757 Engine Impact Not Noticeable at Pentagon

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


No, you're right, the core of the engine is actually very small compared to the fan section. The first time I saw a CFM-56 torn down to the core, my reaction was "Where's the rest of it?"






posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


I see.... So you looked over the source photos in that case file, as it sits for all to see? Well, I find your response odd, in that context. Perhaps you can tell me which exhibit photos, by ID number, you find to be showing planted evidence? I'm familiar enough with that to know where in the mess those photos are and which block of ID sequence they occupy. If you just looked over and reviewed the same stuff before calling it bunk...you ought to as well. I'll be happy to take that photo by photo on points? Just lemmie know the evidence ID tags of the ones you think are worthless or somehow misleading?

* Just a note? Don't post the human remains photos, please. The evidence ID is plenty to pull each up myself. That's absolutely a T&C violation as well as being plain cruel to those who don't have very strong stomachs or any desire to see human damage at that level.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
www.davesweb.cnchost.com...&plane.jpeg

edit on 8/2/2013 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)


Well, I dont know, but I see damage.

I guess the naysayers see something different.

Hmm.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by roadgravel
 


No, you're right, the core of the engine is actually very small compared to the fan section. The first time I saw a CFM-56 torn down to the core, my reaction was "Where's the rest of it?"





If I am understanding the mechanics of it:

Basically the less dense materials in the engine would act like the shrouding on a DU anti-tank round and fly away on impact as the core punched through, possibly superheating into a slag projectile.

'Small' hole going in, super heated fire and spald materials bouncing in an open chamber beyond, possible larger hole on exit.

That'd sufficiently account for the engines then.

M.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
If a jumbo jet hit the pentagon at 500 MPH, it would have gone in to the wings, then the wings would have cut right into that building like a sword blade, but nothing like that happened, so a jumbo jet never hit the building..
And yes, the engines have a lot of titanium parts and they are really heavy of course, that would have made a nice big hole as well, but there wasn't any damage like that..
Just my opinion of course...



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


You're right. A jumbo jet didn't hit the Pentagon. The 757 is anything but a jumbo jet.

As for the wings, have you ever looked inside one? There's almost nothing there but ribs and spars. They're almost completely hollow, to allow for the fuel tanks. There's no way those wings are going to "cut right through the building". They're going to come apart in an instant.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


The core, other than the combustion chamber, isn't as strong as you think it is. The combustion chamber is titanium usually, the rest of the engine is just aluminum and alloys.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
When the topic is the WTC, a common argument is "Those wings could never have cut the steel". When the topic is the Pentagon, a common argument is "Those wings should have cut through the reinforced concrete".

My conclusions is, no matter what kind of damage a plane leaves, there will always be people claiming it is odd or impossible. In other words, a discussion like this amoing laymen is completely useless.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by alienreality
 


You're right. A jumbo jet didn't hit the Pentagon. The 757 is anything but a jumbo jet.

As for the wings, have you ever looked inside one? There's almost nothing there but ribs and spars. They're almost completely hollow, to allow for the fuel tanks. There's no way those wings are going to "cut right through the building". They're going to come apart in an instant.


Sorry you are wrong.. a 757 is definitely a jumbo jet, aka heavy metal, aka big heavy..

Working on them at Boeing for 5 plus years I should know.. Everyone at Boeing calls them jumbo jets.. Sure a 747-400 is an even bigger jumbo jet..
I worked inside those wings so I know all about them.. They are very strong suckers of box and truss construction with a front and rear spar of solid extruded high strength aluminum.. Those spars by themselves are like a sword blade..

Those wings would have gone right into that building like a knife through butter, especially at 400 to 500 MPH..

Get real please..
edit on 4-8-2013 by alienreality because: add



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


No, it's not. A jumbo jet is a widebody aircraft. The 757 is a narrowbody. The 767 was a jumbo jet, the 747 is a jumbo jet. The 757 is not a jumbo jet.

I haven't ever heard of the 757 referred to as a jumbo jet, even by flight crews I dealt with.
edit on 8/4/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by alienreality
 


No, it's not. A jumbo jet is a widebody aircraft. The 757 is a narrowbody. The 767 was a jumbo jet, the 747 is a jumbo jet. The 757 is not a jumbo jet.


They are all called jumbos at Boeing, but does it matter? The 757 is still big and strong enough to do a lot of damage to a building made of brick.. The damage shown was not what you really see if a 757 hit that wall..
The wings are the strongest part of the entire airplane by the way.. I was a category A fuel cell sealer so I know what I'm talking about.

Now stop arguing semantics, they are a waste of time..
edit on 4-8-2013 by alienreality because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-8-2013 by alienreality because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


Please, explain what we should have seen then. A nice cartoon cutout? A perfect little imprint?

It wasn't a brick wall, it was kevlar reinforced concrete, designed to withstand a truck bomb, filled with over a ton of C4 touching the wall.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by alienreality
 


Please, explain what we should have seen then. A nice cartoon cutout? A perfect little imprint?

It wasn't a brick wall, it was kevlar reinforced concrete, designed to withstand a truck bomb, filled with over a ton of C4 touching the wall.


Okay, so an airplane hitting the pentagon at 500 mph would just bounce off and leave a tiny hole... I see.. I digress.. end of discussion..



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


It didn't "bounce off" and leave a tiny hole. It left a hole wider than the fuselage, which was the strongest portion of the plane, with the keel beam, and other strengthening aspects of the plane. The wings are the weakest portion of the aircraft when it comes to an impact like this, as they're mostly hollow, to hold the fuel tanks.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


they can cut through steel, but they can not cut through concrete.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by earthling42
 


The engines at the WTC went through steel that was already weakened by the initial impact damaging it. The Pentagon was concrete reinforced with kevlar, to strengthen it to much stronger than normal concrete.
edit on 8/4/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by alienreality
 


It didn't "bounce off" and leave a tiny hole. It left a hole wider than the fuselage, which was the strongest portion of the plane, with the keel beam, and other strengthening aspects of the plane. The wings are the weakest portion of the aircraft when it comes to an impact like this, as they're mostly hollow, to hold the fuel tanks.


Hold the fuel tanks? They are the fuel tanks, they don't hold some separate tank like fighter planes have ( a bladder).

The entire airplane is "hollow" as you put it, but the wings are the strongest build part of the entire plane.. They don't fall apart like you say they do.. Lets just end this, you think that plane wouldn't have done very much damage to the building, I say it would have destroyed a much larger area of the building.

I don't think a plane even hit the building in the first place.. I say a missile hit it..



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


The wings are strong for what they're designed for. But when it comes to an impact like at the Pentagon, the force of their impact is spread along the entire wing, making them a weaker impact than the fuselage. The main wing spars are sideways to the fuselage, so it was like hitting something with your open hand, compared to your fist (the fuselage). The fuselage would hit with more force, so it would punch through, where the wings wouldn't.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
Those wings would have gone right into that building like a knife through butter, especially at 400 to 500 MPH..


Why should I believe what you are saying here is true?



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
www.davesweb.cnchost.com...&plane.jpeg

edit on 8/2/2013 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)


to me..

this says it all ..





top topics
 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join