9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Zaphod you keep bringing up the engine turbo fans as your answer to what happened to the engines but you never mention the ENGINE CASINGS. www.madsci.org... [edit on 25/1/2006 by ANOK]

Impact resistant to things trying to BREAK OUT OF THE ENGINE. Not to crashes. They are designed with kevlar lining, so that if a fan blade breaks in flight, it won't rip through the casing, and into the cabin and kill someone, which is exactly what happend several times back in the 60s and 70s. From your own source and quote: www.madsci.org... This is what happens if you DON'T have someting lining the engine. If this happens and the parts rip into the cabin, you can kill a lot of people from the shrapnel. That's why engine designers have come up with impact resistant materials to contain an engine failure. Into 1998, there had been 32 uncontained engine failures in 15 months. www.mse.eng.ohio-state.edu...

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?

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

Bull. poo. An RB211 delivers about 180KN at full throttle, that's ~18 metric tons. Flying 10ft above ground, this would be felt, violently. For a little demonstration, view this video. Where were you, "right behind" a 4 engine jetplane in a pickup? Wonderland? Airports were no public freeways, last time I checked. [edit on 25-1-2006 by Lumos] Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link. [edit on 25/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

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.

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]

Boeing 757 engine exhaust velocity profile. Based on this document, the region of maximum exhaust velocity is in a very narrow cone behind the aircraft. So, if the plane was 30 feet above the ground in a nose down attitude, it is unlikely that any cars were buffeted by any significant exhaust blast. However, If we assume that the plane was at maximum thrust (i.e. takeoff thrust), then the zone where the engine thrust would reach 150 mph extends approximately 200 feet behind the stationary plane. If we assume that the cars were actually in that cone, and not off to the side, and that the same profile exists for an airplane in flight, and if we also assume that the plane was traveling at a relatively slow 300 mph (440 feet per second). Then, the time that you would be exposed to a jet blast exceeding 150 mph would be slightly less than 1/2 a second, and at 400 mph, the time would be around a third of a second. [edit on 25-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

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]

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]

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]

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]