Can Anyone Identify This Piece Of 9/11 Wreckage?

hmmmm... · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:15 am

http://www.nyartlab.com/bombing/DSC07783.html

Thanks

MDorBust · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:17 am

My vote goes with a turbine core.

OPNLguy · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:20 am

The diameter doesn't look big enough for an engine, so my guess would be that you're looking at the remains of the APU...

MDorBust · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:21 am

Unless I've lost it... aren't most airline APU's just small turbines?

Aviation · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:21 am

The remains of an engine. The round housings you can see are the turbine core sections with the turbine inside.

Actually all of the bent pipes you can see coming out of the top would be the fuel inlets, no?

Thanks,
Aaron J Nicoli

uadc8contrail · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:22 am

i agree with mdorbust, turbine core or maybe it could be part of the the main landing gear

hmmmm... · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:22 am

That was my feeling. Looks like an engine but no where near big enough.

Halophila · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:28 am

I remember seeing that the morning of 9/11 during the live telecast. Absolutely terrible memories of that day. RIP all who perished. But I do remember the news reporter saying that it was an engine. IIRC this was a few blocks away from the WTC. So sad...

hmmmm... · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:31 am

Though I don't know what a demolished APU would look like, I would have to guess this is it.

Thanks for the input thus far guys.

EMBQA · Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:04 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 2):
The diameter doesn't look big enough for an engine

It's part of the core engine, my guess part of the hot section. You need to remember when you see pictures of an intact engine it has all the fan section, accessory section, by pass sections and bleed air plumbing attached which makes it look much bigger. All that has been ripped away leaving just the core. Like the AE3007 on the ERJ.. I was shocked at how small it really is with all that removed. Like 50% smaller...!!

[Edited 2005-10-09 05:07:52]

Aviation · Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:32 pm

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 5):
part of the the main landing gear

How do you figure MLG!

Id say its what i said above of the APU it is a small jet engine and this is probably it!

Thanks,
Aaron J Nicoli

[Edited 2005-10-09 05:34:39]

GEnxPower · Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:16 pm

I disgaree. I think it is the engine core of the 767.

My guess :

What we are looking at right in the middle, the smaller protruding ring, is the centerline HP Shaft (for high power spool). And you can see little hooks just around it which I would guess are fuel nozzles for the combustor. And we are looking right before first stage HPT turbine, right at turbine inlet.

Many of you have said it looks small, but I think it is becuase we are only looking at the core and not at the entire engine. The Fan, which is the 80% of the engine's size is probably bigger and is missing from this. It looks about the size of the core. Turbofan with bypass ratio of 6 or 7 would have a core(high pressure system) this size I believe.

I don't believe APU has that much cooling holes around combustor regions.

Agree? Comments?

[Edited 2005-10-09 06:20:52]

redflyer · Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:20 pm

I remember reading a chronology of the events of that day. I remember at one point of the account it described how one of the engines from Flight 11 passed through the North Tower and followed a trajectory that brought it down several blocks away at the corner of an intersection where it killed a pedestrian. My guess is this picture is of that engine (or what remains of it).

OPNLguy · Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:33 pm

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9):
It's part of the core engine, my guess part of the hot section. You need to remember when you see pictures of an intact engine it has all the fan section, accessory section, by pass sections and bleed air plumbing attached which makes it look much bigger.

I had considered that, but it still looked small. That is, until I found this photo (which includes a human being) that gives the pictures some comparable scales.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Perkins

I think you're correct--it is an engine, and not the APU...

MX757 · Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:56 pm

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 13):
think you're correct--it is an engine, and not the APU...

You are correct also. The piece of engine wreakage is the high pressure turbine section with part of the combustion section attached to it. I'm not sure if it's a P&W or a GE.

uadc8contrail · Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:09 pm

Quoting Aviation (Reply 10):
Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 5):
part of the the main landing gear

How do you figure MLG!

Id say its what i said above of the APU it is a small jet engine and this is probably it!

aviation,
if your going to quote me....quote the entire text i wrote.....im from the art bell school of conspiracy so get a life ok....it does look like from the PICTURE that IT could have come from the mlg hub...but since im just a clerk at quiktrip that spots on the weekend at gyr then im not in the same caliber as your grade school caliber a/p license that you picked up at in&out at lax

Buyantukhaa · Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:43 pm

There are in fact more pictures of the same object:

http://www.nyartlab.com/bombing/DSC07781.html

The site does not allow direct linking of the picture.

SlamClick · Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:43 am

Not an APU.
Not a wheel>

Engine, turbine core for certain.

That center shaft is six inches in diameter!!
If it was an APU it would be twenty thousand horsepower! Big enough to power a ship.

You could carry the average APU turbine in your arms.

USAF336TFS · Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:49 am

It's the engine core.. Found 5 blocks away from the WTC site. It's from the second 767 aircraft that hit the south tower. Was hauled away 9/12 and is being treated as evidence in the crimminal cases pending.

jetmatt777 · Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:13 am

Quoting Aviation (Reply 4):
The remains of an engine. The round housings you can see are the turbine core sections with the turbine inside.

Thats what i was thinking

777wt · Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:38 am

Quoting GEnxPower (Reply 11):
And you can see little hooks just around it which I would guess are fuel nozzles for the combustor. And we are looking right before first stage HPT turbine, right at turbine inlet.

Fuel nozzles wouldn't look like that for a 767 turbine.

Fuel nozzles run parallel to the airflow.

They may well could have been bleed air or cooling air for the turbine blades.

will · Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:17 am

G'day,

Without a doubt... It is the engine core... !!!

Look at the shaft size.....and combustor can configuration and the size of the one damaged fuel nozzle that is visible...

APU fuel nozzles are way smaller than the one in the photo...

The shaft size says it all for me...It is the engine core.......

Kind Regards,

Will..........

will · Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:19 am

BTW,

G'day HMMMMM,

How yah going.....???

Regards,

Will.......

jepstein · Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:34 am

Definently the rear of the engine housing.

pilot21 · Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:30 am

Just looking through the rest of the photos, there is one very interesting one of a load of baggage containers stacked up on top of each other under the FDR, obviously they have been collected from around the area and stored, but the very fact that so many of the survived largely intact is quite amazing when you consider the destruction that went on that day.

Link below:

http://www.nyartlab.com/bombing/09-13/DSC08019.html

Rgds

Ilovenz · Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:44 am

No, that was the APU for one of the 9/11 UFO's, which explains why it's so big. rotfl

Yeah, it's definitely an engine core. At first I thought it may have been a landing gear hub that may have been a little outta proportion because of the camera zoom, but I didn't think landing gear had those bent tubes coming out.

OPNLguy · Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:02 am

Quoting Pilot21 (Reply 24):
Just looking through the rest of the photos, there is one very interesting one of a load of baggage containers stacked up on top of each other under the FDR, obviously they have been collected from around the area and stored, but the very fact that so many of the survived largely intact is quite amazing when you consider the destruction that went on that day.

With all due respect, I don't think it's amazing, I think it's impossible...

It seems more likely that these containers under the highway were NOT actually onboard the two AA and UA 767s, but were brought in later to hold any aircraft-related debris like aircraft parts or any mail/freight that was found.

Think about it this way--if the force of the impact with the buildings was enough to shred the 767s themselves (including those "hard" engines) into bits, some cargo containers made of "soft" sheet aluminum are going to survive intact, without so much as a dent? I don't think so...

pilot21 · Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:21 am

OPNLguy

While I don't disagree with you that it should be impossible that these things survived the impact, why would you bring in baggage containers to hold airline related stuff that was found around the site, especially as anything relating to the aircraft would want to be very carefully examined/stored by the FBI/NSTB etc, so why put them in flimsy containers that are then left under the FDR? (and apart from the engines/bits of the landing gear, was much else found from the planes?)

I'm just curious as to how/why these things got there?

MissedApproach · Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:30 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 17):
You could carry the average APU turbine in your arms.

Well, not quite, but I agree that the subject photo is not of an APU. Any APU I've seen is always adapted from a helicopter engine since a shaft drive is needed to spin the generator/alternator. It's usually something that would look at home in a JetRanger. Even on a big helo, like the -53, the turbine is not that large.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gilles Bausch

SATL382G · Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:35 am

Quoting Pilot21 (Reply 27):
While I don't disagree with you that it should be impossible that these things survived the impact, why would you bring in baggage containers to hold airline related stuff that was found around the site, especially as anything relating to the aircraft would want to be very carefully examined/stored by the FBI/NSTB etc, so why put them in flimsy containers that are then left under the FDR? (and apart from the engines/bits of the landing gear, was much else found from the planes?)

In a crisis situation you use what's available. NTSB probably requested the airlines provide storage space and a means to package/transport any debris. Baggage cans seem a likely choice.

Most likely it was part of the airlines initial response plan and done before they knew how unlikely it was for most of the debris to survive.

Besides I don't believe the cans in the pix will fit 767s, not and make maximum use of space anyway.

SWISSER · Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:42 am

I think it is the engine of the UA762,
it flew into the corner of the south tower and partially struck out on the 90° wall, if you look again at those horrible footage, you see the right engine thrown off of the wing together with a lot of other debris, the engine had a tail of smoke when coming down...
I still have the exact memory of the drama, enourmously clear printed in my mind...

My deepest respect to all who suffered from it...

eadc8 · Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:26 am

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 16):
There are in fact more pictures of the same object:

http://www.nyartlab.com/bombing/DSC07781.html

The site does not allow direct linking of the picture.

That is absolutely from UA 175. The photo in this link shows it landed on the corner of Murray St. and I believe Church St. Murray is about 5 blocks north of the WTC site.

Halophila · Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:29 am

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 26):
I think it's impossible...

I'm afraid I have to agree with OPNLguy on this one, I don't think it would be possible for the baggage containers to survive the impact, but I do understand your logic, Pilot21.

But this does raise an interesting, perhaps not-on-topic question to a non-av person. Do airlines share their baggage containers? I see in the photo 2 AA, 2 UA, 1 Ansett Australia (we miss you), 1 QF, and 2 CO containers. Is there any way to track which container numbers were on which flight for a particular day?

FI642 · Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:04 am

Without a doubt, hot section of the engine.

Airlines do lend,rent,borrow cans from each other. Some carriers rent or lease cans from a company called Unitpool.

omoo · Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:09 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 1):
My vote goes with a turbine core.

same here

September11 · Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:32 am

I believe it's United 175 engine #2 -- actual photo United 175 engine #2
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alastair T. Gardiner - WorldAirImages

777STL · Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:04 am

Quoting Pilot21 (Reply 24):
Just looking through the rest of the photos, there is one very interesting one of a load of baggage containers stacked up on top of each other under the FDR, obviously they have been collected from around the area and stored, but the very fact that so many of the survived largely intact is quite amazing when you consider the destruction that went on that day.

There's no way in heck those came out of one of the planes that hit the WTC.

Perhaps they were being used as a model for searchers to examine so they could identify the remains of a can. Hell I don't know....

daron4000 · Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:08 am

Actually, it is from UA 175, as I saw it in a documentary (Jules Verne?) and they specifically talked about how it landed basically intact on the ground.

hmmmm... · Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:14 am

pilot21, you can see in that photo that there are also luggage containers from Ansett and Qantas and Continental. All donated for the purpose of collecting aircraft debris I assume.

hmmmm... · Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:16 am

Luggage containers

http://www.nyartlab.com/bombing/09-13/DSC08019.html

777STL · Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:36 am

Quoting Daron4000 (Reply 37):
Actually, it is from UA 175, as I saw it in a documentary (Jules Verne?) and they specifically talked about how it landed basically intact on the ground.

So the plane blew up into a billion pieces in a great fireball but the luggage cans survived unscathed? Even just the fall from that height would have turned those cans into scrap metal.

I don't believe this, unless someone can prove me wrong?

[Edited 2005-10-10 04:37:09]

toering · Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:06 pm

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 5):

Ya, know....... I read in a newspaper that this was part of the landing gear. However, I don't agree. Goes to show how accurate our news is here in the states.

EMBQA · Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:16 pm

Quoting September11 (Reply 35):
believe it's United 175 engine #2 -- actual photo United 175 engine #2

How the heck can you tell it came from the RH engine ...?? Let alone if its from the UAL or AA 767..??

Any further talk of the 'cans' being from the planes is down right stuiped. In no way were they on board the planes when they hit the WTC. Please..!! use some god given common sense.

I did learn one of the guys I now work with flew on the inbound leg of the UAL 767 the night before from SFO to BOS.

ikramerica · Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:52 pm

Will this "conspiracy" never die? All it does is give moderate Islam leaders an opportunity to deny reality. Just ask the Imam almost hired by the NYFD about his views on what "really" happened, fueled by false and misinformed discussions like this one, about the strange engine part, about the "missing" flight info, about the fact that a plane "couldn't" take down a building in that way. All conspiracies, all disproved in a bit more investigation or understanding of science.

Oh well.

Ramble on.

greasespot · Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:20 am

They can tell from the engine serial numbers. ALL the components have S/N's that are tracked by the engine operators. So if you can find one S/N you can tell.

GS

B744F · Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:12 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43):
. All conspiracies, all disproved in a bit more investigation or understanding of science.

wrong

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156...v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156...v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

[Edited 2005-10-10 21:18:26]

B744F · Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:16 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 43):
All it does is give moderate Islam leaders an opportunity to deny reality.

And on the other side of the coin, all it does is give American leaders an opportunity to deny reality and make any necessary changes to defend this country from another attack and terrorists in general.

Newark777 · Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:24 am

Quoting Pilot21 (Reply 24):
Just looking through the rest of the photos, there is one very interesting one of a load of baggage containers stacked up on top of each other under the FDR, obviously they have been collected from around the area and stored, but the very fact that so many of the survived largely intact is quite amazing when you consider the destruction that went on that day.

Even if for some reason they did come from the planes, what does that prove? It would prove absolutely nothing, other than the cans are more sturdy than we thought. We all saw those planes hit the towers.

Harry

Boeing4ever · Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:30 am

Quoting B744F (Reply 46):
And on the other side of the coin, all it does is give American leaders an opportunity to deny reality and make any necessary changes to defend this country from another attack and terrorists in general.

Are you one of the fools who believes that the WTC was brought down by explosive charges too? Yeah sure

Believe it or not (and I'm sure you don't as most conspiracy theorists are too far gone for reason), modern engineering, the laws of physics, and science in general blow every conspiracy theory out of the water.

airplane

B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane

777STL · Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:28 am

How did we digress from talking about these cans, to conspiracy theories?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net