Hi everyone (my first post over here),

I majored in physics and worked in aerospace/defense engineering.

I keep running my cranium into the missing? Boeing engine problem. Has anyone put together the engine calculations with BOTH linear and ANGULAR momenta accounted, for 707, 757, and 767 engines at various shaft RPM? I know most of you work in knots airspeed, but how does this translate to jet engine shaft RPM? This might put the Skilling/Robertson debate to bed with 4 Boeing 707 engines and rotational energy added- just a thought... Now if this proves the Civil or Structural Engineers botched their calculations (or covered them up), then we might have another "expert" credibility problem in the 9/11 FEMA/NIST OCT...

We would need the moment of inertia value for the various Boeing engines to get a valid calculation (from Rotational Energy = 1/2 * I * omega ^ 2), with 'I' being the jet engine rotor moment of inertia, and omega being the shaft RPM. Then the rotational energy can simply be vectorially added to the engines' linear energy (1/2m * v^2). Is the Boeing moment of inertia even available?

My intuition tells me that the engines would shear from the wing spurs and become massively energetic "penetrator" projectiles with an extremely high melting point that should survive nearly ANY fire in an albeit damaged condition. I'd suspect that there is likely more rotational energy than linear energy in the jet engines. This begs the question- why weren't there 2 holes at the Pentagon caused by 2 jet engines?

I haven't seen where the jet engine rotational energy has been investigated by anyone, including NIST (although I'm fairly new to the "activist" 9/11 Truth Movement and probably have overlooked much). Also, what is the current status of missing engines and plane fuselage sections?

One more question (and I'm not trying to be morbid here, but I've studied a lot of ballistics, both flight and terminal)- how do you punch a hole in an iron or steel engine block with a high-speed aluminum beer can? (my simplified "poor man's" model of the WTC1/2 impacts being hit by a Boeing fuselage, like di Martini's "pencil & screen")

Thanks in advance for your expertise and brave work,
dMole

Welcome to the forum dMole. I don't know jack about all the stuff you're talking about. It reads like a whole 'nother language for me. I'm sure there are several members here who can speak your lingo though.

The N1 N2 rpms are available in the NTSB CSV and/or ReadOut2 files.

Also


"wing spurs"
Do you have any documents or details describing the construction and capabilities of a 757 engine mount assembly? (I'm sincerely interested btw)

The potential of the projectile and it impact has nothing to do with surviving 'nearly any fire' in the context your talking about.

What they did and Where ever the cores came to rest is all that matters. Anything after that related to the local fires would do nothing to them.

Cheers and Welcome Aboard,

UT

"Wing spurs"

I'm going off memory from much smaller, usually "sport" planes. I probably mean "wing stub" or "root", but my 20+ years welding steel and aluminum (with about 10+ years machining those materials too FWIW), tells me there will be a considerably thicker wing structure running out from the fuselage centerline out to the most-lateral engine supports (there are only Left and Right engines on the OCT WTC 1&2 Boeings in question, but I'm still interested in the 4-engine 1970's 707 flavor for complete engineering calculations to cross-check).

Outside the "stub" or "root," I'd expect the wing tip sections to pretty much shear off like a lizard's tail in a collision (and I actually expect the jet engines would shear off too at high enough impact velocity). This should be a "shear failure" caused by "relatively light" aluminum aircraft engine structure meeting an extremely massive steel&concrete building at the collision velocity. NOTE: Steel structures have considerably higher tensile strength, melting point, and ultimate yield point than aluminum structures, but this is engineer-speak.

Sorry, no Boeing jetliner documents in my past, but I could probably translate a lot given some technical drawings and specification sheets. I've got a copy of the Delta II rocket Payload Planner's Guide, if you're interested though. My professional engineering experience was to test relatively light-weight satellite structures and systems up to 135 G's- are many pilots or planes going to survive much over 10-G accelerations??

"potential of projectile"- not sure this refers to potential energy (which is really not applicable here other than the Twin Tower structures themselves) or damage potential caused by projectiles, but you are correct that it is the METALLURGY that determines the upper temperature survivability of the jet engine components. I'm not exactly a stranger to these fields either with welding, thermodynamics, heat transfer, materials science, and strength of materials in my background.

"cores"-- Thank you-- we need to remind people that there were 47 very-thick steel, tapering, central, support cores in the Inner Structure in addition to the many perimeter columns. I didn't count the perimeter columns (200+ from memory), but the North Tower blueprints are at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

I don't belive that Gene Corley, PhD's ASCE group or FEMA had access to these blueprints though....

Thanks for the welcome,
d

My generic use of 'wing spurs'= "wing stub" or "wing stub box" according to NASA.
(see p.30)
http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/...97-tm110204.pdf

(I don't recommend riding on a AH-64A Apache wing stub personally)
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/shotgun-apache/...ship-298459.php

"Wing spar" is actually the long structural member running laterally and attached to the fuselage.
(good wing structure reference)
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/design-wings.html

http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/parts6xw5.pdf

"Wing root" is the thick wing section immediately adjacent to the fuselage. See also winglet, wingtip fence, and wing fence.

My searching didn't find any Boeing info though- probably proprietary, I'd guess.

I am with you on this one and have just posted a comment on this thread here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...wtopic=5180&hl=

My searching for 767 and 757 engine info did find this interesting bit at the NY Times:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html.../Topics/Engines

May 19, 2000
F.A.A. Orders Airlines to Check Bolts on Boeing 767 Jet Engines
By MATTHEW L. WALD

The Federal Aviation Administration issued an emergency order this evening, telling all airlines that use the Boeing 767 to check the steel bolts holding the plane's engines in place, after an airline found damage on both bolts under one wing and one of the two on the other side.

Under the terms of the order, the inspection must be completed within five days, said Eliot Brenner, a spokesman for the agency. Mr. Brenner said the review would take five hours for each aircraft, meaning it could be done during normal overnight maintenance, and probably would not require any airlines to ground the planes.

''I wouldn't expect any significant impact on the fleet,'' he said.

The Boeing Company, which manufactures the 767, itself advised its customers on Thursday to conduct the inspection; the F.A.A. made that advice mandatory this evening.

Liz Verdier, a spokeswoman for Boeing, said most airlines would replace the bolts with ones made of an alloy called inconel, used in all the planes built since 1987, she said.

The bolts stop the engines from swinging from side to side or twisting. There are two for each of the plane's two engines.

Ms. Verdier said that as of today, 20 other planes had been inspected, and none showed bolt damage. But on the plane where damage was found, two bolts were partly cracked, and one was cracked all the way through, she said. The plane was one of the earliest off the production line, she said. The first 767 was delivered in August 1982.

The F.A.A. ordered the airlines to to report within 20 days on the inspections. The order applies to 120 aircraft registered in this country. An additional 110 are registered elsewhere, and their operators are highly likely to conduct the inspections.

A total of 785 of the 767 model have been delivered. American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Trans World Airlines, United Airlines and US Airways carry passengers on the planes, and UPS and Airborne use them for cargo. The planes, which can carry up to 285 passengers, make up more than half the airline flights across the North Atlantic, according to Boeing.

Some related engine info is at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....p;#entry5425266

Wow. This is a blast from the past.

OT: the Apache photo. The most amazing thing is the apparent lack of any suction that close to the turbine. I'm glad they are strapped in well though. Man, what a ride that must be.

"cores" - I actually meant the engine cores, or the inner structure besides the turbine fins.

For the bolts, I briefly imagine two bolts creating 4 hard points for dual hard plates that mate when the engine structure is lifted into place.

Check out this photo of a Boeing, where the weight of the engine is simulated.

Thanks TF, but unfortunately I'm no tour guide.

The landing gear and keel beam are pretty massive too TF, but I'd say the engines/engine core debris are the most heat-resistant components (for obvious reasons).

The linear momentum and angular momentum of 2 operating engines would be HUGE in my estimation. We'd need some Boeing specs to know which subassemblies are "heaviest," but those turbofans typically weigh about as much as a Humvee.

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

Remember the B-25 vs. Empire State Building incident?

Post #75:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10750244

"At 9:40 a.m., as workers went about their business in the Catholic War Relief Office on the 79th floor, the B-25 crashed into that office at 322 kilometers per hour. The impact reportedly tore off the bomber’s wings, leaving a five meter by six meter hole in the building. One engine was catapulted through the Empire State Building, emerging on the opposite side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building. The second engine and part of the bomber’s landing gear fell through an elevator shaft. When the plane hit, its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames."

I personally don't think there were quite enough "punch out" holes in that C ring either [and shouldn't they be punch-in holes from an "impact"?]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=11636

Post #40:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10753691

Yeah UT, I'd guess it's a lot like Dorothy and the Tornado, bound for Oz. And LOUD.

I found a couple more photos of those Apache Riders:
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/20079811857.aspx

I once worked with some engineers who developed the Apache. Here's a good reference on that helo if anyone is interested. I was surprised to see that a loaded AH64D Longbow is only about 16,000 lbs.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah-64.htm

My understanding is, from reading accounts of airline dangerous incidents and crashes is that in certain modes of engine failure, severe vibration and fire, that pylon mounts are designed to fail and release an engine that would otherwise further threaten the safety of the aircraft.

ISTR an incident at Heathrow involving a birdstrike where the aircraft was destroyed by fire having reached the ground safely, following a circuitous flight path, because proper cockpit emegency procedure had not ben carried out with respect to shutting off fuel cocks to the affected engine which allowed fuel to continue pooring out and ignite. I recall that the crew failed to communicate with one another because a check pilot was in one number two seat carrying examination of the second in command in the No 1 seat with the Captain of the flight in a jump seat.

I'll try and find a source for this info' but net searches are being severly hampered at the moment by poor ISP service.