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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Answer what question? Would the engines survive? Probably not much of them at all, I thought I just answered that above. Now wise guy, how did the plane leave an entry hole smaller than the circumference of the fuselage? Forget the wings and tail.




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Was it not proved on other websites, maybe even this one that the 'engine parts' found in the Pentagon could not be that of the supposed flight as they were too small - I think it was mentioned that they did look familiar to those of a Predator drone!



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Wally Hope
This is not true engine cases are designed to be shatter proof so that if the rotors fail for some reason they stay inside the casing, and do not cause damage to the wings or fuselage.

No, the engine housing is made of composite fiberglass material. I have watched a mechanic accidentally put a hole in one with a maintenance ladder. There is a smaller metal casing inside the engine which is designed to stop a shattered blade from hitting the aircraft body by absorbing the impact across its larger surface. It is not designed to take a high speed collision from the front.


Originally posted by Wally Hope
What about the casings, the rotor shafts...?

The casing is fiberglass, it would not handle the impact. The interior rings, that hold the fan blades did survive, same with the rotor shafts. There are photos of these on the net all over the place.




Originally posted by Wally Hope
Well some of us can see major physical problems with all the plane being inside the building. How did the engines get in there when there was no holes for them to have gone through?

How do you figure...



Originally posted by Wally Hope
Or the vertical stabilizer that also had no hole to go through?

As the tail of a 757 has no engine in it, it does not have the extra support that folks are used to seeing in older crashes, which involved aircraft with tail mounted engines. There is some extra damage from the tail section, but the majority of the tail would have simply sheared off and been pulled into the building.


Originally posted by Wally Hope
Or the wings that people try to point out left marks on the wall, where did they go?

There are only 20 feet of the thinest part of the wing with no large hole. These simply would have sheared, similar to the tail, and been dragged inside.


Originally posted by Wally Hope
Obviously not inside as again they didn't break through the wall, they left marks showing you that no?

They left plenty of damage, but the vertical columns also broke the wings at the same time.





Originally posted by Wally Hope
That's a lot of plane to be crammed into the office it supposedly slammed into.

With gear up they fit into a single story industrial building. We used to park these at my airport, with the nose under the second story of a three story building. With the gear down the nose was no bigger then the second story of the building.

Why use pictures of engine parts from a "truthers" site which actually are proving they are the wrong engines? Seems a bit ironic to me.

911review.com...



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I'm not answering your irrelevant question, which is just a lame attempt at not having to answer to the points I made, and the fact I proved you don't know what you're talking about.

Now, did you learn what an engine casing is yet?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Steel is stronger than titanium?

Sorry you and your buddies made it relevant.
Come on Mr “Mechanic Expert”...

You Afraid you might have to admit that you don't know everything?
I'll even give you a hint...

Steel will not only out-cut titanium alloy blades but may indeed cut titanium alloy blades in two!

Oh, come on, and answer my question...
What does your bible according to the 2-4 “bowel movement” give as a response to this?

BTW tell your cronies that I am done talking with them UNTIL you answer this question...
Don't even bother with responding to anything else until this is resolved.

Come on... Didn't you polish mechanics boots in the military or some-such, thus making you a aircraft expert? Maybe it was clean the bathroom in the mechanics lounge, or saw an airplane once, I forget.

As I said, the 2F movement is all about some folks EGO's, that that is the only 2F to it...

Sucks when the Sheeple know more about reality then you do, eh?


[edit on 5/26/2009 by defcon5]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Come on... Didn't you polish mechanics boots in the military or some-such, thus making you a aircraft expert? Maybe it was clean the bathroom in the mechanics lounge, or saw an airplane once, I forget.

Be careful with the off topic insults, defcon.

It's been a day, have you found a source for those pictures of scrap metal yet? The same pictures of scrap metal that you were claiming was the wreckage of AA77 at the Pentagon?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Wally, you seem to be taking the Wile E Coyote/RoadRunner cartoon approach in your imagination of how a crash of a B757 into the Pentagon should look.

EVERY high-energy impact is by nature, chaotic. Every bit, every piece, has its own trajectory. The B757 is travelling at a high speed - let's not quibble whether it's 400 or 500 MPH...the kinetic energy the entire airplane and its components contain is extreme.

As to the engines: They are rotating, not inert masses of aluminum alloys and titanium. They are rotating, and the various blades that comprise the compressor and turbine stages are fragile when presented with a force perpindicular to the plane of rotation. Shedding of those vane blades leaves a relatively smallish core hub that is now a projectile.

But, we also have all the other major components to consider, some quite hefty. The landing gear struts. Hydraulic pumps, structural support members...you know, like what help keep the wings attached to the fuselage?? Kinda important, dontcha think? In fact, the portion of the wing spars out past the engine pylons is very substantial. Engines are heavy, and they transmit a lot of force to the rest of the airframe when they're doing the job of propulsion.

Someone else alluded to the 'small hole' again!!! IF it was about the hole in the cinder block wall on the inside of the E-Ring, well stop bringing it up, since it is an EXIT hole!!!!!

Also....mention was made of the Pentagon structure collapsing after the initial impact. Well, IF it had been a planted explosive, the collapse would have been immediate. The subsequent collapse was the result of the initial damage and resulting fires from the B757.

This entire subject gets its 'legs' from misconceptions, innuendo and outright lies. Seems the 'conspiracy' aspect is fueled mostly be unscrupulous people who think they can play on the "Big Bad Gubment" aspect in order to make DVDs and cash in.

So, the "facts" have to be twisted, in whichever way possible, in order to fit a pre-conceived "conclusion". Anything contrary to the desired result is ignored. Then, others who are duped by this, and are well-meaning, continue to confuse the issues by starting from false assumptions, and perpetuating the fallacy. And, it's all wrapped up in the general ignorance of the lay person of things technical. ANYTHING as complicated as this is ripe for abuse.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


If that were the case, any suggestion as to why this one didn't disintegrate upon impact of the tower, core columns, and finally the street?

Engine Debris In Street ??


[edit on 26-5-2009 by Swing Dangler]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Swing Dangler]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Wow you're a real class act ain't ya?

Sorry but I already explained why your question is a cop out, and answering it is irrelevant to me, at least until you do the same and answer the points I raised.

I can see you are struggling, your anger is showing big time...

And nice insults, who the hell in the military polishes peoples boots? Did you look up NEC 6418, that's what I do. Do you know what an NEC is?

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by defcon5
 


Wow you're a real class act ain't ya?

Sorry but I already explained why your question is a cop out, and answering it is irrelevant to me, at least until you do the same and answer the points I raised.

I can see you are struggling, your anger is showing bit time...

And nice insults, who the hell in the military polished peoples boots? Did you look up NEC 6418, that's what I do. Do you know what an NEC is?

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Wally Hope]

On a side note after this Memorial Day holiday, thank you for serving in the United States Military as a volunteer.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Wow you're a real class act ain't ya?

If I am, then its years of reading/dealing with truther drivel, and truther tactics that has made me that way. This being a prime example where truthers cannot face truth, because this is really about their egos, so when they get cornered they change the rules. Now its suddenly irrelevant, and off topic, etc.

They only reason why you now want this to be off topic is because you stuck your foot in your mouth and I am not letting you off the hook about it.

You initially brought up the subject of Titanium in your post trying to convince us of how tough this stuff is:


Originally posted by Wally Hope
There is no way you're putting an aluminum ladder through an engine casing that is made from a nickel titanium alloy.



Originally posted by Wally Hope
Sorry but I already explained why your question is a cop out, and answering it is irrelevant to me, at least until you do the same and answer the points I raised.


It only became irrelevant when you realized that you were wrong.


Originally posted by Wally Hope
I can see you are struggling, your anger is showing bit time...

Not at all, actually I find this rather amusing at this point.


Originally posted by Wally Hope
And nice insults, who the hell in the military polished peoples boots? Did you look up NEC 6418, that's what I do. Do you know what an NEC is?

Yeah, so you say you worked on Navy Turboprop aircraft. Humorously enough I argued this nonsense for years with a member named Anok, who claimed the exact same military background. You wouldn't perchance be him using a sock puppet account now would you?

You know whats really funny about that? Half of my ramp agents were also ex-military “aircraft mechanics”. Apparently the military considers a lot of folks to be mechanics who jobs in the real world equate to Ramp Agents.

Either way, beside your qualifications being on turbo props while we are discussing Jets, here is another major difference between those aircraft and these:

P-3 Orion Introduction 1962.
C-130 Introduction 1956.
B-757 Introduction 1983.
B-767 Introduction 1982.

Have you worked on any aircraft that have been built in the modern age of things such as composites? The aircraft you worked on are more along the lines of B727's and B707's in their age.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


You really are making yourself sound so dumb....titanium IS tough.. and lighter than steel....that is why it is used. You show a picture of a bird strike on an engine's fragile "casing" which everyone knows is not what is being discussed here. Your argument is rediculous.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dashen
 


Actually, I would suggest you take some theory of flight classes.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
reply to post by defcon5
 


If that were the case, any suggestion as to why this one didn't disintegrate upon impact of the tower, core columns, and finally the street?

Engine Debris In Street ??



Defcon 5, you have avoided this post. Can you explain this engine's appearance with your "fragile engine theory"?

You know... the engine that traveled through a steel framed, column filled, 80+story high impact point and explosion, that eventually landed several blocks away onto a hard concrete surface.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Pause your video #2 at exactly 0:25 seconds. See the white oblong object with wings? Now enlarge about 200%.

I think the problem with this video in particular -- aside from it being the only one we're allowed to see -- is the fisheye type lense on the camera, as well as our expectation of scale.

It took me quite a few views to be able to reconcile the perspective in this video, primarily due to the car moving in and giving a false perspective. You can see the fisheye effect easily when the car goes past.

Now as to other CT ideas regarding 9/11, I'm mostly on board. I think this video clearly shows a white airplane at the far right of the screen at the time I noted.

I really had a predetermination that this video clip was the smoking gun for a nonplane. Look at it carefully. I had no choice but to be honest with myself.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Therein lies the primary problem with the NPT -- if it ocurred at any site, it would've occured at every site. Else, why go to all the trouble and planning just to conduct a mock plane crash at just ONE site? Shanksville, I can understand how such a thing could be undertaken and gotten away with -- but NYC & the Pentagon?

There were and still are sufficient witnesses, video -- both commercial and private -- of at least the second strike in New York. I can not and do not believe that thousands of people, many of them civilians, were in on the conspiracy.

So, in for a penny, in for a pound. It has been established to my and several others' satisfaction that A and B planes hit the Twin Towers. I cannot attest as to WHICH planes hit them, but they were hit.

I think the video I made reference to in my previous post is pretty conclusive evidence for a plane striking the Pentagon. Again, who can say WHAT plane, but an airplane.

We all keep after it though....... and don't let time take it apart, eventually more and more of the truth will come out. Perhaps a deathbed confession or two, who knows?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


I can, SD.

Remember, and please feel free to research it, the basic 'core' of a jet engine consists of the strong ring hubs that the turbine (or compressor blades) attach to. SOME compressor or turbine stages are cast in one piece, blades and all -- others have the blades individually attached.

If you look at an engine in cross-section, from front to back, you will see the compressor sections progressively becoming smaller in diameter, as the air is taken in, and compressed sequentially....often, depending on the engine design, as many as 15 times before being introduced to the combustion chambers.

After the fuel/air mixture is ignited, it is exhausted through the turbine sections, again, they are sequentially changing diameter, this time they get bigger as you proceed aft, in order to most efficiently extract the energy of the expanding gases.

In a modern TurboFan engine the main central shaft has concentric components...basically, as long as there is fuel, air and ignition, the system is 'bootstrapping'....meaning, the exhausting gases on the the turbines, while providing some thrust, are actually turning the big N1 fan...which is really a sort of 'ducted fan', and this provides the majority of the thrust.

Here's a 'turbojet' example video from YouTube:



(BTW, all gas turbine engines operate on the same principles...even those that generate electricity at hydro-electric dams. Also, your basic auto reciprocating engine is the same -- 'Suck, Squeeze. Burn, Blow' -- just a different way to transmit the energy from the combustion cycle.)

The principle remains the same, except that TurboFans are more fuel efficient, and the high-bypass airflow helps to make them quieter.

HOW does this all relate to your picture??? Well, simple: The photo shows the portion of a jet engine that was left after all of the fragile blades were stripped from their hubs, and the entire mess was compacted and foreshortened....AND a whole lot of other pieces are still missing!!!! What it looks, to me, is the 'Hot Section', as we call it....the most dense and resistant portion of the engine, since it is designed to undergo the most heat and stress in normal operation.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 

Not only no engine parts or luggage; but no 757 aircraft either.
Can anybody see an aircraft?

Still 1


No, that little blur above the gate booth is far too small to be a 757 aircraft flying level across the lawn. That photoshopped heavy white smoke trail allegedly coming from an engine is larger than the alleged 757 fuselage photoshopped in the frame and far far clearer in detail. A very poor attempt at photoshopping more reminiscent of the shabby work of jthomas or perhaps Reheat. That still frame leaker sure did screw over the 9-11 perps didn't he?

A zoomed-in view of the above still. Where is the 757 aircraft?
What could that black blob in the middle of the imagined 44 foot tall tail possibly be?



Here is a more accurate portrayal of a true-to-scale 757.
Much more realistic than that blur in the videos isn't it?



Here Military Industrial Complex contractor and faithful loyalist partner Purdue University attempted to portray the true scale of a 757 in their simulation.



Another attempt by a graphic artist to portray the true-scale of a 757 aircraft.




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Again....you are obviously not a pilot.

The term 'aircraft' you continue to use says it plainly....

But, let's examine the "proof" you provide....the one Pentagon camera that happened to be trained anywhere near the side of the building hit that day. The camera was NOT taking full-frame continuous video.

We all can agree to that fact, yes?? You see, the camera was indended to focus on the Gate-Point there....it just happened to catch, in a few frames, the impact.

The mere fact that the Pentagon doesn't want to describe their security details, as to just what they do and don't have on video surveillance shouldn't surprise anyone....but, it has led to this "conspiracy theory" nonsense, to the extreme!!!!

Let's flip the script, shall we, SPreston??? Since you went do far afield, and OT by bringing in this footage, in your post....even your interpretations show 'something' approaching the Pentagon, correct???

Why, oh why, do YOU not offer an alternative???

OK....before you begin, before you claim some sort of "cruise missile" (even though none is shown to be missing) or, pre-planted 'explosives' with a co-ordinated well-timed "fly-over" of some bogus airplane, or any other wildly-imaginative created-in-the-basement delusions that you may wish to imagine....

The simplest, best explanation that all of the actual facts fit is a Boeing 757 was intentionally flown, by suicide pilots on a mission of destruction.

It isn't much different, except in its scale, of those suicide efforts we have seen for years, in the Middle East.

People willing to either strap bombs on themselves, and walk into an area to blow themselves up, and kill others....or, people willing to drive a truck or other vehicle laden with explosives into an area to detonate and blow themselves up, and kill others....this was, on 9/11, just a co-ordinated effort to use AIRPLANES as 'guided missiles', to achieve similar results.

All of the other obfuscation that we have seen since, is just unbelievable!

It seems that a few dozen people, who think they have some sort of incredible better ability to "see through" the so-called 'conspiracy' that "No ONE else can see"....well, it's just sad, really.

The mere fact that the George W. Bush Administration used this tragic episode, this attack by Al Quaida, to further an agenda that was on their 'back-burner', i.e., the invasion of Iraq -- THIS is the real conspiracy!!!!

9/11 'fell into theri laps'!!! If not for that event, the Bushies would have found another excuse to invade Iraq....9/11 just made it easier for them to manipulate.

So, IF there was a 'consipiracy'...it was to "Let It Happen"!!!! Because, I firmly believe the Bush/and Company criminals wanted events to transpire as the did. The "gift" to them, was 9/11.

UNTIL you all realize this fact, the criminals just keep laughing as you fight about it....THEY know that they didn't cause the 9/11 attacks....they just used the attacks for their evil purposes.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston
 


Why, oh why, do YOU not offer an alternative???



But I do dear weedwhacker. I consistently always have. I am not a missile aficionado and do not confuse me with your own disinformation artists.

No aircraft impacted the Pentagon at all and the parking lot security videos were photoshopped to attempt to prove a lie. Therefore no aircraft can be seen flying across the lawn in the videos nor is there a cruise missile. It is just a blur; a poorly photoshopped blur with a heavy white smoke trail much too clearly photoshopped in behind it. The still frame 'leaker' really screwed the 9-11 perps back in 2002; preventing them from completing the photoshopping of the parking lot security videos.



The actual aircraft has been PROVEN flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the overhead highway sign and undamaged light poles in its path and banking to the right high above the 1st floor by multiple real living verified honest eyewitnesses.

The actual aircraft could not possibly have impacted the Pentagon 1st floor because it was PROVEN much too high to hit the 1st floor, and the actual aircraft could not possibly have knocked down the 5 light poles because it was PROVEN too far north to hit the light poles.



Even the FAA now concurs showing the true flight path Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and high above the overhead highway sign and undamaged light poles in its path and banking to the right high above the 1st floor.

FAA flight path


1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive

Wouldn't this photoshopping effort have been much more convincing; allowing the 9-11 perps to fool the people? Of course the still frame 'leaker' prevented further photoshopping of the videos didn't he? Do you think that maybe that was his intentions?



That is why the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is rapidly self-destructing and sinking into its quicksand foundation right before your eyes, isn't it weedwhacker?




[edit on 5/27/09 by SPreston]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join