It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Things left out: AFP contacted Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent high-resolution photos for their examination. “There’s no way that’s an APU wheel,” an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: “That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came out of an APU.” American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, manufacturers of the 757’s turbofan jet engines to try and identify the piece. “If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine,” Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP. John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: “It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.”
CatHerder said What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel. There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above “It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.” (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.)
Thank you Nygdan I couldn't have said it better myself. I think he needs someone to hold his hand and walk him through it. I mean if he can't even click on the links provided, he won't get very far.
So somone else found the photos, and the diagram, and now you need them to do what exactly, match every part of the debris to the schematics of the plane? i would think that the people who built the damned thing would have difficulty doing that. But really, no one should bother telling you anything, because you apparently are too lazy to even click on the source link provided.
This should help about the windows: www.azom.com... "Viracon were the manufacturers of the blast resistant windows used in the Pentagon. These windows had only recently been installed in the region affected by the airplane impact and have been credited with saving potentially thousands of lives."
Originally posted by piboy Yowch, CatHerder, take it easy! Forget who said you said... let's back up... the picture you posted... Why, if the wing went across that window, is there still a window there? Why isn't it broken? Or knocked out? Or melted? The wing obviously is gone, so I am trying to understand how the wing can hit that, not damaged that window, and the wing disappear? Please help.
And you think we're going to get access to this stuff? No, so what's your point then?
Originally posted by piboy I argue that we cannot definitely prove what happened one way or another without a real investigation, which would mean having access to all the physical evidence, all the surveillance tapes (pentagon and other buildings nearby), sworn affidavits from eye-witnesses with the opportunity for cross-examination. Otherwise we are spinning our wheels.
I do not mean to offend you, but I am curious. You say your brother saw faces in the plane? Out of curiousity, where was he and how was it that he was able to see faces in the plane that was going so fast? I am not trying to bash. How did he describe the people? How did he describe the plane? I can hardly see faces in the parked plane in the next gate, let alone surprised by a plane traveling several hundred miles per hour some feet above me. Can you provide the name of his friend?
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord I still remember speaking to my brother (who was on the highway at the time) calling me that evening, haunted by the memory of a brief glimpse of faces in the windows of the 757. Especially when he discovered his friend was on the flight later that day. This is a sad moment for ATS. I feel like I now see faces.
So haunted is one of my friends, a firefighter & EMT, who was on the scene within hours of the impact. Yeah, he pulled body parts out. Luggage, personal effects..... for days. So haunted am I, as well. The window I used to look out daily only months before 9/11 took a direct hit that day. It's only a minor consolation that none of my former coworkers died that day. Wedge 1 was done and all the PENREN contractors were moved out. Why was there still a window? Why did so much of the building withstand the impact? You want the real answers to that? I can give 'em to you, but judging by the response in this thread, I'd be wasting my proverbial breath. Sickening. -B. PENREN civilian contractor 1999-2000
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord Yes. He's still haunted by it.
Are you kidding me? Here's something that may interest you: "...numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent — a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony. These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be "certain" of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident. The Ruling of the New York Court of Appeals Granted, there is one mechanism by which we attempt to separate reliable from unreliable eyewitness testimony: cross-examination. When an eyewitness for the prosecution testifies that she recognizes the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime, the defense attorney can cross-examine her by inquiring about the lighting, the duration of the encounter, the stress she experienced, and all manner of other factors that might undermine the reliability of the identification. However, jurors typically believe an eyewitness who sticks to his or her story despite cross-examination, in no small part because most jurors are not aware of the studies tending to cast doubt on such testimony. Accordingly, over the last two decades, defense attorneys have increasingly sought to introduce expert testimony about the limitations of eyewitness identifications. " writ.news.findlaw.com...
Originally posted by Bob88 I've never, ever seen an eye witness account disputed, at least not seriously.