question about a "tilted" engine

[k-robjoe]

A strange thing with the plane that hit the WTC2, is that it seems like the two engines are not "in line". It seems as if the left engine is not in line with the rest of the plane. As if it is tilted a bit forwards.

Have a look at pic number four and six on this site, to see what I mean : http://wtc1.batcave.net/2.html ( I don´t agree with what the comment to pic 6 is implying.)


Here is a theory why the engine is "tilted":
"Rose also brings up an interesting point: the stills of Flight 175 also show that left engine has been somehow interfered with. The turbines should be parallel to one another and attached to the wings, below we see the left engine at a slight angle to the right turbine, and looking as if it was about to come away from the wing. According to Rose this would be necessary to counterbalance the large "bump" attached just to the right of the centre of the fuselage and to compensate for the resulting aerodynamic drag."

Does anyone know enough physics / avionics(?) to say if this makes sense?

( To view the large "bump" in question, see : http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/third.html )

[Old and In the Way]

1. I'm kind of thinking that both of those observations are related.

If I recall, 175 made a sharp last second adjustment to hit the WTC. I wonder if that severe correction didn't flex the wing such that it pulled the engine out of it's normal parallel position with the starboard engine? That same distortion may have carried right through the fusilage airframe and created the external bulge.

I wonder if the plane hadn't hit the WTC whether the plane may have broken up in the air?

[k-robjoe]

2. before?

But aren´t these pics taken before the last sharp turn?

[Old and In the Way]

8. I'd say definitely afterwards.

But the physical results of the correction were what is photographed.

I definitely see the bump and I see the engine out of parallel, but I think those 2 observations could be both be attributable to that violent correction.

Just my opinion.

[TrogL]

3. So you take a blurry photo, photoshop it some more...

...then select the one that best matches your :tinfoilhat: theory and publish it.

Fine.

Three space aliens are chasing Air Force One around.

Here's the incontrovertible proof.

[k-robjoe]

4. blurry

I sure would welcome better photos. But I must add that it seems that all photos of this are just as blurry, so I didn´t select a blurry one. So, if anyone can settle this matter with a better pic/ better pics, please do.

[CaptainClark23]

7. c'mon now...

We're all frustrated with the array of theories propagating out there based on inconclusive, if not downright laughable evidence.

But the poster posits a simple question, not as a deeply-held belief, but as a theoretical, and asks for input from the participants of this forum like yourself who have invested a great deal of time and energy examining these issues.

IMO, you jumped the gun on slamming this guy. I for one have not seen this particular notion of a tilted engine before. I have not seen it discussed, supported or rebuffed. I am skeptical as to its validity, but you don't need to slam the guy for bringing an idea to the table.

Rebuff, support, or ignore.

ON EDIT: TrogL posted rebuff simultaneously to this post. Thanks.

[TrogL]

5. It would never fly

If the engine was tilted even slightly, the resulting torque would tear the wing off when the pilot does his power-up on the runway. The plane would never leave the ground.

[k-robjoe]

9. better

That is a much better reply. Do you know it for a fact? That the hot stuff ( is it fire? hot air? ) coming out of the engine would wreck the wing?

[TrogL]

12. Use a dictionary

Torque means applied energy (usually in a turning or twisting motion).

The wing would be twisted in a manner for which it isn't designed and basically fall apart right there on the runway.

[k-robjoe]

13. designed

Maybe this plane was not any longer as it was originally designed.
(See post 11, below.)

[TrogL]

6. What you are seeing are pixillations.

An artifact of the photoshop process. The pylon holding the engine is getting confused with the engine itself.

(on edit) It's a parallax issue.

[mn9driver]

10. Engine pylons are extremely complicated pieces of

engineering. So are engine inlets. They are both designed to work in line with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft: thrust, airflow, direction of travel all lined up nicely.

To intentionally hang an engine "crooked" (and have it work) would require major redesign of the wing, the pylon and the engine.

I agree with the previous poster who felt that the "bump" and the "engine twist" may be explained by the final, extreme manuever the plane made as it approached and impacted the WTC. As I've said before, the wingtips in the video flex upwards considerably in the turn as the plane "pulls g's" so as not to miss--and even so, it nearly did miss.

At that speed, with a violent, desperation type of control input such as a barely competent pilot might make as he realizes he's gonna miss, important pieces might start coming off (wing fairings, engines, control surfaces, wingtips, you name it.)

[k-robjoe]

11. scenario

>To intentionally hang an engine "crooked" (and have it work) would require major redesign of the wing, the pylon and the engine.

Yes, this would be the scenario. The plane would not be flight 175, but a plane completely rebuild for this purpose only.

I still have the objection that it seems to me that these pics were taken before the extreme manuever just before the crash.

[mn9driver]

14. Let me add

that a "major redesign" is not something that could be kept inside of a secret, conspiratorial cabal. It would involve hundreds of people, Boeing, major test facilities, etc. Doesn't seem likely to me.

As far as where the airplane was, what kind of g's it was pulling and when/whether these stills depict it in those moments, I can't say. I'm not inclined to take the time to nail it down.

I would like to address what seems to be a very common error when looking at these images, though: they are not photographs.

They are low resolution video images, most likely taken with an analog camera. This means that not only are the images raster scanned, but they are most likely interlaced. Trying to measure a very small and fast moving shape in this kind of image (again, not a photograph) is just about impossible. It is totally impossible if you try to treat it like a photograph.

The technical side of trying to accurately evaluate these images would involve identifying every scan line and pixel within each line separately, then compensating for the horizontal and vertical refresh rates while taking into account the object's speed relative to the frame at any given 1/60 second interval. Additionally, you would have to know how that particular camera processed pixels to create image edges. Plus a whole lot of other stuff. You would need some serious software and expertise, I think.

(edit) plus, you would need the original video tape.

Remember, they are not photos, they are video images.

[k-robjoe]

15. images

> It would involve hundreds of people, Boeing, major test facilities, etc.

I´m not convinced that it would need to involve that many people. Nor that it would need to involve Boeing.
I agree that this is hard to believe, but that this is flight 175 is getting harder to believe with every week that goes by.

About the video images. The thing is : There´s just too many anomalies with this plane. If anyone could show me just one image ( not tampered with ) of any other plane and point out : "This here is a Boeing so and so, but look at this..." and point his finger to an anomaly anywhere close to as striking as the "engine twist" or the huge "lump", or the strange shapes on the righthand flank of the plane, or the strange shadowline along the underbelly, it would help your argument a lot.

[LARED]

16. A picture

Notice the rounded lump on the belly. Look at the landing gear doors. They are curved. It is a nice clear image of a 767 taking off.

An old professor of mine was a aircraft designer before taking up teaching. It is not possible to redesign an aircraft like you imagine without the manufacturer being involved and having a huge number of people involved.

[mn9driver]

17. Well, I don't have any video stills, but here are some photos

There's lots going on on the bottom of 767's, depending on how the light hits 'em. These are all United 767-200 models, painted in the livery of the 9/11 aircraft.

Notice the big gray stripe. It's unusual to get a picture of this due to camera and sun angles. That left engine looks a little "twisted" to me, too.


Notice the bright line running forward and aft of the wing. The sun hit this one just right.


Notice the "missile pod" bulging out a bit on the far side of the fuselage-actually, it's the wing fairing seen at the proper angle. Also, the right engine is looking "twisted" on this one.

[k-robjoe]

18. pics

Well, you sure make more sense than certain others.
Your first pic gives a very good view of the belly. If I knew how to put pics into these posts, I would have put it up side by side with the pic at the bottom of http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/third.html . In my view the difference is striking.
Both in relation to the belly itself, and in relation to the "lump".
I don´t think anyone would have thought of seeing any anomaly like the "engine twist" in any of these pics, unless told so. With the pics of "flight 175", the "engine twist" hit me in the face first time I saw those pics ( and I had not seen anybodys comments on it at that point ).
The strange shapes along the right hand flank, i would set up side by side with the second pic. In my eyes, the strange shapes are very real.

[demodewd]

19. "Pardon my French"

"Pardon my French, but this is not a Boeing 767-200. This is the long-fuselage version of the 767. The 767-200 is a short, stubby-nose plane" http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/first.html

[demodewd]

20. re: bright line

The bright line on the UA is one continous line.Not so on the WTC plane photo.Your "tilt" claim is questionable...

[mn9driver]

21. Your responses remind me of a joke:

Q: How many :tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat: does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Just one. All he has to do is put up a web site and claim it's not burned out.

Ha ha.
Good day.

[demodewd]

22. And...

And how do you explain this?

[demodewd]

23. filters

Photograph of plane through various filters





"The detected cylindrical objects cannot be due to shadows caused by the angle of incidence of the sun on the plane, because they always appear to be the same shape and size, though with varying luminosity."

[k-robjoe]

24. pics

Thanks for those two pics in your last post. (Speaks more than a hundred jokes.)

[LARED]

25. I best I can tell

<i>"The detected cylindrical objects cannot be due to shadows caused by the angle of incidence of the sun on the plane, because they always appear to be the same shape and size, though with varying luminosity."</I><P>

Makes absolutely no sense. Care to elaborate? How exactly does the luminosity change?

[Mr bin]

37. Dictionary definition of Luminosity

"Makes absolutely no sense. Care to elaborate? How exactly does the luminosity change?"

Sure. I realise that scientific terminology may be a it of a mind bender for model airplane aficionados.

According to my techie dictionary. Luminosity: (Phys) The visual perception of the brightness of an area.

In other words: the odd “shadows” do not seem to change shape as the aircraft moves through points with varying light intensity. So it’s not some trick of the light.

Traditional meaning: It’s for real Baby! I Qaedya not.

[LARED]

38. Thanks for the definition

but I am aware of what luminosity means.

I asked how does it change. There is only a very brief time when the so called "odd “shadows" are visible. It is a huge assumption that the the light intensity varied.

[TrogL]

39. Remember we are watching TV

TV cameras do not react well to quick moving changes in brightness. They tend to "flare", causing surround dark areas to change shape. If it's a digital camera, things could get even stranger.

If you have a digital cable converter, sit very close to the TV and have a look at the screen when it "goes to black". You'll see all sorts of strange shapes on the screen. These are digital "artifacts".

[OudeVanDagen]

26. Geez ...

.... and the posse complains dat my English is a no too good ....

[mn9driver]

27. My joke was funny once, but

the continued repetition of the punchline in your responses becomes tiresome. You quoted a :tinfoilhat: website statement:

"The detected cylindrical objects cannot be due to shadows caused by the angle of incidence of the sun on the plane, because they always appear to be the same shape and size, though with varying luminosity."

It means nothing. I see no frame by frame analysis here. I see no acknowledgement that these video images (not photographs, OK?)have been converted back and forth between NTSC, PAL, .mpg and.jpg formats and how that might affect any hypothetical "scientific measurements" made from them.

There's a reason for that. It's because this is nonsense and cannot be supported in any scientifically valid way. If you'd like to see what an actual, rigorous scientific analysis of 9/11 video looks like, check this out:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

Those MIT guys sure do like to analyze stuff, eh? Of course, one could take issue with their analyses, but it would be tough to do it at the level they're operating on.

You wish to believe that your preferred website proves that the airplane had large missile-like objects attached to it.

OK, believe that. It's easier than reading and trying to understand the real thing.

[demodewd]

29. MIT

Your guys from MIT start with a basis of assumption that the buildings were brought down by the planes/fires and proceed to give a scientific explanation based on that assumption. The possibility that the buildings might have been brought down by explosives is not on the agenda. Far be it that well healed tenured profs at a renown University would dare to investigate conspiracy.

[OudeVanDagen]

30. are you sure you wanna say

"... guys from MIT start with a basis of assumption that the buildings were brought down by the planes/fires .... buildings might have been brought down by explosives is not on the agenda."

dewd: Please tell me which MIT report, by title, department, authors, section and page; a) made these "assumptions" and b) ignored the subversive acts section of the collapse investigation protocol?

[TrogL]

36. Just because you work from conclusions back to evidence

doesn't mean everybody does.

[whipzz]

40. These scientific conclusions exempt us from opinion

mn9driver you said:
"You quoted a :tinfoilhat: website statement:<http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html>
"The detected cylindrical objects cannot be due to shadows caused by the angle of incidence of the sun on the plane, because they always appear to be the same shape and size, though with varying luminosity."It means nothing. I see no frame by frame analysis here. I see no acknowledgement that these video images (not photographs, OK?)have been converted back and forth between NTSC, PAL, .mpg and.jpg formats and how that might affect any hypothetical "scientific measurements" made from them.

There's a reason for that. It's because this is nonsense and cannot be supported in any scientifically valid way.....You wish to believe that your preferred website proves that the airplane had large missile-like objects attached to it......OK, believe that. It's easier than reading and trying to understand the real thing."END OF QUOTE FROM MN9DRIVER

Seeing the doubts expressed here (admittedly only by information warfare employees who spend their waking hours trying to keep such information constantly in doubt), I decided to ask the person who conducted the research to clarify what you deem to be "nonsense" and devoid of scientific rigor. His reply has been translated into your language and is pasted below.

I should add that it would have been impossible for such a reputable newspaper as La Vanguardia to have published such information without the necessary credentials.

-----------
How strange to be now calling technology and its marvellous applications into question!

It was deemed necessary to carry out a scientific study by an impartial university laboratory to determine whether or not objects were present on the fuselage of the aircraft, because the newspaper's readers, and the journalists and expert consultants themselves, having examined all the sequences and film clips had observed abnormalities on the fuselage of what should have been a normal airworthy Boeing 767. They are detectable with the naked eye.

As explicitly stated, the objective of the study was, and I quote literally: "To verify the possible presence of objects on the underside of the fuselage of the second plane involved in the attack in New York on 11 September." This is, therefore, what the algorithms applied determine in the analysis: they differentiate between objects superimposed on the fuselage as opposed to any other aspect or optical effect that might give that appearance.

In order to do this, the pertinent techniques were applied to various photographs and film stills, in themselves "suspicious" as anomalies were apparent, regardless of the angle of the shot (the still from CNN, the still from Carmen Taylor and the photograph by Aaron C. Traub).

The three contour detection techniques applied to each of the three images (9 analyses in total) produce the same result in all cases and leave no room for doubt: THEY ARE STRUCTURES OR BODIES ATTACHED TO THE FUSELAGE, THAT IS TO SAY, INDEPENDENT FROM THE FUSELAGE ITSELF.

Today technology is being developed and used to analyse satellite photographs, and we receive images almost live from Mars (!), no one questions this. And now we are questioning such a "simple" analysis as this one, which consists of analysing the relief of bodies on photographs/stills which, despite whatever it may seem to inexperienced eyes, are of excellent quality upon which to perform tests, using a rigorous technique that can be successfully applied in cases that are much more complex and difficult to resolve. There is no doubt (100% certainty): there are forms or objects on an aircraft which should not have them! Fortunately on occasions machines now substitute man. The conclusions of the software developed for this very purpose exempt us from opinion (I'm sorry), either THEY ARE THERE or THEY ARE NOT THERE, this is the issue. In this case we know the result: THEY ARE THERE .... so now what?

--------

[mn9driver]

41. Once again we see the punchline of my joke.

"...carry out a scientific study by an impartial university laboratory...

Really? Which "impartial university laboratory"? There are so many, you know.

"...This is, therefore, what the algorithms applied determine in the analysis: they differentiate between objects superimposed on the fuselage as opposed to any other aspect or optical effect that might give that appearance..."

Algorithms. That's a great word. What algorithms were used? How about just one example?

"...The three contour detection techniques applied to each of the three images (9 analyses in total) produce the same result in all cases and leave no room for doubt..."

Oh. Contour detection techniques. Three of them, even. Why didn't you say so in the first place? Who can argue with that?
Hey, I've got some contour detection techniques, too. If you're nice, I'll let you see them...

"...The conclusions of the software developed for this very purpose exempt us from opinion ..."

Software. Cool. Where can I get it? What's it called? Who developed it?

Conclusion:
My joke is still funny, after all!! Thanks for helping.

[MercutioATC]

28. WHY, if it WAS a "replacement" would they use a non-standard aircraft?

Who would attempt to pull off a stunt like this with a bizarre, untried airframe? Why not just use a standard plane?

It just makes no sense. Since it doesn't make sense, you kinda have to blame it on the poor quality of the video stills.

[k-robjoe]

31. airframe

Yes, I sure see your point. And I dont want to push this theory, the way this turned out.
But some explanation how it could come up :
It came up in trying to understand those pics where it seems (strikingly) like the left engine is not in line with the rest of the plane.
mn9drivers first inclination about this was to argue ( as did Old And In The Way ) that "...the "engine twist" may be explained by the final, extreme manuever the plane made". oldandintheway wrote : "I wonder if that severe correction didn't flex the wing such that it pulled the engine out of it's normal parallel position with the starboard engine?"
But then TrogL wrote about the torque, and it makes me wonder; if the engine was "coming off", wouldn´t the torque and the air resistance tear it right off the same moment it was pulled forwards?
(I surely don´t by it if anyone argues that there was no time.)

Then there is the possibility that the images are lying. Maybe some other images will turn up that will settle it.

> Who would attempt to pull off a stunt like this with a bizarre, untried airframe? Why not just use a standard plane?

Very true. I don´t have a good answer. Maybe it is a standard plane, and I´m wrong about the engine. ( And those images are deceiving one in a very bizarre way.)
If the engine was adjusted, it would be as "counterweight" for the lump. When I started up with this theory, I didn´t realize that tilting the engine on a standard plane would be such a gigantic operation.

For "why the lump?", see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x8484#8565 (post 19). It does not answer why they would want this all, that would be the terror effect on the population.

If the plane was controlled by remote control, to hit that exact spot on the building, in order to make such an intimidating fireball, that would make more sense than a suicide hijacker falling asleep at the wheel, and waking up just in time to hit the target. ( He would have had clear view of the building from afar. It seems impossible that he would be able to nearly miss it.)

[MercutioATC]

32. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just trying to caution people

that what seems like a "gotcha" on the surface can turn out to make absolutely no sense in practical terms (which is made even worse when the "theory" is advanced in print with some supposedly knowledgable person attesting that it's possible).

Occam's Razor isn't always applicable, but it's generally a safe bet. The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Four real planes with real passengers were hijacked in 9/11 and flow into buildings (or, in one case, into the ground). There's enough of a story here that we don't need to fabricate complications.

[k-robjoe]

34. no problem

Sure you´re not accusing me of something. You were just asking how this theory could make any sense, and I was trying to explain it to you. You did not find any sense in my explanation. No problem. I believe that we will be speaking more of the same language on other fields of the issue 911.

[mn9driver]

33. Now we are back to my area of expertise.

"...If the plane was controlled by remote control, to hit that exact spot on the building, in order to make such an intimidating fireball, that would make more sense than a suicide hijacker falling asleep at the wheel, and waking up just in time to hit the target. ( He would have had clear view of the building from afar. It seems impossible that he would be able to nearly miss it.)

Flight 175 had to make a big turn in order to hit the south tower. Airplanes don't steer like cars, or even boats. You have to visually plan way ahead of the plane in order to put your ground track where you want it. Screwing up a lineup with a desired target is fairly common. It is called overshoot or undershoot.

Lineup can be tricky even in a Cessna flying at 80 mph. At 500 mph in a big plane, having to make a big turn to hit a relatively small target from a particular direction would require some attention and planning. Doing it for the first time at that speed, he was remarkably successful.

I'm not at all surprised that he nearly missed.

[k-robjoe]

35. I can not argue with you on this.