on the Boeing 747 and 767. This engine model contains seven intermediate pressure compressor stages compared to the six of the RB211-535. However, the compressor disks used on both engines are believed to be nearly identical. Note that this photo appears to be from the RB211-524 which is an uprated relative of the RB211-535 used on the Boeing 747 and 767. This engine model contains seven intermediate pressure compressor stages compared to the six of the RB211-535. However, the compressor disks used on both engines are believed to be nearly identical.


Are you just really not getting it? You article cant pick what the damn part is from.That is what I am trying to show you.One sentence it says the 524 then next says the 535 and then it is on the 747 then the 757
The research on that page switches up too many times to actually believe anything it says.

Lets just put it this way.No plane in video, no sale.Plain and simple.For those who say that they see a plane, best have your eyes looked at and stop eating those fungi.
We will never see other video.We will NEVER know for 100% fact it was an AA Boeing 757 flight 77
We were lied to about WMD's to go to war, they are lying to us about this.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join