Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Earl who wrote (10289)	3/9/2005 2:13:41 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Don > From a layman's point of view, the planes look much the same to me and I can see no obvious difference in the engines I'm no expert either but this is what I found concerning the GE engine for the 767: geae.com Fan/Compressor Stages: 1F/3LPC/14HPC Low-Pressure Turbine/High-Pressure Turbine Stages: 5/2 Max Diameter (Inches): 106 Length (Inches): 168 Dry Weight (Lb.): 9,480 - 9,860 Thrust 52 - 63,000 lb at sea level So the diameter of the blade is just on 9 feet, the length 14 feet and the weight about 4 1/2 tons This is the engine part that fell "out of the sky" on 9/11 rense.com Judging from the size of the street sign and the human feet in the background, I'd say the size of the piece was about 5 feet tall and less than 3 feet wide. These are the stats about the 737 motor cfm56.com cfm56.com The fan is 61 inches (5 feet) in diam. Weight 5,216 lb (approx 2 1/2 tons) Thrust 18.5 - 27,000 lb at sea level Thus the engine for the 737 is about half as powerful as that for the 767. My comment: Although the fragment which was found in Murray St represents only a small piece of the original engine, I would still say that the original engine was "small" rather than "large", in other words with a five feet diam fan rather than a nine feet one. > I've seen all sorts of odd claims about 737 parts being found rather than 767 parts, but I have yet to see anything that strikes me as being from a credible source. All of the claims appear to come from blog type formats, and the usual approach seems to be to show a photo of 9/11 wreckage, then claim that some aspect of the parts shown are inconsistent with 767 parts, WITHOUT SHOWING THE 767 PART REFERENCED Unfortunately, it would seem that is the case yet again. Nevertheless, although no part comparison is made, as you suggest should be done, is it not possible from the overall physical size of the whole fragment that one could come to a conclusion? Also the tyre and wheel assembly?