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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The PenRen Generator?, split & merged threads

Ricochet
post May 14 2008, 01:36 AM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Would anyone like to discuss the generator trailer? Triaxle, 8'6 x 40' x 13'6"

[EDIT: Generator posts split from here by d:

What Hit The Pentagon? Nothing., Listened to this yesterday
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...=12341&st=0 ]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 26 2008, 03:09 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Ricochet @ May 13 2008, 11:36 PM) *
Would anyone like to discuss the generator trailer? Triaxle, 8'6 x 40' x 13'6"

Yes Rico, I finally would like to discuss the trailer. wink.gif

My searches came up with your posts at #14:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10750241

#3:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10744582

#5:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10744477

and #126:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10741718

I could try to prune these, or you could paste the important parts here. Perhaps the generator trailer deserves its own thread (and I could move the posts above and possibly replies, but that gets messier) to the new thread. If the discussion stays focused on the trailer topic below, it would be pretty easy for me to move/split generator/trailer posts to a new topic (in Pentagon location, I would think).

What prompted all this was a photo of the damaged, fenced-off trailer that I found today at Nevada Rep. Berkley's website:

http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/press_r...f_crashsite.jpg


From:
http://berkley.house.gov/legis/otr/press_r..._2001_0913.html

Have you got any other helpful diagrams or photos? Also, let me know if you want the trailer as a separate thread.

d
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Sep 26 2008, 10:13 AM
Post #3


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



A blowup of the gen trailer and the original Berkley photo. (Click me)


This post has been edited by SPreston: Sep 26 2008, 10:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 27 2008, 04:56 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



I hope Rico (and JFK) are still around.

Here is a representative drawing of Ricochet's 8'6" x 13'6" x 40' 0" trailer scaled near the ["flat" zero bank & pitch] Boeing provided B757-200 CAD drawing. I was having troubles getting a .PDF written though, so it's a lower-quality screen capture. I can rotate the CAD image fairly easily for bank and/or pitch now.



EDIT: Better server:
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/20892

I have "dropped" 2 more versions of the trailer "box" to 6 feet and to 12 feet below the hypothetical B757-200. The highest yellow "generator" box is flush with the B757 turbofan nacelles (at the bottom or "ground level"). The cyan box is dropped 6 feet and right, with the bottom box dropped 6 feet down and right some more for visibility.

Oh yes, all of the dimensions are feet' inches" with [meters] in brackets.

Have you got a weight or mass for this trailer in question Rico? I'm interested in another momentum transfer "collision" calculation. Post #30:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10744451

[O892, "OKC" or "OK bomb" is slang on this side of the pond for the all-too-forgotten Murrah attack. wink.gif ]

EDIT: There did appear to be a ~3" discrepancy in the B757-200 CAD drawing's vertical stabilizer (tail) height, for 0.57% difference from the popularly-quoted Boeing specifications. I could have re-scaled the Boeing drawing but didn't bother.

Aircraft terminology reference
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/airplane.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jan 18 2009, 03:42 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



QUOTE
Have you got a weight or mass for this trailer in question Rico? I'm interested in another momentum transfer "collision" calculation. Post #30:

IF (big if), the generator trailer was truely what it appeared to be, a stand alone diesel powered generator housed in a semi-trailer the statistics would be about: trailer 10,000 #, container 5000#, gen-set (actual diesel generator) 45,000# + or-3000#. A semi tractor that hauls this trailer would be about 20,000#, thus the configuration of most commercial vehicles in the U.S. that have a GVW (gross vehicle weight) of a combined weight of 80,000#. Look at ant semi-tractor trailer Tandem / Tandem (2 axle) and you will see this on the side of the truck (required by law). The actual weight of this unit should be higher because the trailer with the gen-set is a TRI-axle (3 axle grouping) distributing more weight over a longer wheel base allowing for a heavier payload to be transported. Many states will not even allow tridems to be used on thier roads because of heavy wear on the surface. The exception is a single non- reducible load such as the trailer in question. Now with that out of the way consider a trailer without the truck under the front (this is where the term semi truck comes from 1/2 the weight is on the tandem drive axles) the weight rests on landing gear which is just 2 hollow tubes with foot pads holding it up with a few cross members for support. I have seen trailers fall over due to drivers lowering the landing gear down but not all the way and dropping the trailer only a few inches above the ground, when they detach and pull out from under the trailer the shock load to the landing legs is enough to bucke the system. The trailer either pushes the landing legs into the trailer nose diving or topples over. Now consider 50,000# above 4' (deck height) higher centre of gravity being violently hit from the side and moved laterally about 15 '. Inertia is going to flip that sucker over, the landing legs WILL buckle. I do not care if that trailer was hit by a 757, Tomahawk or Daffy Duck doing 500 mph it will roll. They were not designed to sustain lateral stresses only static vertical weight. Ask any trucker.

This post has been edited by Ricochet: Jan 18 2009, 03:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 19 2009, 07:42 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Jan 18 2009, 12:42 AM) *
Now consider 50,000# above 4' (deck height) higher centre of gravity being violently hit from the side and moved laterally about 15 '. Inertia is going to flip that sucker over, the landing legs WILL buckle. I do not care if that trailer was hit by a 757, Tomahawk or Daffy Duck doing 500 mph it will roll. They were not designed to sustain lateral stresses only static vertical weight. Ask any trucker.

Thanks to one of our stalking internet trolls, I looked closer at the hypothetical lightpole collision on a couple of other threads.

First- the deformed trailer is alleged to have been in an inelastic collision according to official DoD sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision

Depending on the coefficient of restitution, the trailer should have picked up momentum from a hypothetical B757-200. For the sake of argument, let's use these impact parameters:

m1=127810 lb, m2 = [50K, 60K, 70K, 80K lb], v1 = 777.33 fps, v2= 0.00 fps

V_2f := ((C_R+1)*M_1*V_1 + V_2(M_2-C_R*M_1))/(M_1+M_2)

I figured the post-"collision" velocites for hypothetical generator trailers weighing 50K, 60K, 70K and 80K lbs, just as a "what if."

Here is my spreadsheet graph for the above values:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/18980

If coefficient of restitution C_R=0, then the 50K lb. trailer would have "stuck" to the hypothetical B757-200, and they should both have been traveling at 558.75 fps toward/into the Pentagon. I only figured the "perfectly inelastic" case for a hypothetical 50,000 lb trailer, but you should be able to tell from the chart where a 60K, 70K, or 80K trailer would fall (although the slope of the B757-200 velocity line should change somewhat for those cases).

These spreadsheet calculations are based upon a 1D collision model, with the coordinate system in common with the B757-200 aircraft momentum vector line. (Only "straight line" vector velocities were considered in this simplified case). Actual 3D collision dynamics would likely require Finite Element Analysis (FEA), and I may have some resources to eventually do that for this generator "collision."

The related lightpole chart is at post #36 on another thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10755951

For comparison purposes, a 'modern' .22LR (Long Rifle cartridge) is around 1000 fps and a top-of-the-line PSE compound bow fires arrows in the 350 fps range.

http://www.huntersfriend.com/2008-PSE-X-Fo...ompound-bow.htm

EDIT: I just re-uploaded the CAD drawing from post #42 to a better server:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/18981
Reason for edit: Added CAD image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 19 2009, 10:53 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



Actually, using the last recorded SSFDR Gross Weight of 181520 lbs from post #4:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10762909

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/18841

the trailer would have been hit harder. Here is a gross weight-adjusted version of the above (that used the dry, empty B757-200 weight for a conservative estimate).

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/19001

This would push the "stuck" perfectly inelastic case to 609.46 feet/sec for the B757-200/Generator Trailer hybrid (for the 50K lb. case only).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Feb 4 2009, 05:04 PM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



dMole, I would like you to try a new calculation. Take projectile that is heavily armoured, weight 7000 kg (15,400 lbs), increase the speed to 1.5 mach (1100 mph). I believe this would be the force it would take to move the trailer laterally without knocking it over, a sharp impact at a higher rate of speed. I think I can solve the light pole problem at the same time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 4 2009, 07:52 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Feb 4 2009, 02:04 PM) *
... projectile ... weight 7000 kg (15,400 lbs), increase the speed to 1.5 mach (1100 mph) .... a sharp impact at a higher rate of speed.

That gives a Kinetic Energy (KE) of 1689.1 Mega-Joules [1.6891E+09 J, or 1.2458E+09 ft-lbs of energy], Rico.

1100 MPH ~ 955.87 kts ~ 1613.33 fps ~ 491.744 m/sec of purely hypothetical projectile speed.

Here is a "final velocity collision chart" for those parameters (with the same 50K, 60K, 70K, and 80K-lb trailer assumptions), and the projectile would "run out of momentum," (possibly "bounce" or be destroyed) at about Coefficient of Restitution ~=0.3.

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/20893

I did NOT change the C.R. scale to cut off that "disallowed momentum" region (CR >=0.3), though- I left it for convenience perhaps. This and the lightpole thing are entirely hypothetical exercises, anyway...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 5 2009, 09:04 PM
Post #10





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



I have huge problems with the word "projectile" being used to describe or otherwise being associated with these planes.

A "projectile" by definition is designed to concentrate its mass at the business end - the point - in order to penetrate something. Part of that design is making it of some material likely to produce that effect.

The mass of an airplane is not concentrated - it is spread out along the wings. Moreover, it is made of light weight metals that are intended to allow iy to fly which is the exact opposite of hardened metals that would allow it to penetrate something.

In short, an airplane is not a bullet. The unwarranted use of this word a priori is just another example of Cheap Jedi Mind Tricks. Not that I want to be a Language Nazi, but the other side did it first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 5 2009, 10:25 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 5 2009, 06:04 PM) *
I have huge problems with the word "projectile" being used to describe or otherwise being associated with these planes.

A "projectile" by definition is designed to concentrate its mass at the business end - the point - in order to penetrate something. Part of that design is making it of some material likely to produce that effect.

Ummm, incorrect TN. While others are free to determine their personal usage of the word, I will stick with the scientific (often vector-based) definition(s). I know that the "m" word gets people "edgy," so I specifically avoided that one.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/vectors/U3L2a.cfm

"A projectile is an object upon which the only force acting is gravity. There are a variety of examples of projectiles. An object dropped from rest is a projectile (provided that the influence of air resistance is negligible). An object which is thrown vertically upward is also a projectile (provided that the influence of air resistance is negligible). And an object is which thrown upward at an angle to the horizontal is also a projectile (provided that the influence of air resistance is negligible). A projectile is any object which once projected or dropped continues in motion by its own inertia and is influenced only by the downward force of gravity."

There are other applicable definitions in common usage, too:

http://www.answers.com/topic/projectile

"n.

1. A fired, thrown, or otherwise propelled object, such as a bullet, having no capacity for self-propulsion.
2. A self-propelled missile, such as a rocket.
...

US Military Dictionary: projectile
n. 1. a missile designed to be fired from a rocket or gun.

2. an object propelled through the air, especially one thrown as a weapon: they tried to shield Johnson from the projectiles that were being thrown.

adj. of or relating to such a missile or object: a projectile weapon.
...
Sports Science and Medicine: projectile

Any airborne object, such as a human body during a jump, a football kicked in the air, and a javelin in flight, that is subject only to the forces of gravity and air resistance. A projectile's motion is determined by three main mechanical factors: angle of projection, the projectile's initial speed (see speed of release), and relative height of projection.
..."


I'm skipping the medical defintion, because that one is pretty disgusting. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 6 2009, 09:31 AM
Post #12





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi dMole!

QUOTE
Ummm, incorrect TN.


Yep, your right and the use of "projectile" is proper. . Sorry about that. It's just that lately all my antennae start to quiver when I see possible "loaded" or emotionally charged words.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Feb 6 2009, 09:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Feb 6 2009, 12:31 PM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



I have not heard a convincing argument that an airplane was involved at the Pentagon. Thanks for the caculations dMole.

This post has been edited by Ricochet: Feb 6 2009, 12:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 16 2011, 05:22 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 16 2011, 02:59 PM) *
I believe it was in that original position in front of the facade, caught on those very early images.
Nor do I believe that a plane "impacted" or caused any of that damage.

I haven't ruled out the possibility that the [PenRen Project?] forklift was rolled somehow before any Pentagon wall damage actually occurred- forklifts are actually one of the easier vehicles to overturn because of their C.G./'stability triangle' issues...

On the diesel 'genny'- I do know that diesel engines are used deep down inside coal mines for several reasons (asphyxiation and methane pocket explosion mitigation being 2 of many, but my brother and a friend's brother are the 'experts' on MSHA regulations).

Also this is a BLATANT LIE:

QUOTE
Diesel is available at all gas stations and is protected in a can.


I've had to search, call ahead, and navigate/plan for hundreds of miles in advance before to find diesel #2 fuel when traveling in a diesel vehicle of someone else's. Hydrogen, natural gas, propane, and electric vehicles suffer from the same availability restriction (if not much worse than diesel).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 16 2011, 06:13 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 16 2011, 02:59 PM) *
And compare that to the immediate inferno allegedly erupting in the generator trailer.
I've searched for safety features on these monsters and so far have just found non specific details about the much smaller generators.

Although I thought this was 'common knowledge' (and probably still is out in more rural areas), I think this is probably what OSS was looking for:

QUOTE
Advantages of Clean Diesel

With all of the technology choices available, the U.S. military has selected clean diesel for some of its most cutting-edge new vehicles due to its power, durability and efficiency. The LTA hybrid military vehicle combines advanced diesel engines and hybrid electric drivetrains. In addition, the Coast Guard's newest harbor patrol boats and the Navy's amphibious force vessels are all powered by these renowned engine systems.

National and state laws require that hospitals and emergency services maintain backup power at all times. The portability and reliability of clean diesel stationary generators helps meet this need.

In addition, the low volatility of diesel fuel offers significant safety advantages in military operations. Diesel powered vehicles are less likely to explode during accidents and combat, helping to protect the lives of soldiers.


http://www.dieselforum.org/uses/public-hea...meland-security

QUOTE
Why Are Diesel Engines Used?

Diesel engines are used for one or more of the following reasons: (1) energy efficiency, (2) packaging efficiency, (3) durability/reliability, and (4) fuel safety.

Energy efficiency. The single most important reason that diesel engines are used in most applications is their superior energy efficiency. Where both diesel engines and spark-ignition engines have reasonably equivalent power output characteristics, the diesel will consume less fuel in performing the same work. How much less fuel the diesel engine will use varies with the application, but typical estimates range between 25 percent and 35 percent.

Packaging efficiency. Spark-ignition engines are not a viable alternative to diesel engines for applications requiring high power output at low speeds. All internal combustion engines produce high temperatures inside their cylinders, but spark-ignition engines generally run hotter than compression-ignition engines and, therefore, require more cooling.2 Generally speaking, spark-ignition engines do not exceed ten liters (600 in 3 ) in displacement and are not used in applications where power requirements exceed about 400 horsepower.

Durability and reliability. Diesel engines are legendary for their durability and reliability. One major diesel engine manufacturer recently tore down a randomly selected 412 horsepower heavy truck engine that had been driven 800,000 miles. The engine was a 1996 model that had been hauling average loads of 80,000 pounds at an average driving speed of 63.1 mph. The engine was judged to be capable of going another 250,000 miles before an overhaul was needed. The latest, most powerful AC diesel railroad freight locomotives have a six-year engine overhaul period, a scheduled maintenance interval of 122 days, and a MTBF (mean time between failure) target of 140 days. Large ocean-going ships, typically equipped with only a single engine, trust their safety and the safety of their crew and cargoes to the reliability of diesel engines.

Fuel safety. Diesel fuels generally are less volatile and, therefore, safer to store and handle than the fuels used in spark-ignition engines. This lower fuel volatility is another characteristic that dictates the use of diesel engines in certain applications. Fire fighting equipment, ambulances, military vehicles, boats, school buses, and engines used in certain stationary applications rely on diesel power, at least in part, because of the low volatility and, hence, greater safety of diesel-type fuels.

http://www.catiusa.com/DIESELFACTS.htm

Then there IS this little 'factoid...':

QUOTE
Q: Can you light diesel fuel with a match?
In: Science, How-To

A: If you put a lighted match into diesel it goes out. This is because the fuel is not very volatile - not enough evaporates to make a fuel air mixture that will burn. It is still usefull as a fuel because if it is heated it becomes much more volatile. So if you use a wick (where the fuel in the wick can be heated along with the wick) it will burn just fine.
In a diesel engine the fuel is heated by spraying it into very hot air. With a lower vapor pressure, and higher flash point > 60 oC... I'll grant that it is less flammable than gasoline. However, it is not accurate to say that diesel is not flammable.

The National Fire Protection Agency gives it a flammability rating of 2 (on a scale of 0 to 4). Any material safety data sheet (MSDS) that you look up for diesel will tell you that it is flammable.

Refer to the following url for facts about diesel:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/EileenTang.shtml


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_light_di...el_with_a_match
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 16 2011, 07:10 PM
Post #16





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi All!

I'm following up on what dMz said about the relatively low volatility of diesel, propane and other commonly used fuels for common purposes, and the obvious good reasons for using such low volatility fuels when you can have just about any spazz using them(1).

Jet f fuel is more akin to kerosene, which is the common Coleman Stove fuel, and also more akin to diesel and propane, in terms of less volatility. So, for the above given reasons as well as its inherent proximity to commercial airline passengers and likely involvement in disasters that are also likely involve such passengers.

What this means is that for the same reasons that these fuels are not likely to result in secondary pyrotechnics at the Pentagon, they are also not likely to result in the type of "Hot Jet Fuel Fires" that are essential to collapsing the WTC's, and thus also essential to the Official Conspiracy Theory. The WTC's are what really matter, because once you accept this as false the Pentagon must also fall as false, regardless of details such as the fuel source for the things around the Pentagon that appear in the photos.

Napoleon said that all he worried about was destroying the enemy' main body; after that, secondary matters will settle themselves. The WTC's are the enemy's main body, the fuel for things around the Pentagon are secondary matters..

_______________________________
(1) After all, it is known in advance that a high percentage of the campers using these types of fuels in Coleman Stoves and backyard barbecue's are "partying" at he same time. At least that's been my experience!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 16 2011, 07:26 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



You're a legend d!

Just what I was looking for.

thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif

I'd say that there had to have been a very stringent safety measure for such a big motor if there actually was a generator in that trailer I have to add.



...and of course not forgetting to take these into account:



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Mar 16 2011, 07:46 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Mark)
What this means is that for the same reasons that these fuels are not likely to result in secondary pyrotechnics at the Pentagon, they are also not likely to result in the type of "Hot Jet Fuel Fires" that are essential to collapsing the WTC's, and thus also essential to the Official Conspiracy Theory. The WTC's are what really matter, because once you accept this as false the Pentagon must also fall as false, regardless of details such as the fuel source for the things around the Pentagon that appear in the photos.

Napoleon said that all he worried about was destroying the enemy' main body; after that, secondary matters will settle themselves. The WTC's are the enemy's main body, the fuel for things around the Pentagon are secondary matters..


Hi Mark,

Sorry man, I have to disagree.
The two main approaches to Manhattan and the Pentagon are one and the same. Both concentrate on two main weapons we have against the OCT in the two areas due to disinfo and blanket censorship of evidence.
Physics and observation.

The towers' collapses defy physics and observation of images, videos and witness accounts.
The Pentagon is no different.

The reason I started this thread was to log and time (at least attempt to with the very little imagery we have, much of it from dubious sources/origins).
Rob and the guys have torn the FDR to shreds.
CIT have done extensive research on witnesses and testimonies to the point of making the necessary official path pure invention.
I wanted to look at the lawn area, facade and alleged damage path to dispel the "debris", "showers of aircraft aluminium on the heliport" and "the damage is consistent with a 757 impact" myths or at least look at them in closer detail.
What I didn't want was the thread to be derailed by the various (mostly) genuine beliefs of other posters as to what actually happened and stick to what we can all see and rule out.

What was the point of your post Mark? Move along, nothing to see here? Give it up? I know your intentions are above board but if you feel that way, you don't have to read it. Your post added nothing nor took anything away.

Cheers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 17 2011, 02:28 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

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



Related threads at:

Flight Path And Pentagon Destruction Path
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16215

What Hit The Pentagon? Nothing., Listened to this yesterday
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...=12341&st=0

Pentagon Damage Analysis, split from Leo Titus thread.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5505

Pentagon Lawn Images, Chronological order
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21156
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 17 2011, 03:20 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 16 2011, 05:26 PM) *
Just what I was looking for.

I'd say that there had to have been a very stringent safety measure for such a big motor if there actually was a generator in that trailer I have to add.

http://i54.tinypic.com/6hkbo8.jpg

...and of course not forgetting to take these into account:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...%202/PBPT-1.png

I saved this image long ago, but I don't recall the source (or whether it is valid/accurate for the Pen-Ren "generator" trailer in question):


If we assume that was an Enercon Engineering, Inc. 750-775 kW Generator Trailer, there is a newer sales brochure here:

http://www.enercon-eng.com/index.php?actio...om474c54428ed59

see page 2 specifically for the Container Generator Module:


That unit looks awfully similar to several generators that I photographed while touring a landfill methane recovery Power Generation Facility several years ago. (I recall these being ~ 1 MegaWatt (MW) per GenSet instead of 750-775 kW, but I'm not absolutely certain on any of these numbers).

Here is that 10-cylinder turbocharged 'beast':

Note that the approx. 8-10 inch black pipe at upper right is the natural gas/air supply "fuel" pipe. The green and blue pipes go to the external cooling system, as I recall. Note the multiple electric batteries, which are some of the largest that I have seen anywhere.

To give an idea of the size of this engine, here is a photo that I took standing nearby one of those ubiquitous orange 'smallish' (I'd estimate 3500-5000 lb. capacity) propane-[or possibly natural gas]-powered forklifts:

Note the cooling unit with its associated blue & green pipes above/behind the forklift rollcage, and the rather large black muffler protruding from the generator container roof. You can also see another identical generator unit- the dark box, the corner of which is visible behind/above the silvery, beer-keg-looking propane (or possibly natural gas) tank on the orange forklift.

Here is another view of the external liquid cooling system, showing 2 fans that 'air cool' the engine compartment when the "noise doors" are closed:


Regarding the "stringent safety measures," you can see the Enercon Generator Control Panel at left in this photo (the right panel is for the tie to the utility power grid, as I recall):

As you can see, it is fully computer automated with a full display panel (which doesn't show very well in this photo), and your basic OFF-ON-START switch(es) and a BIG RED "panic button" for emergency shutdown.

A little more about Enercon:
http://www.pjstar.com/business/x1260129843...pany-atmosphere
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th August 2019 - 01:10 AM