Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
JT9D-7J Engine
- Thread starter MrRandomGuy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 9/11 evidence ua175
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
MrRandomGuy
Student
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 45
Freeclimber wonders why I'm not replying to this thread. He seems to think that me replying is the only one who matters and no one else.
The reason why I'm not replying, Freeclimber, is because others have debunked your BS woo, and me replying would be redundant posting. I stated in the OP that I posted the thread for the exact purpose of having others debunk it since I do not have the knowledge or experience to do so.
The reason why I'm not replying, Freeclimber, is because others have debunked your BS woo, and me replying would be redundant posting. I stated in the OP that I posted the thread for the exact purpose of having others debunk it since I do not have the knowledge or experience to do so.
Originally posted by me
Of course the simplest way for the engine to end up where it did was that it continued on its merry way after breaking free of the wing of the plane that hit the tower.
My fanciful version of a gun that shoots engines out of the WTC is at least an order of magnitude simpler that your farcical delusion of aiming cargo at a specific spot to pass through the WTC.
As an aside, what happened to the engine of the plane that carried the engine found on Murray St.?
Originally Posted by Freeclimber44
I am getting an impression of a firearms enthusiast who is concerned with accuracy and is a citizen of the largest of the contiguous United States.
Of course the simplest way for the engine to end up where it did was that it continued on its merry way after breaking free of the wing of the plane that hit the tower.
My fanciful version of a gun that shoots engines out of the WTC is at least an order of magnitude simpler that your farcical delusion of aiming cargo at a specific spot to pass through the WTC.
As an aside, what happened to the engine of the plane that carried the engine found on Murray St.?
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Actually this
The plane hit off center, off-square. This much can be seen in all the photos and videos. The "exit-wound" of the building (and evidence from the videos) reveal the following:
1 - the exit time of the engine at the corner of the building is consistent with travel time of an object entering the building at ~600 mph, and is in a location consistent with the location of the installed engine, given the angle of impact. The exit trajectory and eventual landing point of the engine, right-side landing gear and chunk of fuselage found on top of WTC 5 (over 700' above the ground) are all consistent with the impact angle.
2 - the "pinocchio's nose" fuel-air bolus from the center tanks and fuselage air that then explodes exits the building after the engine, in a location consistent with the impact location/angle. This explosion creates the item known to truthers as "the hole that wasn't there." The cladding in that spot has been blown off and the columns blackened but not broken, consistent with "pinocchio's nose" being a mixture of liquid and air, rather than solid debris.
What hit the "dense core" of the building and didn't exit was most of the fuselage and the other engine. There's a video that shows the impact from the side, low, with another building in the way. This video (not bothering hunting it down on youchump) of the impact clearly shows the building swaying after the initial impact, at a time consistent with the fuselage slamming into the building core. Most copies of that video are shortened to just a couple seconds, but there's a copy of the full thing somewhere out there that shows the building continuing to sway in a decreasing-amplitude oscillation for about 5 minutes.
{**note -- if anyone remembers the name or search terms for this particular video please post it. Thanks. **}
Anyway, freeclimber's "theory" lacks utility value.
{edit to add}
Found it. It's the "Scott Myers" video.
is Sooper Extra Silly.
The plane hit off center, off-square. This much can be seen in all the photos and videos. The "exit-wound" of the building (and evidence from the videos) reveal the following:
1 - the exit time of the engine at the corner of the building is consistent with travel time of an object entering the building at ~600 mph, and is in a location consistent with the location of the installed engine, given the angle of impact. The exit trajectory and eventual landing point of the engine, right-side landing gear and chunk of fuselage found on top of WTC 5 (over 700' above the ground) are all consistent with the impact angle.
2 - the "pinocchio's nose" fuel-air bolus from the center tanks and fuselage air that then explodes exits the building after the engine, in a location consistent with the impact location/angle. This explosion creates the item known to truthers as "the hole that wasn't there." The cladding in that spot has been blown off and the columns blackened but not broken, consistent with "pinocchio's nose" being a mixture of liquid and air, rather than solid debris.
What hit the "dense core" of the building and didn't exit was most of the fuselage and the other engine. There's a video that shows the impact from the side, low, with another building in the way. This video (not bothering hunting it down on youchump) of the impact clearly shows the building swaying after the initial impact, at a time consistent with the fuselage slamming into the building core. Most copies of that video are shortened to just a couple seconds, but there's a copy of the full thing somewhere out there that shows the building continuing to sway in a decreasing-amplitude oscillation for about 5 minutes.
{**note -- if anyone remembers the name or search terms for this particular video please post it. Thanks. **}
Anyway, freeclimber's "theory" lacks utility value.
{edit to add}
Found it. It's the "Scott Myers" video.
Last edited:
waypastvne
Muse
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 539
Actually it's soooper extra extra silly.
The engine came out of the building spinning and leaving a spiral trail of hot oil vapour in its wake. Even after it landed it continued to boil off oil vapour. Also all of the compressor blades were missing. The engine was hot and it was spinning. These facts lead to the conclusion that the engine was running at the time of impact.
So in this Truthers conspiracy theory, we have a unrestrained jet engine,,, running at full bore,,,, inside the fuselage,,,, prior to the time of impact.
Last edited:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
There are three series' of JT9D engine; the 7 series (which includes the 7J), the 7Q series, and the 7R4 series (which includes the 7R4D).
Boeing 747s have engines from all three series, so showing B747 engine pictures is meaningless unless the poster can identify the specific aircraft, and which series of engine it had.
Boeing 747s have engines from all three series, so showing B747 engine pictures is meaningless unless the poster can identify the specific aircraft, and which series of engine it had.
Freeclimber44
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 6
I'm going to briefly respond to a few more comments/questions, but since my time is limited I'll be using the same shorthand format I used in my last post. I hope to be able to expand some of these remarks later, but for now I regret I can only provide some quick sketches.
1) Can you direct me to your evidence that two other similar-sized aircraft flew in close formation with UA175 and AA11? Thanks.
There are several videos that are shorter, but to obtain the complete picture this video is the best ne I know of:
h t t p : / / w w w (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=WCXyMxCgphs
2) Just out of interest, which part of this component do you think causes tangenial cooling airflow? Hint- I'm pretty sure you need the bit with the right angled tubes for that.
Since we now know that the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI) doesn't HAVE the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly ("the bit with the right angled tubes") as a component, then it obviously doesn't NEED it.
3) Anyone that is interested in planes can identify the plane as a 767-200 series. The exact sub-series would be tough but not the base plane. Just out of curiosity. What type of plane do you think it was?
If I absolutely had to guess, I would say it was either a Boeing 767 or 757 converted to a tanker. Otherwise how could a standard 767-200 airliner carrying an estimated 10,000 gallons of fuel at impact result in a fireball 50% larger than one made by the crash of a B-52H with 24,000+ gallons of fuel onboard at Fairchild Air Force Base in June, 1994?
4) It gets worse when you source the silly lies from democraticunderground?
The RADAR still paints 175 with, or without a transponder code, or transponder off. RADAR proves you wrong, and you don't know why as you google news reports, and fail to use RADAR data.
Yes, RADAR still tracks any reflective object in flight even without the transponder code, but if two planes of the same size and material opacity (RADAR reflectiveness) fly in close formation, for instance one directly above the other, and neither is transmitting the correct (or any) transponder code, it would be impossible to know which is which when they separate and fly in different directions. Democraticunderground was not the PRIMARY source here. It was quoting from other sources: Washington Post, Newsday, MSNBC, and the 9/11 Commission Report.
5) Good thing the Luftwaffe left their transponders on during the Battle Of Britain. Otherwise British RADAR wouldn't have picked them up.
The British RADAR of 1940, crude and barely beyond the experimental stage, fortunately was still sufficient to track and provide crucial information about the location, speed, and number of incoming enemy aircraft. Transponders were not on any aircraft back then, but the British Air Ministry Command didn't need them in order to identify which radar images were enemy planes since the only aircraft in the air were either British or German and the British knew where their own planes were.
6) My fanciful version of a gun that shoots engines out of the WTC is at least an order of magnitude simpler that your farcical delusion of aiming cargo at a specific spot to pass through the WTC. As an aside, what happened to the engine of the plane that carried the engine found on Murray St.?
Neither of the engines on American Airlines Flight 11 which crashed into WTC1, also presumably a Boeing 767 having the same type engines as UA175, broke through the outside wall of the building and so had to have been buried in the rubble when the tower collapsed. I assume the other engine (or both) on UA175 met the same fate, although I have not seen photos of ANY of these buried engines after their recovery or any reports describing their recovery. As sturdy as these engines are built, it would seem that at least the turbine cores would have survived the collapse.
7) . . . the exit time of the engine at the corner of the building is consistent with travel time of an object entering the building at ~600 mph, and is in a location consistent with the location of the installed engine, given the angle of impact. The exit trajectory and eventual landing point of the engine, right-side landing gear and chunk of fuselage found on top of WTC 5 (over 700' above the ground) are all consistent with the impact angle.
Saying that the "exit time", "travel time", and "location" of the wrecked engine is consistent with the "location of the installed engine", but not consistent with an engine carried inside the fuselage is some incredibly precise calculating. I've still had no one reply to the video clip I posted that was made on 9/11 just after the collapse of WTC2, the first tower to fall, by a guest in the Millenium Hilton Hotel showing the roof of WTC5 with only small scattered pieces of debris on it. My question was (and still is), How did the extensive amount of large aircraft wreckage ("chunk of fuselage") shown in the official FEMA Photo Library photograph dated October 25, 2001 come to be on the roof of WTC5? I will re-post links to the video and photograph.
Millenium Hilton Hotel video of roof of WTC5:
http : / / w w w (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=tbbUFhqmP-k
FEMA Photo Library photograph with caption:
http : / / w w w (dot) fema (dot) gov/photolibrary/photo_details (dot) do?id=12390
Video showing extensive amounts of plane wreckage on the roof of WTC5:
h t t p : / / w w w (dot) flickr9 (dot) com/photos/56322884@N02/5857433106/
8) The engine came out of the building spinning and leaving a spiral trail of hot oil vapour in its wake. Even after it landed it continued to boil off oil vapour. Also all of the compressor blades were missing The engine was hot and it was spinning. These facts lead to the conclusion that the engine was running at the time of impact.
It's not surprising that the compressor blades on the Murray Street engine were missing. They almost always get stripped off in crashes where the engine is torn off the plane and they certainly could have been removed before loading the engine onto the attack plane. Judging from photos showing the extremely damaged condition of the engine after it came to rest, it doesn't seem possible that the turbine shaft could have still been spinning after it hit the ground, or even after it hit the tower for that matter. But if there were any eyewitnesses close enough to the engine when it came to rest who confirmed that it was in fact still spinning, then I would have to accept that it was.
9) There are three series' of JT9D engine; the 7 series (which includes the 7J), the 7Q series, and the 7R4 series (which includes the 7R4D). Boeing 747s have engines from all three series, so showing B747 engine pictures is meaningless unless the poster can identify the specific aircraft, and which series of engine it had.
It's not important or even relevant anymore to know what series of engine was on the Boeing 747 with the exposed engine showing the ports on the turbine casing because we now know that the engines on all UAL 767's built prior to 1988 (N612UA was built in 1983) were P&W JT9D-7R4D and that all JT9D-7R4D's had the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI) and so would not have had the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly that was on the Murray Street engine.
1) Can you direct me to your evidence that two other similar-sized aircraft flew in close formation with UA175 and AA11? Thanks.
There are several videos that are shorter, but to obtain the complete picture this video is the best ne I know of:
h t t p : / / w w w (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=WCXyMxCgphs
2) Just out of interest, which part of this component do you think causes tangenial cooling airflow? Hint- I'm pretty sure you need the bit with the right angled tubes for that.
Since we now know that the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI) doesn't HAVE the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly ("the bit with the right angled tubes") as a component, then it obviously doesn't NEED it.
3) Anyone that is interested in planes can identify the plane as a 767-200 series. The exact sub-series would be tough but not the base plane. Just out of curiosity. What type of plane do you think it was?
If I absolutely had to guess, I would say it was either a Boeing 767 or 757 converted to a tanker. Otherwise how could a standard 767-200 airliner carrying an estimated 10,000 gallons of fuel at impact result in a fireball 50% larger than one made by the crash of a B-52H with 24,000+ gallons of fuel onboard at Fairchild Air Force Base in June, 1994?
4) It gets worse when you source the silly lies from democraticunderground?
The RADAR still paints 175 with, or without a transponder code, or transponder off. RADAR proves you wrong, and you don't know why as you google news reports, and fail to use RADAR data.
Yes, RADAR still tracks any reflective object in flight even without the transponder code, but if two planes of the same size and material opacity (RADAR reflectiveness) fly in close formation, for instance one directly above the other, and neither is transmitting the correct (or any) transponder code, it would be impossible to know which is which when they separate and fly in different directions. Democraticunderground was not the PRIMARY source here. It was quoting from other sources: Washington Post, Newsday, MSNBC, and the 9/11 Commission Report.
5) Good thing the Luftwaffe left their transponders on during the Battle Of Britain. Otherwise British RADAR wouldn't have picked them up.
The British RADAR of 1940, crude and barely beyond the experimental stage, fortunately was still sufficient to track and provide crucial information about the location, speed, and number of incoming enemy aircraft. Transponders were not on any aircraft back then, but the British Air Ministry Command didn't need them in order to identify which radar images were enemy planes since the only aircraft in the air were either British or German and the British knew where their own planes were.
6) My fanciful version of a gun that shoots engines out of the WTC is at least an order of magnitude simpler that your farcical delusion of aiming cargo at a specific spot to pass through the WTC. As an aside, what happened to the engine of the plane that carried the engine found on Murray St.?
Neither of the engines on American Airlines Flight 11 which crashed into WTC1, also presumably a Boeing 767 having the same type engines as UA175, broke through the outside wall of the building and so had to have been buried in the rubble when the tower collapsed. I assume the other engine (or both) on UA175 met the same fate, although I have not seen photos of ANY of these buried engines after their recovery or any reports describing their recovery. As sturdy as these engines are built, it would seem that at least the turbine cores would have survived the collapse.
7) . . . the exit time of the engine at the corner of the building is consistent with travel time of an object entering the building at ~600 mph, and is in a location consistent with the location of the installed engine, given the angle of impact. The exit trajectory and eventual landing point of the engine, right-side landing gear and chunk of fuselage found on top of WTC 5 (over 700' above the ground) are all consistent with the impact angle.
Saying that the "exit time", "travel time", and "location" of the wrecked engine is consistent with the "location of the installed engine", but not consistent with an engine carried inside the fuselage is some incredibly precise calculating. I've still had no one reply to the video clip I posted that was made on 9/11 just after the collapse of WTC2, the first tower to fall, by a guest in the Millenium Hilton Hotel showing the roof of WTC5 with only small scattered pieces of debris on it. My question was (and still is), How did the extensive amount of large aircraft wreckage ("chunk of fuselage") shown in the official FEMA Photo Library photograph dated October 25, 2001 come to be on the roof of WTC5? I will re-post links to the video and photograph.
Millenium Hilton Hotel video of roof of WTC5:
http : / / w w w (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=tbbUFhqmP-k
FEMA Photo Library photograph with caption:
http : / / w w w (dot) fema (dot) gov/photolibrary/photo_details (dot) do?id=12390
Video showing extensive amounts of plane wreckage on the roof of WTC5:
h t t p : / / w w w (dot) flickr9 (dot) com/photos/56322884@N02/5857433106/
8) The engine came out of the building spinning and leaving a spiral trail of hot oil vapour in its wake. Even after it landed it continued to boil off oil vapour. Also all of the compressor blades were missing The engine was hot and it was spinning. These facts lead to the conclusion that the engine was running at the time of impact.
It's not surprising that the compressor blades on the Murray Street engine were missing. They almost always get stripped off in crashes where the engine is torn off the plane and they certainly could have been removed before loading the engine onto the attack plane. Judging from photos showing the extremely damaged condition of the engine after it came to rest, it doesn't seem possible that the turbine shaft could have still been spinning after it hit the ground, or even after it hit the tower for that matter. But if there were any eyewitnesses close enough to the engine when it came to rest who confirmed that it was in fact still spinning, then I would have to accept that it was.
9) There are three series' of JT9D engine; the 7 series (which includes the 7J), the 7Q series, and the 7R4 series (which includes the 7R4D). Boeing 747s have engines from all three series, so showing B747 engine pictures is meaningless unless the poster can identify the specific aircraft, and which series of engine it had.
It's not important or even relevant anymore to know what series of engine was on the Boeing 747 with the exposed engine showing the ports on the turbine casing because we now know that the engines on all UAL 767's built prior to 1988 (N612UA was built in 1983) were P&W JT9D-7R4D and that all JT9D-7R4D's had the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI) and so would not have had the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly that was on the Murray Street engine.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,096
Please be assured I am not remotely interested in watching a 40 minute cartoon of conspiracist claims. Just the evidence, if you please.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Since you have provided no evidence of the relationship between the HPT cooling duct and the HPT cooling duct assembly how do we know this?
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,096
Well, just off the top of my head, I would say the enormously greater velocity would increase dispersal and thereby the size of the fireball. Do you disagree?
Also, where did you get those figures from? It took me a couple of minutes to find this report on the 1994 crash http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100510-029.pdf which contains a record of the fuelling of the B-52 on the day before the crash (ref page 144 of 180) and which, if I interpret it correctly, says it had a little over 14,000 gallons of fuel in its tanks before its approximately 40 minute final flight.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
You posit that the engine coulda-maybe been carried inside the fuselage. The engine exited at the corner of the building. This can be seen in the 30 different videos from 30 different angles and distances. This engine left a spiral trail of smoke. The "pinicchio's nose/hole that wasn't there" is from the center tanks and fuselage air column. Yes, air has momentum and at 590mph the air wouldn't just stop but would continue traveling forward. The location of the "HTWT" tells you where the plane nose was pointing at time of impact. It's consistent will all photo and video information of the impact.
Prove me wrong.
As for your video, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The video doesn't show the entire roof. Prove me wrong.
Time is limited?
You have the biggest story since Watergate, and your time is limited? lol
You have dumbed down nonsense made up out of nonsense and fantasy. It is sad you disrespect the Passengers on Flight 175 by making up silly claims, yet your time is limited? You make up lies about 911, but your time is too limited to understand RADAR debunks your sick fantasy of stupid woo.
Time is limited, but you can make fun of the dead. Cool, cut and paste some more lies, since your time is limited and you don't have time to understand reality.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Time is not limited for twoofers, in twenty year's time they will still be spouting their nonsense on the net, to no avail. They don't seem to understand that a total lack of proof from their side invalidates their arguments. Plus the fact that there are many oddball twoofer theories.
waypastvne
Muse
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 539
The video was not shot by a guest in the Millenium Hilton Hotel just after the collapse of WTC2. It is easy to tell this by the simple fact the photographer is not dead.
The video never shows the portion of the building where the chunk of debris landed. The closest it comes is this point. The debris would be at the point of the red arrow.
As for the photo, Yep, there is a chunk of debris there, laying in the pretty much same position...
as seen in this photo:
So lets take a closer look at this piece of debris and match it to the plane.
Below is a photo of N 612 UA with the section of debris found on WTC 5 marked in red.
A photo of the debris with section highlighted.
Close up.
Another photo showing the debris.
Close up.
Another photo pointing out details.
Close up of flag.
There is no doubt this came from N 612 UA.
Josarhus
Thinker
The Millenium Hilton survived, it was the Marriott that got crushed.
waypastvne
Muse
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 539
Sorry, my mistake.
The RADAR data shows no aircraft in close formation changing airframes. You are spreading nonsense without evidence. This is your fantasy. You have no source to support an aircraft swap. Zero. RADAR proves it was Flight 175, all you have is a fantasy aircraft swap, no returns support your claim.
Did you make up the 24,000+ gallons of fuel, or what? Making up lies about stuff, and then ignoring the differences.
How much time did you spend making up this BS?
Flight 175, proved to impact the WTC by RADAR, hit a building, not the ground, there is more room in space for the fuel to go, vs Czar 52 impact in the ground, leaving most the fuel on the ground not in a fuel air fireball. Oops.
Guess? You are spreading lies about 911, because you are guessing?
10,000 gallons of jet fuel in a kinetic energy impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT (4,380,000,000 joules), which is the reason the fuel is spread more than the 12,421 gallons on Czar 52.
The kinetic energy of impact was 7 times greater for Flight 175, thus more dispersion of the jet fuel making what could be a bigger fireball. Did you do the physics first, so the lies would be bigger? Or What?
Did you make up the 24,000+ gallons? You missed it by 11,000+ gallons. Oops, that is significant.
Verified by Jack by the hedge, you got the fuel wrong. What did you get right? Nothing.
Why is Flight 175 fireball bigger than Czar 52? The fuel total was closer than the lie you presented, the kinetic energy of 175 was 7 times that of Czar 52's impact, and 175 impacted a building where the fuel could spread in all directions, vs Czar 52 impact into the ground; basically 100 percent more space to spread.
Darn, lies beat by reason, RADAR, physics, reading, research, math, excel, and more.