IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Can this be the engine from United 175?

dMz
post May 31 2008, 03:13 AM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I found the following photos in one of my collections. The EXIF data indicates:

Camera Manufacturer: CASIO
Camera Model: QV-3000EX

Date Taken: 2001:09:12 10:03:40
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2882903910.html

Date Taken: 2001:09:12 10:03:46
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2882905180.html

Date Taken: 2001:09:12 10:04:35
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2882907797.html

Date Taken: 2001:09:12 10:05:44
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2882911468.html

I noted that the dust had been sprayed off when the photo up-thread was taken. This is informative.

EDIT: Perhaps the photos in post #12 were taken pre-WTC collapse, therefore there is no dust on this engine debris.

Also, I don't think we can conclusively determine which flight or which aircraft type this came from just yet.

This post has been edited by dMole: May 31 2008, 03:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 30 2008, 02:34 AM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



FWIW, the KC-135R Stratotanker has been retrofitted with CFM-56 engines.

" This improvement is a result of the KC-135R's lower fuel consumption and increased performance which allow the tanker to take off with more fuel and carry it farther. Since the airplane can carry more fuel and burn less of it during a mission, it's possible to transfer a much greater amount to receiver aircraft.

The quieter, more fuel-efficient CFM56 engines are manufactured by CFM International, a company jointly owned by SNECMA of France, and General Electric of the U.S. The engine is an advanced-technology, high- bypass turbofan; the military designation is F108-CF-100. Related system improvements are incorporated to improve the modified airplane's ability to carry out its mission, while decreasing overall maintenance and operation costs. The modified airplane is designated a KC-135R. "

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/kc-135r.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...aft/kc-135r.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-135_Stratotanker
-------------------------------
Of course with hypothetical KC-135R's at WTC 1 & 2, one would need 3 (or 7) more CFM56 [or F108-CF-100] engine cores in Manhattan on 9/11/2001, and there's the 2- vs. 4-engine video "proof" issue...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Oct 30 2008, 01:21 PM
Post #23





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 747
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



A few observations. The damaged street sign "Murray" under the engine suggests that the falling engine took it down negating the story off hitting a car hood and rolling off. This would make it a near vertical drop. The chuck of metal looks to be at least 1500 pounds. Dropping from about 800 feet this piece would have smashed through the pavement. Now given that the WTC was 3 blocks away the angle of desent and velocity would have made that engine either auger into the ground or continue with forward momentum into the building. It could not just just plop down onto the sidewalk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 30 2008, 01:51 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hi Rico,

You did notice the construction scaffolding and the lamp post surrounding/above this as yet-unidentified "engine debris?" It looks to me that steel scaffolding frame might structurally support say 2000 pounds or so, but this would likely exceed the recommended "safe working load" for construction worker personnel (which likely has an OSHA "safety factor" margin, just like safety harness and ropes). The steel engine hoists that I've used before have been rated for 1-3 tons and looked to be of comparable pipe or tube construction.

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2882911468.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 30 2008, 03:10 PM
Post #25





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



What bothers me about these pictures, other than the type of engine looks wrong, is that there is no sign of heat around where it is supposed to have landed and the item looks kinda cool to me.

If, as has been said due to absence of dust and other debris, this is before either tower came down then that gives a very short window of time for the pictures to have been taken, and the area cordened off, so why no evidence of heat. I would doubt that it would have cooled that much ihn the time it took to drop the final few feet. After all, if that flammer we saw in the video is this engine continuing its trajectory then it would still be damned hot when it reached street level.

The engine is a plant. No two ways about it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post Oct 30 2008, 11:35 PM
Post #26





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264





911Blogger.Com. This is an engine that was recovered at Ground Zero
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 30 2008, 11:55 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hi LL,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the [either Staten Island or Jersey?] "Fresh Kills" landfill?? That "mid-pressure" 'shell' doesn't match well with the CFM56 "high pressure" section from Murray and Church? street IIRC...

Again Leslie, correct me if I'm wrong (this "mid-shell" looks more like the "Pentagram" wreckage), however my Trusty "dingo" just gave me one of those looks... He's "skeptikal" wink.gif "
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 31 2008, 07:30 AM
Post #28





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,198
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 28 2008, 05:34 AM) *
FWIW, the KC-135R Stratotanker has been retrofitted with CFM-56 engines.

According to earlier info UA175 was fitted with JT9D engines. Quite different.

See:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...IP%26W_JT9D.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Nov 1 2008, 05:25 PM
Post #29





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 747
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



The picture Leslie posted is from the Freshkill landfill, I came across the same photos on the FEMA website. It stated it came from Ground Zero not Church and Murray. Also DMole I did notice the scaffolding and can't help but wonder how the only thing the engine hit was the street sign. I will try to find the film footage again that shows that the yellow police tape up around this corner prior to the second hit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 1 2008, 06:17 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



That freshkills debris looks more like a Rolls RB211 to me than anything else I've seen yet. Problem is- weren't AA11 and UA175 both alleged to be B767-200's (which don't have Rolls RB211 engines)?

Jet Engines
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13951

Aerospaceweb is highly touted by Purdue FWIW- buyer beware:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/consp...rb211-535_3.jpg

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
keroseneaddict
post Nov 1 2008, 06:37 PM
Post #31





Group: Core Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 12-September 08
From: An Island off the coast of RSW
Member No.: 3,813



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 1 2008, 07:17 PM) *
That freshkills debris looks more like a Rolls RB211 to me than anything else I've seen yet. Problem is- weren't AA11 and UA175 both alleged to be B767-200's (which don't have Rolls RB211 engines)?

Jet Engines
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13951

Aerospaceweb is highly touted by Purdue FWIW- buyer beware:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/consp...rb211-535_3.jpg



Sorry for short post, just weighing in....I agree.....RB211 cleanup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 1 2008, 11:34 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



So to summarize then, we've seen photos of 2 different, incompatible engine types that in highest probability at the moment don't belong to UA175? Correct?

UA175 particulars at post #7:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10747474

B767-222 #N612UA B# 21873, PW JT9D-7R4D, Mode 3A 1470 > 3020 > 3321

EDIT: And "dung-bunkers"- be sure to note where Boeing has pointed that black arrow at the middle portion of their diagram... Rolls Royce RB211's do run N1, N2, and N3 by the way.

Now this is interesting...

http://www.757.org.uk/

"The hosting account for this website has expired. ..."

EDIT: Related info can be found (with several broken links) at:
http://911review.org/Wiki/WTCPlaneEngine.shtml
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post Nov 2 2008, 01:38 PM
Post #33





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 1 2008, 11:34 PM) *
Now this is interesting...

http://www.757.org.uk/

"The hosting account for this website has expired. ..."



The hosting account for this website has expired.

If you are the owner of this website, please login to your 123-reg control panel and renew your hosting package by visiting
http://www.123-reg.co.uk



hmmmm?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 2 2008, 03:39 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Did anyone hear about a surplus airplane parts sale near Iron Mountain a few years ago? whistle.gif

EDIT: The "debris trajectories" and "landing gear" are discussed at:

WTC1 Victim, Jim Gartenberg, "Core blown out"- calls ABC7 from floor 86 before Collapse
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....howtopic=14700j

Pics Of Landing Gear In Museum
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8925
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 12 2008, 12:00 AM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



The Pentagon's alleged "engine core" is discussed at:

Photo Analysis Of Pentagon Engine, Photo analysis Pentagon Engine Rolls Royce RB211
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=9037
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Dec 16 2008, 06:42 PM
Post #36





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 747
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



I checked on surveilance cams around the WTC and low and behold there is no security cams around Murray and Church. Landing gear at West and Rector, ditto.
http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/maps/nyc.pdf

go to 400% zoom.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 5 2009, 06:54 AM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 1 2008, 09:34 PM) *
So to summarize then, we've seen photos of 2 different, incompatible engine types that in highest probability at the moment don't belong to UA175? Correct?

UA175 particulars at post #7:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10747474

B767-222 #N612UA B# 21873, PW JT9D-7R4D, Mode 3A 1470 > 3020 > 3321

Thanks to a recent O892 post (linked in the Aircraft > Jet Engines thread), here are some engine diagrams:
-----
CFM engines:

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...fm/default.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...ion-cutaway.jpg


CFM 56
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...m56-cutaway.jpg


http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...6-2-cutaway.jpg

------
General Electric CF6-80

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...ge/default.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...cf6-cutaway.jpg


CF6-80C2

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...0c2-cutaway.jpg

------
Rolls Royce RB211-535

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...35/default.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...535-cutaway.jpg


http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...535-cutaway.jpg


http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photo...535-cutaway.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 5 2009, 10:59 AM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 31 2008, 05:30 AM) *
According to earlier info UA175 was fitted with JT9D engines. Quite different.

See:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...IP%26W_JT9D.jpg


QUOTE (dMole @ Nov 1 2008, 09:34 PM) *
So to summarize then, we've seen photos of 2 different, incompatible engine types that in highest probability at the moment don't belong to UA175? Correct?

UA175 particulars at post #7:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10747474

B767-222 #N612UA B# 21873, PW JT9D-7R4D, Mode 3A 1470 > 3020 > 3321
...

EDIT: Related info can be found (with several broken links) at:
http://911review.org/Wiki/WTCPlaneEngine.shtml

Well apparently according to Pratt & Whitney's website, "Although production ended in 1990, Pratt & Whitney continues to support the JT9D family."

http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templating/v...0000881000aRCRD

The Wiki is one of the only sources for diagrams or photos on this "obsolete" turbofan engine that my searches found recently (the same link that O892 provided above, I believe).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney_JT9D

Notice that there are some possibly circular "bosses" in the middle section in that JT9D photo that might look similar to the "fresh kills" engine core photo that Leslie posted at #26 above. Now where exactly did the other 3(+?) WTC engine cores go again????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aircraft...IP%26W_JT9D.jpg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 5 2009, 11:30 AM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Dec 16 2008, 04:42 PM) *
I checked on surveilance cams around the WTC and low and behold there is no security cams around Murray and Church. Landing gear at West and Rector, ditto.
http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/maps/nyc.pdf

go to 400% zoom.

Thanks Rico. Here are a couple of screencaps zoomed to 600% (look for the "I beam" cursor icon) for either intersection:

Church & Murray [CFM56 core?]
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/21003

West & Rector "landing gear"
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/21004
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Feb 5 2009, 03:13 PM
Post #40





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 747
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



100 Duane St. Firestation # 7 no cameras either as well as Church and Lipenard.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th November 2017 - 04:18 PM