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.

 

Where are those engine parts and luggages?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Just to further prove how much of the engine is flimsy, look at this bird-strike photo.

That is from birds hit at low speed, imagine the damage from a cement wall at high speed...


Look I'm not going to argue this with you anymore, the pic you are showing is NOT the engine casing. That is part of the airframe NOT the engine. When the engine is removed and sent to 'I' level maintenance (or whatever civies cal it) that part stays with the plane.

Again engine cases are made shatter proof for safety...
www.youtube.com...

That was an engine test to make sure the casings didn't shatter when the rotors broke apart from a bird strike.

Steel is stronger than titanium? Now you are really reaching with pointless drivel. Learn what an engine casing is, and stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

I worked on jet engines in 'I' level maintenance for along time, look up NEC 6418.




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


With a gentle acknowledgement that you have military experience working with jet engines, perhaps it is simply the terminology that you are using that is interfering with clarity.

To a pilot, we call it (the nacelle) a 'cowling'. I will admit I can refer to the pylon as being part of the airframe, but only in the sense that it has a structural integrity function. (In this case, to attach the engine).

The cowling itself is a combination of materials...some aluminum (the intake rim, since it is heated by bleed air for anti-icing) and certain stiffeners and other members...but a lot of the cowling is light-weight fibreglass or composites. The area surrounding the HPT blades will be ringed with a titanium sheath, to hopefully contain the shrapnel should the turbines let go (we saw this on United in Sioux City, IA...didn't quite work as well as expected, did it?).

Sure, when an engine is R & R'd, the cowling usually stays in place...except, depending, the lower portion is removable completely, and set aside.

Still....defcon is correct. The titanium in the hot sections isn't there for strength --- it's for it's temperature resistance, and its light weight. The blades can be brittle, in fact they are. BUT they are designed to be held in place by the centripetal force of the rotation. They are actully slightly loose, in the rotor hubs. You can hear them 'tinkle' as the engines windmill.

SOME of the compressor stage sections are cast as whole pieces, some have individual blades mounted in the rings....the N1 fan blades are all individually installed. They can be replaced without completely dismantling the engine, for instance if there is significant FOD damage.

So, for the OP: Engines will break up, in the forces we're discussing, into little bitty pieces.

As to luggage?? Errmmm...don't think it compares in any way to more robust portions of an airplane.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
So many coincidenses so much evidence. Two towers freefalling, a third buildiing freefalling..(b 7) "terrorists" passports found, a plane going to a too small hole, explosions down in basement an invasion of a great country, no massdestructions weapons, and more and more and more..when i see people deffendthis story i have to remind myself that mostly it is a question of desinformation. Because not so many can ignore the facts any longer..

Poor american ignorant cowboys, you are paying and you dont even know why.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 
defcon5, just give it up buddy. These guys would argue with a fence post. I'm no expert in aviation, but I've done more than my share of recues, (at least one plane crash) lots of cars that were hit by other cars, cars that were hit by trains. I've seen 1st hand what happens when irresistable force(a 757)hits an immovable object(a skyscraper). It's total annilation, even if the skyscraper doesn't fall immediately.
Can you tell my why these truthers persist in this nonsense?



[edit on 25-5-2009 by kettlebellysmith]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The engines are there in parts that are inside the building. BTW, engines are designed to disintegrate a certain way so in the case of catastrophic failure they do not damage the wings. So if you expecting to see intact engines, your expecting wrong. Most of the Engine is nothing more then housing and fan blades anyway.

The rest of the debris was carried into the structure by inertia. I do not understand why people keep pointing to the lack of debris on the lawn, when its BEHIND the impact point, the impact point is the wall, and the debris field is inside the building.


I strongly believe the engine is the strongest part of the entire plane in a crash, so I request a citation for your "weak engine" theory. That comment seems downright suspicious to me to be honest.

Wasn't it the engine that supposedly punched the final hole through the pentagon wall? And was't it the engine the only part except for the wheel to have allegedly punched through the entire World Trade Center office building?

It seems to me the engine is the only consistently recognizable pieces in plane crashes, at least from the crash photos I've seen. Personally I believe a plane did fly into the pentagon but I have doubts it was a 737.

Think about the fact that that very section of the pentagon was remodeled and re-enforced just where the plane hit, and it had only been completed a couple weeks earlier if I remember right. I believe that part of the purpose of the upgrade was to ensure that the planted bombs did all the damage instead of whatever crashed into the pentagon so there would be no unexpected surprises and the blast would be controlled, though I think they burned out more of the pentagon than they intended to. The only other possible explanation is that they didn't want the bombs to be detected during the remodel, so they had to make sure that the work was completed before 9/11. As for that remodelling being a co-incidence, well its possible but I don't buy it.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Aakron]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Dear Mr. Defcon5,
I am not sure what you know about aerodynamics but the F-4 video is what actually proves your and the official conclusion wrong. The claim is that the Jet hit the pentagon at around 500 Knots. The F-4 was travelling at around 500 knots as well, notice that in the experiment that they had to bolt down the jet to a rail to keep it from taking off. There is a little thing called ground effect or Bernouli's principle, where the plane+ velocity creates a cushion of air underneath it as to prevent it from EVER EVER hitting the first floor of the Pentagram. EVER. That is unless these sneaky terrorists suspended the laws of physics by praying to Allah.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by defcon5
 
defcon5, just give it up buddy. These guys would argue with a fence post. I'm no expert in aviation, but I've done more than my share of recues, (at least one plane crash) lots of cars that were hit by other cars, cars that were hit by trains. I've seen 1st hand what happens when irresistable force(a 757)hits an immovable object(a skyscraper). It's total annilation, even if the skyscraper doesn't fall immediately.
Can you tell my why these truthers persist in this nonsense?



[edit on 25-5-2009 by kettlebellysmith]



Oh my goodness do you really believe it was done by Bin Laden... do you know how much the government lied to cover it up?

geez i wish you would be more open minded



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dino1989
 
I am open minded. I'm just not so open minded I let my brains fall out.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Ah, yes, you are now asking the right questions.

911 is the new Kennedy Assassination --will never be solved and more questions than answers pop up.

I agree...no way bin laden pulled it off. everything from the missing Pentagon footage, to why no luggage, etc.

The truth will come sometime. I, like many people around the world, await that day.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Now, post the rest of what I posted on that thread...you know the part where I said I decided to act like the "toofers" that day.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


So using your logic an airplane could never crash. The ground effects would prevent it.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Steel is stronger than titanium? Now you are really reaching with pointless drivel.

Ok so if the engine were made of steel and aluminum, would it still have survived?

I'll get the the rest after you answer this...



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
OK come on guys, fess up to it...
You all have been running around for the last eight years telling folks, “What happened to the Engines? They are made of (Que the superman music)TITANIUM...TADA...”

Admit that you have been doing that because it sounds like its harder then steel, that it would survive through the very fires of hell, and therefore had to magical ability to survive this event as well. You have been using lingo to play on peoples lack of knowledge. This is the same reason why you try and control the playing field n these debates, because your theory can only exist in a vacuum of facts.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


If the plane was approaching at an incline yes, the air effect would not be as present, travelling laterally at 500 knots on level flight like the "official" video over 100 yards the plane would not be able to come down below 40-60 feet off the ground, even if you say he pushed the "stick" forward at the last second it would not account for how the "plane" went all the way through to the inner ring of the pentagon. You can't have it both ways. It would help me sleep easier at night if I could just discount these problems, but the inconsistencies are far too many.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


LOL talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

You have been shown to be completely wrong and you can't even admit it.

If we're talking about the pentagon the engines should have hit the lawn well before the wall because of the altitude it supposedly hit at.

There is no evidence that the engines, wings, vert stab etc., made it through the wall into the building. The damage seen is not consistent with that happening. So we have a contradiction, soft aircraft nose goes through reinforced wall, yet the engines, wings and vert stab do not, and for some reason just disappear, or magically bend up and get sucked through the small hole the nose made, leaving no debris on the lawn other than a clean piece of the fuselage that shows no damage from the huge explosion that supposedly melted the rest of the plane into nothing.

If this was a movie script it would be laughed at.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


I ain't answering another one of your questions until you answer the one above.
You don't want to though do you?
Had time to do a bit of research, and find out how WRONG you were, eh?

You answer the above question, and I might even be nice and show you what really went through the building.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


It doesnt matter if the engines were made of diamond tungsten and kryponite, not much would be left at all, except that the hole in the building would have to be a HELL of a lot bigger than 10 x 15 feet (before the wall collapsed 45 minutes later)



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 

Oh yes it does...
You guys have 24 hours to answer that question and try and save your ship, then I am going to sink your battleship.

But you don't want to face facts now do you?
Facts make these theories crumble in the light of truth.
Very hard on toofers fragile egos about how they are better then the rest of us.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Thanks for the input here Wally.

I admit I don't know much about the inner workings of aircraft but the way some were explaining it around here I was starting to wonder if even a strong enough breeze would be enough to turn an engine into egg shells!

I was sure they were a bit more resilient than was being described.

- Lee



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join