Plane that hit Pentagon

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Questions about the plane that hit the pentagon.

1. Why was the diffuser case from the 757 that hit the pentagon, not match the diffuser case from the 757? (according to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce).

2. Do the pictures of the pentagon match the dimensions of the plane.

3. Why did people in the pentagon smell cordite?

4. Was the manuver by the plane possible? Do pilots think it is possible.

THanks

[R.Mackey]

1) They don't

2) They do

3) Cordite? What, is the NWO still trying to get rid of explosives left over from the Spanish-American War now?

4) Absolutely, and yes

Thanks for your attention.

[16.5]

Questions about the plane that hit the pentagon.

1. Why was the diffuser case from the 757 that hit the pentagon, not match the diffuser case from the 757? (according to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce).

2. Do the pictures of the pentagon match the dimensions of the plane.

3. Why did people in the pentagon smell cordite?

4. Was the manuver by the plane possible? Do pilots think it is possible.

THanks

this link is just for you

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156171

[AJM8125]

Somebody's been watching Loose Change, haven't they?:rolleyes:

[WildCat]

Questions about the plane that hit the pentagon.

1. Why was the diffuser case from the 757 that hit the pentagon, not match the diffuser case from the 757? (according to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce).
Because it was a Global Hawk you silly elf.

2. Do the pictures of the pentagon match the dimensions of the plane.
No, planes are much bigger than pictures.

3. Why did people in the pentagon smell cordite?
It was cordite day at the cafeteria. Mmmm, cordite...

4. Was the manuver by the plane possible?
No, everyone knows that a 757 can't turn around in mid-air. That's crazy!

Do pilots think it is possible.
Pilots don't think, they do as we at the NWO tell them. If they start thinking we disappear them real fast.


THanks
You da man!

[ElMondoHummus]

Questions about the plane that hit the pentagon.

1. Why was the diffuser case from the 757 that hit the pentagon, not match the diffuser case from the 757? (according to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce).

Elf Grinder: This was already answered in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156171):


2. Experts from Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce claim that the jet engine part "diffuser case" found in the pentagon was not from the plane that hit the building (a 757).


This is a terrible misstatement of what was actually said.


Since this article was first published, we have received several comments from readers citing a quote from Rolls-Royce spokesman John W. Brown who said, "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with..." The critics go on to suggest that this statement disproves all of our analysis indicating the disk is a compressor stage from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535. However, a simple review of the source of this quote shows just the opposite. The material is from an article titled "Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts Can't Explain Photo Evidence" (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_10_03/Controversy_Swirling/controversy_i.html) written by Christopher Bollyn that appeared on the pro-conspiracy website American Free Press.

The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines.

For what it's worth (and it isn't worth much, given the author's apparent lack of journalistic skill), the Bollyn article actually supports the evidence assembled on this site. The article provides quotes from Honeywell Aerospace indicating that the piece did not come from an APU, from Allison Engines suggesting that it is not a component found in the turbofan used on Global Hawk, and from Teledyne Continental Motors indicating that it is not part of a cruise missile engine. All of these conclusions match those explained above.



My bolding above. Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml)

The misstatements are:

That Mr. Brown is an "expert", and by inference one on the engines used on the UA77 Boeing 757. No. He's a spokesperson for Allison engines. As the original source comes out and clearly notes he's "not an engineer or assembly line technician", so he might not even have been in a position to identify elements of engines his division does build. Regardless, it's clearly ridiculous to claim that he had the ability to speak definitively about an engine manufactured by a Rolls Royce division that was not even located in the United States, let alone his city of Indianapolis.
That Mr. Brown said the part was not from a 757. This is incorrect. What he said was "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy". Remember: The engines on UA77 was a Rolls Royce RB211. It was not the AE 3007H. In short, he said he did not recognize the part, and the context clearly establishes that he would not be in a position to make any such identification, since his division does not manufacture that engine!
That there were "experts", plural, i.e. multiple people associated with Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce who said this. No. That is a complete, total, and utter fabrication with absolutely zero justification for making. A single attempt to contact Pratt & Whitney resulted in a referral to a single individual for a Rolls Royce subsidiary. In other words, only one person associated with a Rolls Royce subsidiary ever said anything on the image that Bollyn was referring to, he never said what conspiracy peddlers claim (that the part was not from a 757) and as has already been established, he wouldn't have been in a position to definitively make that sort of claim to begin with.
This is more a nitpicky error than a deliberate misstatement, I admit, but: Chris Bollyn - the source for this conspiracy myth - tried to identify the compressor stage with Mr. Brown, not what Elf Grinder misnames the "diffuser case". As the Aerospaceweb.org link above notes, the part is more properly called the "combustion outer case" (although "diffuser" may be an informal term for it... I don't know). At any rate, a picture of this part posted, but the conspiracy peddling sites that post it merely claim it's not from the RB211; they do not appear to try to properly validate that claim (quoting Mr. Brown as validation is incorrect, as that was not the part he was shown). And on top of that, Aerospaceweb demonstrates why that's an incorrect claim, and that the image actually validates the fact that it was indeed an RB211. Anyway, in short, it's rather clear that no one other than conspiracy peddlers said that the so-called "diffuser case" was not from UA77.
QED.

--------

ETA:
I think it's instructive to note the claim inflation in the single sentence Elf Grinder wrote. This tends to happen with truthers. In this situation, a claim that a single individual did not recognize a single image of the part morphed into one that "experts" from two companies definitively stated that a part in question (or from some truthers other than Elf Grinder here, "parts", multiple) are clearly not from a757. This is exactly the fisherman's mythic "one that got away" process of inflating claims, but without the humor behind saying "the fish was this big". So oddly enough, the passage of time and the distortions inherent in passing information from one person to another has made these pieces of "evidence" that "contradict" "The Official Story" look like they're much firmer than they actually are.

Lesson: It always pays to check the original information that a truther claim is built on. In so many situations, you'll see that the original information does not support, and in many cases openly contradicts what the truthers attempt to claim. So much "truther evidence" ends up getting so exaggerated and distorted that the truthers eventually end up not even stating their own claims correctly, much less the reality of the event. Always try to go back to the original source. You'll see eventually just how intellectually bankrupt the conspiracy peddling movement is.

[apathoid]

Questions about the plane that hit the pentagon.

1. Why was the diffuser case from the 757 that hit the pentagon, not match the diffuser case from the 757? (according to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce).



This has already been covered in-depth, but I'll reiterate and summarize the argument because I'm quite sure you won't understand ElMondoHummus' response to you.

First of all, Rolls Royce makes the RB211-535 engine, which powers every 757 in the American Airlines fleet. Pratt and Whitney makes an engine for the 757, the PW2000, but it's an entirely different engine(I won't bore you with the differences, eg dual-spool versus triple-spool) and isn't pertinent in any way to this discussion, nor are their engineers.

Secondly, the RB211-535 is made in England, not in Indiana. The gentlemen which you are referring to are engineers who make much smaller turbines and APU's, which are actually Allison products, not Rolls Royce. They were commenting on whether or not the engine wreckage at the Pentagon came from a Global Hawk, which they do make the powerplant for.

Third, the diffuser case, rotors, and the high pressure turbine and shaft seen in the wreckage are perfect matches (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-pentagon.jpg) for the RB211-535.

And lastly, the engine wreckage doesn't support the Global Hawk and A-3 Skywarrior theories.

Welcome to the forums.

ETA:

Was the manuver by the plane possible? Do pilots think it is possible.The airplane turned 330 degrees in 150 seconds and descended 5,000 feet in the same span. This works out to a turn rate of 2.2 degrees per second and a descent rate of 2,000 feet/min. For comparison, autopilot turns are about 2.5 degrees/second and normal airliner descents are between 2,000-3,000 feet/min.

With these facts in mind, what do you think?

[ElMondoHummus]

To answer the rest of this:


2. Do the pictures of the pentagon match the dimensions of the plane.


As far as I can tell, no one pulled out some measuring tape to determine it, but it is indeed consistent with the size of the jet that hit (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103264).

More information: Pentagon Building Performance Report (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf).


3. Why did people in the pentagon smell cordite?


He was speaking colloquially, not literally. On top of that, here's more claim inflation. "People" implies multiple; in Loose Change, only one person made the cordite claim, and in a later interview, he made clear that he was "guessing" at the source. Others clearly described jet fuel as what they smelled.

Further information: Firefight: Inside the Battle to save the Pentagon on 9/11 (http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055).


4. Was the manuver by the plane possible? Do pilots think it is possible.


Easily. Furthermore, pilots have identified Hanjour's descending turn, as well as other elements of his flight (such as his extreme inability to maintain proper altitude on the way to Washington) as the sign of an amateur, not of an experience pilot.

And yes, pilots have gone on the record to say that the maneuvers were possible; here's one link (http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf). There is also another article in an aviation publication, but I don't have that link at hand at the moment.

[bje]

Somebody's been watching Loose Change, haven't they?:rolleyes:

Nah... He's "just asking questions" - all over again for the first time.

[TruthersLie]

Questions about the plane that hit the pentagon.

1. Why was the diffuser case from the 757 that hit the pentagon, not match the diffuser case from the 757? (according to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce).

2. Do the pictures of the pentagon match the dimensions of the plane.

3. Why did people in the pentagon smell cordite?

4. Was the manuver by the plane possible? Do pilots think it is possible.

THanks

You know I started a full thread for you... why do you not look it up?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156171

Lets go back to your NEW questions.
3. Cordite? There is one or two people who claim that... so what? There are over 130 eyewitnesses who saw a silver passenger jet strike the pentagon

4. Oh the "flight school dropouts can't make this maneuver" cannard. RIIIiiiiiiggggghhhhhttttt.

Hani was a horrible pilot, and the turn he pulled is very easy. YOu will next say, "why didn't he just dive into it?"

the reply for that is because a steep angle of attack in an aircraft may miss the target, but turning around to come in at a much lower angle (just like landing) is much easier for a pilot to do.

I can't wait for beachnut to call you "dirt dumb" and to then tear into your PFT bs...
<popcorn>

[Josarhus]

Questions about the plane that hit the pentagon.

1. Why was the diffuser case from the 757 that hit the pentagon, not match the diffuser case from the 757? (according to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce).

2. Do the pictures of the pentagon match the dimensions of the plane.

3. Why did people in the pentagon smell cordite?

4. Was the manuver by the plane possible? Do pilots think it is possible.

THanks

Here’s a funny fact for you, only two people said they smelled cordite. None of them are regular military personnel, but lawyers and as I remember they are both Jews, not that it matters, but it would probably spark some thinking on the truther side.

[ElMondoHummus]

3. Cordite? There is one or two people who claim that... so what? There are over 130 eyewitnesses who saw a silver passenger jet strike the pentagon

Here’s a funny fact for you, only two people said they smelled cordite. None of them are regular military personnel, but lawyers and as I remember they are both Jews, not that it matters, but it would probably spark some thinking on the truther side.

Two?? I'm only aware of Don Perkal. Who's the other one?

[Corsair 115]

And lastly, the engine wreckage doesn't support the Global Hawk and A-3 Skywarrior theories.


Add to that the considerable differences in size and shape between either of those and 757. Even the most aviation-challenged individual would not confuse a Global Hawk or A-3 with a 757.

[McHrozni]

Add to that the considerable differences in size and shape between either of those and 757. Even the most aviation-challenged individual would not confuse a Global Hawk or A-3 with a 757.

I can certainly imagine twoofers being unable to distinguish between these:

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/global_hawk.jpg

http://www.air-and-space.com/skywarrior/821017al.jpg

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b757/b757_15.jpg

It would be perfectly in character, don't you agree?

McHrozni

[Josarhus]

Two?? I'm only aware of Don Perkal. Who's the other one?

Gilah Goldsmith

Her story:

personnel attorney at the Pentagon. When she got to her office sometime around 9, she phoned her daughter and heard "an incredible whomp noise." It didn't seem so unusual since her office is situated near a narrow area where trucks sometimes come by and hit the wall." Goldsmith was told to evacuate. "We saw a huge black cloud of smoke," she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh! Sonuvagun, I was unaware of that one. Thanks for the info!

[kookbreaker]

3) Cordite? What, is the NWO still trying to get rid of explosives left over from the Spanish-American War now? .

Turns out it was the Ghost of the Maine that hit the Pentagon.

[ElMondoHummus]

Just in case anyone's too lazy unable to look it up themselves:

Cordite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordite).


Cordite was used initially in the .303 British, Mark I and II, standard rifle cartridge between 1891 and 1915, however shortages of cordite in World War I led to United States-developed smokeless powders being imported into the UK for use in rifle cartridges...

... Cordite is now obsolete and it is no longer produced...

... However, cordite propellant may still be encountered in the form of legacy ammunition dating from World War II onwards. The smell of cordite is frequently referenced (erroneously) in fiction to indicate the recent firing of weapons.

Bottom line: No one smells "cordite" anymore unless they've found and fired a cache of turn-of-the-19th-century to early-20th century munitions. It's obvious that whenever someone references the smell nowadays, they're speaking colloquially. That's why Mackey and Kookbreaker are justifiably mocking this literal interpretation of obviously figurative speech: The only way the Pentagon witnesses could've smelled "cordite" is if there was a historical ammunition display at the Pentagon that caught fire.

[Macgyver1968]

Just in case anyone's too lazy unable to look it up themselves:

Cordite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordite).



Bottom line: No one smells "cordite" anymore unless they've found and fired a cache of turn-of-the-19th-century to early-20th century munitions. It's obvious that whenever someone references the smell nowadays, they're speaking colloquially. That's why Mackey and Kookbreaker are justifiably mocking this literal interpretation of obviously figurative speech: The only way the Pentagon witnesses could've smelled "cordite" is if there was a historical ammunition display at the Pentagon that caught fire.

Here's a stupid question. If cordite hasn't been used since WW1...how does anyone, except a 90 year old know what it smells like? :)

[defaultdotxbe]

Here's a stupid question. If cordite hasn't been used since WW1...how does anyone, except a 90 year old know what it smells like? :)
it was used in WWII also, and apparently produced up until the end of the 20th century (according to the wiki article)

also according to wikipedia the US never used cordite, only the UK

i think this line is the most telling (if true):
The smell of cordite is frequently referenced (erroneously) in fiction to indicate the recent firing of weapons.

perhaps Don Perkal and Gilah Goldsmithhad read some tom clancy novels recently? IIRC they were both lawyers and not people youd expect to be able to identify explosives by smell

[njslim]

Notice he has not been back to answer any of the remarks

Another drive by truthing.......!

[Mangoose]

Don Perkal later clarified his "cordite" comment:

I was merely guessing as to the nature of the smell I encountered as I was vacating the building on 9/11/01. My expertise is totally lacking when it comes to discerning such odors. Since 9/11/01, I have encountered no information which would confirm my speculation/guess. Nor have I read or heard anything that explosive materials on the airplane or the premises were ignited before or after the plane crash. It is possible that the ensuing fire ignited small arms ammunition (bullets) carried by military personnel or police officers but I have no independent or derived information of same.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x1167

I am sure that if one lists the people who said they smelled jet fuel or saw jet fuel or breathed in jet juel, the number would be quite large.

[Thunder]

Questions about the plane that hit the pentagon.

1. Why was the diffuser case from the 757 that hit the pentagon, not match the diffuser case from the 757? (according to Pratt and Whitney and Rolls Royce).

2. Do the pictures of the pentagon match the dimensions of the plane.

3. Why did people in the pentagon smell cordite?

4. Was the manuver by the plane possible? Do pilots think it is possible.

THanks

this is a joke...right?

why do truthers think its impossible to fly a 757 at high speed at 100 ft. above the ground? never heard of a LANDING before?

never heard of a TAKE-OFF?

[R.Mackey]

Here's a stupid question. If cordite hasn't been used since WW1...how does anyone, except a 90 year old know what it smells like? :)

it was used in WWII also, and apparently produced up until the end of the 20th century (according to the wiki article)

also according to wikipedia the US never used cordite, only the UK

Cordite is one of several nitroglycerin-derived propellants researched after black powder started to become obsolete. It is actually not an explosive at all (much like black powder). The manufacturing process results in strings of material (or cords, hence "cordite"), and the burning rate is a function of the string thickness. Thus cordite is a relatively flexible propellant, allowing one to tune the time-pressure behavior for a specific load by selecting a given size of cordite. With modern smokeless powder, there are different shapes, sizes, and chemical balances that all affect ignition and the rate of energy release -- it's much more complicated today.

Cordite was used in large-scale production of .303 British ammunition until about 1916, at which point other powders began to find favor. You can still find and fire leftover ammunition from this period if you look hard enough, but the surplus stockpiles of .303 British are rather depleted.

The next most common use of cordite was in early solid rockets used for bombardment and anti-aircraft, and in British naval guns, the latter application lasting through the end of the battleship era, probably into the early 1950's. Different blends of cordite and other chemicals produced low-flash and low-temperature propellants to reduce signature and barrel wear, and relatively safe early rockets. It would be nearly impossible to find any of this today.

The third and, I believe, most recent use of cordite was again in small arms, particularly for big game hunting in Africa. One of the few advantages cordite retained over its competitors is its relative stability under temperature. Most of the big bore hunting rounds, such as the .416 Rigby or the .577 Nitro Express, were developed around cordite because the firing pressures were less affected by the burning sun and heat of safari. Loaded with a different propellant, one ran a higher risk of overpressurizing one's gun, causing it to lock up and become impossible to reload, or even explode. In the last few years even this application seems to have ended, so the future outlook for cordite is bleak.

So, if cordite was actually used at the Pentagon, one would rationally conclude that either a WW1 re-enactment was taking place, or that the Pentagon was in fact damaged by a salvo from Her Majesty's Royal Navy. Editorially speaking, neither of these would be the stupidest ideas ever to come from the Truth Movement.

[T.A.M.]

another hit and run I see. Damn, and this one had just enough "I'm just askin questions" in it to make me think we would have some new entertainment around here.

TAM:)

[Ranb]

Cordite is a smokeless propellant. It is composed mainly of nitrocellulose and/or nitroglycerine like all modern gun powders. I have smelled various kinds of smokeless powder over the years, the most distinctive being the Aguila stuff from Mexico that smells like super glue. If a person says they smelled cordite, it should not be too much different than saying they smelled gun powder. No big deal. Nothing to rest a conspiracy theory on unless the scent of gun powder should not be present at all.

Ranb

[Pinch]

This whole "I smelled cordite" deal is best taken in context with the environment and situation. Perhaps they had smelled "cordite" at some point in their lives. More likely what they attributed to "cordite" was their memory of smelling the usual aftereffects of current-day weapons firings at some point in their career/life.

The point is who knows what the ambient air will smell like when a 100-ton airliner slams into a concrete/limestone structure. Burning fuel, burning metal, burning plastic, burning aluminum, burning furniture, rugs, curtains, burning everything will result in a veritable cornucopia of smells - singling out one or two people out of thousands who said they smelled "cordite" would not raise any alarms in my brain housing unit. if you looked around at the interviews I bet you'd find plenty of other people who smelled other strange smells.

Non issue.