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.

 

737 Wheel recovered at the Pentagon on 9/11

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by shiman
 


shiman, not to rain on your parade...thanks for that last photo, same thing I could see for days afterwards, driving by... Kinda really different, though, from that relatively small hole that keeps cropping up in 'official' photos.

Let's take a moment and picture a modern PW engine from a B757. When you look at an intact airplane, you see a seemingly very large engine....heck, a man can stand up in the intake!

BUT, this is a turbo-fan....emphasis on the 'fan'....the very core, the dozen or so segments, or 'stages' in the compressor section, and the 14 or 15-stage turbine section are very small in diameter, by comparison. The compressor section starts slightly larger, concentrically getting smaller as the air passes through each stage, before being introduced into the burner, then exhausted out the turbine stages, which direct the expanding hot gases in order to maximize the energy extraction. So the turbine section, still on a concentric shaft (darn, it gets hard to explain without pictures...two shafts, concentric, one withing the other....the compressor is indepentent of the turbine, except inasmuch as the effects of the air going thru...)

It's like a 'bootstrap' system...as long as you have airflow, and fuel and ignition, the thing is self-sustaining.

POINT is, the diameters of the CORE part of the engine, the titanium parts (hot section) is somewhere around, MAXIMUM...24 inches. And I'm probably exagerrating there, they may not be that large.

YES, the engines are compact masses, but they simply aren't as big as you imagine when looking at the exterior nacelle. The portion of the engine producing the most thrust, the N1 fan....that's the big one in front, it's like a multi-bladed propellor, and it is powered by all of the hot stuff going on behind it. BTW, those fan blades are made out of an aluminum alloy...

How do I know this? Well....let's say an engine picks up a rock during taxi, and a mechanic notices a slight gouge in the leading edge of a blade. Guess what? He files it smooth, notes it in the permanent record...and knows that if it falls within certain parameters, the balance will not be significantly affected so as to require an engine change...very expensive, that!

How else do I know this? During walk-arounds, before every flight...a pilot can observe the fan blades, and their condition...in fact, it is a requirement before every flight. A sharp 'gouge' could propagate into a blade failure...a 'smoothing' keeps the stress down, but it is noted, and will be attended to at the next regularly scheduled 'tear-down' or whatever MX procedure is supposed to occure next...and there are regulations in place to allow engines with minimal 'damage' to continue to operate. Finally, I could always tell when it was a situation being monitored by MX, because the fan blades will have a magic-marker number written on them...this is because they are monitoring, in airline MX records, which blades have been attended to....and how long they can continue to operate in service before something has to be done....

Sorry this got so long, in a post....if I were sitting across from you at a dinner table, I could have explained it in five minutes....

WW




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
The whole conspiracy behind the pentagon is a fishy one.

There is evidence to support that the pentagon theories are made up by debunkers and government people to obsefucate and muddy the facts in hopes to make "toothers" look stupid while making themselves look temporarily pseudo-intelligent..


Geroge Bush said it best" Dont ever except outrageous conspiracy theories, for they try to remove the blame from the guilty"



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Ivan....now I'm really confused, since I really have no idea which side you're coming down on this time.

I've seen a lot of your posts....and I have to say, there are inconsistincies quite often.

Sidenote...see you've changed your Avatar back...or is THAT a conspiracy as well? Hmm.....



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


So, are you saying if it was a 7#7 then there would be other holes?

Please explain your post. I am literaly tired. Had a long day.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by shiman
 


shiman...I don't know, except that a common misconception floating about, as conspiracies get discussed and facts tend to be embellished, sometimes the simple details, the 'truth' can get blown into something never meant to be a 'truth'.

I used an example: A common belief, a misunderstanding, of just how big a turbo-fan engine really is, at least, the core components. We are told, well it 'weighs such and such' and is 'such and such' in size....in fact, the strongest components, the onces made out of titanium, are very small in diameter, and maybe 3 to 4 feet long.

ALSO....the 'hot' section of an engine, the part made mostly of titanium components, consists of rings, with small blades, about the length of your middle finger, if that, mounted in the ring...but you know what? While the ring itself is a continuous casting, the blades are installe later. They have little bit of play in them, since they're designed to perform optimally when being rotated at thousands of RPM, and will deflect, very slightly, to extract energy from the hot gases passing by...

I'm not a mechanic....I'm not an engine designer...I'm not an engineer, just an airline pilot. Been around for a while, and when I asked "why do I hear that 'tinkling' sound as the engine windmills, on the ground" it ws explained to me....those are the blades, in the turbine section, as they move around....

Don't take my word for it, ask any airline pilot friend you may know...when the airplane is on the ground, and the wind blows in, the engine will 'windmill'. We actually have procedures, in case the prevailing wind is such that it is coming from the rear....if it is strong enough (talking, say, over 60 knots) then certain engines cannot be started, the airplane must be towed to a different orientation...

These figures are average, and will vary greatly by designs....also, even in a tailwind, we can start most modern turbojets, as long as the N2 and EGT meet the parameters, before we initiate ignition. Primary thing to watch for in any jet engine start is, EGT maximum...and Starter duty time limits...

Hope I didn't tire you out even more....

WW



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanx for the reply. Made it clearer. Also thanx for the info on the inside of the engine.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mlmijyd
Are you employed by the government propaganda department or what?

What? you think your government are above planting evidence or just simply lying to further their aims? WOMD remember that one, pearl harbour, Vietnam, 9/11 …….


I certainly hope my government wasn't involved in these events as I live on the diametrically opposite side of the globe from where all this happened. I just view what evidence is on offer and dare to form my own opinion on what happened and I'm open to any evidence to support whatever case anyone wants to make as long as it's verifiably real and unbiassed. I'm not searching for proof that fits a preconceived notion of what the truth is.



It doesn’t matter how often a lie is told its still a lie!


Couldn't agree more wholeheartedly on that point



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Well....I just took a look at the OP's 'liveleak' link...

There is an obvious prob with that 'video'....since the caption referring to a B737 'wheel' shows nothing like a B737 wheel!!!

Folks, you can see the relative size of the man, in the picture....a B737 requires you to 'duck down' ... unless you're about 4 feet tall!!!

There is a photo of a landing gear truck, alleged to be a B757....but it could also be a B767, there is no reference...

I will go look again, but just my initial 'BS' meter going off.....

WW



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
OK, looked again....the OP seems to have confuted two different websites....please pay close attention...

the second website, the one that refers to Ansett, and A320s....that is the likely picture of an A320 main wheel, NOT....and I must emphasize!! NOT a B737 wheel.

Two reasons, one I've already pointed out....the height of the main landing gear strut. The Airbus has a longer strut than the B737....jsut go down the the local airport and look for yourselves.

Secondly, the B737 has a 'hubcap' on the exposed portion of the outermost main wheel...this, because, unlike Airbus, the B737 does not have full landing-gear door enclosure. Every other Boeing does, but not the B737. The 'hubcap' is meant to act as a way to 'smooth' the airflow, since an open hub would generate drag components. BTW, the early B737-100 and B737-200 were designed for short-haul flights, so the extra complexity, hydraulics, and weight needed for the gear doors to cover the wheels was designed out, and this 'hubcap' compromise designed in...very clever solution, since complexity and weight can be issues, and must be compromised in every airplane design....


Thirdly, after looking at the OP's pics....from the Original Post...I do not see any similarity to Pentagon photos....

Look carefully, at the hub design....then, I invite you to do some more research, especially look at photos of Airbus wheels, available all over the Internet, along with Boeing wheels...and, realize, that components of modern jets are NOT always built by the manufacturer, but are contracted....and the CUSTOMER can specify certain parameters....options, if you will....just like you can ask your car to have 17 inch rims, versus 15 inch..... (one example)....

WW



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Either way, it was planted. When did they find this wheel? Last year?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by shiman
 


Sorry, shiman....what was planted?

If you're tired from a long day, please feel free to respond later, peace.

WW

[add]....when was the wheel found? I don't know....if you mean when was debris found at the Pentagon, then I guess it was about 6 1/2 years ago. If you wish to infer it was 'planted' evidence, then I would have to ask...how stupid were the 'people' who are purported to do the 'planting'???

WW

[edit on 4/7/0808 by weedwhacker]

[second edit]

My point is....I would think that if this was an 'inside' job, there would be a lot fewer 'loose' ends. Problem I have, with a lot of the CT is....there is a 'backtrack' phenomonon....

What I mean is, it appears that perfectly understandable, though tragic, airliner accidents have been attributed, 'after the fact', by some, as a 'conspiracy' of some sort or the other.

AND, it seems that, in reverse order, this is occuring more and more.

I invite readers to look up details of SwissAir 111, EgyptAir 990, AA 987 (in no particular order)....and see how conspiracies swirl around them, when they are quite cut-and-dried accidents....well, Egypt990 could be a ritual suicide...but the Family would dispute that finding, since it crosses into religious territory.

SwissAir111 has implications that are legal in nature, so obfuscation is rampant! As does AA 987, since it was barely a month after 9/11.

I could talk about other airline accidents....there are many....but I won't. EXCEPT to point out, as I have in another thread related to 9/11...

Some have said a hijacker's 'passport' could not possibly survive, in NYC, from the devastion.

I simply point out, that a chaotic event can result in chaotic results, and use as my example, the survivor story of a little girl, only person to survive an airline crash in Detroit, in the Summer of 1987. Care to look it up, it was a NorthWest jet (not pointing fingers, just stating facts).

Short version: A jet full of people crashed, in Detroit, and a little girl was the only survivor.

So, if a small child could be the only survivor of an horriffic crash thath killed the other 158, including 2 on the ground....could a passport somehow flutter to the ground from some other wreck?

Why not investigate EVERY OTHER airplane crash, that ever occured, since airplanes began flying, and research just how much is ejected with what appears to be no damage, then compare the statistics.

Many reports have been recorded, about other personal effects, from the crash sites, not only 9/11, but many, many others....so let's not focus on abstract red herrings, let's make sure we know all of the details, from many many other events....and keep it in mind....

WW



[edit on 4/7/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
As you know from your experience as a crew dog, aircraft are very strong, very durable and fairly resilient under normal operating conditions.


Actually airliners are weak in several areas and even small birds can put holes in the wings and airframe.

So i am still wating for an answer on how an aluminunm airframe could have punched through a reinforeced wall, hardened collumns and interior walls, all the way through the 3 sections of the Pentagon?


Originally posted by Pilgrum
I certainly hope my government wasn't involved in these events as I live on the diametrically opposite side of the globe from where all this happened.


Well i hate to tell you that the government has done things like this throughout history.

Look at Pearl Harbor and the USS Liberty as just 2.





[edit on 7-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, sorry....could not not let that one go unnoticed!

'small' birds can punch holes in our wings???

Really, come on!!

'small' birds might cause dents. YOU certainly know about how new engines are tested, when being developed....in wind tunnels....and thawed checkens and geese are sent down into the engines, just to test their abiity to stay 'lit' after such an impact.

Please, please don't state untruths! That only is allowed at YouTube!!

It is conceivable, of course, that a large flock of birds...a very large flock, could substanitianlly damage an engine to the point of catastrophe.

OR, even two engines, as was the reported case a few months ago, regarding BA in London....but, it is very rare for birds to cause such substancial damage as to bring an airplane down, at least in the history of aviation records...OK, a Republic airplane had a Goose impact the windshield, and kill a pilot...but the airplane landed safely.

I had windshied 'overheat' warning, over the Atlantic....we followed the checklist, turned off the 'windshield heat' for that pane....and 45 seconds later..."CRACK"!...the outer pane shattered. Because of the temperature shock, at altitude, during Cruise...

But, the designers knew to have a multiple layer windshield, and since it was the OUTER pane, there was no PSID issue, nor IAS limitation...at least, not according to the checklist or Flight Manual....still, I was glad the thing didn't blow up nto my face...

WW



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by shiman
 


Ah yes, the fabled TOS claim. When you're on the ropes, just admit it


Others have already tried to help you understand what really happened at the Pentagon so, I won't rehash the same information twice.

Just a suggestion: looking at pictures on Google and then forming an opinion is completely valid. Not being open to the actual facts of the matter or being closed off to broadening your horizon is where the folly lies for you, IMO.

Please allow me to clarify one of my points:

The plane absolutely did act more like a liquid than a solid as it interacted with the building. I apologize if my explanation made it sound as though the plane became an actual liquid. The plane, as it broke apart faster than you can blink your eye, became many, many different pieces and behaved more like a liquid - as it traveled through the building - than a solid, contiguous mass. I hope that makes sense. I am NOT an engineer and I relay this to you as a laymen.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So i am still wating for an answer on how an aluminunm airframe could have punched through a reinforeced wall, hardened collumns and interior walls, all the way through the 3 sections of the Pentagon?


To answer your other question:
I've seen birds come through a windshield at 125 knots. Not heard about; I have seen a bird destroy the PC's side of the windshield and actual bird matter make it through.

Now to answer your second question:
Ultima, what's humorous is the answer to your question is in your example. Your post mentions birds punching through sections of airframe. I've never seen that (I've seen big dents) but, I don't dismiss the possibility, although highly unlikely IMO.

So, using your example: Which structure is more massive? Stronger? And which structure had a hole punched in it (the airframe)? And which structure was completely destroyed (the bird) in the process?

So, using your own example, you find it impossible that a extremely fast moving, (400+ MPH) 110 ton aircraft could cause as much damage as it did?

Seriously?

Another good example of details mattering: the outermost columns were destroyed, hence the collapse. As the aircraft traveled further through the structure and more energy was dispersed, less damage was being done. You’ll find the photographic documentation highlights the outer damage (not literally just the physical, outer wall) to the structure as being mostly physical impact damage. In addition, you’ll find the more “inner” damage to be fuel and debris damage with more of the structure intact.


[edit on 7-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by shiman
 


Ah yes, the fabled TOS claim. When you're on the ropes, just admit it


Others have already tried to help you understand what really happened at the Pentagon so, I won't rehash the same information twice.

Just a suggestion: looking at pictures on Google and then forming an opinion is completely valid. Not being open to the actual facts of the matter or being closed off to broadening your horizon is where the folly lies for you, IMO.

Please allow me to clarify one of my points:

The plane absolutely did act more like a liquid than a solid as it interacted with the building. I apologize if my explanation made it sound as though the plane became an actual liquid. The plane, as it broke apart faster than you can blink your eye, became many, many different pieces and behaved more like a liquid - as it traveled through the building - than a solid, contiguous mass. I hope that makes sense. I am NOT an engineer and I relay this to you as a laymen.



Im sorry, what claim? TOS?

If the plane behaved like you said it would, firstly the ground would be messed up. Explain how the ground is not messed up. You cant.

And if you ceep saying your an layman and not an engineer and know nothing then dont post please.

There would be aluminum mess everywhere. Those widows would be broken. Or cracked at least. And please there was no plane parts reported found in the third ring of the pentagon. Also with the support the pentagon was built with, the plane would be disintegrated within the first ring and make tinking noises on the second ring.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, sorry....could not not let that one go unnoticed!

'small' birds can punch holes in our wings???

Really, come on!!



Sorry but i can back up what i post.

Photos of a 767 with holes in the wings and nose section from bird strike at takeoff.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...



[edit on 7-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
In addition, you’ll find the more “inner” damage to be fuel and debris damage with more of the structure intact.


So what made it through and punched the hole through the outter wall of the third ring ?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by shiman
If the plane behaved like you said it would, firstly the ground would be messed up. Explain how the ground is not messed up. You cant.


The ground at the impact site was all kinds of messed up. Most of the wreckage/destruction was contained within the building. Most, not all. Commonly found pictures will disclose a fair amount of wreckage thrown outside by the initial explosion/impact.


And if you ceep saying your an layman and not an engineer and know nothing then dont post please.


What I relayed to you is the truth, as I understand it. As a sign of honesty and complete disclosure, I will tell you when my information comes from a third party source. The facts of how the plane behaved once it began the crash sequence is solid, easily reviewed public material. Check it out. Relaying what I have learned does not make what I communicated incorrect. It's your choice to believe it or not. Personally, if I were you, I wouldn't take my word for it. Check out the information for yourself.


There would be aluminum mess everywhere. Those widows would be broken. Or cracked at least. And please there was no plane parts reported found in the third ring of the pentagon. Also with the support the pentagon was built with, the plane would be disintegrated within the first ring and make tinking noises on the second ring.


Incorrect on all counts. Sorry, not trying to be rude or mean (or violate the TOS!) but you're just plain incorrect. Notice, I didn't say you are a flack, or a loone, or a nutcase.........it's just that your understanding of the aftermath is incorrect.

Aluminum aircraft parts were found inside and outside of the impact zone. There were no reported airplane parts reported in the third ring? Honestly, I don't know about that. I will have to check into that. Until I know differently, I'll give you that one. My question back is; are you suggesting that because no aircraft parts were found in the third ring that proves no plane hit the building - if that assertion is true?

The direct impact zone, on the outer ring, had the exact damage you suggested. Hence, the collapse. The inner rings did, in fact, have a lot of damage. This damage was from fire (immediate and post impact) and you'll notice (even as a laymen) that as you get further and further in, the support structures held up better than the outer, for obvious reasons (the further in you get, the less of the original impact force is being transferred to the structure).

I am not sure what to say about the "tinking" noise comment.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
In addition, you’ll find the more “inner” damage to be fuel and debris damage with more of the structure intact.


So what made it through and punched the hole through the outter wall of the third ring ?


Sigh.

More semantic games.

Yes of course, it was a shaped warhead from a mini-nuke cruise missile launched by MOSAD, built by Dick Cheney and sanctioned by the NWO!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join