[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[tacodaemon]

I've put you in the driving seat, now what heading is it for New York?
Carry on without turning and we'll soon be in Canada. Anything from 340 to 10
degrees will still put us in Canada.
You are now in the pilot's seat. What will be your heading for New York.
All I know is that 180 or so will see over Texas eventually, so that's no good.
The best I can offer is somewhere more than 90 and less than say, 170.
Don't forget, because of the simplistic 'follow the smoke' that went on before, we are now flight 11 and we have no GPS.
I don't know how long we've been since take off, or what the speed of the plane has been, I'll guess if you like. Meanwhile, kindly give me a heading, once you have managed to turn the plane around.

I stand corrected -- he really doesn't think the navigation would be possible. Despite all the information he's been given about the technology available in a commercial airliner, he apparently thinks they get by with a map, compass and dead reckoning.

Say, mal, you didn't happen to learn this from a 1980s TV documentary everyone's forgotten, did you?

 

[SOMERLED]

I agree and I'd just like to suggest that malcolm drop by the jetphotos.net and/or airliners.net fora, or even pprune and ask the resident planespotters/pilots/airline people what hit the South Tower. If he can find a single one that insists that the plane isn't a UA 767-200 - then his claims might have merit. What do you think, mal? How does presenting your evidence to plane geeks sound?

BTW, malcolm, I'm somewhat of an expert planespotter myself, and in my somewhat expert opinion on the matter - the aircraft was indeed a 767-200 in UA's "Stealth" paint scheme. And if you doubt my aviation geek cred, feel free to quiz me on airliner identification. You can even use thumbnail size pics and I'll be able to give you type(ie 757), subtype/variant(ie -200PF) and airline(ie UPS).

Could it have been a "military bad boy" painted up in UA's colors. Certainly. Are military tankers(KC 767's for example) made of materials different than that of their civilian couterparts - steel for instance? No, they are not. They may be strengthened in some areas, to accommodate increased landing weights, but they are by and large the same airplanes. And since steel is around 3X heavier than aluminum per unit of volume, a 767 made from steel would weigh close to 500 tons at takeoff and would need at least 2 more of the same powerplants to get it in the air, or much more powerful engines. But, I only see two engines of standard size/nacelle shape for a Pratt & Whitney JT9D powered 767.

How many pilots will it take, is three enough ?

 

[SOMERLED]

ive seen at least 3 quite viable scenarios in this thread, you have rejected them, but failed to provide any adequate reason for doing so

Go to airport, hijack plane, fly it to New York. Is this a viable scenario?

 

[gumboot]

My pleasure, where did this engine come from?
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm

Is that your website?

I noticed with some interest that they have a photo of the CFM56-5A engine, and claim it is used in the 737. This is false.

The CFM56 5-series were designed specifically for Airbus aircraft. The CFM56-5A is specifically designed for the Airbus A320.

The Boeing 737 uses the 3-series (737 400 and 500 series) and 7-series (737 600, 700 and 800 series).

-Gumboot

 

[SOMERLED]

Also, if you'd like a clearer shot of the very plane that hit the tower, N612UA, sitting on an airport tarmac in happier times, there's one on this page.

The engines are Pratt and Whitney JT9D - 7R4D.
The engine that powered the attack plane was a CFM 56.
Here it is,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm

 

[SOMERLED]

In all this gibberish, there is not the slightest indication that you have troubled yourself to read Apathoid's paper (he is a regular on this forum), which corrects the errors you persist in promoting:

http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

Please tell us where Apathoid goes wrong.

My pleasure, he maintains that 175 hit tower 2. 175 was powered by two Pratt and Whitney JT9D - 7R4D.
The plane that hit tower 2 wa powered by CFM 56's.
Here is a photo,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm

 

[SOMERLED]

I'll try again. Here is clear evidence that UA Flight 175 did, in fact, hit the South Tower:

http://911myths.com/Flight175.pdf

That is a crude attempt to 'debunk' previous evidence.
This is concrete evidence that 175 did not hit tower 2.
This engine is a CFM 56,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
175 was powered by Pratt and Whitney JT9D - 7R4D,
a fact so ably pointed out by your colleague Tacodaemon here,
http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/...=09112001&reg=N612UA&airline=United+Airlines+

 

[ArmillarySphere]

That line of argumentation begs the question: Is that engine really a CFM56? I had a look at a JT9D, and I can't really tell what to look for - the page, btw, tells you that it's a CFM56, but doesn't say how it arrived at this conclusion, nor does it show you a JT9D for comparison.

Rejected for failure to show its work.

 

[MRC_Hans]

My pleasure, he maintains that 175 hit tower 2. 175 was powered by two Pratt and Whitney JT9D - 7R4D.
The plane that hit tower 2 wa powered by CFM 56's.
Here is a photo,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm

I never stop marvelling at the type of people who think they are able to identify aircraft wreckage from photos alone. Especially heavily damaged engines.

What we have in that picture is only the inner core of the engine (the intact engine is the size of a bus), and jet engine cores tend to look more or less alike.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I've put you in the driving seat, now what heading is it for New York?
Carry on without turning and we'll soon be in Canada. Anything from 340 to 10
degrees will still put us in Canada.
You are now in the pilot's seat. What will be your heading for New York.
All I know is that 180 or so will see over Texas eventually, so that's no good.
The best I can offer is somewhere more than 90 and less than say, 170.
Don't forget, because of the simplistic 'follow the smoke' that went on before, we are now flight 11 and we have no GPS.
I don't know how long we've been since take off, or what the speed of the plane has been, I'll guess if you like. Meanwhile, kindly give me a heading, once you have managed to turn the plane around.

I would recommend you not to contemplate hijacking a plane and taking over the pilot seat. You have obviously no clue to navigation.

Now, these guys were planning this for over a year. They were about to sacrifice their lives to tthe mission. They did their homework. Even without a GPS (but why on Earth should they do without it?), they would have plotted the intended route of the flight on a map, timed their take-over, and thus had a fair idea of where they were, simply by dead reconing. Now, they needed to set a course that would take them to the coast. They could select a course (which could easily be +-20 degrees), to make sure to reach the coast south of NY (or north, if they so preferred). Now, all they had to do was follow the coast, and the Big Apple would show up under their noses.

There is no reason, however, to think they did anything as primitive as that. The planes had GPS, and learning to use the GPS is a neat book-exercise, probably backed by real flight training, and flight simulator training. They probably even had the exact coordinates for their targets, ready to enter into the GPS, which would then take them right to it. In essence they would not even have to look out of the window.

Hans

 

[tacodaemon]

My pleasure, he maintains that 175 hit tower 2. 175 was powered by two Pratt and Whitney JT9D - 7R4D.
The plane that hit tower 2 wa powered by CFM 56's.
Here is a photo,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm

Well, golly. Different makes of jet engine don't exactly have such wildly different designs that they can be easily distinguished at a glance by people who aren't intimately familiar with the things. His entire argument appears to rest on the notion that the "hub end" of the engine shaft looks similar to the one on the engine that landed on the street corner, but he doesn't go so far as to, say, show the corresponding hub end of a P&W engine so we can see if it also looks like the one on the street-corner crashed engine.

Now, when I look at the rear part of the CFM 56 shown on that page, I don't see a long cone made up of metal rings increasing in diameter one-by-one, as I see on the engine crashed on the street corner. You know what kind of engine does have such a structure at its rear, though? A P&W JT9D does. Imagine that.

 

[SOMERLED]

Is that your website?

I noticed with some interest that they have a photo of the CFM56-5A engine, and claim it is used in the 737. This is false.

The CFM56 5-series were designed specifically for Airbus aircraft. The CFM56-5A is specifically designed for the Airbus A320.

The Boeing 737 uses the 3-series (737 400 and 500 series) and 7-series (737 600, 700 and 800 series).

-Gumboot

Thank you for confirming the type of engine that was in the attack plane.
The engines that were in 175 were...?

 

[Belz...]

You say it doesn't matter what you are made of, at 500 mph, you will go through it. Using that logic, the jumpers should have gone through the pavement.

Except the jumpers weren't dropping at 500 mph.

I can't help but notice that you're not answering any of my other points. You can break up other people's posts into segments and answer each points individually, should you choose to. I wasn't talking to myself when writing that post, you know.

 

[tacodaemon]

Thank you for confirming the type of engine that was in the attack plane.

All right, that does it for me, this Kirkman fellow can't be for real.

This thread should be fun to read anyway.

 

[Belz...]

Your logic completely escapes me.
It seems to me that if an aluminium structure that is travelling at several hundred miles per hour suffers severe damage when in collision with a bird.

See ? I'm pretty sure you're simply ignoring other people's posts. That was answered, already.

Then the same aluminium structure travelling at the same speed, wouldn't have a lot going for it when it came up against a steel wall, supported by a conrete and steel floor, all attached to gigantic core columns.

Themselves attached to Earth, which is part of the universe. I'm not sure where you're getting at.

Do you think that the B-25 that struck the Empire State Building was a specially-modified plane ?

If the wing isn't strong enough to stand up to a big bird in flight, how would it fare if it hit the end of a pier / aka the wall of a twin at floor level.

That's because you're trying to use simplistic common sense ideas. It doesn't work that way. Can you understand this ?

If you look at the video, you will clearly see the plane slice into the steel wall (backed by a concrete and steel floor, backed by gigantic core columns), like a knife into butter. There is no fold up of the wings at all, they just cut right in. This is totally impossible for regular wings,

You have no idea what happened to the wings. The event occurs so fast that we can't see whatever deformation occurs.

I am at a loss, as to how any unbiased observer, would maintain that the plane that hit tower two, was flight 175.

That's because you're not unbiased.

Do you have any information with regard to tapes that didn't survive the day?

Huh ? What's your point, exactly ?

 

[gumboot]

Thank you for confirming the type of engine that was in the attack plane.
The engines that were in 175 were...?

You don't appear to have read my post. The site you linked to is inaccurate. It depicts and engine and claims it is used in a particular aircraft. The engine depicted is not used in the aircraft they claim it is used in.

-Gumboot

 

[SOMERLED]

That line of argumentation begs the question: Is that engine really a CFM56? I had a look at a JT9D, and I can't really tell what to look for - the page, btw, tells you that it's a CFM56, but doesn't say how it arrived at this conclusion, nor does it show you a JT9D for comparison.

Rejected for failure to show its work.

Here is the JT9D
http://www.answers.com/topic/pratt-whitney-jt9d
Here is the CFM 56
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cfm56/index.html
They are very different and easily identifiable.
Here is the engine that powered the attack plane,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
It is obviously a CFM 56 and equally obviously not a JT9D.

 

[Belz...]

I have presented evidence that the plane was not 175.

You have done nothing of the sort. You have shown that you do not understand collision physics, and that you don't understand probability and the human psyche. That is not proof that 175 did not hit the tower. That is proof of your ignorance, plain and simple.

If you have no evidence that the plane that actually hit the south tower was 175. Then we can immediately proceed.

That's not how science works. That's not how an investigation works. Please get an education in these matters. Then we can immediately proceed.

Ergo, bone is stronger than thin aluminium sheeting.

People can break wooden planks with their hands. They can also break their hands with a wooden plank. Explain this.

Ergo, WW2 ended on May 5th.

You forgot Japan.

How about the first step being to get 175 from Logan to Manhattan, via a hijack, has that been forgotten? Because so far, no one has remotely come close to putting up a viable scenario, not even remotely.

Well, that's easy:

1- Get onboard plane
2- Threaten crew with knives
3- Deactivate transponder
4- Alter course to NYC

D Day was indeed presented to the Germans as a hoax.

I am ASKING you to tell me if you think D-Day happened, seeing that it wasn't certain to succeed.

 

[Belz...]

I've put you in the driving seat, now what heading is it for New York?
Carry on without turning and we'll soon be in Canada. Anything from 340 to 10
degrees will still put us in Canada.
You are now in the pilot's seat. What will be your heading for New York.
All I know is that 180 or so will see over Texas eventually, so that's no good.
The best I can offer is somewhere more than 90 and less than say, 170.
Don't forget, because of the simplistic 'follow the smoke' that went on before, we are now flight 11 and we have no GPS.

Do you really think that these people couldn't find north without GPS ? Geez, man. They had piloting training. I'm sure they could use maps.

 

[apathoid]

The engines are Pratt and Whitney JT9D - 7R4D.
The engine that powered the attack plane was a CFM 56.
Here it is,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm

What do you say about presenting your video/photo evidence to aviation people, malcolm? Do you object to that idea? You said it's not a 767-200, and if it's not - then who better to verify that fact than people who spend much of their time photographing them, working on them, around them, and flying them? Is that not a good way to check your evidence, mal? If not, please give me a reason. If you you want, I can start the threads for you and post the responses in here....

As for your reply above, thats a piece of an engine - not the whole thing. By the looks of it, its a piece of the turbine section, probably the very front end of high pressure spool, with the combuster at bottom. The "hot" section is smaller in diameter than the fan section and can be as small as 30" in diameter (including the turbine case which appears to be missing in the photo) on the PW4000, which is the newer version of the JT9D.

CFM56 family powerplants are in the 18,000-30,000 lb thrust class. The JT9, CF6 and PW4000 are in the 48,000-63,000 lb class. Do you know why I'm telling you this malcolm?

I'll give you a hint: the size of the plane the hit WTC2, judging solely from the impact area was similar to that of a large widebody airplane, like a 767 or an A330 and it only had 2 engines.