Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
there doesn't seem to be much apart from a nose cone, a diffuser case and another mechanical part of some kind.  

now I've supervised mechanics putting together turboprop, turboshaft and turbofan engines and APU's, and I have yet to see a part that looks like the one found in the wreckage which wasn't recognizable by reps of R&R and P&W

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So now you ignore the photos that are evidence of the wreckage of the wings, the marks on the building, the hit lampposts and generator, the wheels and all the rest, and base your rejection solely on identifyable mechanical parts and engine wreckage?

Even so, from the text of the very first link:

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military's unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman's subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
12 minutes passed.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 03:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Smug.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not sure everybody appreciates your arcane sense of humor.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Starting here:
DoDo: How many planes crashing into massive buildings at near maximum speed have been part of your professional experience?
manon: what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events?
manon: no answer.
Colman: You want an answer in twelve minutes???
manon: ok, you know something about engineering and/or aircraft?
Colman: Me? Shit no. But I don't get all cranky if I don't get a response within twelve minutes.

...later, on a parallel thread...

DoDo: 12 minutes passed.

You might also want to explain why manon might have been inclined to troll-rate DoDo for that.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo's comment was wrong, because it was 6 minutes, not 12.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean Colman's comment.

If I may comment this meta-discussion, I don't see my problems with manon's debating style explained by Jérôme's provocation, nor do I think mentioning that he won't follow Kos's policy is the same as "bringing up" Kos's banning policy, even though I disagreed with that initial comment by Jérôme and saw it as provocative (and implied so in a reply, which to complicate things was in turn taken as an insult by manon).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:52:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Once again your summary doesn't reflect reality, this time in tone.

manon: what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events?  blind faith or something more substantial?

6 mins later...

manon: no answer.  I guess blind faith.  And I thought we were all hip people who didn't put much faith in blind faith.

Those are arrogant, belittling comments that were not justified (by what you want to say about Jerome or by anyhting else). Colman stepped in with his twelve minutes comment to wisecrack... OK, it didn't work... and suggest manon was overdoing it.

Later, DoDo explained that he didn't reply instantaneously because he was looking for data. And when manon didn't reply to a question of his, he pulled out the "twelve minutes" clause. The troll rating for that was obviously ridiculous.

BTW, I asked manon three-quarters of an hour ago what she meant by "open for business". I mean to get an answer.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So it seems I got one this very minute...
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You already did, and manon is obviously pissed off.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"manon is obviously pissed off"?

What, by me now? Wowee...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, not by you. Just generally pissed off enough that I wasn't expecting a constructive answer to your question.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what constructive answer she could make.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:02:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then what's the point of your question?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to let her insinuation go by unchallenged.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:16:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
don't  you think I have enough people challenging me?
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
a conspiracy against you.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not out to challenge you on the Pentagon business, I haven't got a fixed opinion on that. But no one challenged you on that comment which had to do with the thread, the site, how it's run. So you've just got little me in your way on that one.

Let me point out, manon, that you have distributed troll ratings, while no one, afaik (if I'm wrong forgive me) has troll-rated you. And you have slung around some pretty high-handed comments about other people's capacities and qualifications. I don't think you are justified in passing yourself off as a victim.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the shape of the mechanical piece - the one you think is manufactured by Honeywell, doesn't match anything that one would ever see in an aircraft engine
by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 04:54:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh. Let me help you out where you should search for it:

Bonus: more metal parts close-ups for you:



(Even more at this Italian page.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
 A brand spanking new seven stage axial compressor (at least I think it is - it could be the power turbines but I can't see close enough to see if there are any cooling holes in the blades) being assembled to the combustion liner or exhaust?

A torn gasket with a fuel filter still attached?

And some unknown but rather small parts of the aircraft?

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 05:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you'd need quite a few suitcases to bring all of this around.

And would they have been spread out on the grass by the suitcase carriers before whatever made the impact on the Pentagon, or after?

And what happened to flight 77? And its passengers? They're all with Elvis?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where are all the corpses?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the atmosphere. You're probably breathing some right now.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For a second there I thought that was a snark.

Do you know how hard it is to completely burn a human body?

Where are all the black boxes? In the atmosphere too?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
were reported to be found:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301blackboxes

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Have the recordings been released?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 16th, 2006 at 03:49:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just a small question along these lines, aren't the engines the heaviest, most sold parts of an aircraft? why wouldn't their be two holes where they punched through the wall and the body pankcaked on the outside?

I'm not trying to push some conspiracy, it's just something that has always been sitting there with a questionmark hovering over it, and I've never found anyone who had enough technical knowledge to explain it to me.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
aircraft engines do tend to stay in one piece more or less in an aircraft accident.  

the parts are pretty heavy, mechanically fitted together, wired into place (every bolt has to have wiring around it so it doesn't loosen) and many of the parts are designed to withstand extremely high temperatures

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:44:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the reason I ask is that I know of at least one aircrash where the plane was reduced to inconvenient confetti, apart from the engine, which passed entirely through one building, coming to rest about a mile beyond the crash, somewhat battered, but still essentially in one piece.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
really?  do you remember where or when this happened?

the Pentagon is reinforced so it would not replicate the same conditions, but there would be some similarities to your incident

maybe if you could give us some more details of what you remember about it?

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 06:59:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh yes, I've been looking for details of it on t'internet, but so far no luck. It's one of my fathers stories from when he was doing his National Service somewhere at the end of the 1950's at el Adam airbase. a Hawker Hunter hit the ground and was basically reduced to scrap. According to my father the largest part left was about the size of your hand. However the engine bounced across the airfield clearing several bulidings, and demolishing one half of one building. fortunately just missing the cleaner, who had heard a bang, and found the building behind him was missing when he turned round. from what I remember of the story it finally came to rest somewhere just short of a mile and a half away.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 07:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm no specialist in planes (though I know some tidbits on structural engineering and materials), and not paranoid enough to follow intricate plots...
But if the modeling of the crash shown here is not too far from reality (or at least a straightforward hypothesis), those engines went through the ground floor.

In Dodo's links you'll find those pictures of the damages on the outer part of the building. The structural damages were mostly at the ground floor and is consistent with the flight path and height level (in fact the plane must have been on a an air cushion effect, "effet de sol" in french).

One of them, left wing, chunked out a bit of concrete railing and the right one hit the generator (two structures at less then 1m and 3m high respectively) and went inside (picture of one engine inside the wrecked building) through the ground floor part of the facade.

Not surprisingly, the pictures show that posts and beams are damaged much further then the central big hole... (the famed wing problem)!

The Pentagone building shape and built technique had the same effect (my feeling) then the multiple layers of plastic sheets used to stop a bullet in forensic tests... The shape charge effect of such a plane at such a velocity would have otherwise reached the central courtyard. While it seems that only two holes were blown up on that side  (either perpendicular corridors, or part of the engines)!

I would agree with some that the chances to hit the target, flying so low and in such a short distance to maneuver and align the plane is really hard to achieve even for a trained fighter pilot !

My two euro cents worth of explanation !


"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Fri Sep 15th, 2006 at 07:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series