The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by moonking

When you give those diameters of two different engines, are they the fan size or the over all size?

Over all.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander

Can I ask you where you are getting your size information from? They seem like pretty specific numbers, mind listing a source?

Use your favorite search engine. Type in "CFM-56 diameter." Press "enter".

Who identified the engine as a CFM-56?

Use your favorite search engine. Type in "CFM-56 911"

Was the engine on the street a complete engine with a fan

What does it look like?

After all, I remember seeing you identify the exit hole inside the third ring of the pentagon as the entry point of the jet.

I have certainly learned a lot in the past few years. Thanks for the memories.

edit to add: the illustration moonking posted above is really helpful. John, would you mind showing us the three engines in question, cfm-56, cf-6, and the murray st engine, and helping us understand why it is a cfm-56?

Yes.

Thanks for the post.

My airline had a DC10 that shedded a fan blade...some of the debris wlll fly out, centrifugally...some will continue aft and shred anything it encounters. I can only imagine what a GE engine would look like after impacting a building. Point is, what you see, from the seat in the terminal, is the 'N1', the fan, the first part of the engine, basically a 'ducted fan', though not to that extent.

Here's how a jet engine works...'Suck, Squeeze, Burn, Blow'...

Air is sucked in, and compressed. Compressed and compressed and compressed...in this process, it gets hot (you may hear us refer to something called 'bleed air'...that means designers have used this compressed air, it is 'bled' off for other purposes).

The air is brought in, compressed, and then fuel is injected and ignited. Actually, once the initial iginition, it is self-sustaining (unlike a car engine).

Once the fuel/air mixture ignites, it expands...and is expelled out various vanes that, in turn (no pun), power the big ole' fan blade in front, and the other compressor blades on the concentric shaft, which brings in more compressed air...and as long as there is fuel...(energy)...that's a jet engine. Simple, huh?

Suck, squeeze, burn, blow.....


THE CORE of this engine...where the real heat is....is made of titanium alloys. Guessing it would survive more that the other metals used....

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by InnocentBystander

Was the engine on the street a complete engine with a fan

What does it look like?

Since you asked
I think it’s only a part of it

Originally posted by johnlear
There should have been 2 6 ton engine cores which would not burn because they were jet engines and routinely burned fuel at temperatures far above anything seen in the towers. There shouldhave also been wing planks and wing-fuselage forgings along with wing spars, wing boxes, landing gear hydraulic retract cylinders and many others parts like these that could not, under any circumstance, burn, disappear or evaporate. It just could not happen.

If a Boeing did crash into the WTC and was lodged inside the building, with the engines, either smashed up, or intact, and then the pre-planeted explosives inside the building are set off, which bring the building down, wouldn't those explosives be enough to fragment the engines into small unidentifyable pieces??? Could that explain the lack of evidence of a Boeing at the site? I can understand the fires not being enough to melt the planes engines (or the buildings themselves), but what about the pre-planted explosives?
Regards

PS. I am curious to know, are you John Lear from the LearJet company?

Originally posted by golddragnet
PS. I am curious to know, are you John Lear from the LearJet company?

He is the son of Bill Lear, who started LearJet.

reply to post by moonking


So what you are pilgrum are saying is that the engine core found is the one that should have been found? Thanks for your posts, they've been very helpful.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by golddragnet
PS. I am curious to know, are you John Lear from the LearJet company?

He is the son of Bill Lear, who started LearJet.

Which means his dad was a smart, hard working man.

Originally posted by jfj123

Which means his dad was a smart, hard working man.

And it means that Johns aviation background is very creadable.

[edit on 3-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Yes it's only a relatively small part of the whole engine and I've seen debate elsewhere indicating it's too large to be from a CFM-56 as has been claimed.

Still waiting for definitive proof either way.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123

Which means his dad was a smart, hard working man.

And it means that Johns aviation background is very creadable.

[edit on 3-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Maybe, maybe not. Based on his other observations, I find that I cannot take what he says at face value. Unfortunate but true.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by golddragnet
PS. I am curious to know, are you John Lear from the LearJet company?

He is the son of Bill Lear, who started LearJet.

Which means his dad was a smart, hard working man.

Now you are attempting to be smart, and it is neither amusing nor necessary.

As for John Lear, his aviation background is extensive, why do you feel it necessary to make that small-minded comment.

John Lear, retired airline captain, with over 19,000 hours of flight-time, has flown in over 100 different types of planes in 60 different counties around the world.

Son of Lear Jet inventor, Bill Lear, John is the only pilot to hold every FAA airplane certificate, to include airplane transport rating, flight instructor, ground instructor, flight navigator, engineer, aircraft dispatcher, airframe powerplant mechanic, parachute rigger, and tower operator.

He flew secret missions for the CIA in Central and Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1966 and 1983. He has flown as Captain and check pilot for over 10 different airlines.

John held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24, set in 1966. He was presented with the PATCO award for outstanding airmanship in 1968, and the Symons Wave memorial. He was the youngest American to climb the Matterhorn in Switzerland in 1959 and in the 1970's owned and skippered the Americas Cup boat, the Soliloquy, out of Marina Del Rey.

In 1968, John raced a Douglas B26 Invader in the unlimited class at the Reno air races.

He was a Senior Vice Commander of the China Post 1, the American Legion Post for Soldiers of Fortune. He is a 20 year member of the special operations Association.

www.greatdreams.com...

Originally posted by moonking

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by InnocentBystander

Was the engine on the street a complete engine with a fan

What does it look like?

Since you asked
I think it’s only a part of it

Thanks, I'm not familiar with jet engines, and I had always wondered how the core on the street fit in with the overall engine.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by InnocentBystander

Can I ask you where you are getting your size information from? They seem like pretty specific numbers, mind listing a source?

Use your favorite search engine. Type in "CFM-56 diameter." Press "enter".

Thanks a million. What I meant was, how did you get the size information for the engine on the street? It was pretty much rhetorical, since you obviously got the information from videos and pictures. I don't see how hard it would be to post a source, so I'll take that as, 'The Webfairy' or 'Loose Change.'

Who identified the engine as a CFM-56?

Use your favorite search engine. Type in "CFM-56 911"

Wow, thanks! I guess for this to be valid, though, it would mean that everything you can find on Google is true. I guess I really was selected to recieve a free apple iphone!

What I meant was, can you show me a reputable source that identified the engine as a CFM-56?

Answer = No.

Was the engine on the street a complete engine with a fan?

What does it look like?

It doesn't look like it to me, and according to moonking it is not. But you said it was. Why?

edit to add: the illustration moonking posted above is really helpful. John, would you mind showing us the three engines in question, cfm-56, cf-6, and the murray st engine, and helping us understand why it is a cfm-56?

Yes.

Shucks.

Originally posted by golddragnet

If a Boeing did crash into the WTC and was lodged inside the building, with the engines, either smashed up, or intact, and then the pre-planeted explosives inside the building are set off, which bring the building down, wouldn't those explosives be enough to fragment the engines into small unidentifyable pieces??? Could that explain the lack of evidence of a Boeing at the site? I can understand the fires not being enough to melt the planes engines (or the buildings themselves), but what about the pre-planted explosives?
Regards

ill try to field this one. IF, and IMHO its a really big IF, there were any preplaced explosives in the buildings they almost certainly used linear shaped charges. why you may ask? becuase for the job, they are the most bang for the buck and the only logical choice with any (very small) chance of the op staying covert. to cut all 47 columns using lsc's you'd have a yeild of 172lbs/floor (based on the "leaked" plans for the 66th floor and not bothering to increase the yeild as the columns got thicker as you got lower to the ground). now, the way the lsc works, they focus the blast into a "blade" and cut their target. of course there is going to be overpressure on the other side of the charge, away from the target, but its not going to be nearly as much as on the target side. so the chances of it smashing to bits a hardened lump of titanium alloys like a jet engine etc are pretty slim.

now, had they NOT used lsc's the next step up is going to be C4 which would take around 1100lbs/floor (based on the "leaked" plans for the 66th floor and not bothering to increase the yeild as the columns got thicker as you got lower to the ground) but those charges are still on the columns and unless the engine part was right up against a few charges (lodged between 2 columns and it hadnt displaced the charges in the impact) the ammount per column "could" do a lot of damage to it.

but, did you hear 1100lbs of HE going off just prior to the building collapsing? my guess is they'd have heard it in jersey.

so IMHO, just shotgunning out a response to this question and not doing the math, not figureing out where it would have to be, not speculating if there was HE on the floor it landed on, if there was HE how it survived the fire until the collapse of the building ETC...im going to go with that. i could be wrong but i dont think i am.

having said all that, is it unreasonable to think that maybe if these engines were still inside the building when it collapsed, maybe just maybe all that falling steel and concrete tore what was left of the engines into little bits of titanium foil? not sure but it seems plausible to me.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
Who identified the engine as a CFM-56?

From what I can find, the only evidence that this was not a cf6 stems from this single comparison by Jon Carlson, from the tip of a complete CFM56-3 LPT Shaft to the street photo of the incomplete engine
He claims it was Comfirmed because of a single email from someone claiming to be a 767 airline mechanic who agreed with him

www.rense.com...





edit to add: from what I'm gathering is
Flight 175: Engine Manufacturer: Pratt & Whitney , Engine Model: JT9D-7R4D

Flight 11: Engine Manufacturer: General Electric , Engine Model: CF6-80A2


[edit on 3-12-2007 by moonking]

Question......

if it really was a hologram, where was the planes image being projected from?

Obviously the 'hologram' couldn't move on its own, so what was directing its path..?



[edit on 3-12-2007 by andre18]

Besides, if someone wanted to 'plant' evidence would they be so stupid as to use the wrong type of engine? I mean, they would have had unlimited money and resources, yes?

Originally posted by jfj123

And it means that Johns aviation background is very creadable.

Maybe, maybe not. Based on his other observations, I find that I cannot take what he says at face value. Unfortunate but true.

Jfj123, I would respectfullly request that you clarify your comment.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion of my aviation credentials and if you believe I may have falsified or otherwise misrepresented my aviation background then that would put in question exactly what you consider facts and evidence.

I just want you to clarify your position so that we can move forward on the Holograph issue. Thanks.

Uh, CAPT Lear, the 'quote' you attributed to jfj is one that HE pulled down from ULTIMA...I mean the one with the terrible spelling, "creadible" as aopposed to 'credible'...

or as opposed to my terrible spelling! 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...'

[edit on 3-12-2007 by weedwhacker]