9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Engines are designed to run at full power for take off and climbout, which usually only lasts a few minutes.

I'm not that familiar with aviation, so excuse all the questions, but what controls how hard an engine is working, and in what circumstances would a 757 be doing that much work mid-air?

You have throttles in the cockpit that control the engines. Basically, the throttle controls the fuel flow and rpms of the engine. As you increase both, you get more power. However, there is so much pressure on the engine as you run it at higher power settings, that if you run it too high for too long, something in the engine is going to fail.

Under NORMAL flight conditions, you are at a high power setting for less than 5 minutes or so. Take off, and climbout after take off are about the only times you see a high power situation.

[edit on 8/4/2006 by Zaphod58]

The engine portion recovered 2000 feet away from the impact in Shanksville was reported as being an engine core, which I'm assuming would be the innermost part of the engine, right? If the rest of the engine, the casing or what have you, was found at all, it apparently was not with the engine core. I don't think this suggests that an engine just came off from sheer G force, or else it should have come off in one piece. It also tends to contradict an explosive failure, as it seems the casing or whatever would also be found away from the actual impact site with the rest of the engine.

From what I've read, Boeing engines are very reliable and will not fail except in very rare circumstances, most likely from lack of fuel, or else fatigue when the engines are aged. As with skyscrapers being very over-engineered, it appears that aircraft are also engineered so as to have a good deal of tolerance in rougher situations, for the same reason of safety.

For example, a Boeing 727 is rated for +2.5g to -1g (1), whereas an Iceland Air 757 (rated similarly) was logged at reaching +3.59g's without failures or any observable damage (2). That would suggest that 757s could take a great deal of G force without having their engines just fly off, as you suggest with U93.

On the 22nd of January 2002 a Boeing 757-208, TF-FIO, on Icelandair flight number 315, made an approach to Oslo airport Gardermoen. The descent and approach was made in strong tailwind. The unstabilized final approach was abandoned at low altitude, and during the go-around the aircraft entered an extreme manoeuvre with high positive and negative pitch attitudes, and the aircraft exceeded maximum negative and positive g-values. The speed limits were exceeded. After the “upset”, the aircraft was flown for another approach and landed at the airport 1102. The aircraft structure appeared not to be damaged. At the time of landing no report of the incident was made to the authorities. The aircraft continued on the scheduled flight without a proper technical inspection.

Ibid.; emphasis mine.

On June 13th of this year, a 767 engine failed from fatigue in Los Angeles, causing a major fire. This is what was left of the engine:



I can't discern any part of the engine coming off from the plane during the failure and subsequent fire, let alone the core of the engine. The casing looks as though it was moved or removed manually, but that's about it. You can find a gallery of images of this incident here: www.flickr.com...

So I don't think I'm really following what you're offering now.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Again though, those failures are under NORMAL conditions. An engine can be incredibly reliable operating under NORMAL conditions, but if you run it under ABNORMAL conditions then obviously you're not going to have the same things happen. A jet engine at constant full power is NOT a normal condition, and it's not going to have a normal failure. It's entirely possible that it had an uncontained failure which damaged the wing around the engine, and when they pulled a turn the stress broke the engine off.

At the speed the 757 was probably flying, it would have pulled more G forces than the planes you referenced if they tried a radical turn. To give an example of how fragile engine mounts can be, there was a KC-135 in Desert Storm that got caught up in wake turbulence. They began to do what they call a Dutch Roll. It's a fairly gentle roll from side to side, probably no more than 2Gs. By the end, two of their engines had seperated from the wing, and the other two mounts had serious cracks in them. There are different types of G forces that cause different types of stress. If there was any sort of damage to the wing or mount, and they pulled a high Lateral G manuver the engine would have snapped off.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Again though, those failures are under NORMAL conditions. An engine can be incredibly reliable operating under NORMAL conditions, but if you run it under ABNORMAL conditions then obviously you're not going to have the same things happen.

The IcelandAir incident reported above was extremely abnormal, and the results of it are posted above.

A jet engine at constant full power is NOT a normal condition, and it's not going to have a normal failure. It's entirely possible that it had an uncontained failure which damaged the wing around the engine, and when they pulled a turn the stress broke the engine off.

First, the stress would have to be well above 3.59 g's considering the above incident, also involving a 757, which did not result in any engine detachment.

Secondly, can you post any incidents of 757 or related engine failure from engine abuse to base your claims on? Or are you just suggesting that it *may* be able to happen simply because we don't know what would happen?

To give an example of how fragile engine mounts can be, there was a KC-135 in Desert Storm that got caught up in wake turbulence. They began to do what they call a Dutch Roll. It's a fairly gentle roll from side to side, probably no more than 2Gs. By the end, two of their engines had seperated from the wing, and the other two mounts had serious cracks in them. There are different types of G forces that cause different types of stress. If there was any sort of damage to the wing or mount, and they pulled a high Lateral G manuver the engine would have snapped off.

You're offering a comparison of a KC-135 to a Boeing 757, instead of a comparison of a Boeing 757 to a Boeing 757 in the article above, in which a 757 also received major turbulence (which was the cause of its extreme G's). You're assuming that U93 is comparable to a KC-135 over a 757 in this instance, and went into a full dutch roll, and you're apparently assuming that both (a) an engine failure, and (b) engine detachment from extreme G-force both occurred, despite what seems to me to be an unlikelihood of either of them happening even separately with a 757.

Engines can be fragile, sure, but I'm sure it's not black and white, and the same across the board for all aircraft in any circumstance. We're looking at troubling data here from very real and very documented examples of these things actually happening, on Boeing 757's. The only thing I can't find is an engine failure due to a pilot abusing it, and unless you have some information (preferably information that you can cite) on this phenomena, I'm going to assume that there's no real data for either of us to go on, and that you're making an assumption that such a failure could result in detachment. The engine fire shown above is the closest thing I have been able to find, and you can see what happened to it. It suffered exploding parts and all, too.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by bsbray11]

First, I was talking about the ENGINE FAILURES. Second, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it's ok for you to use a 727 and 757 to compare, but it's WRONG for me to use anything else that had any kind of problem that MIGHT relate to what I'm talking about to show you what can happen in a given situation. Sorry about that. Third, the KC-135 incident was to show what happens when you put LATERAL G FORCES on an engine that ISN'T DESIGNED FOR THEM. Planes are designed for POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE G forces. NOT lateral Gs.

Have a nice discussion, I'm done with this one since there's no standard of proof that will ever be good enough for you.

[edit on 8/4/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by jprophet420
even after they got busted giving false testimony (of course not under oath)?

I don’t recall anyone getting "busted". If anything some of the senior brass felt the need to make it look as if they were more ready and capable on 9/11 then they really were. Not the first time it’s happened, won’t be the last, and this should make crystal clear just how incapable of shooting down United 93 they were.


[edit on 4-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
First, I was talking about the ENGINE FAILURES. Second, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it's ok for you to use a 727 and 757 to compare, but it's WRONG for me to use anything else that had any kind of problem that MIGHT relate to what I'm talking about to show you what can happen in a given situation.

You're confused. I referenced a 727's G limit; what it was rated for, because it is a very similar plane, and I cannot find the same figures for a 757. But the IcelandAir flight WAS a 757! It got up to 3.59g's without problems, with turbulence and all, even exceeding design speeds. Ok? It was a 757. Not a 727, or a KC-135.

Sorry about that. Third, the KC-135 incident was to show what happens when you put LATERAL G FORCES on an engine that ISN'T DESIGNED FOR THEM. Planes are designed for POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE G forces. NOT lateral Gs.

Show me how many lateral G's U93 got up to. Again, you're making a lot of assumptions.

Have a nice discussion, I'm done with this one since there's no standard of proof that will ever be good enough for you.

To the contrary, I think a 757 in an extreme situation is more representative of a 757 in an extreme situation, than a KC-135 in an extreme situation is. :-/

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by bsbray11
even after they got busted giving false testimony (of course not under oath)?

Learn to quote properly.

I never said that; jprophet420 did.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I never said that; jprophet420 did.

You’re quite right; I don’t know how I missed that. BTW technically speaking there was nothing wrong with my "quoting" but thanks for the advice nonetheless.

It DOESN'T MATTER if you think a 757 is more representative, because in a LATERAL G FORCE SITUATION an engine mount is going to react THE SAME WAY no matter what type of plane you are in. Engine mounts have always been designed the same way, no matter what engine they are designed for.

There is NO WAY TO KNOW how many lateral G forces Flight 93 pulled, because they DON'T MEASURE THEM. A commercial plane will NEVER get into a lateral G situation in NORMAL FLIGHT. I am citing a reason for why the engine separated from the plane. If they put it into a slip, and put lateral Gs on the engine, I don't care if you're in a 747, 757, 767, or WHATEVER, that engine is going to be taking forces IT ISN'T DESGINED TO TAKE. No they aren't ALL going to serparate from the plane but the odds of it happening just went WAY up.

The G limit of the plane is ALSO irrelevant, because that's POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE G FORCES. There are NO MEASUREMENTS FOR LATERAL G FORCES. Aircraft aren't designed for many lateral Gs, plain and simple. Those big flat surfaces like the vertical fin, and the engines aren't designed to go sideways like they do in a lateral G situation.

The "core" would be the actual engine, versus the shroud.

The kinetic energy of the plane/engine core, plus the mass (weight) would indeed cause the core to travel a considerable distance when an abrupt stop occurs.

Be that as it may, back on topic. Those responsible for the security of people/buildings in Washington, and other areas, have a responsibility to protect same. When it comes to the difference between maybe 150 people in a plane, and thousands of people on the ground/in buildings, the lesser loss of life to protect the larger number always wins.

Those having the responsibility to actually do that type of thing I would imagine weighs heavily on them... but I'm glad they are there.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by bsbray11

What was that about Indian Lake washing the debris so far away, Muaddib?

Lol, I don't even see as much as a stream connecting Shanksville to New Baltimore.

.......Some fo the debris was washed away at the lake...even eyewitnesses said so bsb.....

and could you tell us what was found in the site that was 6-8 miles away?.....

Originally posted by bsbray11
Mostly? So then what are you ignoring? Check this CNN transcript out:

Source: CNN Transcript

They had TWO PLACES sectioned off: the crater, and ANOTHER site, 6 to 8 miles away. For what? Paper that was also scattered all in between? What would the point in that be if it was coming down everywhere? There was apparently another site, besides the crater, where there was significant debris that needed to be cordoned off.

If they found some debris there, even if it was just one letter from that flight and or small pieces from the aircraft, they would cordoned off the area just in case there was anything else in there....

Originally posted by bsbray11
And a freaking engine landed 2000 feet away in a forest, too, btw. Did that lift up and get blown away too?

I don't think you have any idea of the potential energy such an object has when crashing.....

It is obviously impossible to discuss facts with someone like you because you want to see "the government was behind it".... and you "want to see some foul play in anything and everything".....

Originally posted by bsbray11
The reporter said himself that it seemed unlikely that debris flew so far away. If you want an idea as to why, take a look at the pic below.

Riight...and the reporter knows this because?.......

Originally posted by bsbray11
Carol Delasko, who works at the marina, said she saw a light cloud that stretched several hundred feet across rising about 200 feet into the air moments after the crash.

"It was white," said Theresa Weyant, borough secretary for the nearby resort community of Indian Lake, "so you looked up and it and you saw shiny stuff floating in the sky ... sparkly, shiny stuff, like confetti."

Could you tell us what do you think that means?.....

Right, and here's a photo of it:

Originally posted by bsbray11
How hard does it look like the wind was blowing?

Looks to me like it's just rising straight up into the air. Wind, generally speaking, would blow it in some other direction, if it were very strong. You know what I mean? It only looks white near the very base.

...How long did it take them to get to those areas?.... You think the wind does not pick up all of a sudden?.... it got to be a government conspiracy, the government made the wind pick up right?....

And BSB.....not all aircraft crashes are the same...i gave a link to different crash sites and in several of them the debris is very small, while on other some large pieces survived..... "it doesn't make it a government conspiracy".....

[edit on 4-8-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
.......Some fo the debris was washed away at the lake...even eyewitnesses said so bsb.....

and could you tell us what was found in the site that was 6-8 miles away?.....

You were using this as an excuse for how debris was carried so far away, and were obviously mistaken. Be a man and leave things in context.

If they found some debris there, even if it was just one letter from that flight and or small pieces from the aircraft, they would cordoned off the area just in case there was anything else in there....

On what information do you base this? There are witnesses attesting to the small pieces coming down everywhere. Why didn't they just cordon off every open field in the area if they were only looking out for the little pieces? They only cordoned off the crater, and a secondary debris site some miles away.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And a freaking engine landed 2000 feet away in a forest, too, btw. Did that lift up and get blown away too?

I don't think you have any idea of the potential energy such an object has when crashing.....

So then you're saying a 1 ton engine core did bounce off the ground and land 2000 feet away in a forest?

It is obviously impossible to discuss facts with someone like you because you want to see "the government was behind it".... and you "want to see some foul play in anything and everything".....

No, it's impossible for you to discuss "facts" with me because you're having a hard time being objective. If you want to say that an engine bounced off the ground and flew through the air to land 2000 feet away, then you could at least provide some quantative figures for the KE or whatever it is you're pinning this on, at least roughly to illustrate your point. But instead, you just make a vague, ridiculous suggestion and leave it at that, while suggesting that I'm not being factual.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The reporter said himself that it seemed unlikely that debris flew so far away. If you want an idea as to why, take a look at the pic below.

Riight...and the reporter knows this because?.......

Probably because he felt the breeze that day and had a good idea of exactly how far 6 to 8 miles is.

Could you tell us what do you think that means?.....

Where have I disputed the existance of smaller pieces of debris? This is a weak straw-man.

Originally posted by bsbray11
...How long did it take them to get to those areas?.... You think the wind does not pick up all of a sudden?.... it got to be a government conspiracy, the government made the wind pick up right?....

Could you please make some sense out of this argument for me? I've just posted a picture of the cloud produced by the crash, and there appears not to have been any significant breeze affecting the cloud. I can't make out how this is supposed to be a response to that observation.

And BSB.....not all aircraft crashes are the same...i gave a link to different crash sites and in several of them the debris is very small, while on other some large pieces survived..... "it doesn't make it a government conspiracy".....

And this is a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm not saying small debris = shot down. This is another straw man.

Uh. There was a fight for control of the aircraft and during the fight the engine pylon was overstressed resulting in the loss of the engine, causing the crash. That there wasn't a larger debris field is proof that the airframe was mostly intact at impact. Some of the debris found away from the crash site could have came from a failure of the door to the luggage compartment. I've heard that the door may have been what fell into the lake.

As far as the the 737 crash in Pittsburgh goes the soot and charring on the wreckage was caused by a brush fire started by the crash. I know, I helped with the recovery part of the investigation. That was what made me to find another career choice besides Crash Investigator.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by JIMC5499]

Originally posted by bsbray11
The engine portion recovered 2000 feet away from the impact in Shanksville was reported as being an engine core, which I'm assuming would be the innermost part of the engine, right? If the rest of the engine, the casing or what have you, was found at all, it apparently was not with the engine core. I don't think this suggests that an engine just came off from sheer G force, or else it should have come off in one piece.

Why should it "have come off in one piece"?.... bsbray, you are making things up trying to prove your theory...

Originally posted by bsbray11
It also tends to contradict an explosive failure, as it seems the casing or whatever would also be found away from the actual impact site with the rest of the engine.

Why?..... the engine could have started breaking apart in midflight as the passengers and the terrorists were fighting, the aircraft could have banked too much to one side or downwards which would have caused overstress on the engine and part of the fuselage. We might not know exactly how it came appart, but "the engine doesn't have to fall off all in one piece" as you claim....

Again, you don't want to know the facts, you just want for everyone to believe in your theory and thats it... There are other reasons why an aircraft can crash like that...it doesn't have to have been blown off, or shot at...


[edit on 4-8-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Why?..... the engine could have started breaking apart in midflight as the passengers and the terrorists were fighting, the aircraft could have banked too much to one side or downwards which would have caused overstress on the engine and part of the fuselage. We might not know exactly how it came appart, but "the engine doesn't have to fall off all in one piece" as you claim....

Again, you don't want to know the facts, you just want for everyone to believe in your theory and thats it... There are other reasons why an aircraft can crash like that...it doesn't have to have been blown off, or shot at...
[edit on 4-8-2006 by Muaddib]

If the engine is going to fail due to an overstress condition it is designed to fail at the pylon so that the engine can seperate cleanly from the airframe. This is to allow for any possibility of the aircraft being saved.

With all the evidence and plain old common sense I came to the conclusion a long time ago that she was shot down. It was even the first though in my mind when it came across the wire that day. I don't in the least think poorly of this decision. I would have done the same. It was a sound maneuver and had to be done.

But I do have to wonder... all this "they didn't even know it was hijacked yet. How could they have shot it down?" ... how many of us were actually watching these events unfold? I turned on the TV that morning only seconds before the second plane hit and was constantly monitoring the situation throughout. Flight 93 was determined to have been hijacked and was shown on mainstream media several minutes before it crashed. So either the news was tracking a plane that had already crashed, or military awareness of the hijack had been realized much sooner than is being accepted.

i was looking through other 911 stuff and found this. very interseting and implies that flight 93 hit the ground hard. at first i was thinking that meant it wasnt shot down, but then came to the conclusion that it could have been, but it wasnt exploded in the air. it could have been shot down and then crashed in one piece. anyway...

Maryland Geological Survey

Since the time of plane impact at the Pentagon had often been reported with large scatter, the United States Army contacted us to inquire whether we could obtain an accurate time of the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001 based upon our seismic network. We analyzed seismic records from five stations in the northeastern United States, ranging from 63 to 350 km from the Pentagon. Despite detailed analysis of the data, we could not find a clear seismic signal. Even the closest station (62.8 km) at Soldier's Delight, Baltimore County, Maryland (SDMD) did not record the impact. We concluded that the plane impact to the Pentagon generated relatively weak seismic signals. However, we positively identified seismic signals associated with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The time of the plane crash was 10:06:05 (EDT).

www.mgs.md.gov...

Republican Thomas Dean and Democrat Lee Hamilton of the 9-11 commission are releasing a book detailing problems and frustrations encountered by the commission in the investigation.

The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," the book states.

Link to Associated Press Article

Im glad that its both a dem and a rep releasing this that way there can be no "oh its a democrat attack" or "oh its a republican attack" on the administration in this argument.

There is a growing solidarity on both sides of the "parties" that there is a problem with the existing government. The lies are getting too great. The lawbreaking is getting too great. Its becoming time to pay the piper mr.bush. Hopefully.

Now before you start flaming me over that last statement saying im a republican hater, im a democratic liberal. Im neither. I dont care what "party" of president purportrated this facade on the american people. I just want justice for the american people in the midst of this unlawful administration.