9/11 The Pentagon “Where are the FACTS!

reply to post by MolecularPhD

I said to Jim “hey looks like your hub designed stayed intact; Jim took one look at the photo and said “That is not my engine!”; well folks that was it for me.

I’m a scientist; as a scientist I am a born skeptic;

Yeah, you sound like a real skeptic to me.

How come you didn't interrogate "Jim" a little more? Exactly what was it in the photo that he thought didn't look like "his" design?

reply to post by MolecularPhD


I have another question about "Jim Lawrence"....has he always worked for RR, or did he previously work for Allison, and get merged?

Allison acquisition

In November 1994, Rolls-Royce announced its intention to acquire the Allison Engine Company, an American manufacturer of gas turbines and components for aviation, industrial and marine engines.

en.wikipedia.org...

BECAUSE....IF he was mostly familiar with products originally put out by Allison, well......just checking.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ALSO, please note: There is a 'family' of RR RB-211 engines, earliest of which date back to the 1970s, in design. (For the Lockheed L-1011).

Specifications

The family is divided into three distinct series:

RB211-22 series:

Triple-spool high-bypass-ratio 5.0
Single-stage wide-chord fan
Seven-stage IP compressor
Six-stage HP compressor
Single annular combustor with 18 fuel burners
Single-stage HP turbine
Single-stage IP turbine
Three-stage LP turbine


RB211-524 series:

Single-stage wide-chord fan
Seven-stage IP compressor
Six-stage HP compressor
Single annular combustor with 18 fuel burners (24 on the G/H-T)
Single-stage HP turbine
Single-stage IP turbine
Three-stage LP turbine


RB211-535 series:

Triple-spool high-bypass-ratio 4.3 - 4.4
Single-stage wide-chord fan
Six-stage IP compressor
Six-stage HP compressor
Single annular combustor with 18 fuel burners (24 on later versions of E4)
Single-stage HP turbine
Single-stage IP turbine
Three-stage LP turbine

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 12 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by MolecularPhD


Ah yes, the mysterious unidentified hub. In this image it appears to be slightly too small to be from a RB211. But as countless images and videos of the impact and wreckage have been concealed, I am reluctant to accept any images or videos not concealed (such as this one) as accurate.

One must remember, commercial airliners also carry cargo and it is very common for that cargo to include aircraft parts. Therefore even if a 757 did hit the pentagon, this hub being in the wreckage does not prove that it was from one of the 757's engines.

Personally, I highly doubt that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon. They are too big, shiny, and slow to make it past the SAM sites.

reply to post by NonyaBeeznass


You can't be serious?/ Not again, not again....

They are too big, shiny, and slow to make it past the SAM sites.

If that was an attempt at sarcasm it was in poor taste.

If it was seriously repeating the Internet Lie about SAM emplacements at the Pentagon???

reply to post by NonyaBeeznass

Personally, I highly doubt that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon. They are too big, shiny, and slow to make it past the SAM sites.

Yes, because as it has well been proven, the Metro Washington DC area is a virtual fortress bristling with anti-aircraft redoubts, manned and ready to bring down any and all suspicious aircraft.

Originally posted by curious_soulWTC 7 fell EXACTLY like a controlled demolition. So, as a scientist i would have to assume first and foremost it was a Controlled Demolition and COMPLETELY explain this possibilty away FIRST

Is that how you think science is done? Get a layman to stare at something, ask them what they think it looks like, and then explain that away?

To me the moon and sun appear to be the same size. Is my concern all that's required to spark an international mission to the sun to measure it?

Originally posted by curious_soul

Originally posted by jthomas

You just made a claim entirely opposite to the logic of in my post. What is the source for your claim? Who told you that and why do you believe it?

No, i didn't. You need to re-read what you originally posted and what you posted from another source. WTC 7 fell EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

Buildings fall because of gravity. Other than that, there is no similarity between WTC 7 and "controlled demolition."

So, as a scientist i would have to assume first and foremost it was a Controlled Demolition and COMPLETELY explain this possibilty away FIRST.

Scientists would not "assume" anything with only gravity as the common element. They, like any forensic investigator and scientist would consider all of the evidence.

That was not done to the best of my knowledge. From watching the actual conference on this myself, the only consideration of a controlled demolition that was taken into account was the absence of loud noise.

There was lots of loud noise, none showing any characteristics of explosions from explosives. Neither were any signatures of explosives found, including the known effects of explosives on the medium to which they are attached. No chemical traces were found.

You started out with a faulty premise: that to you it "looked like" a controlled demolition.

Instead they bent over backwards to call this a "Phenomenon" when asked the simple question, due to their own results "Does this mean all steel structures would be at risk for failure due to fire."

There are loads of scientific and engineering papers on the subjects of fires' effects on steel buildings written long before 9/11 and after. The amount of data collected on what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 serves to help architects and structural engineers design and build better buildings in the future, the prime objective of the NIST investigations, BTW.

Save the response Jt. This is getting off topic and i only responded because of your continual use of the word truther and consipiracy theorist, like this makes your arguements stick...

I use the terms Truthers gave themselves. I point out the failure of 9/11 Truthers to be bring any evidence to the table after almost 9 years of repeating the same claims which they cut and paste from other Truthers.

Certainly, that is no way to get a new investigation.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by NonyaBeeznass

 

Personally, I highly doubt that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon. They are too big, shiny, and slow to make it past the SAM sites.

Yes, because as it has well been proven, the Metro Washington DC area is a virtual fortress bristling with anti-aircraft redoubts, manned and ready to bring down any and all suspicious aircraft.

And don't forget the "perps" intended to target the most heavily reinforced section of the Pentagon.

I will try to address all of the points made here to better clarify my questions.

FBI Forensics: I think I made it clear that I added Forensics to the list in my original post; however their Forensic Team has made some monumental mistakes over the years; below is an example.

"The Justice Department singled out Malone, Whitehurst and 11 other agents in a scathing 1997 report that revealed forensic bungles in 18 high-profile cases, among them the Oklahoma City bombing and the O.J. Simpson murder case. The report triggered a review of 3,000 potentially flawed FBI cases, including 263 in Florida."

What would be the harm in allowing an independent Forensic Team to evaluate all of the physical evidence to verify the FBI Forensic Teams findings? I would think this would be a logical choice as it would once and for all set the minds of the American People at ease to know the investigation, chain of evidence; and the physical evidence were evaluated properly and determinations of their findings corresponded to other professionals in the field of forensics.

Picture Comparison of the RB-211 Compressor Hub:

Look at the photo to the left paying close attention to the compressor slip collar; now compare the structural design of the slip collar on the compressor hub to the right; as you can see the center slip collar is not from the same engine as it has been stated to be; the size, shape, width, height, and bolt pattern of the slip collar is obviously not from the engine that it is reported to be from; even someone with no engineering background can make that assumption simply from pictures taken at the crash site. Although the overall design is similar in construction, each compressor hub design from different companies designs have obvious differences.

As the Tomahawk Missile engine is classified by the DOD; below is a similar engine design; the diameter of the compressor hub is 27.4” or 2.28’; making an educated guess as to the height of the individual in the photograph; the hub shown is about 3.4’ in diameter; no comparison to the 4.3’ diameter of the RB-211; unless the man in the photo is 7’ plus in height considering the hub is approximately 2/3 the height of his legs. But again, with no real evidence or comparison information to go by, due to lack of released information by the powers that be, that is all we can do; is make an educated “GUESS”, I for one do not like to guess but, when that is what we are left with what else can the American people do I ask you?




I so love this guy; lots of conjecture in his statements; first I never played the PHD card as you stated; I simply said as a scientist; if you have an obvious problem with that then so be it. After having the man himself who designed this particular part of the engine stating what he did um yeah; I began to look at similar engine designs and construction for comparison but, as I do not have my hands on the actually hub in question, there is no way to be certain; as there is not enough photographic evidence to make a proper comparison; it is very difficult to say. You may want to look up the terminology for “Hypothesis” as that is what I have to go on at this point. I am not an explosives expert and would never make assumptions about possible warheads, payloads, or the like; I can only compare the incident in question with the knowledge I do have in engineering and advanced engineering; having worked with many companies that do engineering in the field of Avionics.

Jim Lawrence’s credibility; considering the fact that Jim was the lead engineer in charge of the structural design and construction of the compressor hub of the RB-211; I would think he would know. I would also like to state that Jim has agreed to examine the compressor hub found at the scene in order to verify if it in fact was from an RB-211.; although he was not contacted or for that matter any of the engineers involved to inspect the wreckage.

If I did not cover all of your respective questions; that would pertain to my direct knowledge then please feel free to post another question; I will try my best to answer those questions in the order received.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Once again it is my opinion debating demolitions or possible demolitions; explosives, explosive materials, or the like is a waste of time. As none of you are explosives experts in the field of explosives engineering or construction of explosive parts; it is impossible for you to make any claims as to what if any explosives were used in the attack on 9/11.

The focus of people seeking the facts needs to be on the physical evidence collected at the scene of each site; the chain of evidence report of those materials; the testing and evaluation of those materials; and an independent review by a panel of professionals in their respective fields; if the Government has nothing to hide then there should be no problem for the American people to demand this be done. If the Government is so clear on their findings and the report that followed then they should allow such a panel of experts to review the materials in question to set the record straight for all and put to rest any possible conspiracy that now can stem from lack of doing so.

Why would anyone be it non-conspiracy theorist; or conspiracy theorist; not see the logic in that taking place?

This country does not need another 20 years of the likes of the JFK scandal or does it?

The above would set the record straight for all those involved on both sides of this argument; I for one would like that to happen within my life time.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

reply to post by weedwhacker


How can you be so sure there aren't SAM sites (or something equivalent) at the pentagon?

The pentagon is a secure building. As the specifics are classified, you cannot possibly claim to know the truth regarding this matter.

Regan Airport is nearby and many planes fly very close to the pentagon everyday. Don't you think the pentagon's security measures take this into consideration? AA77 was not about to land at Regan.

How do you think the pentagon's airspace security is maintained?

On another note, only two lousy video frames of the impact were released. There is without a doubt more footage, somewhere. It is very clear that something is being hidden.

Why would someone hide something? Because they have something to hide!


Thanks to weedwhacker and hooper for their quick responses to my first ever post on ATS, it made me feel welcome.

Originally posted by MolecularPhD

FBI Forensics: I think I made it clear that I added Forensics to the list in my original post;

No, you made it clear that you didn't think the FBI had any scientific capability, which is direct evidence that you have no clue about science, evidence, investigation, or basic understanding of civics in the United States of America.

however their Forensic Team has made some monumental mistakes over the years; below is an example.

So? Please show the organization, engineering, scientific, or otherwise that hasn't.

What would be the harm in allowing an independent Forensic Team to evaluate all of the physical evidence to verify the FBI Forensic Teams findings?

Ok, I've asked this question a million times, who? And based on what legal precedent? What other evidence would you like to throw out there for "peer review"?

Look at the photo to the left paying close attention to the compressor slip collar; now compare the structural design of the slip collar on the compressor hub to the right; as you can see the center slip collar is not from the same engine as it has been stated to be; the size, shape, width, height, and bolt pattern of the slip collar is obviously not from the engine that it is reported to be from; even someone with no engineering background can make that assumption simply from pictures taken at the crash site. Although the overall design is similar in construction, each compressor hub design from different companies designs have obvious differences.

As the Tomahawk Missile engine is classified by the DOD; below is a similar engine design; the diameter of the compressor hub is 27.4” or 2.28’; making an educated guess as to the height of the individual in the photograph; the hub shown is about 3.4’ in diameter; no comparison to the 4.3’ diameter of the RB-211; unless the man in the photo is 7’ plus in height considering the hub is approximately 2/3 the height of his legs. But again, with no real evidence or comparison information to go by, due to lack of released information by the powers that be, that is all we can do; is make an educated “GUESS”, I for one do not like to guess but, when that is what we are left with what else can the American people do I ask you?

Blah, blah, blah. Hey - if you have access to the designer why don't you just give us the actual dimensions and name of the part he thinks that is in the photo and let others decided if its the right size. Unlike you, I'm no "scientist" but even a cursory search on the internet tells me that the piece in the photo is just a hub and is not supposed to be 4.3'.

first I never played the PHD card as you stated;

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

reply to post by hooper


“No, you made it clear that you didn't think the FBI had any scientific capability, which is direct evidence that you have no clue about science, evidence, investigation, or basic understanding of civics in the United States of America.”

Please post the quote where a make that statement? My statement I believe was “When did the FBI become a scientific authority?”

“Ok, I've asked this question a million times, who? And based on what legal precedent? What other evidence would you like to throw out there for "peer review"?

“How about the actual engineers involved in the design and construction of the parts in question for one?”

“How about Armstrong Forensic Laboratories; they are a highly accredited laboratory?”

The part in question is the compressor hub; slip sleeve design and shape; and the diameter of the compressor hub without the blades attached for an RB-211 is 51.2806”, in your opinion does the image of the hub located at the crash site look to be that diameter; the portion of the hub that was of concern to him was the slip sleeve at the center of the hub.

I guess you both have a problem with the name I have for this forum? Next time maybe I should hold a panel review and ask for your approval. I have the name I have as it is the field and degree I hold in that field; hmm sounds logical to me.

Why is it that all of those that are in approval of the official report are so opposed to a second opinion by a panel of experts?

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

If you have direct proof that the Hub in question is from an RB-211 please post that information; seems like that would be helpful. I would also like to understand why the ones who are so opposed to this line of logic; are attacking any and all information that does not fit the official story? You are American's right? do you not think that we all deserve the truth? I'm trying to understand your line of thinking; to have such a strong belief that what the official report says is the facts and that is that and the official report should not be questioned as to its validity. This does not sound logical to me; unless you have some dog in that fight?

To HOOPER: I will put up my credentials against yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday; and sense you love the laughing faces

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

[edit on 12-5-2010 by MolecularPhD]

Originally posted by MolecularPhD

“No, you made it clear that you didn't think the FBI had any scientific capability, which is direct evidence that you have no clue about science, evidence, investigation, or basic understanding of civics in the United States of America.”

Please post the quote where a make that statement? My statement I believe was “When did the FBI become a scientific authority?”

When did they become a scientific authority? Probably when they hired all those scientist to do scientific investigations for law enforcement agencies all around the United States and the rest of the world.

“How about the actual engineers involved in the design and construction of the parts in question for one?”

“How about Armstrong Forensic Laboratories; they are a highly accredited laboratory?”

How about them? We are talking about the parts on a plane, not quantum mechanics, I think the people at the FBI are more than capable of determining a plane part number. Or is this just a case of you plain not believing the FBI because you think they are part of the "inside job"? If that is the case then your expedition has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with your personal brand of politics. And by the way, skeptic doesn't mean you assume that everyone is lying until proven otherwise - that is not skepticism, that is paranoia.

The part in question is the compressor hub; slip sleeve design and shape; and the diameter of the compressor hub without the blades attached for an RB-211 is 51.2806”, in your opinion does the image of the hub located at the crash site look to be that diameter; the portion of the hub that was of concern to him was the slip sleeve at the center of the hub.

Great, can you back that up? It is so noted that in your opinion the item shown in that photo isn't big enough. No problem. Now about that legal precedent wherein we start to release all the physical evidence for "peer review"? Assuming, of course, that you have no standing in the criminal case. You don't, do you?

I guess you both have a problem with the name I have for this forum?

Not per se, however, you label yourself a scientist and then throw PHD in your screen name and then deny that you are playing "science card" which is really another way of saying you are arguing from an appeal to authority standpoint.

reply to post by hooper


You seem to be a very argumentative person; sticking to mainly personal attacks on those that put forth anything that contradicts the official story. I'm wondering if you are simply involved in these conversations to argue or if you actually have any professional opinion as to the validity of the information put forth by the official report?

As I have shown the FBI has been prone to make some rather large mistakes in their scientific findings in the past; which would be the logic behind having their findings reviewed. You keep stating you want a legal precedent for this; how about a scientific one www.fbi.gov... this is the FBI Labs peer review site; this is the location I would like to see their scientific findings on this particular case be listed.

As you have simply decided to over look any and all lines of logical reason in this matter; and have put forth not one shred of information to back up your own opinion in this case; I no longer see a reason to keep answering your posts.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

reply to post by MolecularPhD


I think you should be more clear...because either you don't understand how jet engines are constructed, or you are mis-identifying the part...OR, as I asked earlier (have not received the answer) does this "Jim Lawrence" have full familiarity with the RB-211-535 family, or 'series' of engines?

The part in question is the compressor hub;

That is the second or third time you've referred to it as the compressor hub....

WHICH STAGE do you think it's from? There are more than ONE stage of compressor, and also turbine (the 'hot' section) in the RB-211.

I hope this 'source' meets your exacting criteria:



It's from www.flightglobal.com...


There are better ones available, as I'm sure you're aware.

There are also scads of websites out there devoted to debunking the 9/11 denier's claims, as I am also sure you well know.

Care to include them into your analysis?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Adding more info on the engine part, in order to 'flesh out' my questions.

Whatever piece this is, it appears to be only the central hub of a compressor or turbine stage. Normally, each of these rotating stages would be fitted with several curved blades mounted along its circumference. These blades were apparently knocked off the rotor hub found in the wreckage due to the force of the impact. The loss of these blades is unfortunate since different manufacturers often adopt unique shapes for their fan, compressor, and turbine blades that would make the source of the component much easier to identify. Nonetheless, we have been able to locate the following picture of the intermediate pressure compressor section of the RB211 that appears to match several characteristics of the Pentagon debris.

Photos won't copy/paste, the link is HERE, scroll down about mid-page.

One similarity between the two photos can be seen in the cleats along the edge of the Pentagon object. These devices are called dovetail slots and provide attachment points for the compressor blades. The shapes of these slots on the Pentagon wreckage appear to match those on the RB211 assembly shown on the left. Furthermore, the "nosepiece" jutting out from the center of the disk in the Pentagon photo shares commonalities with the central shaft visible in the RB211 photo.

[edit on 12 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by MolecularPhD

If you have direct proof that the Hub in question is from an RB-211 please post that information;

The "hub in question" was found at the Pentagon, where oddly enough, was also the place where they found the human remains of a group of people that were last scene getting on a plane that was equipped with an RB-211 and that plane was last tracked on radar heading for the....Pentagon, where, as coincidence would have it, dozens of folks witnessed a commercial jetliner, striking an odd similarity to the plane that was the last known residence of the persons whose earthly remains were found at Pentagon - crash into the side of the Pentagon! Put that all together and what do you got - of course - the part was planted or is part of a cruise missile, I mean what other conclusions can you draw?

You are American's right? do you not think that we all deserve the truth? I'm trying to understand your line of thinking; to have such a strong belief that what the official report says is the facts and that is that and the official report should not be questioned as to its validity. This does not sound logical to me; unless you have some dog in that fight?

Sorry, you are confusing metaphysical absolutes and reality. Yes, I would love to always know the perfect truth about everything, all the time. But that ain't going to happen. So, in this real world I have to settle for a reasonable process to ascertain answers to important questions. That process does not and should not include calling everyone a liar until proven otherwise and constantly regurgitating and re-examining known facts based on the faulty reasoning that every opinion and observation is fully and undeniably valid until disproven.

To HOOPER: I will put up my credentials against yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday; and sense you love the laughing faces

Your "credentials" here are your words.

reply to post by hooper


I am sorry if you feel threatened in some way because of my Posting name; or for that matter my profession offends you. "What is your profession exactly?"

As I am speaking about my opinions on this particular case; which would include any and all knowledge that I may have that would be pertinent to the information that I am relaying in my posts.

For twelve and half years I served as an officer attached to the US Army Corps of Engineers; in advanced energy research and design. From 2003 to the Present I am the Lead Scientist for Advanced Hydrogen Energy R&D with a focus on uses of Hydrogen in Combustion Engines; which by the way include Aircraft engine consulting for companies such as RR and ROTAX; I received my PHD in Molecular Physics with an emphasis in Hydrogen Production from M.I.T. 2001; and I am currently heading up development for a project for the University Nevada Reno; with the head of their Green Energy Studies Department; so your assessment of me not understanding science or scientific method is simply ludicrous.

"What exactly are your qualifications?" to the understanding of the information in the official report?on 9/11?; specifically the information obtained at the Pentagon crash site?

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Originally posted by MolecularPhD

I am sorry if you feel threatened in some way because of my Posting name; or for that matter my profession offends you. "What is your profession exactly?"

As I am speaking about my opinions on this particular case; which would include any and all knowledge that I may have that would be pertinent to the information that I am relaying in my posts.

For twelve and half years I served as an officer attached to the US Army Corps of Engineers; in advanced energy research and design. From 2003 to the Present I am the Lead Scientist for Advanced Hydrogen Energy R&D with a focus on uses of Hydrogen in Combustion Engines; which by the way include Aircraft engine consulting for companies such as RR and ROTAX; I received my PHD in Molecular Physics with an emphasis in Hydrogen Production from M.I.T. 2001; and I am currently heading up development for a project for the University Nevada Reno; with the head of their Green Energy Studies Department; so your assessment of me not understanding science or scientific method is simply ludicrous.

"What exactly are your qualifications?" to the understanding of the information in the official report?on 9/11?; specifically the information obtained at the Pentagon crash site?

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

I will, of course, defer to your much greater intellectual abilities and your more than substantial credentials. But first....

Please explain to me how the human remains of the passengers of Flight 77 ended up in the rubble of the Pentagon and please no logical shortcuts, like the one where you accuse people of lying or staging evidence.