Isn't the kevlar in the airframe not the engine casing? I don't ever remember that in the military, but then again my memory has been screwd by anthrax vaccine. If the soft nose can penetrate the KEVLAR strengthened walls of the pentagoon then why not the, in your words, kevlar strengthened engine casings? Still don't add up to me.

It depends on the plane. The 777 it's in the engine. In others it's in the fuselage. You're trying to compare a 1 or 2 pound fan blade, to a 200,000 pound airframe?? Gee, I wonder which will have more force behind it.

There you go with fan blades again, what about the ENGINE CASINGS? You do know what that is right? The composite metal that go's around and contains the compressor blades and combustion chamber. Have you ever seen one close up out of the airframe taken apart? Trust me, far more strength in that little engine casing than in the nose of the A/C.

I'm aware of that Anok. What do you think the Kevlar in the engines and fuselage is there for?!?! If the FAN BLADES break off, in the engine, they're going to try to rip through the casing, and into the fuselage. THAT is why the casing has to be impact resistant. IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND????? I like how you make it out that the nose would be the only part to go through the building and doesn't have any weight behind it. Yes the nose is soft, but it has the entire weight of the fracking plane behind it. You're talking somewhere near 200,000 pounds of metal impacting that building. [edit on 1/25/2006 by Zaphod58]

S.O.; how about if i host the article myself? that should make it perfectly fine right?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?????

Let me refer back to this posted earlier by Lyte..... A Licensed Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic:

Regarding Sarah Roberts "report"...I call it a bunch of 'nonsense'. For you see, I wanna know where the chunks of >>TWO<< RB-211 Turbofan engines are shown! I wanna know where there are sections of the engine's WING SPARS...and WING SPARS aren't flimsy pieces of SHEET METAL! Wing spars are designed to take 2+ times the MAX GROSS WEIGHT of an aircraft! I wanna know where the sections/pieces of the HUGE VERTICAL STABILIZER-RUDDER are to be found!...

Are you a jet-engine mechanic, how much do you know about jets and their engines to make the claims you are? I'm no expert but I do have 6 yrs experience with jet engines and the guy in that quote is an AP&P mechanic. Who do you believe folks Zaphod, or a real jet engine mechanic? And why are you getting so upset Zaphod? Don't like your illusions being shown for what they are? One of these days you guys are going to HAVE to face the reality you have been lied to by the system you all seem to trust so easily. I know it's hard to face a reality like that.

Did I SAY it was an airport? NO! Last time I checked a MILITARY FLIGHTLINE doesn't have roads on it. Unless you KNOW FOR A FACT where I have been, I love the way the altitude of the plane changes with your arguments. Firts it's 6 inches, then 1 inch, then 30 feet, now it's 10 feet. [edit on 25-1-2006 by asala]

I must concur. My experiences at airports confirm that behind jet engines is a bad place to be. I've personally see vehicles overturned. I've also seen turf destroyed, panes of glass shattered, and alluminum sheered off buildings.

Originally posted by ANOK Are you a jet-engine mechanic, how much do you know about jets and their engines to make the claims you are? I'm no expert but I do have 6 yrs experience with jet engines and the guy in that quote is an AP&P mechanic. Who do you believe folks Zaphod, or a real jet engine mechanic? And why are you getting so upset Zaphod? Don't like your illusions being shown for what they are? One of these days you guys are going to HAVE to face the reality you have been lied to by the system you all seem to trust so easily. I know it's hard to face a reality like that.

Man I love the way you go from turboprop, to high bypass turbofan mechanic in two pages. Illusions? I don't have any illusions. But you have attacked me, ridiculed me, ignored parts of your quotes to make it seem like it says something different, and when I point it out, you change the argument. Hmm, seems like everything I've been told a disinfo agent does.

I'm happy for you. I've sat in pickups, and driven behind KC-135s, C-130s, and many others running at full power, and Not A Damn Thing happened.

It would depend on various things, what is the clip? That Top-Gear/Brainiac one with John Hammond or Clarkson in it? Because they will construct optimum condition for their televised entertainment experiments. If it's the one with a stationary aircraft then it means even less because no where near the same force will be exerted on an object stationary on the ground by a moving aircraft as a stationary one. Go back to your basic physics laws, if the majority of the thrust being generated by the turbofan is in pushing the aircraft along, then there cannot be much left for blowing anything over. If you think otherwise then get it off to the patent office quick, because you just found a way to generate more energy than there is available from a limited and controlled source. EDIT: Oh I see it's a different video to the one someone else posted, means nothing though as above. Bet you don't find a video with a fast moving aircraft doing it. [edit on 25-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Good point. My experiences involve planes powering up at a stand still. In flight changes the physics. Another way to look at it if someone isn't understanding is....If you shoot a gun the bullet moves at x rate of speed away from you. If instead when you pull the trigger you and the gun move backwards at the same speed, the bullet would stay in one place. I know that's a sloppy analogy but it helped me get it. As well, the nose down position combined with the rate of speed make the blown over car thing a moot, and diversionary point. [edit on 25-1-2006 by Outriderdark]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Man I love the way you go from turboprop, to high bypass turbofan mechanic in two pages. Illusions? I don't have any illusions. But you have attacked me, ridiculed me, ignored parts of your quotes to make it seem like it says something different, and when I point it out, you change the argument. Hmm, seems like everything I've been told a disinfo agent does.

What are you talking about? I was a T-56 turbo prop engine and propellor/APU/H-53 rotor head, NEC 6418, 'I' or Intermediate level mech.....'O' level work on engines in the aircraft on the flight line, 'I' level work on them in a workshop after the 'O' level guys take them out of the airframe. Don't believe me? I'll U2U my DD-214 if you want to see it? All I've "attacked" is your knowledge and what you have claimed in this post, it hurts when your crap is blown out of the water don't it? I didn't ignore any parts of my quotes, the part you highlighted was IRELIVANT, engine cases are designed to be impact resistant. Does that change when it is in a crash? Is the A/C nose impact resistant? You're the one who keeps ignoring stuff like engine casing and keep insisting, because the compressor blades are light weight, that the whole engine can majicaly disapear into nothing but dust. I'm a disinfo agent know....LMFAO.... I thought dis-info agents are on the governments side? Why would a disinfo agent contradict the official story? Sry but you're putting your foot in deeper with every post.

And how is a turboprop the same as a high bypass turbofan? Yeah, you've "blown me out of the water." *snort* Yes you did. You quoted that they're impact resistant, and ignored the part of the quote where it specifically said, against parts of the engine breaking off inside the casing and penetrating the casing and the fuselage and killing people in the cabin. How does being impact resistant to something inside the engine equate to being impact resistant to a plane crash? As far as not attacking me, I have seen you call me a three year old, and several other things. I don't have the posts right off hand, but if you want I'll go through and find them. They were fairly recent. [edit on 1/25/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 And how is a turboprop the same as a high bypass turbofan? Yeah, you've "blown me out of the water." *snort* Yes you did. You quoted that they're impact resistant, and ignored the part of the quote where it specifically said, against parts of the engine breaking off inside the casing and penetrating the casing and the fuselage and killing people in the cabin. How does being impact resistant to something inside the engine equate to being impact resistant to a plane crash?

DOH!!!!! What diff is there what type of jet engine we're talking about, THEY ALL HAVE ENGINE CASINGS!! Basicaly the only diff is the high bypass have a big fan at the front, the rest of the engine is the same, but being the expert you should know that right? So you're saying the engine casings are only impact reistant on the inside? And this just proves you only see what you want to, I didn't call you a 3 yr old. What I said was do you think you're talking to a 3 yr old. [edit on 25/1/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK I thought dis-info agents are on the governments side? Why would a disinfo agent contradict the official story? Sry but you're putting your foot in deeper with every post.

Dis-info agents would contradict the official story in order to give people red herrings to worry about years on end. Doing it from that angle is the most efficient and best way because on the face of it people would suspect them the least and let's face it - most people wouldn't be bright enough to understand how it could be possible that something that appears to go against the government works in their favour. Most people, even mainstream only people, now acknowledge things are generally not what they seem about anything. No-one can stop that, but they can give people dumb ideas that 1) Keep them occupied in trying to prove it, which they will never stop doing because they think they have the golden goose when really they have the ugly duckling (which dies before turning into the swan). 2) Make the whole truth movement look stupid to any intelligent casual observers who will immediately tar everyone with the same brush, enforcing the traditional 'loony bin' label for conspiracy theorists. It's just primitive reverse psycology tactics really, they have to be employed now that a significant number of people are being exposed to alternative media. It's not enough anymore to just baffle people with offical sounding bumph, a compromise has to be made and it revolves around making the person think they know a big secret, when really they are further from the truth than ever. [edit on 25-1-2006 by AgentSmith]