Why "small engine" at Pentagon is nonsense

[Panoply_Prefect]

Hi.

A few CT sites claim that the pictures of engine parts found at the Pentagon shows a small engine- reasoning that since the disc is so small, the engine had to be small. I've spent some time trying to pin down why its nonsense. I'd like your input.

This is the picture for reference:

First, my knowledge of jet-engines comes from my time in the Swedish navy. I did one year as a mechanic working with RR Marine Proteus gas-turbines. This was back in 1991 so its been awhile. However I did get hands on experience in handling them.

A jet-engine, or gas-turbine (A jet-engine is a gas-turbine that uses the high speed exhaust gases for propulsion. Other uses of gas-turbines are for propeller propulsion, as on ships, or for electrical power production) is made up of several compression/turbine discs. They are placed so that air gets sucked in at the compression side, compressed, ignited and pushed out the turbine side. You can get a good idea of how it works from this image:

The compressor/turbine disc that is seen on the image taken at the Pentagon has lost its blades, something that is common when a jet-engine is destroyed. The reason is that strong g-forces are involved -the average Airliner jet-engine rotates with 10,000 rpm - and when the balance is lost those g-forces are released, wrecking havoc. You can see the blades here:

If you remove the blades the discs themselves are distinctivly smaller. Also note that the discs are of different sizes, with smaller discs to the left, and larger ones to the right.
Now, since the discs aren't of the same size, we need to know if the disc in the picture taken at the Pentagon is one of the larger ones or one of the smaller:

Without that knowledge there is no way to judge its size -this could be one of the largest discs, making the engine a smaller one, or it could be the smallest, making the engine a larger one. You have to know how the engine it came from was constructed.

That is why saying this photo shows a small engine, without knowledge of the engine it came from, is nonsens.

This site, apparently had that knowledge.

Cheers,
S

 

[Big Les]

Nice link! Serious CT pwnage there. Seems like overkill though - it's far too long for their average attention span. What's needed IMO (failing lift-up flaps or a link to a Yootoob video) are clear, obvious scale drawings showing where the disc fits in the overall engine (with outer casing etc). Something like the last pic they use on that site, but with a big neon arrow pointing at the pertinent spot:

 

[chippy]

There's an excellent analysis of this turbine piece at this source:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Also, it isn't uncommon for the blades to break off from turbine fans. Some mechanics who take apart airplane engines that have been flown for a decade or two commonly find that nearly half of the blades have broken off from those fans. Imagine what happens when there's a collision and an explosion involved!

Now doesn't that random fact make you want to go flying!?!?

 

[T.A.M.]

Overkill...never. Too much for most of the truthers small minds...likely, but don't count on all the lurkers and fence sitters being this way.

TAM

 

[Whiplash]

This info is great, the problem is most truthers are too caught up in the infalibility of their own eyes and "common sense".

It looks like a CD, so it MUST be a CD. It doesn't look like a plane crash in Shanksville, so it is NOT a plane crash. It looks like a piece from a small engine, so it MUST be a small engine.

These facts will only serve to confuse them. Why bother with facts when you have your own eyes and common sense to guide you through it all?

 

[rwguinn]

Good job--
But your diagram is of a turbojet, and the engines were turboFans. On a Turbofan, the engine diameter is considerable larger compared to the hub when compared to the turbojet.
Thus, the "SMALL" disk is just about the right size. See "Big Les"' picture...

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Good job--
But your diagram is of a turbojet, and the engines were turboFans. On a Turbofan, the engine diameter is considerable larger compared to the hub when compared to the turbojet.
Thus, the "SMALL" disk is just about the right size. See "Big Les"' picture...

Im not exactly sure what you mean here, m8. A turbofan engine is basically a turbojet engine (with an added fan-section for better fuel economics). Its true the engine will be larger compared to the blade-less discs, but my main point is that CTs cannot claim to be able to judge an engines size from that picture and that holds true to even more extent with a turbofan.