Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ United 175 _ Can this be the engine from United 175?

Posted by: Poacher Oct 21 2006, 07:50 PM

I was browsing the 911blogger earlier today and saw a blog about the engine from the second plane that hit the towers.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3935

It led me to a story on Rense here

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetE.jpg

There is a pic four down that clearly shows an engine. I am presuming this was what seemed to fly out of the other side of the WTC on impact and land in the streets.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetE.jpg

Along with other photos, is it possible for an engineer to clarify the exact engine type and if it matches United 175 from these photos? I thought this forum might be the best place to get an answer or maybe help with a possible lead.

smile.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Oct 21 2006, 07:59 PM

From what i understand.. none of the parts from any of the aircraft were matched via serial numbers, tail numbers and maintenance logs...


nonono.gif

I have been in contact with Col. George Nelson at Scholars and we are trying to coordinate efforts.

Posted by: Poacher Oct 21 2006, 08:09 PM

Well, to be realistic 'they' are not about to release any evidence that would show non matching parts and will stonewall anyone asking for it.

But if this engine can be proved to be a certain type - and then proved not to match flight 175 then it is another smoking gun.

The photo seems quite detailed and it would take an expert to know, without any doubt, just what it is.

Anyone here know some engineers?

whistle.gif

Posted by: Poacher Oct 29 2006, 01:59 PM

I found another high res pic of an engine that may help idendification.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=498 &st=0

Its a big file and I am not sure it is the same engine but certainly it is an engine from the crash at the WTC.

Posted by: bill Oct 30 2006, 09:58 AM

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm

this link seems relevent

this engine seems way to small for a 767

Posted by: v2rot8 Oct 31 2006, 06:59 PM

It looks like the inner most core of an engine, sans blades and outer cowl/casing. That part of the engine would have the most integrity, and therefore, could stay intact, only to be hurdled out of the building.

Posted by: JackD Dec 12 2006, 09:15 PM

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm

The picture is taken sometime between 903am and 959am on 9/11.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/streetE.jpg

That is because you do not see the dust from WTC2 collapse yet.

It may just be me, but does the engine look to have a wee bit of rust or ferroxidation taking place, not just heat/fire/impact damage? as if it had in fact been damaged a while back, not minutes ago?

Then again, what does a freshly -crashed RB211 look like?

Posted by: liberty-911 Feb 25 2007, 06:22 PM

I work in a engine shop, I have the photo and will show my co-workers. The engines used on this type of aircraft are called high-bypass engines. Some of my co-workers have overhauled all types of high-bypass engines Pratt, G.E. and Rolls. Each engine is unique but they all have a few things in common. Like a LPC (Low Pressure Compressor) and a LPT (Low Pressure Turbine). The part I don't understand is what happened to the LPC? The shaft at the top of the engine in this photo is where a long steel shaft goes through, and it connects the low compressor to the low turbine. This shaft is about 700-900 pounds, 12-15 feet long, and between 1&1/2 to 2 inch wall thickness (all of these shafts are hollow) depending on the engine type. The question is how the middle part of the engine make it to the ground but the front part and the midshaft of the engine didn't? Now that I think about it the cooling ducts that you see in the photo (the things that look like air nozzles going around in a circle) are similar to a JT-8, but I'am not sure if a JT-9 has the same set up. For your information JT-8's are not high-bypass engines and are not on large aircraft like a B-757. Check back here tomorrow for the correct answer.

Posted by: liberty-911 Feb 26 2007, 09:03 PM

It seems that most agree that this is not a RB-211 nor CF-6 which leaves JT-9. The person that has the most experience on this engine is on vacation until next week. So I must wait until then to get expert advice. However, their are a few strange appearences, is a hammer handle sitting on top of the engine next to the wood used to sepparting two parts? It seems that it land perfectly verticle and it so happens that not one blade can be seen on the high pressure compressor which has close to 1,000 blades. Also, its diffult to make out if the bearing race is on or off of that shaft. Funny how things happen.

Posted by: Zapzarap Mar 18 2007, 06:49 PM

Any news on that?
*curious*
Zap

Posted by: liberty-911 Mar 19 2007, 06:50 PM

Not yet, I got real busy, so I' ll try to reach him now.

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 20 2007, 11:59 PM

So far these are the highest res. shots of that engine which I've run across:




Posted by: liberty-911 Mar 21 2007, 08:10 PM

I emailed the above photos to my buddy. I let you know when I hear something.

Posted by: JackD Mar 26 2007, 09:09 PM

engine mechanics -- what is likelihood engine crashes from 78th floor, bounces off street, and lands on its end like that? or is that the heavy part, like the old Weebles?

curious -- seems odd that engine is STANDING UP.

if you research that corner of lower NY on 9/11 -- you;'ll find why they call it "spooks corner"

JackD

Posted by: amazed! Mar 26 2007, 11:09 PM

Yeah, it sure seems pretty small to me. thumbdown.gif

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 27 2007, 04:49 AM

I recently read somewhere that it initially landed on a car, not the pavement. Sorry I don't have a link on that.

Posted by: truthseeker Aug 15 2007, 08:47 PM

QUOTE (liberty-911 @ Mar 21 2007, 07:10 PM)
I emailed the above photos to my buddy. I let you know when I hear something.

Just wondering, it's been almost 5 months since you posted this, and still nothing from your friend?

Thanks

Posted by: SlackerSlayer Jan 4 2008, 04:08 PM

QUOTE (liberty-911 @ Mar 21 2007, 07:10 PM)
I emailed the above photos to my buddy. I let you know when I hear something.

Wasn't this engine part determined long ago to be from a CFM56 that pushes 737's?

The people that are defending the official hoax have been saying it was junk dropped off a flatbed truck that morning, but that would bring up why they didn't use the same engine as those claimed to have flown into the towers.

In my own way, I've been trying to compare a 737-400 with what is seen on the videos flying into the tower. Any pilots have a look at this yet?

From what I've found on the net, a 737-400 is only decernable from a 767 in three locations, the nose, the end of the fuselage and the meeting point of the fuselage and rudder. The engines have a slightly different size ratio, but I can't tell in the pictures I've seen.

I came in here to post a topic on this so I'll leave any more to that.

Posted by: amazed! Jan 4 2008, 11:47 PM

Well the dimensions of the 737 and 767 are quite different, I would expect, not having flown one. Are you saying they have the same engines?

Posted by: dMole Jan 5 2008, 07:20 AM

Here's a photo of the business end of a [UNDAMAGED] CFM56 series without nacelle fairing:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CFM56_dsc04643.jpg


A few other views are available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cfm56-3-turbofan.jpeg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/CFM56

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM56

For the CFM56-2 series, the immediately above states:
"The 68.3in diameter fan has an airflow of 788lb/s."

As I recall, the B757/B767 engines have a 90+ inch FAN intake diameter. How this translates exactly to the (aft-end? jet) debris in the photo- I don't know. If any relevant Boeing or CFM/GE/PW/RR engine guys are lurking out there, please belly up to the bar.

Boeing's website was kind enough to provide me with some "coarse" airplane exterior CAD drawings that I am able to work with- thank you very much! I can try to put a B737/B757/B767 comparison drawing on my growing list of projects if necessary... doh1.gif

EDIT: I'd like to amend the OP "engine" terminology- the photos appear to be of the aft "high pressure" PORTION of a jet engine of some flavor. The "engine" proper would include much more machinery than the NYC curbside photos show.

EDIT2: I'm assuming that the green "MURR..." sign is about 4 inches "high." Can anyone from NYC confirm this, or possibly the dimensions of the hexagonal pole or square (4"?) bus station poles in the other photos? Crude size estimates could be scaled approximately if we knew the size of some other objects in the "engine" photos.

EDIT3: See also:
http://img54.echo.cx/img54/8073/streetengine1cutp9xi.jpg


http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

Posted by: dMole May 31 2008, 04:13 AM

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.

Posted by: dMole Oct 30 2008, 03:34 AM

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/systems/aircraft/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...

Posted by: Ricochet Oct 30 2008, 02:21 PM

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.

Posted by: dMole Oct 30 2008, 02:51 PM

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

Posted by: Omega892R09 Oct 30 2008, 04:10 PM

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.

Posted by: Leslie Landry Oct 31 2008, 12:35 AM



911Blogger.Com. This is an engine that was recovered at Ground Zero

Posted by: dMole Oct 31 2008, 12:55 AM

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 "

Posted by: Omega892R09 Oct 31 2008, 08:30 AM

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/commons/a/a6/Aircraft_engine_IP%26W_JT9D.jpg

Posted by: Ricochet Nov 1 2008, 06:25 PM

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.

Posted by: 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.php?showtopic=13951

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

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


Posted by: keroseneaddict Nov 1 2008, 07:37 PM

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.php?showtopic=13951

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

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



Sorry for short post, just weighing in....I agree.....RB211 cleanup.gif

Posted by: dMole Nov 2 2008, 12:34 AM

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.php?s=&showtopic=13951&view=findpost&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

Posted by: Leslie Landry Nov 2 2008, 02:38 PM

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?

Posted by: dMole Nov 2 2008, 04:39 PM

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.php?showtopic=14700j

Pics Of Landing Gear In Museum
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8925

Posted by: dMole Nov 12 2008, 01:00 AM

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

Posted by: Ricochet Dec 16 2008, 07:42 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.

Posted by: dMole Feb 5 2009, 07:54 AM

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.php?s=&showtopic=13951&view=findpost&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/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/tags/cfm/default.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/images/5593/cfm56-mdd-dc8-engine-installation-cutaway.jpg


CFM 56
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/images/5594/cfm56-cutaway.jpg


http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/images/5595/cfm56-2-cutaway.jpg

------
General Electric CF6-80

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/tags/ge/default.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/images/5588/boeing-747-pylon-and-ge-cf6-cutaway.jpg


CF6-80C2

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/images/5609/general-electric-ge-cf6-80c2-cutaway.jpg

------
Rolls Royce RB211-535

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/tags/rolls+royce/rb211-535/default.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/images/5630/roll-royce-rb211-535-cutaway.jpg


http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/images/5637/rolls-royce-rb211-535-cutaway.jpg


http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/aeroenginesjetcutaways/images/5645/rolls-royce-rb211-535-cutaway.jpg

Posted by: dMole Feb 5 2009, 11:59 AM

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/commons/a/a6/Aircraft_engine_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.php?s=&showtopic=13951&view=findpost&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/index.jsp?vgnextrefresh=1&vgnextoid=384a1a157e6db010VgnVCM1000000881000aRCRD

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_engine_IP%26W_JT9D.jpg

Posted by: dMole Feb 5 2009, 12:30 PM

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

Posted by: Ricochet Feb 5 2009, 04:13 PM

100 Duane St. Firestation # 7 no cameras either as well as Church and Lipenard.

Posted by: spellman Feb 18 2009, 08:05 AM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 20 2007, 11:59 PM) *
So far these are the highest res. shots of that engine which I've run across:

Mod edit: repeat pics removed.

looks like the same intact engine below......you all are paranoid. drawing too many unfounded conclusios, by finding information that helps promote your "big brother" ideas. get a grip all of you seriously

Posted by: Omega892R09 Feb 18 2009, 08:26 AM

QUOTE (spellman @ Feb 16 2009, 11:05 AM) *
looks like the same intact engine below......

Below what?
Was it necessary to repeat placing those images. Do you not know how to ref' other posts which would have done?
QUOTE
you all are paranoid. drawing too many unfounded conclusios,

Nope! Just recognise BS when we see or hear it.
QUOTE
by finding information that helps promote your "big brother" ideas. get a grip all of you seriously

You need to do one of two things:

wake up and smell the coffee

or

crawl back into your perp' supporters shell.

Posted by: georgie101 Feb 18 2009, 08:29 AM

You were fast Omega, you got there before me!

So spellman, where ya going to troll next?

Posted by: aerohead Jul 19 2009, 02:55 AM

Interesting thread.

I see debunker had shown up to
try to scare some off.
Not to worry.

All the 767's ive worked on had either the
Pratt J-T9D's or the GE CF-6.

All the 757's had the Rolls RB211 (triple spool)
or the Pratt 2040's.

All the DC-8's had the either JT-3D (60 series)
long duct and short duct, low bypass.
or the CFM56 (70 series) high bypass.


Well we know it wasnt a DC-8.

The key to these mangled engines
would be the serial numbers and the
fuel port bosses for the nozzles/injectors
and if it matches up to the blueprints as
to number, shape and size. There has been
some very good research in this thread. I will
dig a little in my manuals and see what i can come
up with to help out. I have gobs of resources
so its gonna take a little time.

In the meantime,
if these engines were planted by someone,
wouldnt they have gone to the trouble of putting
the correct serial numbers on the right type of
engine to help sell their story ?

Just a thought.
Be back soon.

Posted by: SwingDangler Jul 21 2009, 09:24 AM

I'm not an expert by any means, but why in the world would anyone, FBI for example, take the time to place a carpenters square on top of a engine in the middle of an "accident"/"terrorist attack"?

It looks like in this picture http://www.hybrideb.com/source/eyewitness/nyartlab/DSC07781.jpg someone has placed the carpenters square on top of the engine. I could understand the NTSB doing that, but the FBI??

What is the point or am I wrong in my thinking that the square is exactly that but instead a part of the engine? Perhaps the actions of a 'whistle blower'?

Posted by: albertchampion Jul 21 2009, 07:38 PM

i think that the implication has been that someone wanted everyone to know that this was not an engine from either of the purported "colliding with terrain" aircraft.

a collateral implication is that the "someone[s]" knew either before or immediately afterwards that there was going to be no formal NTSB investigation into the "accident[s]".

an insider's measuring device?

Posted by: JimMac Jul 22 2009, 12:04 AM

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jul 21 2009, 09:24 AM) *
I'm not an expert by any means, but why in the world would anyone, FBI for example, take the time to place a carpenters square on top of a engine in the middle of an "accident"/"terrorist attack"?

It looks like in this picture http://www.hybrideb.com/source/eyewitness/nyartlab/DSC07781.jpg someone has placed the carpenters square on top of the engine. I could understand the NTSB doing that, but the FBI??

What is the point or am I wrong in my thinking that the square is exactly that but instead a part of the engine? Perhaps the actions of a 'whistle blower'?


Not to get too picky, but this is a weird looking framing square. I don't think its an actual framing square although it might have started life as one. A framing square has a inch and half 'tongue' (the shorter and narrower of two arms) and the wider 2" arm, the blade, is the longer one. The blade in this case seems to have an extension riveted onto it, and the pivot point has some kind of circular thing attached to the angle base. Its also quite damaged, bits missing from the edge here and there, like it was oxidizing for a few years. Strange piece of metal, no longer a tool that's for certain.

Posted by: dMole Jul 22 2009, 03:48 AM

I think it is actually a special scale for forensic photography. I have been a sometime technical photographer (among wearing other hats) at a few of my jobs. They are used to show size, perspective, distance, etc. (I often used my handy-dandy engineers' ruler and/or scale or a meterstick for this purpose in my photos).

See my posts #8 and 9 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=13860&view=findpost&p=10771996

I will wager that is a "stock" item in an FBI forensic investigation kit. I DO wonder what ever happened to that engine debris though [cough * Iron Mtn * cough].

Posted by: paranoia Jul 22 2009, 07:57 PM

minus the drama, this thread contains an informative study of the engine and of its path:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/1829738/


have a look!
thumbsup.gif

Posted by: lunk Jul 23 2009, 05:38 PM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jul 22 2009, 04:57 PM) *
minus the drama, this thread contains an informative study of the engine and of its path:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpshitout/topic/1829738/


have a look!
thumbsup.gif


That whole thread is well worth reading. It conclusively throws the NPT out the window,
to the Church...on time.

Posted by: aerohead Jul 24 2009, 05:20 PM

It would be VERY easy to identify what plane
hit the towers. These engines are mangled beyond
belief, but if ANY serialized part to this plane was found,
it would tell the story.

With 16 yrs working experience as a mechanic on
Military and Commercial Aircraft, i can tell you that
EVERY part has a serial number, unless it
is an expendable part like a light bulb and such, and
if ANY part, like this engine, or any of its accessories,
or a flap, or landing gear parts, or brake stacks or wheels
or ANY other of the thousands of other serialized parts were found........
ANY OF THEM COULD TELL YOU WHICH PLANE IT CAME FROM.

All parts we replace, are documented in the aircraft log and
put into the permanent history of the plane, that follows the plane
for its entire life. This is an FAA Regulation and non negotiable.

It doesnt take an engine, only ONE serialized part.
Find it and you've found the plane.

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder Jul 24 2009, 06:51 PM

QUOTE (aerohead @ Jul 24 2009, 05:20 PM) *
It would be VERY easy to identify what plane
hit the towers. These engines are mangled beyond
belief, but if ANY serialized part to this plane was found,
it would tell the story.

With 16 yrs working experience as a mechanic on
Military and Commercial Aircraft, i can tell you that
EVERY part has a serial number, unless it
is an expendable part like a light bulb and such, and
if ANY part, like this engine, or any of its accessories,
or a flap, or landing gear parts, or brake stacks or wheels
or ANY other of the thousands of other serialized parts were found........
ANY OF THEM COULD TELL YOU WHICH PLANE IT CAME FROM.

All parts we replace, are documented in the aircraft log and
put into the permanent history of the plane, that follows the plane
for its entire life. This is an FAA Regulation and non negotiable.

It doesnt take an engine, only ONE serialized part.
Find it and you've found the plane.


Guess that's why the government won't release any of the original records from these planes. And why neither the NTSB nor anyone else was allowed to investigate these crashes.

Posted by: aerohead Jul 24 2009, 07:54 PM

QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jul 24 2009, 05:51 PM)
Guess that's why the government won't release any of the original records from these planes. And why neither the NTSB nor anyone else was allowed to investigate these crashes.



Ya, its truely disgusting.

But the whole thing is like that, isnt it.

They swept it ALL under the carpet so fast and
stalled the serverely underfunded and absolutely
incompetent investigation, and focused all our attention
on "getting the evil do'ers", "Shock and Awe" the "terrorists.
Meanwhile they hide the parts, recycle the steel, destroy the
evidence, keep pumping the cover story, doctor the films, and
poise themselves to make serious cash from the Wars.

Disgusting

Posted by: lookingfortheme Jul 26 2009, 05:40 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 30 2008, 10:10 PM) *
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.

The engine is a plant. No two ways about it.


True that engine should still be a good hunderd degress hot. And more imporaant it should be smoking! the left over turbine oil in the seals would smolder off for atleast a good 2 hours if that engine was at high power befor it was suddenly turned off. it also has a veryclean cobustion chamber seeing the evapourator pipes of the fuel injection system. no dust from flying through a building and bouncing off the street

Posted by: lunk Jul 27 2009, 01:18 AM

QUOTE (lookingfortheme @ Jul 26 2009, 02:40 PM) *
True that engine should still be a good hunderd degress hot. And more imporaant it should be smoking! the left over turbine oil in the seals would smolder off for atleast a good 2 hours if that engine was at high power befor it was suddenly turned off. it also has a veryclean cobustion chamber seeing the evapourator pipes of the fuel injection system. no dust from flying through a building and bouncing off the street

There is a picture of that engine with smoke still coming off of it.

It was seen in a number of videos flying from the corner of the tower,

It hit the corner of another building and dropped to the sidewalk below.

This engine was part of the plane that hit the second tower (WTC1).

This proves a plane hit the tower.

Posted by: dMole Sep 28 2009, 03:54 AM

QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 5 2008, 05:20 AM) *
Here's a photo of the business end of a [UNDAMAGED] CFM56 series without nacelle fairing:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CFM56_dsc04643.jpg


A few other views are available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cfm56-3-turbofan.jpeg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/CFM56

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM56

For the CFM56-2 series, the immediately above states:
"The 68.3in diameter fan has an airflow of 788lb/s."

Let's add a few more views of those CFM56's (one was linked above).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Cfm56-3-turbofan.jpeg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CFM56_P1220759.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56

Posted by: albertchampion Sep 28 2009, 09:25 PM

tell me, dmole, am i interpreting your pix accurately? are you trying to say that such an engine could not, in its entirety, fit in a trash basket?

and of course, the issue of the orchestrated, exec order prohibition to prevent collection, then identification of aircraft debris[those serialized parts] persists as what some of us might label as a "misprision of a felony[ies]".

Posted by: dMole Sep 28 2009, 10:22 PM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 28 2009, 07:25 PM) *
tell me, dmole, am i interpreting your pix accurately? are you trying to say that such an engine could not, in its entirety, fit in a trash basket?

and of course, the issue of the orchestrated, exec order prohibition to prevent collection, then identification of aircraft debris[those serialized parts] persists as what some of us might label as a "misprision of a felony[ies]".

The chickens appear to be pointing ALL their beaks that same direction, AC...

Posted by: Omega892R09 Sep 29 2009, 06:33 AM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Sep 26 2009, 11:25 PM) *
tell me, dmole, am i interpreting your pix accurately? are you trying to say that such an engine could not, in its entirety, fit in a trash basket?

An interesting question AC.

If a NY trash basket has a diameter of about 27 inches then it would fit.

Using a transparent measuring stick and taking lines from the first image placed by dMole in his #56 I measured the fan at about 9 cm and the N2 compressor casing forward of the burners where a compressor bleed pipe exits at 3.65 cm on my flat monitor.

3.65/9=0.405555 (a ratio so units can be dropped for next stage)

68.3 x 0.405555 = 27.699

I know not the dimensions of a NY trash basket though but a fit looks doubtful for part of a CFM56 unit.

Posted by: albertchampion Sep 29 2009, 09:33 PM

here's one for you.

for years i used to stay at the millenium hotel. across from the wtc buildings. i knew that area pretty well. walking it daily up into tribeca.

to some of my favorite restaurants.

as best i can recall, the last time i stayed down there was new year's 2000.

you know what, i don't recall seeing any trash cans anywhere.

perhaps the city put them out in that area in 2001.

if not, then that trash can is a subterfuge.

Posted by: dMole Sep 30 2009, 09:05 AM

It is worth revisiting this photo again- it is from the first page of this thread, I believe but I did not note the post # and I have needed to restart the computer a few times since then.

http://www.hybrideb.com/source/eyewitness/nyartlab/DSC07780.jpg



There is extensive cracking of the concrete visible in this photo. I would guess that is a "standard" 4-inch thick concrete sidewalk (but 6, 8, and 12 inches thick are also common pour thicknesses). The way that sidewalk has cracked, I am leaning toward a 4-inch thickness though.

Now in a freezing climate (like the NE Atlantic seaboard), ice is a likely culprit to crack concrete (and tree roots commonly do the same). I would think that a portion of a CFM56 turbofan falling from approx. 800 feet up could cause similar damage as well. The curious part is the scaffolding above/around this "debris" visible in some of the other photos from different angles.

In this "DSC07780" photo, I would estimate those sign/pole bases as a 4-inch square lightweight steel tube (stock from US steel suppliers is usually in 1/2 or 1-inch increments, and I would estimate those first 2 stands in my post #56 holding the various CFM56 engines as 2-inch square steel tube). I have been welding for nearly 30 years now, and I also own an engine hoist made of this same square tube, but in both 2" and 3" sizes, so I am reasonably certain on the square tubing sizes.

Here is an online steel tubing "line card" though:

http://www.metalsdepot.com/products/hrsteel2.phtml?page=sqtube&LimAcc=$LimAcc

From what I recall of those green reflective street signs, that "Murray" sign would also be very close to 4 inches high.

Now as to garbage cans or no, I would think that a tarp or two might have been available, even in "downtown?" Manhattan, and these come in many sizes. wink.gif

EDIT: Actually, there is a wire garbage can right next to the engine core portion at lunk's #55 above:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=636&view=findpost&p=10774415




2011 - see also: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21548&view=findpost&p=10800982

Posted by: NP1Mike Nov 27 2013, 08:36 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Sep 30 2009, 08:05 AM) *
It is worth revisiting this photo again- it is from the first page of this thread, I believe but I did not note the post # and I have needed to restart the computer a few times since then.

...There is extensive cracking of the concrete visible in this photo. I would guess that is a "standard" 4-inch thick concrete sidewalk (but 6, 8, and 12 inches thick are also common pour thicknesses). The way that sidewalk has cracked, I am leaning toward a 4-inch thickness though.



Hi folks, I suppose this is as good a post as any to make my debut here.
First let me make it as clear as possible, I am a genuine truther. My exact viewpoints on the details of 9/11 will come to light in my future posts.

As Lunk has pointed out, there is an extended thread about this engine on another site, which after many months (or longer), concludes that the engine is from a 767.

Many here still don't realize that the engine didn't fall 700+ feet and land smack on the sidewalk.
It hit a building first, which had to have greatly cushioned its fall.

It then ricocheted onto the street/sidewalk where it was finally discovered.

I made an amazing discovery by accident a month or so ago which convinced me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the engine came from the plane that hit WTC2. It all fits like a glove.

Do I know anything about engine types? No.
Do I know if the engine is from an 767? No. I'm just relying on that extensive thread where it was picked apart tooth and comb, and finally concluded to be a 767 engine.
Do I believe Flt. 175 hit WTC2? No.
I believe this engine came from another plane that hit the tower.




Posted by: amazed! Dec 1 2013, 11:52 AM

NP1Mike

I agree very much with what you say.

My guess is that the airplane was one from the batch delivered to USAF at MacDill as part of a KC-767 project, and that might explain how the engine in question is non-standard for the type.

Posted by: NP1Mike Dec 1 2013, 05:11 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2013, 10:52 AM) *
My guess is that the airplane was one from the batch delivered to USAF at MacDill as part of a KC-767 project, and that might explain how the engine in question is non-standard for the type.



I can go along with that. smile.gif

Posted by: JosephR Jun 12 2015, 03:52 PM

Greetings everyone! It doesn't look like this threat is active. Yet it should be. I also noticed that nobody seems to have identified the engine type on Murray Street. As a former aircraft mechanic, let me offer my research and contributions. What I am about to tell you is solid, but it will take me a while to round up my evidence and post unto this board. Please be advised that I've been harassed quite a few times by someone via the Internet, and because I'm using the dreaded Windows 8.1, backdoor access to my PC is unfortunately easy; not sure if a difference is made with prior Windows based operating systems.

MURRAY STREET ENGINE

The engine found on Murray Street not a CFM-6 engine as some of the disinformation video's have been showing on YouTube. The engine is from an older 747 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A or earlier engine. The evidence is in the Tobi-Tube ducts found at the end of the core. These were discontinued in 1983 when an upgraded version became available known as the JT9D-7R4D. The "R" stands for "Radial" cooling duct which enabled higher HPT (High Pressure Turbine) speeds by reducing airflow drag. It also enhanced engine performance and efficiency. The engine on Murray Street cannot be a JT9D-7R4D because the tobi-tube ducts were not used; only the Radial ducts. Tobi-Tube ducts were only available on -7A/J/F engines and not the -7R4D. The Tobi-Tube duct information can be found on one of its manufacturers known as Chrome Alloy. I created an account there last year and searched for the Radial Duct PN/SN for applicability to the 7R4D. The results showed that the Tobi-Tube duct does not fit the -7R4D, and is ONLY available on the older 747 engines (-7A/J/F).

Flight United used strictly Pratt & Whitney engines on their 767's. Towards the end of the 80's, a new 4000 series engine became standard. The end-item hull number of the 767 that struck the tower I believe was a 1986 model. And United Airlines did not use 1970's engines on 1980's aircraft; the FAA would not allow such a thing. That being said, then who's aircraft was it? There are only two agencies that I'm aware of that are not bound by FAA rules; that's NASA and the CIA. Thus it is my strongest opinion that the CIA in conjunction with Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) took an old 767 out of mothball, used 747 engines since the aircraft would not be carrying heavy luggage or passenger loads, and was turned into a drone aircraft. I believe the CIA conducted the 911 attacks, and I don't believe members of the USAF were aware of it, although some might have been informed.

The DoD generated a 911 style plan during the John F. Kennedy Presidency known as Operation Northwoods. O.N. involved a hijacking scenario of a plane with college students intended to be shot down over Cuba, giving the needed propaganda to start a war against Cuba. But JFK refused to allow the US to start wars as such. A real plane containing CIA actors (passengers) was to take off somewhere and land in Florida, while a drone aircraft would cross flight path spaces with the real jet, and the drone flies into Cuban space where it would be shot down by Air Force fighter jets disguised as enemy jets.

Summary:

The engine in Murray Street is an older JT9D-7A engine based on its Tobi-Tube Duct assembly which were ONLY used on 747's. The 767 which apparently struck the WTC building should have had a JT9D-7R4D or newer 4000 series engine, which neither were used. The FAA governs strict adherence to modification of any aircraft, except over NASA and the CIA. The 767 was likely a drone aircraft with light weight thus allowing for quick maneuvering and higher speeds. A pod appears to be visible on the lower right wing root, thus possibly proving that aircraft to be a drone.

Joe

Posted by: amazed! Jun 13 2015, 10:41 AM

Thanks for all that Joe, and welcome to the forum.

Your information could support my contention that the airplane we all saw strike the South Tower might very well have been from a batch of modified 767 aircraft delivered to USAF at MacDill as part of a program for an aircraft to replace the USAF tankers KC10 and KC135.

Because of course the military is also exempt from FAA requirements, besides CIA and other federal agencies.

As the story goes, those aircraft we modified in Israel, and apparently by a company at least partly controlled or owned by Dov Zakheim, at the time the comptroller of the Pentagon.

Oh, the web we weave....

Posted by: NP1Mike Jun 13 2015, 08:11 PM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 13 2015, 09:41 AM) *
As the story goes, those aircraft we modified in Israel, and apparently by a company at least partly controlled or owned by Dov Zakheim, at the time the comptroller of the Pentagon.

Oh, the web we weave....



And that's the story I am going with too because it makes the most sense (with everything else).

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 22 2015, 09:37 AM

QUOTE (JosephR @ Jun 13 2015, 05:22 AM) *
Greetings everyone! It doesn't look like this threat is active. Yet it should be. I also noticed that nobody seems to have identified the engine type on Murray Street. As a former aircraft mechanic, let me offer my research and contributions. What I am about to tell you is solid, but it will take me a while to round up my evidence and post unto this board. Please be advised that I've been harassed quite a few times by someone via the Internet, and because I'm using the dreaded Windows 8.1, backdoor access to my PC is unfortunately easy; not sure if a difference is made with prior Windows based operating systems.

MURRAY STREET ENGINE

The engine found on Murray Street not a CFM-6 engine as some of the disinformation video's have been showing on YouTube. The engine is from an older 747 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A or earlier engine. The evidence is in the Tobi-Tube ducts found at the end of the core. These were discontinued in 1983 when an upgraded version became available known as the JT9D-7R4D. The "R" stands for "Radial" cooling duct which enabled higher HPT (High Pressure Turbine) speeds by reducing airflow drag. It also enhanced engine performance and efficiency. The engine on Murray Street cannot be a JT9D-7R4D because the tobi-tube ducts were not used; only the Radial ducts. Tobi-Tube ducts were only available on -7A/J/F engines and not the -7R4D. The Tobi-Tube duct information can be found on one of its manufacturers known as Chrome Alloy. I created an account there last year and searched for the Radial Duct PN/SN for applicability to the 7R4D. The results showed that the Tobi-Tube duct does not fit the -7R4D, and is ONLY available on the older 747 engines (-7A/J/F).

Flight United used strictly Pratt & Whitney engines on their 767's. Towards the end of the 80's, a new 4000 series engine became standard. The end-item hull number of the 767 that struck the tower I believe was a 1986 model. And United Airlines did not use 1970's engines on 1980's aircraft; the FAA would not allow such a thing. That being said, then who's aircraft was it? There are only two agencies that I'm aware of that are not bound by FAA rules; that's NASA and the CIA. Thus it is my strongest opinion that the CIA in conjunction with Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) took an old 767 out of mothball, used 747 engines since the aircraft would not be carrying heavy luggage or passenger loads, and was turned into a drone aircraft. I believe the CIA conducted the 911 attacks, and I don't believe members of the USAF were aware of it, although some might have been informed.

The DoD generated a 911 style plan during the John F. Kennedy Presidency known as Operation Northwoods. O.N. involved a hijacking scenario of a plane with college students intended to be shot down over Cuba, giving the needed propaganda to start a war against Cuba. But JFK refused to allow the US to start wars as such. A real plane containing CIA actors (passengers) was to take off somewhere and land in Florida, while a drone aircraft would cross flight path spaces with the real jet, and the drone flies into Cuban space where it would be shot down by Air Force fighter jets disguised as enemy jets.

Summary:

The engine in Murray Street is an older JT9D-7A engine based on its Tobi-Tube Duct assembly which were ONLY used on 747's. The 767 which apparently struck the WTC building should have had a JT9D-7R4D or newer 4000 series engine, which neither were used. The FAA governs strict adherence to modification of any aircraft, except over NASA and the CIA. The 767 was likely a drone aircraft with light weight thus allowing for quick maneuvering and higher speeds. A pod appears to be visible on the lower right wing root, thus possibly proving that aircraft to be a drone.

Joe


Dear, 'JosephR'

Thank you for your explanation.

I must admit that I do not think the actual aircraft that hit Tower Two was anything like the size of a Boeing 767.
As I have expressed elsewhere there are literally "Heinz Variety" of differently configured and sized aircraft contained in the various videos said to have been captured when an aircraft of some type hit Tower Two.
My earlier considerations were that the engine pieces filmed at the time of 9/11 and subsequently could have been from a Pratt and Whitney J57 turbo jet engine.
I have since convinced myself that is not the case: by consideration of the configuration of the various porting on the remains of the cores, the type of combustion chamber design and the existence of the Tobi- Tube Duct assembly: which on the evidence of the technical
material that has come available seems to be only applicable to the engines used on the Boeing 747s.

As you have expressed: it would have had to have been a modified Boeing 767 to have used the JT9D-7A engine.

Equally: it could have been another type of modified aircraft which could have had the JT9D-7A engines fitted.
Especially if it was planned to impress upon everybody that it was a Pratt and Whitney turbofan powered aircraft which hit the tower.

Very early in the piece I remember that somebody who actually saw the aircraft that hit Tower Two commented that the aircraft had unusual engines.
Perhaps that person recognised the type of aircraft involved and realised it was not being powered by the normal engines for that type of aircraft.

I have read that apparently the core located at Church and Murray street ended up buried in the 9/11 debris landfill: if it should not have: where is it?

There appear to have been various other pieces of engine placed in various exhibits and museums: are these still available for physical investigation?

Regardless of what aircraft those bits of engine may have been part of: if they are not from the type of engine that was fitted to a United Airlines Boeing 767: there needs to be a very good explanation given as to why not.

Which would be up to United Airlines to provide.

Robert S







Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)