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 ]

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

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

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

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. ]

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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...

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.

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.

Hi dMole!



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.

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

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:



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).

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:



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


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

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



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_light_di...el_with_a_match

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!

You're a legend d!

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.



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

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.

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

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

Gathering up a few generator images from the "Pentagon Lawn" thread, including this excellent high-res from Island Pilot's recent #73:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10796330

http://i.imgur.com/XEo79.jpg

OSS #63:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10796269

Bumping the engine manufacturer from "Caterpillar" to "Any" and the power range to 750-1250 kW, this popped up in a very quick search:


http://www.uspowerco.com/used/diesel-gener...diesel-1876.htm

That looks somewhat close (in fresh white/red/yellow 'livery' though)...

EDIT: That gives this 'wider' search link (and prices from $35K-$400K or "please call"):
http://www.uspowerco.com/used/750kw-1250kw/diesel-generators

Hi TN,

I think you might be mixing up the different physical properties of several different kinds of fuels here.

First there is quite a bit of information about Jet A and Jet A-1 "jet fuel" on this thread:
Jet Fuel Burn Rates
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...ic=28&st=20

Jet A is basically kerosene (which is also essentially Diesel #1 fuel oil):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil
------
"Coleman stove fuel" could be taken to mean White Gas/naphtha, or else canistered (LP gas) propane, or even unleaded automotive-grade "mogas" gasoline (more recently), depending upon whose "Coleman stove" and what vintage. I remember seeing some "dual fuel" Coleman stoves and lanterns a few years back that would use either unleaded automotive gasoline or White Gas (with the White Gas likely being "hotter" and far "cleaner").

White gas/naphtha is HIGHLY volatile, and burns relatively "hot" and "clean" compared to other liquid hydrocarbons (being a relatively low molecular weight petroleum distillate).



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



http://www.coleman.com/coleman/colemancom/choose_fuel.asp

I remember hearing some 'old timer Conoco station rumors' that White Gas compared to "avgas", but that was before my time and I will "neither confirm nor deny" on that part and I make no guarantees here on any of that, and the specific formulations and properties of specific liquid hydrocarbons can and have changed over time.
---------
Personally, I would classify propane (and natural gas/methane) as fuel/explosive (or else they would not work very well in "spark ignition" internal combustion engines, but I digress). In fact, flour and some dusts can also behave in the fuel/explosive category (similar to propane) in certain conditions:


http://www.firerescue1.com/volunteer/artic...ssistant-chief/


http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-grain-elevato...0,7340334.story

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

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


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/the-explosive-t/

Incidentally, I have found that propane stoves, lanterns, and torches do not work well (or sometimes at all) at elevations above 7500 feet, especially in "cold" temperatures.
-------
Here's a little bit about aviation fuel or "avgas" (and both the elevation and "cold" factors have HUGE implications in this context re: carburetor icing, engine timing, etc.):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas
-------
Personally, I have tried to transition from both propane and "Coleman fuel" to "woodgas/gasifier" stoves (for both self-sufficiency and high-altitude reasons, in addition to not needing to carry expen$ive, stinky, leaky fuel cans or expen$ive, clanging, often-empty propane cylinders). "Woodgas" is a flammable mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen gas (H₂) that is one of the cleanest, hottest burning hydrocarbon fuels in an oxygen "concentrating" stove or oven design (although I haven't seen a barbecue application yet, possibly due to the extremely hot temperatures in the designs that I've seen/"fired" being excessive for barbecuing).

Wood Gas Stove

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wc8aqW4XBs

http://www.woodgas.org.uk/

http://www.woodgas.com/Woodgas%20stove.pdf

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification
-----
Clear as charcoal?

EDIT: Maybe I should split a few more posts off from the PenRen Generator thread to a "hydrocarbon fuels" thread?

Up to you mate but I think it's pretty relevant?

Thank for moving the other posts d, I forgot what the hell I was doing on the other thread lol

Hey guys:
I don't know what I was thinking about this Gen Set!
See the first picture in a previous post: Previous post

Somehow I got it in my head that this generator was a GPU (Ground Power Unit) like the ones used for doing maintenance and for starting AIRPLANES. But it isn't.

It's a SERIOUS "portable" power generation unit, used for weekend "carnivals" at Strip Malls, or for "special events". (like Pentagon "Dog and Pony Shows"?)(sorry ).

It is MOST LIKELY powered by a very large Caterpillar Diesel ENGINE! You can see the "CAT" logo for "Catapillar" on the mud flap behind the trailer tire.
I am familiar with these units because my Island elecrtrical system was running off of underwater power cables that needed to be replaced. Our Electric Utility company, leased 4 slightly larger units, to "back up" those "bad" cables during times of "Peak" power consumption.

I was there when our "lineman" had to start them up one Hot Summer Night. All he had to do, was to push a big button, and..... VAROOOMMM the Huge diesel started up, and ran long enough to warm itself up.... then it started "gradually" PICKING UP THE ELECTRICAL LOAD in perfect synchronization with our 60 Hz power grid. As it picked up more load, the diesel maintanined its EXACT RPM to maintain the 60 Cycles, as it kept working HARDER up to its max capacity. It didn't take long before the engine was making a lot of HEAT, so a big duct opened up on top of the trailer, and big fans came on to force air through the water radiator. The Pentagon power unit doesn't have the roof duct for cooling, but that's what all the louvers are for on the back of this unit.

Now pay attention to this: The gen set units on my island DID NOT have an internal FUEL SUPPLY TANK. It drew its fuel from several large tanks nearby. The pentagon genset "might" have an internal fuel tank, but I kinda doubt it, because those units will consume an AWFUL amount of fuel in a short time.... about 500 US gallons in 8 to 12 hours of operation... an "internal" fuel tank would not allow the Genset to make power for a very long time.

IF, however, the Pentagon Gen set did have an internal fuel tank, it would be located under the ENGINE and GENERATOR, and there would be NO WAY for anything to "BLOW UP" and cause BIG FLAMES on the TOP or SIDES of that UNIT! IMHO.

BTW: this unit would have used "normal" diesel truck fuel, which is Kerosine based, and similar to Jet A fuel. If its fuel tank ruptured... (internal or external, doesn't matter) it wouldn't necessarily "explode", most likely it would make a VERY INTENSE FIRE, with LOTS OF BLACK SMOKE in the IMMEDIATE AREA of the GENERATOR FUEL TANK. An "aircraft impact" on the top of that unit shouldn't cause a serious fire, but it would cause some serious DEFORMATION of Aircraft Structure.

FYI: Kerosine, Jet A, and Diesel fuel are not as "Volatile" as gasoline, meaning they do not "evaporate" as fast as gasoline; but once it is burning, Kerosine fuels generate much more HEAT, around 20% more.

The "airplane GPU" I referred to at the beginning of this post would have a gasoline tank on top of the unit; so when I saw the "fire" and "exploded" Pentagon genset... my "brain" took a break and it looked "OK" because I "assumed" it was built like an Airplane GPU; but it IS NOT! Sorry bout that!

So now I'm really MAD, because I don't see any MASSIVE CATAPILLAR DIESEL ENGINE... or a HEAVY KILLOWATT GENERATOR, with heavy COPPER WIRES and CONTROL RELAYS in this wreckage!




Did the "Flying Forklift" tear it out of the trailer; after the "airplane" bounced over its SIX FOOT HIGH forks; before it caused all the rest of the damage at the Pentagon?

So, now we have FOUR MISSING engines at the Pentagon scene:
TWO Boeing 757 JET AIRCRAFT ENGINES
One Catapillar Diesel Engine, and
The APU (Auxillary Power Unit) normally located in the tail area of "real" Boeing 757's!

Speaking ofr CONOCO stations...:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mapplegate/3552852196/#/ [apparently the whiny bitches won't allow 'contact...'