Oh, now I get it

[Thrawn]

Geez, why not just release the film from the other video cameras.

[Bodhi]

Sandy,

Can I get a link to the film too?

nawcdgreen@yahoo.com

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Hawklore
But the fuselauge went through like a bullet, creating a vaccum, sucking in the wings and the engines, and exploding like it did..

Is the above statement possible?

"Aircraft wings have two main structural components beneath their aluminum skin. Spars are ultra-rigid metal beams that support a series of ribs that give shape to the wing. The main spar, a piece of solid aluminum alloy, has the same approximate shape as the floor beam of a house, being perhaps 10 cm thick and less than a metre high at the center of the aircraft. The main spar runs out almost to the end of both wings and therefore varies in height with the thickness of the wing. Two other spars, one aft of the leading edge (the forward spar) and one aft of the main spar (the aft spar) complete the main structural support of the wings.

Except for fuel tanks, wiring and hydraulics, spars and ribs, wings are otherwise hollow. The spars could be described as locally rigid and globally flexible. In other words, a wing may flex along its length when an aircraft encounters turbulence, for example, but, over much shorter distances, cannot bend significantly. Given sufficient force (applied either up or down) against a wing, it will simply break off. Sometimes the wings of older aircraft developed cracked spars. Even hairline cracks can be dangerous, as the slightest shearing force on the wing could widen and deepen the crack, causing catastrophic failure and the loss of a wing.

Of course, the force in question would not have been vertical, but horizontal. This makes the folding even more improbable, as the force of impact would be acting along the only possible fold axis, rather than at right angles to it. Try folding any material, say a piece of cardboard, by applying it's edge (not it's surface) to a tabletop. Folding horizontally is not an option, since all the spars would be lined up in opposing (momentarily) the folding force. Being locally rigid, the spars would simply snap within milliseconds of the impact against a support column that did not yield to their impact; they would fail as soon as the force of impact exceeded the elastic limit of the material. If they did not fail and if the support columns did not give way, the only remaining possibility would be for the aircraft to remain almost entirely outside of the Pentagon."

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

[Coolridr]

So Thrawn..you are saying you belive these nutjobs?  I need FACTUAL evidence to dubunk what is now accepted as the truth..Physics911 doesn't offer that.  Has anyone tried to recreate an aircraft hitting a building? Especially one as strongly built as the pentagon?  And their security camera video....That camera is LOW resolution and has a slow framerate...The Aircraft moved far to fast to get a good picture of it..much less a clear one. It's sad that people devote their entire lives trying to spread hate and work against whoever is in powerr. I may have posted in here my hatred for a particular group on this board in the past, but I'm not dropping my life to promote it. F-em' and whoever on here believes that video.

[Thrawn]

Coolridr, can you actually refute any of the statements made in the three paragraphs I quoted?

Whether or not you think there are nutjobs is irrelevant, that's just an ad hominum fallacy.  If a nutjob said, "The sun appears to rise in the east because the Earth rotates clockwise when viewed from above the north pole.", would he necessarily be wrong but virtue of being a nutjob?  Of course not.  

Like I said if you can refute any of the statements in the three paragraphs go for it, I would love to learn.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Geez, why not just release the film from the other video cameras.

What other cameras?  The only source I have seen claiming there are other cameras is this bizzare conspiracy theory video.  

Why do you take what they say at face value? Why accept it so readily?

After you adress that Thrawn question please take a look at this from the article you linked.  Here they claim the engines found in the pentagon were too small to be 757 engines.

They use these pictures as evidence:

The engines used by the Boeing 757 are similar to the Pratt and Whitney engine shown below (PW 2003) and have the same dimensions, being nearly three meters in diameter, more than twice the diameter of the engine shown above.

Turbofan Engine used in Boeing 757

Do you see the problem with their evidence?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What other cameras?  The only source I have seen claiming there are other cameras is this bizzare conspiracy theory video.

What...therefore they don't exist?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  I certainly should be pretty easy to verify that they don't.  

Why do you take what they say at face value? Why accept it so readily?

Who, the video?  I don't.  I'll accept the cameras because it's so easy to verify.  I'll discount most of the eye witness testimony because eye witness testimony is so notoriously screwed.

After you adress that Thrawn question please take a look at this from the article you linked.  Here they claim the engines found in the pentagon were too small to be 757 engines.

Do you see the problem with their evidence? [/B]

I see a typo.  The 757 does use the PW2000 engine.  It's demenisons are the same.

http://www.pw.utc.com/prod_comm_pw2000.asp


I quoted the site because I thought it had a good explanation why specifically Hawklore's senario couldn't happen.  And that explanation still stands, unless you can point out how it's wrong.

[gatso]

Nutjobs they may be, TF engine designers they are not.  Maybe someone should point out that a large Turbofan engine is more than a big fan thing on the front and empty space behind.



Gatso

[GRUNHERZ]

Bingo gatso! I was going to post that same graphic..

You see Thrawn they show one componet of the destroyed engine and then say the pentagon engine is too small because it it isnt as big as the whole, intact, non crashed, fan in front.  

That's a pretty damning mistake for a website that claims so much scientific thought...  They are either using people who are totaly ignorant about what they are talking about aor they are lying through their teeth and hoping btheir audience doesnt know the difference..

Originally posted by Thrawn
What...therefore they don't exist?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  I certainly should be pretty easy to verify that they don't.

Well I want more sources than that video before I even begin to consider anything else but dissmissing it out of hand.

[milnko]

It's been 20 years since I worked on a Turbofan engine, however on the GE TF34 (used on the S-3a/b and the A-10) the fan is connected by a shaft to a high pressure turbine, while the compressor is connected to a low pressure turbine.

The turbines are physically located aft of the combustion chamber and forward of the exhaust tailpipe.

In the 1st picture shown in GRUNHERZ's post you are looking a one of the turbines, not the FAN.