plamen
BANNED | Редактировать | Профиль | Сообщение | Цитировать | Сообщить модератору
Churchill
Цитата:| могут ли хрупкие крылья самолета наполненные топливом срезать железобетонные колоны |
According to a common argument against the crash of a 757 at the Pentagon the wings, which were too wide to fit through the impact puctures in the Pentagon's facade, should have remained outside the building and been visible in photographs. This argument is the central thesis of the paper The Missing Wings, whose abstract states, "Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely absent." The following excerpt enumerates and rejects four reasons the wings may be absent in the photographs.
According to the principle that we have stated above, two wings, each approximately 18-20 m long (however crumpled and damaged) must have appeared in virtually all the photographs taken of the Pentagon damage on the morning of September 11, 2001.
However, there are other reasons why the wings might be absent from the crash scene. Such reasons must be systematically listed and evaluated:
1. Could the damaged wings have been carted off by cleanup crews? The cleanup of the site did not begin until well after the morning hours of the day in question.
2. Could the damaged wings have "telescoped" into the body of the aircraft, as claimed by the Dept. of Defence? This claim was clearly meant for reporters, whose technical competence, as a general rule, would be unequal to the task of evaluating such a statement. There would have been no significant lateral force acting along either wing axis and there is no possibility of a wing actually entering the fuselage of the aircraft. If you fixed a Boeing 757 firmly to a given piece of ground, then used a team of bulldozers to push the wings into the body, the wings would merely fold up like an accordion or crumple and bend.
3. Could the wings have been entirely fragmented by the explosion of the fuel tanks after the aircraft struck the building? The fuel tanks of a 757 are located under the fuselage, as well as in the wing roots. The entire fuel storage area of a 757 would easily fit inside the initial entry hole and, consequently, the explosion would have been largely confined to the building's interior. As we shall see, the wings could not have entered the building, where they might possibly have encountered such a fate. The blast, as such, had little effect outside the building, as cable spools near the entry hole remained standing, for example.
4. This raises the question of whether the wings could have folded as the aircraft entered the building, bending backwards and following the aircraft in.
Reason 3, which asks if the explosion of the fuel tanks could have fragmented the wings, ignores the possiblity that the impact itself could have shredded the wings. The F-4 crash test described on the crash debris page
suggests that the crash of a 757 into the Pentagon would have shredded the wings into confetti. The wings of the F-4 in the crash test contained no fuel, but were entirely reduced to confetti.
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/missingwings.html
AlaTal
Цитата:| куда делся весь "хлам" от "боинга"? |
High explosives and shaped charges generate huge amounts of heat.
* "The firemen were appreciative, as the heat inside the building was, in their words, "unbelievable." It was reported that at least three of the fireman had to be given IV fluids due to the extreme heat" Terry Morin
* "We're having a lot of trouble in there. It's about 3,000 degrees inside" Willis Roberts
* "The ground was on fire. Trees were on fire. He was with the hospital corps in Vietnam when mortars and rocket shells dropped on the operating room near Da Nang -- but he had never witnessed anything of this devastating intensity" Alan Wallace
* "the whole back of the fire truck had melted" William Yeingst
* "The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M." Patriotresource
* "The fire was so intense it cracked concrete" USA Today
* "The fire was so hot, Evey said, that it turned window glass to liquid and sent it spilling down walls into puddles on the ground" Walker Lee Evey
* "that heat and fire, it could eat you alive in three seconds" Washingtonpost
* "It was still burning 18 hr. later" CBS News
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/inv3.html
Цитата:| Да вот беда! Мои глаза, которые НЕ РАЗ видели и мои руки, которые "щюпали" турбины ИЛ-86 и ТУ-154..., не думаю что у боинга меньще. Даже в Малайзии на выставке авиотехники на Пенанге бывал, видел я енти турбины и на "Иглах" Ф-16 ых, так...хотя я и не инженер. |
Proponents of theories that no 757 crashed into the Pentagon have cited the alleged incompatibility of engine debris at the site with the types of engines in Boeing 757s. Two of the more common arguments are:
* Only one engine was found at the crash site, whereas a 757 has two engines.
* The diameter of the engine parts in the wreckage are only about half the diameter of a 757 engine.
Both of these arguments are fallacious. We consider each separately.
The Missing Engine
The idea that only one engine was found in the wreckage is supported by photographs of engine parts published on government websites. One photograph shows a portion of a diffuser inside of a building, and another shows a high-pressure rotor amongst some wreckage just outside the Pentagon to the north of the impact zone. The absence of photographs of duplicate engine parts that would have indicated at least two engines is cited as evidence that the attack plane had only one engine.
That argument is a classic example of the fallacy of negative proof. The mere absence of proof of the existence of something does not prove its non-existence. The argument is even weaker when one considers the source of the images showing engine parts. Evidence of a cover-up in the handling of the 9/11/01 crime scenes is rampant. Unlike photographs of the Pentagon's facade taken by passers-by, photographs from inside the building were presumably released only at the discretion of insiders -- officials who might have an agenda decidedly at odds with a genuine investigation. There might be other engine parts that were not photographed, or other photographs that weren't released.
The Too-Small Engine Parts
The idea that the engine parts photographed at the crash site were too small to be from an engine found on a 757 is based on a failure to appreciate that different parts of a modern high-bypass turbofan engine differ dramatically in diameter. The fallacy is illustrated by a passage in one of the more popular articles purporting to prove that no 757 crashed into the Pentagon: The Missing Wings.
Only one engine was found inside the Pentagon. The two images below show two parts of the single engine found in the Pentagon. The left-hand image shows what appears to be part of the rotor element bearing the stubs of vanes. The right-hand image shows what appears to be the compressor (front) stage of the engine encased by its housing. This engine is barely a third the diameter of a large turbofan engine that powers the Boeing 757.
Turbofan Engine used in Boeing 757
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.
Contrary to the article's implication, the high-pressure rotor in the upper right photograph is in fact the diameter of such parts from a 757 engine. The following cut-away view of a turbofan engine similar to the ones used on 757s shows how much the diameters of the various parts differ. The high-pressure compressor and turbine rotors are only about one-third the approximately 8-foot diameter of the fan.
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html
Plane or missile ? There was a plane :
1. Many witnesses reported it. Browse along the witness accounts page. They saw a plane, they also reported jet fuel inside and outside, there was fuel inside a victim's lungs. Witnesses saw pieces of the plane's nose gear or some oxygen bottles. Air controllers (1 2) reported a plane aiming at the Pentagon.
2. It can be proved that the plane clipped five lamp poles on its way. As of the location of these poles, we can be sure that this plane had a minimum wingspan of 100 feet (30 meters).
3.As in the Frank Probst statement, some pictures show that an emergency generator was shattered on its front and cut (gouge) on its rear top. It seems that both actions occured during the attack. I can hardly imagine a missile making this. (This Enercon generator is homed in a container, some kind like this)
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/
|
Всего записей: 471 | Зарегистр. 09-05-2002 | Отправлено: 11:05 02-06-2006 | Исправлено: plamen, 12:35 02-06-2006 |
|
В кратце
: