PentagonPlaneRotor - 9/11Review

PentagonPlaneRotor

There is one photograph of the debris, from FEMA ¹ that may be useful. A rotor (high pressure stage) coming from an jet engine can be seen in left-hand side photo above . On the top left of the image, what seems to be the housing of this engine. On the right, the leg of somebody working on the site gives approximately the scale, of less than a meter in diameter.

Jean-Pierre Desmoulins examines this photograph carefully, and notes that:

this is a high pressure rotor element of a jet engine;
the diameter of the housing is not much bigger than the diameter of this rotor,
most of the witnesses heard a sound that they describe as the sound of a military aircraft (highly pitched and strident), not the sound of an airliner.

This is a mischaracterization of the eyewitness evidence. Some heard sounds like a missile. Many heard sounds of the jetliner's engines revving up.

He concludes:

this piece and the streamlining behind don't come from the engine of an airliner, which has low pressure fans of much larger size than the high pressure rotors, so that the streamlines are much larger than the diameters of the high pressure rotors.

The housing in the FEMA photo above is not from the fan housing, so the lack of photos of much larger "streamliners" doesn't prove anything.

the engines of this plane had no low pressure fans: they are military engines, for which noise is not a problem.

At the right above, we show the engine from a Britannia Airways Boeing 757 that crashed 14 September 1999 at Gerona, Spain. This aircraft (G-BYAG) had the same engine model as Flight 77 (N644AA) - Rolls Royce RB211-535E4. Not only is the diameter of the Rolls Royce engine is much larger, the rotor configuration is totally different.

So 911Review.org compares the bypass fan of a 757 engine to a high-pressure rotor in the FEMA photo to conclude that "the rotor configuration is totally different".

This debris photograph of the engine rotor, if the evidence was not planted, is consistent with a small jet aircraft such as the Navy S-3B, the F-15, the F-16 or the F-18; definitely not from a Boeing 757-223.

It's consistent with both an interceptor jet and with a 757, since both have rotors about the size of the one in the photograph.

One witness that reported seeing a 8-10 seat passenger plane, others reported a small rear-engined jet, which would be consistent with the Navy T-39 Sabreliner.

No eyewitnesses reported seeing a rear-engined jet. See Eyewitness Accounts Describe Jetliner Approaching Pentagon

This isn't the only engine from 9/11 that's too small: see our page WTCPlaneEngine.

In fact the engine debris of the WTC crashes is consistent with 767s. This invalid contention about non-matching engine parts serves to detract from the valid points that indicate a staged 757 crash at the Pentagon.

Links:

ERROR: Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757

____
¹'The main entrance to the search and rescue operations at the Pentagon following Tuesday's attack. Photo by Jocelyn Augustino/ FEMA News Photo. Disaster Type: Terrorist Attack. Event: Pentagon Explosion. Declaration Number: 1392. Photo Date: 2001-09-13 17:22:06. Photograph ID: 4414.'

French.
Or try one of these actions: LocalSiteMap, of this page (last modified 2003-11-08 17:48:29)