The North Tower Impact Pictures

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by minij
An example of wings shearing off would be if the plane had to crash land in the ocean. When the place hits the water, if the wings shear, they would absorb lots of energy, therefore making it more likely that the fuselage of the place will be intact.

What about the Pentagons reinforced concrete wall? Why is their no sign of the wings shearing off there, or the PA. crash site?

Oh and do not forget about the tail sections.


Geeze, I gotta figure out how this quote function works....

The wings did shear off. They also shredded, some of the debris remained outside, some went through the exit hole, and some remained inside the building.

FYI, the hole wasn't just 18'. Look at the old thread. bsbray ( I believe) has a photo up with a nice clean hole in the exterior wall with the wing strike mark above it. He's asking how could the strike mark be above the fuselage hole. It's not the fuselage hole,that's where the port engine went through.

Someone else had a photo that had the lower portion obscured by fire fighting foam and was asking how the wings could fold up and get sucked in. Look closely. They are clearly 2 different holes.

As far as the starboard engine goes, it makes sense, as someone else mentioned, that the engines are designed to "come off" when they strike an object like the generator. Obviously it's not gonna drop off right there and go from 500 mph to 0 in the space of just a few dozen feet. If this is the case (engine sheared off) then it could have gotten turned sideways a little and gone through. That's why the hole in that side is a little more ragged, with some columns still partially intact, but still showing signs of taking an enormous impact.





[edit on 15-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Haroki]

Originally posted by Haroki
The wings did shear off. They also shredded, some of the debris remained outside, some went through the exit hole, and some remained inside the building.

Can you show me the debris from the wings outside and inside the building?

We have the photos of the engine found outside the Pentagon.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Parts of the engines were found a few blocks away.

While those pictures raise questions about ityou have to take into account a few factors buildings are built to withstand strong winds and earthquakes and the like as far as i know ive never heard of a building being built to withstand a plane crashing into it.
The wings simply could have been caught on some part of the building structure or even some kind of object on the inside with out detailed knowledge of the inside objects and scenario we can not tell if the wing damages or anything like that could have played a factor in it.
Consider this a plane normally travelling at 100miles crashes into a empty room made of steel and glass versus a room made of steel and glass containing steel items or other hard strong objects.

Originally posted by dbates
Parts of the engines were found a few blocks away.

But are they the right engines?

What about the engine found outside the Pentagon?

Also if the plane at the Pentagon had hit the lightpoles there would be wing debris at the lightpoles.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by dbates
Parts of the engines were found a few blocks away.

But are they the right engines?

:shk:

Let's see, two planes crashed 3 blocks away and you find a smoking engine on the sidewalk. Do you A. Say "O my, parts of the plane crash", or B. "I wonder where this came from?" As if smoking airplane debris was lying around on the streets of New York City on a daily basis. I suppose bums light fires in them at night to stay warm. That explains the smoking engine.

I understand the need to question the facts, but questioning to this degree is just insane. If you can find video footage of other aircraft crashing at that time and place we can entertain that as a thought. Otherwise, why bother?

Originally posted by dbates
I understand the need to question the facts, but questioning to this degree is just insane.

But if someone has a background in avaition and can look at the engine and state its not what it should be then i think its time to question it.

Can you state 100% fact that the engines found at the WTC or Pentagon are the correct engines, do we have any official reports to match the part numbers and serial numbers?

Just like most of the official story, there are a need for a lot of questions.

Ultima -

You've been involved in a thread which has just recently covered the engines.

John Lear pointed out what type of engine that was and it was the type used in AA planes.

Did you forget?

The engine was found ~300-500 yards away (nw) from the North Tower, on Murry street.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by ferretman2]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You've seen the debris. You're just denying it.

Try that schtick with someone else.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by dbates
Parts of the engines were found a few blocks away.

But are they the right engines?

What about the engine found outside the Pentagon?

Also if the plane at the Pentagon had hit the lightpoles there would be wing debris at the lightpoles.



How about the carbon fiber leading edge that went into that woman's sunroof. You know, the piece that CTerz try to use to prove it was a Global Hawk...

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No serial numbers, like it wouldn't bring out the "doctored evidence!!" crowd. However, all 3 pieces have been shown to definitely be from A RB211, and have definitely ruled out the possibility of it being from either a JT8D, AE3007H, or J57.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

In summary, we have studied two key pieces of wreckage photographed at the Pentagon shortly after September 11 and found them to be entirely consistent with the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine found on a Boeing 757 operated by American Airlines. The circular engine disk debris is just the right size and shape to match the compressor stages of the RB211, and it also shows evidence of being attached to a triple-shaft turbofan like the RB211. While many have claimed the wreckage instead comes from a JT8D or AE3007H turbofan, we have shown that these engines are too small to match the debris. Furthermore, we have studied what clearly looks like the outer shell of a combustion case and found that its fuel injector nozzle ports match up exactly to those illustrated in Boeing documentation for the RB211-535 engine. There is simply no evidence to suggest these items came from any other engine model than the RB211-535, and the vast majority of these engines are only used on one type of plane--the Boeing 757.

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by ANOK

 

1. Would the bird have punctured the skin of a stationary plane if it were flying at between 20 and 40mph?

2. If not, why does it puncture the skin when the plane is travelling at ~500mph?

Because a collision is the combined force of both objects. A bird is a very small object and creates a lot of force in a very small area. Not the same thing as a huge soft aluminum object hitting a wall of steel columns.

I would expect the plane to have somewhat entered the building, that's not the problem imo. The problem is the way it entered the building, like a knife into butter, no sign of it slowing down, no pieces of it flying off. The plane didn't even flinch.

Do you know that most bullets will not penetrate all the way through a car door? (no link just a class a took in the Navy when training for ASF (auxiliary security force)). The bullet is instantly slowed to nothing as it goes through the first skin of the door. The 757 didn't slow at all as it penetrated massive steel columns, and then we're supposed to believe the nose of the plane came out the other side? Sry but it's just laughable.

BTW don't make assumptions, I'm not a no-planer, I just see what I see and something is not right about the way the planes impacted the buildings imo.
Maybe 757's fitted with a missile in the fuselage somehow, I have no idea but they were not normal 757's hitting a steel framed building.

Originally posted by Haroki
No serial numbers, like it wouldn't bring out the "doctored evidence!!" crowd.

Well there still is no reports on any part numbers matching a plane.

Also I was not talking about pieces i was talking about the engine found at the Pentagon. Please read my post.

Here is photo of the engine found outside the Pentagon. So please show me evidence that this is a RB-211.

i22.photobucket.com...

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Please prove that's a engine. It looks waaaay too large when compared to the van sitting there.

And look again at the Pentagon thread. The port engine went through the building. Or are you suggesting that the engine just fell off there and remained almost wholly intact after a 400 mph collision?

Originally posted by Haroki
Please prove that's a engine. It looks waaaay too large when compared to the van sitting there.

If you know anything about jet engines you would know by the section that has been marked in the yellow bloack. You might want to do research on the size of jet engines.

Well the engine that hit the generator probably did not make it into the wall. Is there evidence of 2 holes in the wall that are 40 feet apart, becasue that is the distance between the 2 enginse from center point on a 757.







[edit on 16-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1





This shows the right side of the impact area. Your photo has the left side hole.




Here's some general debris. See what's in the foreground? Looks like landing trucks....

Originally posted by Haroki
This shows the right side of the impact area. Your photo has the left side hole.

Here's some general debris. See what's in the foreground? Looks like landing trucks....

Are the holes 40 feet apart? How far in do the holes go?

Where are the reports on what they are and their part numbers?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Her's a good description/photos/diagrams of the holes in the Pentagon.

www.pehi.eu...

I'm still trying to track down a description of parts found/their identification method. If, and that's a big if at this point, would you be willing to accept it as accurate? Or will you immediately start claiming doctored evidence?

Do you have a wider view image of what you're describing as a jet engine lying outside the Pentagon? I'm unable to place it in the larger view. Thx.

Originally posted by Haroki
I'm still trying to track down a description of parts found/their identification method.

Good luck on trying to track down information on the parts found, like part numbers and serial numbers. I have been trying for a while now to get that information.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Haroki
I'm still trying to track down a description of parts found/their identification method.

Good luck on trying to track down information on the parts found, like part numbers and serial numbers. I have been trying for a while now to get that information.

Ha ha, no chit.

Aparently, at one time there was a map of where victim's remains were found, and so hoped the same would be true of parts/id, etc.

So, can you place your engine/minivan for me?

And do you agree with the hole?