Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

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!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Church & Murray Street Engine IDENTIFIED!; Engine Wreckage near GRD Zero
Topic Started: Jun 19 2009, 11:22 PM (33,660 Views)
Darren
Member Avatar

I set out to use the pictures taken of the engine wreckage to confirm its make and model which was located at the intersection of Church & Murray Streets in Manhattan. There has been much debate on this engine - rather than participate in the debate, I just decided to follow the evidence and see what turns up as my result. That result was not what I was expecting to find but it will no doubt lead to a better understanding of the events that took place. It will also lead to many more questions and answer a few along the way.

First, I needed to learn about turbofan engines. I consulted with a man who has 40 years manufacturing experience in the field with both Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce. Although, he could not give me a positive identification, I did collect some invaluable information as we looked over some photographs. I was aware that there was an engine at the Fresh Kills landfill which was a CF6-80C2. I decided to start first with GE and try to narrow the possibilities.

I spent hundreds of hours on the possibilities. My first reference point was the component sitting about twenty feet away. The name of the component is High Pressure Turbine (HPT). This was two HPT stages with many of the "Nozzles" or "Vanes" as sometimes called, still attached. The Turbine Nozzles are often the hottest component in the aircraft engine. The force created from the combustion of jet fuel is forced onto this component to get everything spinning. Limiting factors can be repeated cycles of the engine, temperature, and fatigue. For that reason, improved methods of cooling these nozzles are always being researched by engineers. As some new methods are tested and later certified, the manufacturers of these engines will introduce a new product which may still be derived from some common components. On the other side of the coin, improvements such as revisions may be necessary to ensure safety and reliability as deemed by the regulatory body without changing the performance of the engine. Stay with me....there's a point to all this.

I could not match the rotor disc section of the turbine with anything from GE. It was very frustrating because I had counted (estimated) about 80 nozzles on the turbine which would have matched the CFM56 engine. Unfortunately, components did not match and so I had to move on. I tried Roll Royce next and had the same result. P&W had even less information available for rotors and so I hit a roadblock. I then focused on the engine itself and tried to get better high resolution photographs. Sitting right on top of the "combustor" section of the engine of one such photograph is where I noted that the turbine rotor should be. Below that, I noticed a very odd looking array tube-like elbows. I consulted with my specialist once again. I was told this component was to direct the cool air flow through the nozzles. Turbine Nozzles are a very intricate component full of holes and passages to ensure they do not over heat or fatigue prematurely.....in fact, they are the very heart of the engine. Soon, I found that component from a catalog.......finally a match.

The name of the component is HPT Stage1 Cooling Duct Assembly. There is a history behind this assembly as I began to read more. This component was part of the early JT9D-7 series engines that were used in development of Boeing's 747 line of aircraft. The "7" series engines have gone through many revisions but are exclusively used on 747's. Many years later, P&W decided to work with NASA in the development in a new technology to improve engine performance and reliability. This improvement was made specifically to this section of engine. Tangential On-Board Injection (TOBI or "R" for Radial) was the newest improvement to reduce nozzle temperatures by over 2% which could open the door for a more powerful engines based on the "7" series engine. The new model of engine would be called 7R4+Revision Letter. The 7R4D engine is the one that is specified for United Airlines Boeing 767's.

The engine found at Church and Murray didn't seem to be a 7R4D.....it seemed to be a 7J. The only way to confirm this is to search for the engine and take a look at the diffuser casing to verify a match. This was another needle in a haystack but I found it......a photo of a stripped down 747 engine at an outdoor museum. The diffuser casing is a perfect match!
Attached to this post:
Attachments: _5705_747_engine_comparison04.jpg (89.31 KB)
Attachments: _09120009_comparison_03.jpg (145.29 KB)
Attachments: _chromalloy01_edit.jpg (169.06 KB)
Attachments: _chromalloy02_edit.jpg (164.36 KB)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar

Good work.

[edit] Sorry this original post sounded negative. The above study is important, needless to say.

Well, I found the 767 engine guts on display here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/unclejefejefe/3399480109/

Check the tags/description. Is this what we were supposed to see on 9/11, instead of the 747 junk?
Edited by Matt, Jun 20 2009, 12:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatprophet


.. a good post weezula ..

What is also very interesting is the area around the engine ..

Now where the hell did these headphones come from? .. I cant
find them in any other image of the engine on Murray Street ..

They are not seriously suggesting that those are a pilots headphones!


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YougeneDebs
Member Avatar

weezula~
Excellent work! Your efforts are an inspiration! Thanks!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
;)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darren
Member Avatar

Posted Image

This is the culprit. There is one distinct feature - the tail cone. It is pointed as compared to 7R4D engine.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seatnineb


Great piece of research Weezula...

so if i am understanding this right....what we have is a JTD9 engine with a cooling duct assembly that should not be part of a JTD9 engine that should have been aboard our 767-200 n162ua belonging to united Airlines

basically this engine belongs to a boeing aircraft manufactured in the 1970's.

Posted Image

just found this web page;


JT9D Model History

1970 -3A model was introduced on the first Wide-Body for the Boeing 474
1971 -7 model was introduced with Higher Trust (45,600 lbs)
1972 -20 model was introduced on McDonnell Douglas DC-101973 -7A model was introduced with Higher Trust (46,250 lbs)
1974 -7F model was introduced with Higher Trust (48,000 lbs)
1975 -7J model was introduced with Higher Trust (50,000 lbs)
1976 -59A, -70A models were introduced with Higher Trust (53,000 lbs)
1979 -7Q model was introduced with greater efficiency for the B747
1980 -59A model was introduced for the Airbus A300
1982 -7R4D model was introduced for the B7671983 -7R4 D1/E1 models ware introduced for the A310
1983 -7R4G2 model was introduced with Higher Trust (54,750 lbs) for the B747
1984 -7R4H1 model was introduced with Higher Trust (56,000 lbs) for the A300
1987 -20J model was introduced with Higher Trust (50,000 lbs) for the DC-10
1990 -The JT9D Engine reaches 100,000,000 flight hours


http://www.i2iaero.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=83

the n162ua plane that supposedly hit wtc2 was a plane built in 1983:

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 21873 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date 01/18/1984
Model 767-222 Mode S Code 51773757
Year Manufacturer 1983

that coincides with the year that the JDT9 engine was modified(to a 7R4D) to be incorporated on the then new 767-200 series:

1982 -7R4D model was introduced for the B7671983
http://www.i2iaero.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=83

I am just wondering how the official story supporters would explain that away...

still heads up Weezula.....great work....keep it goin.!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

NICE WORK.

i have a jpg of a stats folder,
that claims a 767 has an "E" engine fitted,
not a "D". i dunno where i got it from now though,
so it's no reference...

and low and behold that looks like a 707 or 720 in that photo?.

like the one nasa crashed in that test?.

how delightfully poetic.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seatnineb

genghis6199
Jun 21 2009, 06:32 AM
NICE WORK.

i have a jpg of a stats folder,
that claims a 767 has an "E" engine fitted,
not a "D". i dunno where i got it from now though,
so it's no reference...

and low and behold that looks like a 707 or 720 in that photo?.

like the one nasa crashed in that test?.

how delightfully poetic.



Yeah dude...

trying to find out which engine is specifically assigned to which series model is the tricky part:

the best i have found so far is this vague statement ....LOL!

Applicability: Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT9D-7R4D, -7R4D1, -7R4E, -7R4E1 (AI-500), -7, -7A, -7AH, -7H, -7F, and -20 series turbofan engines, installed on but not limited to Boeing 747 and 767 series, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 series, and Airbus Industrie A310 series aircraft.

http://atis.casa.go.kr/asms_ad/file/2001-04-11.html.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatprophet


.. Been doing a fair bit of research into the engine on Murray Street
and have come to a startling conclusion ..

I will post more soon but it appears to me that the resting point for
the engine is an impossibility .. 100% cant land in that position having
exited the north wall of the south tower ..

More soon

Beat
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genghis6199

i have always wondered about that,
it can't travel straight thru.
i always imagined it might get there if it bounced around on the street,
which it would probably do,

now that would be some scary shitee.

it would also leave massive crunches in the tarmac,
and would also end up resting against whatever broke it's momentum, eg, shopfront, vehicle etc.

we also have a question of mementum..

if they are saying the plane DID DECELERATE,

then how on earth did it decelerate,
whilst having it's motor shoot out at 500 mph ??

it would have to have a minimum velocity to reach this point!!!!.

it it easily calculable!!!!.

if the engine is travelling at anything over 400 mph you could
completely discount any kind of deceleration!!!.

the perps forgot about newton twice in one day...

nice work guys, i can't help i got too much real life yawney stuff going on.
i'll watch proceedings with interest.



Edited by genghis6199, Jun 21 2009, 10:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatprophet

... Here goes

This is the image of the engine which came to rest on Murray street

Posted Image

Notice that there is no hole in the scaffolding roof ..

The following image is from google earth and we can see the position of the resting
place of the Murray Street engine ..

Posted Image

Note the engines position relative to the world trade centre site ..

Did it crash through those tall buildings to get to that position!

It seems like an impossible resting place to me .. and if it had rolled to that position would
it have cracked the pavement as badly as shown? .. and if it had rolled I would imagine
it would have finished on its side and not bolt upright ..

How did it got there?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seatnineb

Nice work too Beat....

Found this web page ages back....

This guy claims the bent sign is proof that the engine must have hit it before landing:

Posted Image
http://www.geocities.com/revisitingny/lastlookatg0.html.

will post more....trying to get the location of the sign
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seatnineb


Going back to the engine details....this is straight from boeing:

Each 767 is powered by two high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, which are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_background.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Darren
Member Avatar

seatnineb
Jun 21 2009, 12:05 PM
Going back to the engine details....this is straight from boeing:

Each 767 is powered by two high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, which are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications.


http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_background.html
Keep in mind that this is the most heavily regulated industry in the world. Swapping out engines like that is much like being a backyard mechanic. They cannot do this unless the aircraft is specifically certified as such. If that were the case, it would be considered as a different aircraft with new serial number. A mechanic cannot be an inventor with civil aviation - everything is by the book. It is a very strict system from what I am told.

That said, the ratings are similar and the differences are primarily internal and so in theory, I agree. BTW, that is a great find on how the engines "are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications.". It is very possible that a wide body aircraft was still used according to that information.

Theory aside.....here is a photo of N612UA (Flight 175) less than 60 days prior to 9/11:
Posted Image

Frank C Duarte Jr:
"Less than 60 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks I was previliged to photograph N612UA at LAX before she was purposely flown into the WTC. r.i.p."

Look to the tail end of the engine. The tail cone is not pointed as would be on a 747 engine - 7 series. The Church and Murray Street engine is not shown in the picture by Frank.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · World Trade Center Complex · Next Topic »
Add Reply