Fbgdavidson From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2004, 3412 posts, RR: 35 Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19271 times:
*** CONSPIRACY THEORISTS TAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS ELSEWHERE***
Saw a documentary about 9/11 the other night and there was some footage I hadn't seen before where you could clearly see the engines from United 175 go right through the South Tower. If you look closely on these videos linked you can see the white streaks coming out of the opposite side of the building.
While this isn't surprising bearing in mind the momentum of the engines I looked at the BBC website which has a detailed section on 9/11. [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/the_four_hijacks/flight_11.stm]One of the pages details the hijacks and shows the paths of the various aircraft as they approached New York City.[/quote]
Looking a the diagram it appeared the engines from both AA11 and UA175 would have fallen somewhere over New York City some distance away from the towers themselves.
Were any of the engines recovered or did they also disintegrate at impact and am I seeing something else that isn't an engine?
Please do not turn this into a conspiracy theory laden thread. I can understand why my other thread on this matter got locked pretty soon after but this is of genuine intrigue to me.
Thanks,
Not familiar with aircraft parts of Richmond, VA
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
MrMcCoy From United States, joined Sep 2005, 377 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19235 times:
I do recall seeing footage of a few folks and a police officer guarding a peice of engine wreckage from that tragedy, somewhere on a main street. I still shudder watching those videos.
It only takes five years to go from rumor to standard operating procedure.
Jetpixx From United States, joined Jul 2004, 766 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19225 times:
I have no idea what happened to the engines, but that is an interesting question. I would imagine that they disintegrated - and you might have simply seen part of it. It could also have landed in the East River or Hudson...
...however, I was just there for a second visit in mid-March and it is still chilling to be in this area thinking about all of the poor souls, walking in the footsteps of the survivors that fled the streets in fear.
CasInterest From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1179 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19185 times:
I am not sure that there was more than one engine that made it out of the towers in one piece. If you remember how the second plane came in, it was only it's right engine that had a great shot at making it through, as all it had to pierce where the two external walls on the corner of the south tower.
The other engines all would have had to make it through the central stairwell and elevator columns, which I don't think they would have done nearly in one piece as the one that did.
B6JFKH81 From United States, joined Mar 2006, 1157 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19110 times:
I am guessing that the engines would have flown apart after the impact. I am sure that some components continued with momentum through the other side of the building...but not the entire engine.
Either way, it just isn't the same when I see the NYC skyline and the towers aren't there.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
MrMcCoy From United States, joined Sep 2005, 377 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19048 times:
I know it's a bit off topic, but last night I was watching that old movie "Working Girl" with Harrison Ford and Melanie Griffith and more than once they panned over the 1980's New York skyline and I couldn't help but feeling nostalgic.
All those people who lived and worked in the WTC for the past 20 years before 2001 must have felt the same thing. It's like our hearts were ripped out of our chests that morning.
It only takes five years to go from rumor to standard operating procedure.
Fbgdavidson From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2004, 3412 posts, RR: 35 Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 19012 times:
Thanks for keeping this a conspiracy theory fest free zone so far
Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 2): That is truly amazing video footage.
Looking through www.youtube.com yields a fair bit of 'home video' footage that I hadn't seen before on any documentary or rolling news around the event. Seeing new footage really brings it home...
Quoting MrMcCoy (Reply 1): I do recall seeing footage of a few folks and a police officer guarding a peice of engine wreckage from that tragedy, somewhere on a main street. I still shudder watching those videos.
Interesting, thanks
Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 2): It could also have landed in the East River or Hudson...
Well that was my initial thought but if you look at the small inlay from the BBC website you'll see UA175 went in a pretty much south to north direction so it would have fallen somewhere around the WTC, a fair few blocks away but certainly not in the East River.
As for AA11, well there is only one piece of footage AFAIK and it isn't obvious where the engines go but it is still a number of blocks from there to the East River...
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 18740 times:
I remember a NYT article a few years ago saying a engine was found three blocks from the WTC. Also the aluminum from the plane was melting and running down the side of the building.
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13126 posts, RR: 65 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 18660 times:
Quoting Fbgdavidson (Thread starter): If you look closely on these videos linked you can see the white streaks coming out of the opposite side of the building.
Having seen those white streaks you mention in person, and again on the video, I'm not convinced that they're big enough to be engines.
Quoting Jetpixx (Reply 2): It could also have landed in the East River or Hudson...
Definitely not. The plane entered the building on a course that was taking it away from the Hudson, and the East River is a ways away even at that point of Manhattan.
UN_B732 From United States, joined Jul 2001, 4204 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 18499 times:
That conspiracy theory is a joke -- the NGs do NOT use CFM56 power, and the fact that one shaft bears some resemblance to another means nothing.. that whole theory is bogus.. seriously.
Mudboy From United States, joined Jan 2006, 162 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 18439 times:
Didn't some lady on the ground have here legs amputated by part of the landing gear? Seems like I saw that on the news, but we all know how accurate that can be!!
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2143 posts, RR: 42 Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 18288 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
i recall seeing pictures of one of the engines from the AA flight embedded in the hood of a large SUV in a parking lot somewhere SE of the WTC. And one from the UA flight ended up on a side street somewhere east of the WTC, i remember hearing parts of one of the AA engines were found at ground zero, and one UA engine was dredged out of the East River, but im not sure on those 2.
oh also, the pictures in the above site were of an APU as i recall, not one of the engines.
FlyDreamliner From Korea, joined Jan 2006, 2615 posts, RR: 21 Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 18236 times:
Quoting UN_B732 (Reply 15): That conspiracy theory is a joke -- the NGs do NOT use CFM56 power, and the fact that one shaft bears some resemblance to another means nothing.. that whole theory is bogus.. seriously.
The 737-300,400, and 500 use CFM56-3 engines, the 737-600,700,800, and 900 use CFM56-7 engines. I believe UA's 767s are PW4000 powered, and AA's are GE CF6 powered. If I remember right, the CFM56 shares similar shaft design with CF6, and the only part of the CFM56 that deviates designwise from CF6 are the compressors, which are Snecma M6 derrived.
The theory that the engine is planted is total BS. Stupid people just wanting attention make that kind of crap up.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
ContnlEliteCMH From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1307 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 17991 times:
And if that engine in the photo is a plant, how in the world did they manage to smash it up like that?! When you compare the "before" and "after" photo, you are struck by the degree of damage and deformation. Jet engines are heavy and tough. It's not like you can hit one with a truck and produce the shape shown in those photos.
I have always suspected that some of the streaks coming from the towers were the denser parts of the airplane, namely, the engines, gear, and APU.
I still mostly refuse to watch the videos of that day. I have a heightened appreciation for why my grandparents' generation pointed to Pearl Harbor as a defining event for them.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
Eal46859 From United States, joined Apr 2006, 20 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 17782 times:
Right after 9/11, I remember seeing a picture in the newspaper of the devastation near the WTC and included in the picture amid the rest of lots of debris was part of a front fan blade section. I'm not sure which tower though. Also, it was reported that part of the landing gear from the first plane came straight through the building and hurt someone on the ground.
Thepilot730 From United States, joined Nov 2005, 78 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13721 times:
Quoting Mudboy (Reply 16): Didn't some lady on the ground have here legs amputated by part of the landing gear? Seems like I saw that on the news, but we all know how accurate that can be!!
The lady had her legs amputated because a piece of the landing gear landed on her. There was a special on her recovery not that long ago on PrimeTime. She was in the hospital for almost a year.
Molykote From United States, joined Aug 2005, 1137 posts, RR: 16 Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13317 times:
Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 19): And if that engine in the photo is a plant, how in the world did they manage to smash it up like that?! When you compare the "before" and "after" photo, you are struck by the degree of damage and deformation. Jet engines are heavy and tough. It's not like you can hit one with a truck and produce the shape shown in those photos.
The type of engine we are discussing will weigh several thousand pounds. Although the operational longevity of some modern engines is truly remarkable, the operational limitations imposed on an engine are as much responsible for this as the incredible engineering behind the engine (I ackknowledge that these limitations themselves are part of the engineering process).
My bottom line is that I don't find this damage surprising at all considering:
- An engine like this actually consists of a great deal of empty space. The LP/(IP)/HP shafts are hollow. This is a benefit for structural efficiency and also facilitiates the routing of cooling air to high temperature passages. Other air pumped through this hollow space is used to contain oil in the appropriate internal region of an engine.
- The flowpath itself consists of empty space filled loosely (as a fraction of volume) with rotor blades, stator blades, and combustion chamber lining.
I recognize the difficulty in trying to make my point here with mere text. For a nutshell version of the point I am trying to make please visit the following link: http://www.cfm56.com/engines/cfm56-5b/tech.html
Admittedly the engine shown is not a JT9/PW4000 as used by United on the 767. However, the fundamental concepts behind large modern turbofans are all very similar. In the link I have provided the only solid material in the engine is basically confined to the black areas of the cross section. All other colors (including white) are just air which has undergone varying degrees of molestation.
I wish I had an appropriate forum to illustrate many of the things I am trying to discuss here. Much of it is simple in concept but difficult to illustrate with even a 2-D cross section (let alone black and white text). Although I fail to eloquently make my point here, I will provide a real world example to show how an off-design condition (which would certainly be the case for the engines we are discussing) can affect an engine.
Engines are transported in specially designed cradles which may be strapped to a tractor trailer or freighter aircraft as cargo. These cradles generallly have 2 main components separated by a shock absorbing interface. If a careless individual would so much as misrig one of the tie down straps on an engine shipment cradle, a bearing inspection could be required. This can necessitate a complete disassembly of the engine just to ensure that the loads encounted during shipment did not damage the internal bearings. The loads in question would have been realized while the engine was being transported on a tractor trailer at 55-65 mph!
The instantaneous g-loading in the above case can actually be quite severe if an engine is not secured properly, but the conditions under which this damage can occur (highway driving) is experienced quite frequently by most people. This is a quick and dirty attempt to illustrate how a slight off design operational condition can damage an engine that was conceived to operate with great longevity *within its operational envelope*.
To those without an interest in jet engines (maybe 3 of you!), the point I am attempting to illustrate is really no different than considering an egg or a Coke can. Compare the loading that these 2 items can endure in the vertical vs. horizontal cases.
PanAm747 From United States, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13031 times:
On a side note, in both the Eastern L1011 crash in the Everglades in 1972 and the Air New Zealand DC-10 crash in Antarctica, the tail mounted engines of both planes continued for a VERY brief time, continuing the momentum of the tail.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Warszawa From United States, joined Nov 2003, 722 posts, RR: 9 Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12579 times:
CFM56? Engines? No....Those are the remnants of the missles podded to the belly of those 767's. The missles didnt explode on impact - they IGNITED on impact, therefore firing through the furniture, out the building's windows, and flaming up outside and falling to the ground.
All the 9/11 conspiracies are just absolutely ridiculous...the bottom line is that it was two damn 767's and thats the truth, guaranteed. Unless if someone can convince me with incredible statistics on how many people can keep secrets, I have a real hard time believing that:
1. All the ATC Controllers that had a /B762 on their screen for those flights are keeping quiet.
2. All the UAL/AAL workers that loaded the B762's, or that worked on the ramp around those planes, or that fueled them, or that checked people in, are keeping quiet.
3. All the front desk agents who checked everyone in & gave them seats on a 762', are not talking.
and I can go on...and on.......and on with the list of people who dealt with these aircraft on those days
If those are the true pictures found...then they're either from the APU or the engines off of those 767's. I dont care what beavis's analysis was of the kind/brand/type of engine that was found.
Tell you what, it wasnt a damn plane, it was a freaking alien spaceship from planet xenon in the x28 galaxy that destroyed the WTC's with their plasma rays.
Also has anyone completely ruled out the possibility of a King Kong or Godzilla attack?
Flying a plane is no diff. from riding a bicycle. Its just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes. -'Airplane'
777WT From United States, joined Jan 2005, 861 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12151 times:
Quoting Molykote (Reply 25): Engines are transported in specially designed cradles which may be strapped to a tractor trailer or freighter aircraft as cargo. These cradles generallly have 2 main components separated by a shock absorbing interface. If a careless individual would so much as misrig one of the tie down straps on an engine shipment cradle, a bearing inspection could be required. This can necessitate a complete disassembly of the engine just to ensure that the loads encounted during shipment did not damage the internal bearings. The loads in question would have been realized while the engine was being transported on a tractor trailer at 55-65 mph!
Not only that, but the tractor trailer must have Air-ride suspension.
Receiving persons have been trained on where to look for them on the tractor trailer and to automatically reject the engines if it does not have them.
Also as engines are hoisted from the cradle to the aircraft, they use load meters or tension meters to carefully hoist it up into position as one's chain shouldn't be out of limits in accordance to the others being hoisted.
Pawsleykat From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jul 2005, 1807 posts, RR: 13 Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9067 times:
For all we know, it could be a desk or chair from one of the offices. It's impossble to tell unless we knew exactly where it hit in the surrounding area and we found a picture taken of it. That's possibly the only logical way to do it without guessing.
JG
"Let Go, Get Up And Hit The Dance Floor" - Hannah Montana
Skywatch From United States, joined Mar 2005, 916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8559 times:
I found another angle on the second plane. To me it appears that they 767 punched into the building quite cleanly. The hole it made in the first wall appeared not much larger than the aircraft itself. As for the engines, those flaming streaks might be them, or they might not. All I know is that is some sickening footage......
DreamLnr2008 From United States, joined Apr 2006, 3 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 6276 times:
Without a doubt these are the real engine parts and what is seen is the real thing. No one would have the time or the insight to plant this stuff in the midst of all that mess on that day. If there is any doubt your brain is miss wired and you should maybe go see a doctor about an MRI.
Keep your feet on the ground and reach for the stars
26 F14D4ever: Those remains are too big to be APUs. The flat object is a turbine disc, probably the rearmost stage of the LP turbine that drives the fan+booster; t
27 Flyguy595: Welcome Both of you to my Respected users. Your information helps a lot when it comes to those stupid ideas. People think they know what they're talk
28 Molykote: You are right about the engine theory being BS but quite a bit off on the CFM56 v. CF6 point. In addition of the PMC/FADEC control differences betwee
29 F14D4ever: Close ... the CFM56 is built upon the M56 core, hence the name.
30 Fbgdavidson: Got an email over the weekend with some more info: 'I am a contractor that works primarily at JFK. Once and a while I get to take a tour airside with
31 Vzlet: Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel and two core columns of a WTC tower. Computer simul
Sponsor Message: 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Oct 2004, 3412 posts, 
From United States, joined Sep 2005, 377 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2143 posts, 
From Korea, joined Jan 2006, 2615 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jul 2005, 1807 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
