IPB




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 )

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

Poacher
post Oct 21 2006, 06:50 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 122



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

www.911blogger.com/node/3935

It led me to a story on Rense here

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

This post has been edited by Poacher: Oct 21 2006, 06:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 21 2006, 06:59 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,717
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Poacher
post Oct 21 2006, 07:09 PM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 122



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

This post has been edited by Poacher: Oct 21 2006, 07:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Poacher
post Oct 29 2006, 12:59 PM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 122



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

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...p?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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Oct 30 2006, 08:58 AM
Post #5





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



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

this link seems relevent

this engine seems way to small for a 767
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
v2rot8
post Oct 31 2006, 05:59 PM
Post #6





Group: Guest
Posts: 22
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 22



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Dec 12 2006, 08:15 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



Big Junk: evidence planted?

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?

This post has been edited by JackD: Dec 12 2006, 08:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liberty-911
post Feb 25 2007, 05:22 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 17-February 07
Member No.: 627



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.

This post has been edited by liberty-911: Feb 25 2007, 05:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liberty-911
post Feb 26 2007, 08:03 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 17-February 07
Member No.: 627



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p.w.rapp
post Mar 18 2007, 05:49 PM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,743
Joined: 19-October 06
From: European Protectorate
Member No.: 110



Any news on that?
*curious*
Zap
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liberty-911
post Mar 19 2007, 05:50 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 17-February 07
Member No.: 627



Not yet, I got real busy, so I' ll try to reach him now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Mar 20 2007, 10:59 PM
Post #12


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
liberty-911
post Mar 21 2007, 07:10 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 17-February 07
Member No.: 627



I emailed the above photos to my buddy. I let you know when I hear something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Mar 26 2007, 08:09 PM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 26 2007, 10:09 PM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,942
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yeah, it sure seems pretty small to me. thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Mar 27 2007, 03:49 AM
Post #16


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



I recently read somewhere that it initially landed on a car, not the pavement. Sorry I don't have a link on that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
truthseeker
post Aug 15 2007, 07:47 PM
Post #17





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 15-August 07
Member No.: 1,712



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SlackerSlayer
post Jan 4 2008, 03:08 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 4-January 08
From: San Diego California USoA Earth Sol Milkyway Universe
Member No.: 2,625



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.

This post has been edited by SlackerSlayer: Jan 4 2008, 03:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 4 2008, 10:47 PM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,942
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 5 2008, 06:20 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

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



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

This post has been edited by dMole: May 22 2009, 02:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 27th November 2014 - 07:12 PM