PLANE PARTS part I

ENGINE PARTS – THE DRIVING ISSUE
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
Last Updated 5/26/07

In their effort to cast doubt on the official story of the Pentagon attack, Loose Change explained that a 757 is driven by “two Pratt and Whitney Engines made of steel and titanium alloy which are nine feet in diameter, twelve feet long, and weigh six tons each.” Considering government claims that the plane entirely disintegrated in the fire (an explanation I’m certain they’re exaggerating), “it is scientifically impossible that twelve tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by kerosene." We’ve seen no intact nine-foot engines, and they couldn't have burned away, so a logical conclusion would be they never existed. “The two engines should have been found relatively intact. Instead, there was a single turbojet engine approximately three feet in diameter found inside the building.” I’m not sure where they got this from, but the only source coming to mind (Desmoulins, whose evidence we'll see below, and his wasn't intact either). But one small engine would mean we’re looking at a missile, not a plane.

Jim Hoffman's 9-11 Review noted of the Loose Change take “perhaps ‘engines should have been found relatively intact’ if the Pentagon were made out of bamboo. Since when has an engine survived a 500-mph impact with a masonry building relatively intact?” [1] Indeed, the engines are not so solid as Dylan made them sound. First off, citing the engines as being nine feet across and solid titanium is deceptive – what we see that’s so big is the engine with its outer housing. The outer shell is strong enough to withstand winds but not concrete walls, against which it would be shredded. I’m not sure what they’re made of but I’m guessing well-formed composite plastic materials in multiple layers with reinforcing fibers and whatnot. They could also be metal, or some mix, but essentially it's just a sturdy aerodynamic shell. The hard titanium alloy stuff is inside the actual engine, which is six feet in diameter at its widest point – the front fan - and considerably narrower otherwise. The variously sized and carefully arranged internal parts – gears, center shaft, burners, housings - would mostly remain intact after the crash and fire, but not necessarily neatly assembled any more.


The engine above is a different model than what we’re looking for here, but the concept and proportions are about the same in all models. This is Turbofan engine, improving on the old turbojet design by adding the larger fan to move a large column on top of what it ignites. The basic idea is the fan pulls in air, passes much through the outer fan duct where it just moves through, while compressing the air in the middle into an inlet where it is passes through several compressor discs to futher pack it with oxygen before passing the fuel burners that ignite the air in the combustion housing. The explosive air is then directed back out the rear nozzle to drive the plane, passing on the way over curved slats on the edges of the turbine discs which in turn spin the shaft that drives the fan and feeds the cycle.

So the point is that even large engines have small parts, radial wheels of differing sizes set along a central shaft. If intact, an engine found would look a bit like the diagram above – if the parts were scattered with the force of penetration, then we should expect views like those below. No whole engines were seen, only parts that may be from an engine, so if there were engines there they broke up and scattered into the building.

The famous photo at left was taken by two days after the attack, showing a gear removed from building and snapped by FEMA photographer Jocelyn Augustino just north of the impact zone. Compared to the worker’s leg, it appears to be 24-32 inches in diameter. French researcher Jean-Pierre Desmoulins identified it as “a rotor (high pressure stage) coming from a jet engine” He also noted “on the top left of the image, what seems to be the housing of this engine,” an apparently tubular piece of debris (here outlined in red, along with a piece of what seems sheet metal that appears to have about the same curve. [1] The size looks reasonably close, but it almost seems the gear is in fact larger in diameter than its supposed housing. I don't know what the hell this thing is. It's round, which means likely from an engine.

Eric Hufschmid made the same call as Desmoulins in his video Painful Deceptions, seeing the rotor and its slightly-smaller casing as proof the "engine" here is too small for a 757 and more likely the single engine of a Global Hawk.

If the disc is from an engine it was from a big one. Some have speculated that it was a turbofan hub from a proper Rolls Royce RB 211 engine (the model AA uses for its 757s). The “cleats” on the edge would then be to hold the larger fan blades in place. Compared to the hub of a standard 757 engine in the graphic at right (it would be beneath the “hubcap” in the center) it indeed seems roughly the right size. Russell Pickering agreed it may be a fan hub from a 757, but also noted “that component is similar to many engine parts in many various engines.” [3] He doesn’t seem to know much more than me here. I’m not even sure the notches are cleats to hold fan blades, but could be for other turbine-related spinning activities deeper inside. The knowledgeable folks at Aerospaceweb were uncertain as well but guessed that it “looks like a rotary disk from the interior of the plane's engine.” [4] Jim Hoffman also called it a turbine rotor. [5]

Speculation arose early on that the part was from a 757 but not from its engine. As Loose Change explained “after this photo was published by American Free Press readers wrote in to suggest that the turbine was a piece from the auxiliary power unit (APU) mounted in the tail section of a 757." Others like Jon Carlson have dismissed this as speculation "dropped into the conversation as disinformation.” [6] Chertoff-busting Chris Bollyn implausibly claims he contacted people at Honeywell (makers of the APU), Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce, (makers of the engines used on 757s) and was able to get confirmation on all three fronts from someone employed there that the non-descript round part was definitely not from anything any of them built. [7]

Karl Schwarz was able to positively identify it as "a "turbojet" component from an US Air Force/Navy vintage type of jet engine technology that was used on just a limited number of fighters, bombers and reconnaissance planes." His prime culprit is pf course the JT8D, a tiny engine used in pairs on the tiny A3 Sky Warrior. It seems the A3 doesn't actually use JT8Ds after all, as explained in my "A3 Skywarrior Theory" post.

Another possible engine part was seen later, in the batch of evidence released by the government after the end of the Zaccarias Moussaoui trial in mid-2006. It’s of non-descript debris at the Pentagon, clearly pivotal in Moussaoui’s guilt. The scale here is less clear, but it looks like a rear turbine gear with its curved blades for allowing ignited air to pass, and the base of the contral shaft that drives the fans. Or it could be the other end, the fan hub seen from behind, the ridges would then be the fan-holding cleats.

The photo at right was posted in 2002 on Rense.com by Sarah Roberts, a Pentagon employee seeking to debunk no-planes theories. She says the photo was taken "in either D or C-ring" by rescue workers with Virginia Task Force 1 (VATF-1). "The large circular piece in the middle appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, though this is not known for certain.” [8] Jerry Russel and Richard Stanley at 9-11 Strike, who lean towards no-plane theories, admit this and other parts match those from a 757’s engines but wondered “whether the parts were from a 757, or were they planted as fake evidence, perhaps having been from an earlier 757 crash?" [9]


Finally another VATF-1 photo. A round rim (bottom right): another engine part? Source: Sarah Roberts.

[1] ERROR: 'Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757' http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html
[2] COMMENTS ON MYTHOLOGY BUBBLE PART 5. http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/wr-eng.html
[3] http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonPlaneRotor.shtml
[4] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
[5] See [1].
[6] Carlson, Jon. "Missing Pentagon Jet Engine Identified? - A 727 JT8D Rense.com. 3-2-2005. http://www.rense.com/general63/ident.htm
[7] See [6].
[8] Roberts, Sarah. “Photos Of Flt 77 Wreckage Inside The Pentagon” Exclusive Photos & Story Remse.com. 12-4-2002 http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
[9] "The Five-Sided Fantasy Island: An analysis of the Pentagon crash on 9-11." version 2.0 (3/12/2004) Page 3 of 5. By Richard Stanley & Jerry Russell. 911 Strike. http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

FACES OF DEATH: MOUSSAOUI EDITION

THE FLIGHT 77 PASSENGERS: WE SEE THE BODIES?

"Okay, well, then if it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, then what happened to the plane and the people on it?" This is at root a good retort but also of course the most over-used and one I'm not going to bother with. In fact, it's beginning to seem that we have the answer anyway. There are many ways to disappear planes and passengers, but the simplest explanation for the missing status of Flight 77 and its passengers, that for which Occam’s razor would lobby, is that they were simply on board the plane when it crashed as reported, killing two birds with one stone as it were and keeping the evidence consistent. The WTC is one thing, but if no bodies turned up in the wreckage at the Pentagon’s relatively deserted Navy wing, that would look mighty suspicious. In fact, we’ve been told all the bodies were recovered and identified as Barb Olson, Captain Burlingame and the others, and Fintan Dunne's guess that this was their most convincing crime scene seems well-founded. But verification remains elusive, and the critics maintain since the bodies could not have been fit inside a cruise missile, the officials are lying.

At least this had been the situation until the Moussaoui case closed in May 2006. In an effort to clinch the death penalty, the government’s team had showed the jury new photos that seem to have answered the question Von Kleist couldn’t, a hint of the coming “bam!” The Washington Post reported on April 12 “just before the lunch break, they also showed the jury pictures of death - the scorched partial remains of Pentagon victims and a blackened body atop a blue body bag.” [1] A lunch spent unsettled and queasy from the viewing had to help the hungry jurors move closer to that guilty verdict over the afternoon as they listened to the cockpit voice recorder from Flight 93, another first, and the voices of other victims just before they too were burnt.

All this seems unrealted to Moussaoui's guilt and it seems the Moroccan's involvement was secondary, an opportunity to make an entirely different case to a much larger jury. Indeed, after the trial was finished with a guilty verdict on May 3 and Moussaoui’s sentencing to six life terms the following day, the government made an unusual move. All pieces of evidence admitted during the trial were released to the public, the US District Court, East Virginia District announced, “with the exception of seven that are classified or otherwise remain under seal.” Including both prosecution and defense exhibits, these 1,202 pieces were posted online on July 31. The court’s statement noted that “this is the first criminal case for which a federal court has provided access to all exhibits online,” or at least all but seven. [2]

Like the evidence itself, the full reasoning behind this unprecedented decision to release it to everyone remains unclear. The mass release included mug shots of terrorists both at large and in custody, copies of fax transmissions and photos of thick binders. There were new views of the devastation at the Pentagon – the entry hole, the “punch-out hole” on the A-E drive, interior shots, and a new shot of what appears to be the turbine from a jet engine.

To avoid a grisly and distasteful speactacle, here is a "chalk outline" I made of the most probable airline passenger from the government's photos

Most striking, of course, were the four grisly photographs showing charred human corpses, most in the seated position. Skeptics have wondered if the corpses were of workers from the Pentagon, but if I were an office worker hearing explosions, I’d stand instantly, alert to act as soon as I figured out what was happening where. I’d only die resigned and sitting if I was on a plane and already knew I was toast and had no choice. Therefore my guess is we have a few of our passengers from Flight 77 – one appears small enough in fact to be little Bernard Brown. Rest all their souls, and it seems near time to finally put to rest the no plane theory.

So far discussion on these new photos seems curiously muted inside the movement. Screw Loose Change posted the day after the release, August 1, regarding “the new evidence released from the Moussaoui trial.” Of the evidence Site admin James had seen, “one struck me the most, in a quite horrific way.” This was not one of the photos of bodies, but an animation “listing all the locations in the Pentagon that the bodies, or rather the body parts of all the victims were found. If you click on each marker on the map, it brings up the name and picture of the victim. I challenge any 9/11 denier to click through all these markers, and then get back to me on how all of this is fake.” [3]

Yet over at the 911 Blogger site, the endless elaborations on theories old and new was momentarily interrupted in early October by an uproar over indirect references to these photos, astutely caught and translated from the video of a Japanese 9/11 Truth conference. One poster fumed about a “right-wing” Japanese politician who showed up and countered the no plane theory by claiming he had “photos of bodies strapped into flight seats, and other bodies, at the pentagon!!” Three successive members commented:

“[A]s far as i know no such footage exists which means that he is lying out his ass!” … “First, those pics don't exist. Second, if they did exist, what business does he have with them in his computer? It's very fishy” … “What a MASSIVE lie! […] it is shocking that they would try to get away with something like this. this could be big to trace this guy down and find out where his orders to lie came from and for what reason.”

All these were posted on October 6, well over a month after the government released the photos for anyone to see. Prosecution Phase Two Exhibits P200042, P200045, P200047, P200048, not that there are many links from the “Truth” sites. Someone else at 911Blogger quickly posted several links to the photos, and soon they had confirmation – and the same photos – from the “Mr. Aoyama” in question. Some apologies for jumping the gun followed suit, then the subject shifted. [4] It was a telling episode, displaying a certain out-of-touchness indicative of a movement that’s beginning to realize it’s on crooked tracks but perhaps too late to avoid the crash.

Fintan Dunne noted on August 10 the Pentagon’s apparent victory in this set-up evidence war: “They got the lot. They got plane bits and they got all the bodies. They got photos. They got forensics. They have it sewn up. What? But weren't they all substitute planes, remotely controlled? Plane Bits! AND bodies! Yep. Just a regular plane crash. They flew the plane in by wire. It had passengers. It hit the Pentagon. It blew up.” [5]

Sources:
[1] Markon, Jerry and Timothy Dwyer. “Pentagon Attack Recalled at Trial: Moussaoui Prosecutors Shift to Spotlight Local Terror on 9/11.” Washington Post. April 12, 2006; Page A05
[2] United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia. “United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Criminal No. 01-455-A.” Trial Exhibits.
[3] James B. “The Pentagon Victims.” Screw Loose Change. Tuesday, August 01, 2006.
[4] “Video: Japanese 9/11 TV coverage.” 911Blogger.com. Presented by: Reprehensor. October 5 2006.
[5] Dunne, Fintan. Post subject: Pentagon Honey Trap. Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:25 pm. “The Next Level: The Intelligent Alternative. Pentagon – Overview.