Let's play ID the engine part?

[DoYouEverWonder]

Just found a new pic of the engine that was on the ground at the WTC. Is this an engine or part of from a Boeing 767? Just wondering what the more mechanically inclined thought, since it's a new pic of the object.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Found another one

[jwtravel]

2. Engine Part? Yes

I am a Gas Turbine Engine ("jet" engine) Design Engineer. My opinion is that the big part next to the "Choose Success" sign is the Combustor Section and a portion of the Compressor Section of a large jet engine. The other photo, showing a part in the street in front of the "Choose Success" sign, looks like 2 turbine wheels minus most of the turbine blades, which would have broken off as soon as the engine bearing alignment was disturbed.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. That was fun!

Now what shall we play?

[mrgerbik]

4. What are you talking about?

He asked a question. And someone replied. No need for smartass remarks.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Another game of Pin the Chiding on the OCTer?

:eyes:

That's all you ever want to play.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. So we have the compressor from a large engine

Here's a Boeing 767-200 that went down in China.



Of course, it didn't go through a building so there's a bit more of it left. I was curious where the compressor would be located and what are the dimensions for the ones they use on 767's. The one in the street seems on the small side? If you look at the lightpost behind it. The base of those lights is about 2' high. They're great to stand on when you're little and you need to get a better view of things.

http://www.geocities.com/away_to_fly/Acidentes/AirChina.html

[jwtravel]

33. engine cross-section

The large blades at the front of the engine belong to the bypass fan. Just behind the bypass fan is where the compressor section starts. The order of the sections, in generic terms, is bypass fan, compressor, combustor, turbine. The "business" portion of the engine, the core, is relatively small compared to the bypass fan and engine cowling. This website shows a few cross-sections:
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/propulsion/largefan.html
The engines shown are a Pratt & Whitney and a GE. For my money and yours, I highly suggest the Rolls-Royce line of turbine engines.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. Here's the model numbers for the engines

Flight 11
Boeing 767-223ER
Engines: 2 General Electric CF6-80A2

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-0


Flight 175

Boeing 767-222
2 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-1&lang=en


This should help narrow things down a bit?

[mirandapriestly]

6. It seems to me

it would have at least cracked the sidewalk after falling from such a tremendous height. Also it would have damaged the other objects adjacent to it.
Does anyone know the location? Was this supposed to be from 1 or 2? because I didn't really see anything like an engine come out of the south tower.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. This is supposed to be the corner of Murray and Church

about three blocks north of the towers.


Before collapse -




After collapse -



Looks like someone took back their ruler?

[mirandapriestly]

28. Well, isn't that interesting...nt

[BuddyYoung]

9. "would have at least cracked the sidewalk"

Exactly. And that's why I think Larry ("Pull It") S. may have told one of the Police Lieutenants about the terrible damage that the City had already experienced, and they made the decision to not "pull 'em" (NYPD language for: "don't drop 'em, place 'em"...in areas where construction is going on, because it would be easier to manuever them into the spots marked for each part and there would be tarp available to keep them under wrap until Show Time" and everything).

Hard to believe? Well, if you think so, then you just don't know how influential Larry is. A little research reveals a somewhat similar incident on that very same day involving Larry and another high-ranking City official.

[diamondsndust]

12. is it possible that they hit somewhere else first, then bounced or

rolled to a stop where they are sitting? I highly doubt they would fall 80 stories or so and stay right where they hit the ground. :shrug:

Looking at picture #2 you can see the impact damage to one side of the piece, as if it landed at an angle the bounced or rolled. Picture #1 seems to show some damage to one side of the piece also, as can be seen by the leaning to one side of the object.

Just sayin' .... but keep searching for the truth, because it's NOT what they are telling us.

[BuddyYoung]

13. It's not only possible, but likely they DID "hit somewhere else first"...

but WHERE? Arizona? At an airline maintenance facility? The serial numbers on each piece would probably reveal enough to know for certain where they came from, so why hasn't THAT information been released? Ditto the engine parts found at the Pentagon.

Everything points to 911 being an inside job but if you don't know enough yet to agree with that, then by all means, keep searching...with an open mind.

[diamondsndust]

15. oh believe me..

I am a firm believer in MIHOP/LIHOP .... my very first reaction upon hearing the news on 9-11 was "what the hell has the Bush Crime Regime gone and done now??!!??" ... I loathe these people...

[mirandapriestly]

30. but look how they are surrounded by poles

If it "bounced " from somewhere, it would have had to miss all of those, how likely is that?

[petgoat]

35. It's peculiar.

The obvious thing to think would be that they moved the thing out of the street to get
it out of the way. But the yellow tape and the other component left in the street make
it look like they were trying to preserve a crime scene.

If somebody was going to plant evidence, wouldn't they do it more plausibly? Or is
the apparent implausibility supposed to bolster the evidence's veracity, in a
"nobody would plant it so implausibly" reverse psychology sort of way?

[mirandapriestly]

39. They might not have had that much choice

aka: throw it and and take off before someone sees you. I do not think that thing flew out the window and landed there or "bounced" there, so ...

[mirandapriestly]

27. will you tell me?

I'm not quite sure what to look for.

[bmcatt]

10. I've got a better question...

Where the first object is, it's underneath scaffolding. I'd really like for someone to explain to me how it wound up where it is without damaging the light pole, the telephone booths, the scaffolding supports or, seemingly, the roof/floor of the scaffolding (under the theory that there'd be light showing through from above and it wouldn't be completely in shadow.

Even the boards that are holding up the scaffolding poles seem to be undisturbed. Likewise, the horizonal struts on the scaffolding (right above the man's helmet and proceeding under the rest of the scaffolding from there) are untouched / undamaged.

So... I'm *really* curious as to what acrobatics that object took to land where it is.

[BuddyYoung]

11. All those "just plain folks" /OCT'ers claiming to be engineers: Wassup?

I think the OCT'ers agree that those parts were planted, just like the ones on the Pentagon lawn.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Seems no one wants

to ID where it came from?

The engine is a major component of planes and missiles. It should be very easy to identify not only what type of engines used this compressor, but exactly where this part came from, when it was made and when the last time it was maintained.

[BuddyYoung]

16. More evidence that some OCT'ers aren't interested in trying to convince

people that the OCT is the truth. If so, they'd respond to important questions respectfully, with substantive answers and why they feel their position is correct. So, which is it: convince or confuse? Or, put in more earthy language: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bulls---"...and distractions, disruptions, insults, and all those other tactics with which we've come to expect from BUSH911OCT'ers.

[AZCat]

17. Perhaps you could be a positive example?

Why not try responding "respectfully, with substantive answers" rather than focusing on the behavior of others? If you work to improve the level of debate perhaps others will feel obligated to respond in kind and we all can benefit.




On Edit: Tried to clarify post title.

[BuddyYoung]

18. Can you refute the substantive points in this thread?

nt

[AZCat]

20. Probably not to your satisfaction.

Which is why I only posted what I felt was a helpful suggestion (feel free to disagree). I don't think I can add anything to the discussion of the issues in this thread that hasn't been touched on already.

[BuddyYoung]

22. Right. Because the truth is the only thing that will satisfy & the truth

is definitely NOT on your side.

Now, back to your designated role as _______?

Buh bye.

[AZCat]

24. I didn't realize that a concept could pick sides.

And why, exactly, are you separating us into sides? Aren't we all on the same side? We may have differing opinions, but ultimately don't we share in the pursuit of truth?

[BuddyYoung]

25. You really, honest-to-goodness can't refute the points raised. Very ...

interesting and surprising. Not.

[petgoat]

19. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth have demanded release of

"indestructible parts, including landing gears, surface actuators, engines, black boxes, and so on" commenting that "The serialized parts would be invaluable in identifying each aircraft and, contrary to some reports, could not have "vaporized" upon impact."

Sign the petition!

http://www.st911.org/

[AZCat]

21. Who in the world claimed the serialized parts vaporized?

Even if some were damaged to the point that the model and serial numbers were illegible, there are an amazing number of parts on a commercial aircraft that have documented provenances and would, as your quote suggests, be invaluable in identification.

[BuddyYoung]

23. But. But. But, what if the ONLY parts that are still around are those

whose serial numbers "vaporized" upon impact. Never mind how the impact of placing them on the sidewalk caused the serial numbers to be vaporized, but they'll have an answer for that, I'm sure.

[mirandapriestly]

31. 11,000 signatures!

They can't hold back the truth forever.

[mirandapriestly]

29. They think "Al Qaeda" planted it.nt

[BuddyYoung]

34. Maybe some do "think" that, but most probably are just following a script.

There might be a few sincere OCT'ers that think someone or someones from the M.East (OBL?) planted those plane parts, but it's hard for me to believe that anyone who knows much about 911 actually believes it. A paid or unpaid advocate promotes the interest of their client or sponsor, regardless of their personal feelings.

[mirandapriestly]

37. I agree, I was being facetious

because it is ridiculous to think that anyone who is familiar with the 911 facts believes it was AQ, but we are expected to believe this is "real" opposition. There are definitely GOP who believe it just because they must believe it or their hate-based belief system would be crushed. Who else would argue again 911 Skeptics? Those who know the truth and are desperate to hide it, and desperate they are, the OCTS have increased fourfold in just the last few months.

[BuddyYoung]

38. Appearances can be deceiving.

"the OCTS have increased fourfold in just the last few months."

Hard to know if it's more people or the same people pretending to be other people. Either way, it's a sign they're getting nervous. More diversions, unfounded sliming, magnifying trivial matters, more demands for proof and evidence that's impossible to produce because the Gov't hasn't or won't release it, more efforts to appear to be "just plain folks" - by telling us things like what they claim to do for a living or what their alleged educational background is etc., but whether it's the same people or new people, the one thing they don't have and never will is the truth. THAT is on our side.

[spooked911]

40. Exactly!

[savemefromdumbya]

26. images of Boeing engines

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aerospace/overview/market/outlook/brochure/data_engine.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. Here's a pic of the engines installed on Flight 11

Flight 11
Boeing 767-223ER
Engines: 2 General Electric CF6-80A2


?dfge

CF6-80C2 (Not the exact, engine but pretty close)


Edit: Found one:

?adfe

P&W JT9D

It would be interesting to see what the compressor looks like, because whatever it is on the ground at the WTC certainly is not the whole engine of a 767.