| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Flight 77 Engines | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 21 2009, 01:45 AM (491 Views) | |
| r2d2m2 | Jun 21 2009, 01:45 AM Post #1 |
|
According to Loose Change 9/11 the Boeing 757 that supposedly hit the pentagon had Pratt & Whitney engines. This is incorrect. Let me explain... Like most airliners the Boeing 757 came with a choice of engines. A few airlines did chose Pratt & Whitney engines but the majority went with the Rolls Royce option. In fact, according to a Rolls Royce publication from 1992, 80% of airlines at that time had chosen the RB211 535 for their 757s. This publication doesn't say which airlines went with the Rollers but it doesn't really need to. The airline we are concerned with is American Airlines. And guess what? The same publication includes a picture of an American Airlines 757 with two 535s attached. We can also be pretty sure that American Airlines have never re-engined their 757s because according to their website they still have 535s. So, unless I am overlooking something, flight 77 had two Rolls Royce RB211 535s and therefore the evidence presented in this video isn't strictly correct. Having said that the argument does still apply. We just need to iron out the creases. Which brings me to my next point... You will not find the properties of an alloy on the periodic table. That is the whole point of alloys. Change the composition and you change the properties. Let me assure you that, thanks to special alloys with special coatings, the 535 is cooking at temperatures close to 2000 celsius (400 degrees higher than the melting point of titanium). And the combustion chamber does not come anywhere near melting. Pure titanium is quite tough but it's not as tough as the stuff we make flame tubes from. And there is certainly no point making arguments based on it's properties as titanium is not used in a pure form anyway. This simply shows a lack of understanding, which obviously isn't good when dealing with such a sensitive topic. To prove that the engines from flight 77 could not have been vaporized we must get our facts straight. For the sake of all those concerned the evidence presented must stand up. It is time to examine this argument more carefully. Let us make sure we are talking about the right engines and the right materials. Maybe I can help (anyone who needs it). I make Rolls Royce engines. |
 |
 
|
| BoneZ | Jun 21 2009, 02:31 AM Post #2 |
|
In reality, it doesn't matter what type of engines FL.77 had. There's still not enough wreckage to come close to making up a 250,000 pound jetliner. And CIT has conclusively shown that FL.77 flew over the Pentagon and on a different flight path than the OS. |
|
|
|
| r2d2m2 | Jun 21 2009, 03:37 AM Post #3 |
|
In a sense you are right. Whatever the make and model the same basic principle applies... You can't vaporize a pair of gas turbines using gas turbine fuel. Having said that, it is of utmost importance when trying to make a scientific argument like this. If you specify the wrong engine or the wrong materials your argument will not be credible. And you will, most likely, undermine any other arguments you have made too. If you are going to mention the engines it is best to get your facts straight. The only other option, if you're not sure, is to say nothing.
The official report gets round this by stating that the plane was vaporized. That is the whole point of trying to prove that gas turbines cannot be vaporized in this way. In order to show that the report is talking gibberish. We cannot achieve this by talking gibberish ourselves.
Yes there is other evidence too. Perhaps it is even conclusive as you say. That should not, however, deter us from examining this vaporization theory and making careful (and correct) arguments to counter it. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 21 2009, 08:16 AM Post #4 |
|
That portion began here http://letsrollforums.com/karl-schwarz-wrong-pentagon-t7762.html?t=7762&highlight= Note the date. Perhaps had you posted there then that error ( If indeed it is an error ) could have been omitted. You should read that entire thread. Also note that "Merc Mercy" is Aldo from CIT, and "enigs" is Dylan in that thread. |
|
|
|
| r2d2m2 | Jun 21 2009, 10:31 PM Post #5 |
|
So where does it say that flight 77 would have had Pratt & Whitney engines? Aldo seems to think they would have been 535s and another poster (a moderator) identifies the engines as being Rolls Royces from a photo of "the actual aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon".
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
It is almost certainly an error. And this forum you pointed me to only confirms that. It's just a shame that the photo of "the actual aircraft" is now missing or we would have even more evidence. In 1992 the 757s belonging to American Airlines had the same type of engines they have now. It would have taken something very unusual indeed for flight 77 to have had anything but Rolls Royce RB211 535s on 9/11/2001. And there is certainly no evidence to suggest any such unusual occurence. No reason whatsoever to think it had Pratt & Whitneys. Perhaps if Dylan had read that thread carefully the error could have been omitted. Would one more person suggesting that the engines were Rollers have really made a difference? I imagine that somewhere along the line Dylan has heard that Pratt & Whitney make engines for the 757 and has jumped to conclusions. I'm not trying to criticise him for this mistake. I am simple trying to help him rectify it. It is not too late.
Thanks for the homework. I read it all. Some of it twice. Most of it has no relevance. In fact I can't find any comments regarding the supposed vaporization of a 757 and it's engines (regardless of the type). It seems to relate more to the A3 / wreckage photos question, which is really a seperate matter. It also contains numerous errors, oversights and grasping at straws (I will come back to these). So basically I'm wondering what the point was. What was I meant to learn from this reading exercise? Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 21 2009, 10:45 PM Post #6 |
|
August 18, 2005 is what I was getting at. When the info was being compiled/researched before any FOIA's were available, and before Loose Change second edition was created. Do you have any clue as to how difficult it was to obtain any info then compared to today ? As far as the rest of your questions, the search engine there is very good, better than here even. Perhaps you should try it.  Edit to add - since you "make" rolls royce engines, perhaps you could post some confirmed parts breakdowns for the RB-211E. Edited by JFK, Jun 21 2009, 10:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
| r2d2m2 | Jun 21 2009, 11:39 PM Post #7 |
|
Some obvious errors in this discussion: Aldo shows a picture of something he describes as a "Pratt & Whitney Combustion Case" but this is not a casing of any kind. I don't do Pratt & Whitney but it's still obvious what this is. It is a flame tube. You can see an interconnector protruding from the side, which would link it to another flame tube. You can see where the fuel would enter at the top (strictly speaking it's the front). You can see holes (getting bigger towards the bottom/back), which would allow air to mix with the fuel in a carefully controlled manner. And this flame tube is a just a small part of a combustion chamber (which is not the same as a casing). Aldo shows a diagram that is simply labelled RB211. This highlights another misunderstanding as it may well be the wrong diagram. RB211 refers to a family of similar but quite different engines that vary significantly in size, thrust range, etc. For example the 747 can have RB211 engines but, as I'm sure you can imagine, they produce a lot more thrust than the RB211s on a 757. This is an easy oversight to make when you don't know your Rollers so it is worth noting. There are more. I will come back to this again when I can even though it's not entirely relevant to this thread. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 21 2009, 11:43 PM Post #8 |
|
Great, you do that. Can you bring sourced parts breakdowns ? |
|
|
|
| r2d2m2 | Jun 22 2009, 01:45 AM Post #9 |
|
This is a pretty febble excuse. You don't need an FOIA to find out what engines an airliner has. If the worst comes to the worst a pair of binoculars will do the trick. It's not exactly top secret information. Check out planespotters.net to see what I mean (you must wear an anorak to post in the forums but it is bloody useful to say the least). As for the fact that Loose Change 2nd Edition was compiled/researched before it was created... I should hope so too. But what exactly does this prove? You are losing me again. 2nd Edition is the video I watched. My whole point is that Dylan didn't research certain statements in that video carefully enough beforehand. I must say that I find this response most disappointing. Being defensive really doesn't help. In fact it gives the impression of a clash between the truth and the ego. I am not interested in how this error came about or how understandable it may (or may not) be. As far as I'm concerned someone has a crossed wire and my only interest is uncrossing it. The result of this crossed wire is a bad thing (imho), which is exactly why I want to uncross it, but I am not saying that any individual is bad. I know more than Dylan about gas turbines and so I set him straight. Dylan is better looking than me and so he gets the girls. I am not a threat. I have the utmost respect for Dylan and overall I praise his work. He is the hero. Competition over.
What questions?
Why do you quote "make"? You use a different word? Should I have said I mek Rolls Royce engines? And what do you mean by RB211E? Do you mean RB211 535E4B (as currently fitted to American Airlines 757s) and if so may I suggest that first of all we find out the exact version they were using in 2001 (if possible)? I also want to find out exactly what the 911 Commision had to say before proceeding myself. I have heard about their claim that the entire plane was vaporized by jet fuel but I would like to see it in black and white. I don't trust these conspiracy videos. They make half of it up as they go along. 
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 22 2009, 10:12 AM Post #10 |
|
Actually it is a "secret". If it wasn't, the records for all 4 aircraft involved that day would have been spread like wildfire by now. Remember that at that time none of us ( with the exception of "tocarm" ) really knew very much about aircraft components.
Dylan did an excellent job of researching with the information available at the time, and both the first two Loose Change videos succeeded in doing exactly what they were intended to do... Get ordinary people to question what they were told and help with the ongoing research.
After years of dealing with trolls and agents patience wears thin.
That's great. I await those parts breakdowns. Would you like AA77's tail number to help your search ?
See previous comment.
Now you are trolling.
The questions you asked in the above posts.
I quote "make" because that is what you stated in your opening post. A real person in that occupation would use the terms "build", "assemble", or "manufacture", I have never heard a professional use the term "make" in that context.
Good luck with that.
Here you go. Spoiler: click to toggle
Edited by JFK, Jun 22 2009, 10:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jun 22 2009, 10:33 AM Post #11 |
|
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644AA
|
|
|
|
| r2d2m2 | Jun 23 2009, 12:38 AM Post #12 |
|
Maybe you should call 007. Or maybe you should call a plane spotter. That link I gave you? Just a random plane spotter site I found on google. I decided to take a look myself (to save you the hard research) and as I suspected their database was more than willing to spill the beans... http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/757/24602,N644AA-American-Airlines.php Construction Number: 24602 Line Number: 365 Reg: N644AA Aircraft Type: Boeing 757-223 Airline: American Airlines Engines: 2x RR RB211-535E4B SELCAL: LP-GQ First Flight: 25-04-1991 Delivered: 08-05-1991 Airframe Status: Written Off Airframe Remark: 11.9.01 Washington DC 64(i)+125 crashed deliberately into Pentagon by terrorists after hijacking That pretty much settles it then. No Pratt & Whitneys on flight 77. No secret. Flight 77 had two RB211 535s pretty much identical to those fitted to the rest of the 757s in American Airlines' fleet (to this date). And if you think this is misinformation then please feel free to double check with some different plane spotters. Just hope I haven't started a wildfire.
Yet in the video you talk about them as if you do. You use your very limited (and flawed) knowledge as evidence. And in doing so you make yourself look pretty silly (or worse in some minds). Excusing the mistake won't really fix it either. We forgive your mistake. Now what are the chances of you putting it right? Choose between your ego and the truth. Choose well.
Boeing 757s have two Pratt & Whitney engines weighing six tonnes each? This was the only information available at the time? Come on! There was plenty of information available on this score. My Rolls Royce publication (from 1992) is one example. Plane spotter sites are another. And I doubt very much that American Airlines have only recently started letting on what engines they use. How the hell would you keep that secret? If you think these lack of information excuses stick then you are kidding yourself. Dylan has jumped to conclusions and used them as evidence of murder. When are you going to stop digging your heels in? Ego versus truth. A man is not a man until he can admit that he is wrong. And besides... if you don't admit mistakes and put them straight your enemies will use them against you. Rest assured.
Bad mistake treating me as a troll (or agent). Now my patience wears thin.
I will talk to you about this another time. All I'll say for now is... Don't hold your breath!
See this is what I'm talking about. You are virtually accusing me of lieing based purely on one word that doesn't sound right to you. Your spidey senses are racked off mate (as us foreigners say). I am going to post a photo in the next few days that will make you wish you had never come out with this silly comment. All you are doing is winding me up. You need to sort out that thin patience of yours.
"F**k the luck s**t, strictly aim" - Notorious B.I.G. First shot... planespotters.net says 535E4B (one shot one kill). Maybe I should spend another ten minutes double checking this top secret information.
Let me rephrase... In relation to flight 77 Loose Change 9/11 states that "the official explaination is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane." Can you please tell me where (exactly) this information came from? If it was the 9/11 Commision Report (the only official explaination I know of) then can you please give a page number at least? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 23 2009, 12:52 AM Post #13 |
|
So you have never heard of the ASCE report, The NIST NCSTAR reports, and The FEMA 403 report ? That is about 1 1/2 Gb of reports, and no I do not have a page number off the top of my head.  Edit to add - Aldo answered where the engine data came from. There is no "535" in the official documents. Edited by JFK, Jun 23 2009, 12:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
| r2d2m2 | Jun 23 2009, 09:38 AM Post #14 |
|
Thanks Aldo. I'm not sure what you're getting at but this is interesting anyway. It may seem to some like the certificate is deliberately evasive regarding the model of the engine but that can't really be the case. It is just a bit vague that's all. If it says RB211 series then it is obvious that it's a 535. The 535 is the only member of the RB211 family that fits the 757... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211 The only thing we cannot confirm from the airworthiness certificate is the exact version of the 535 in question. Not that it would help much. You failed to point out another important piece of data from this document. The A/W date. This matches perfectly with the delivery date provided by planespotters.net (as we would expect). So all this tells us is that the 757 was certified airworthy on the day it was delivered to American Airlines (May 8th 1991) and at that time it had RB211 535s. |
|
|
|
| C.H. | Jun 23 2009, 04:36 PM Post #15 |
|
Fema Report, p. 15:
FEMA- A Review of the Temporary Shoring Used to Stabilize the Pentagon After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001 |
|
|
|
| r2d2m2 | Jun 23 2009, 10:51 PM Post #16 |
|
Thank you so very, very much C.H. You have saved me a great deal of trouble. You have also confirmed exactly what I suspected... This is a classic case of Chinese Whispers. The offficial explaination is that MOST of the plane DISINTEGRATED (precisely the word I was expecting). Dylan Avery has taken it upon himself to reword this to state that the ENTIRE plane was VAPORIZED. Right now I find myself utterly disgusted. And if anyone is missing the point...
There is a huge difference between these words. Most of the plane broke into small pieces? Perfectly feasible (although I imagine the rapid deceleration would have had a fair bit to do with it too). The entire plane was turned into gas? A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL GAME (AND NOT WHAT THE FEMA REPORT STATES). And it is not just the rather feeble attempt to explain why you can't vaporize a gas turbine with jet fuel that comes crashing down with this Chinese Whisper either. There's the human remains argument too. And that is a very sensitive matter, which should have been handled with great care. Dylan Avery should be absolutely ashamed of himself. All I'm waiting for now is JFK's excuses. What are you going to tell me now Mr President? English Language lessons were hard to come by in 2005? And if you don't appreciate my attitude then count yourself lucky there's a dirty great ocean standing between us. Right now I am severely tempted to put someone over my knee. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 23 2009, 11:12 PM Post #17 |
|
Some reading material since your posting privileges have been suspended for 3 days. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/boardrules/ Take special note of the portion titled "No Tolerance of Personal Attacks" Which I am bending in this case. Edited by JFK, Jun 23 2009, 11:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jun 24 2009, 11:35 AM Post #18 |
|
What exactly do you believe happened to the plane at the Pentagon R2? |
|
|
|
| topjars | Jun 25 2009, 02:58 AM Post #19 |
|
On one hand you say that "I have the utmost respect for Dylan and overall I praise his work." and then on the other hand "Dylan Avery should be absolutely ashamed of himself." Go figure  |
|
|
|
| onesliceshort | Nov 1 2009, 07:18 PM Post #20 |
|
Wow, that guy showed his true colours huh? LOL. Didn´t he just shoot himself in the foot? I´ll shoot him in the other one. How does this quote from the FEMA report tally with this report on the fireball? http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
So basically they say that only around 15% of the fuel created the fireball. They went out of their way to explain the collapse of the Pentagon facade by the heat of the fire. In doing so, they have left gaping holes in all the other subsequent anomalies that day. One was the idea that the plane would have ´desintegrated´ because of the fireball´s strength given that they have reduced it´s fuel content to such an extent. Another was the survival of DNA for identification which this guy went off on a rant about (ranting at the wrong people mate) http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
Bear with me.... http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html
What exactly was left? What damage was done to these samples that was so extreme that the rest could be identified?? They had an incredible 97% success rate. http://radiology.rsna.org/content/223/1/7.full
I raise the bullshit flag on the ´aircraft debris´ (how could they tell??) Seems even more impossible but detractors say that DNA can only be destroyed through cremation at temperatures of 1000º which they say was never reached. Most of the ´passengers´ were allegedly found in ´C´Ring. http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
Each agency investigation contradicts the other in major ways. If one report goes out of its way to claim that fire collapsed the facade and these temperatures were indeed reached for prolonged periods, it throws a massive question mark over the actual survival and identification of DNA to an almost 100% success rate. If they say that the fire wasn´t strong enough to destroy the DNA then what brought the facade down? Questions would be raised over the second major explosion heard just before the collapse and played down by all parties including the media. All reports into the Pentagon cancel eachother out in their clamour to cover the bases. Two more quotes that I found interesting regarding the DNA from the sme report.
Note that prior efforts had helped find 70% of body PARTS not victims. And this quote which looks like it has been censored in detail:
 Sorry for the long-winded answer but I´m sick and tired of detractors using the ´insult to the victims´ card knowing what I have just posted would make any honest person question exactly what happened on 9/11. If anything it is all done with utmost respect and BECAUSE of how cold-bloodedly and callously these people were executed that these forums keep digging. Rant over. |
|
|
|
| JackD | Dec 3 2009, 06:12 PM Post #21 |
|
Am I missing something? The speculation on aircraft engines, based on the photos, is useful. But without any hard linkage of parts found at Pentagon to time-changed serial stamped aircraft parts matching the equipmkent of AA77, what are we talking about? No parts photographed or found at Pentagon have been matched to that plane. I don't know what caused the devastation at the Pentagon, but one thing it apparnelty WAS NOT is Flight 77. That alone unravels the entire 'muslims hijack flight 77, attack pentagon' claim. which, uh, = 'official story' |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · American Flight 77 · Next Topic » |
1:36 AM Dec 6
