Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, it could be a JT9D, BUT maybe not a JT9D-7R4D, which is a crucial distinction. One possibility is that if it was planted, then they only managed to get hold of an older type of that engine as suggested by some researchers (see posts above).
Click to expand...

116964d81309224fc1.gif
 
Anders Lindman said:
If I say: this time I will win, then it means that I may have won previously too! So your claim is false.
Click to expand...

Funny. I thought it meant: "this time I will win."

HINT: If you also want to state that you have previously won too, the words "too" or "again" are a good way to do so.
 
Last edited:
Let's take a look at this again:

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173684/_5705_747_engine_comparison04.jpg

That's pretty impressive research imo. It's a definitive match.

From: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1829738/1/

Then the question is, how is the author of that post sure that the newer type used in Flight 175, the JT9D-7R4D doesn't look like that.

For example, the source WilliamSeger posted: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm seems to be with an image of the OLDER types of JT9D, not the improved 7R4D type.
 
Greedo said:
Funny. I thought it meant: "this time I will win."

HINT: If you also want to state that you have previously won too, the words "too" or "again" are a good way to do so.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see the point now. The expression "this time I will win" usually means that I have lost all the times before. lol. That's not what I meant.
 
Has this been debunked before? Or rather, have these claims been made before? This seems like a stupid thing to suggest, even for truthers.
 
apathoid said:
Namely?

ETA: Wow, a Bell sighting!
Click to expand...
Let's see. 10 years later only internet trolls figured that the engines were wrong and deduced the "perps" were morons that wouldn't consider anyone would notice.

Did I get this right?


And these morons (the trolls) want the world to pay attention to their "theories".

:eek:
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Let's take a look at this again:

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173684/_5705_747_engine_comparison04.jpg

That's pretty impressive research imo. It's a definitive match.

From: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1829738/1/

Then the question is, how is the author of that post sure that the newer type used in Flight 175, the JT9D-7R4D doesn't look like that.

For example, the source WilliamSeger posted: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm seems to be with an image of the OLDER types of JT9D, not the improved 7R4D type.
Click to expand...


You seem to be under the impression that all submodels of a particular powerplant (say, a JT9D) are scratch built from the ground up using 100% all new parts. That's not the case. Sometimes the only difference in an engine submodel is a thrust rating plug installed on J5 of an EEC rather than J4. Sometimes the only difference is in some accesories(the crap attached to the engine). Sometimes it can be a larger fan diameter for more thrust.

However, one thing in common between submodels of large jet engines tends to be the core. And you are right it looks the same in both styles of JT9D above....and that's expected.

What else do ya got?
 
apathoid said:
You seem to be under the impression that all submodels of a particular powerplant (say, a JT9D) are scratch built from the ground up using 100% all new parts. That's not the case. Sometimes the only difference in an engine submodel is a thrust rating plug installed on J5 of an EEC rather than J4. Sometimes the only difference is in some accesories(the crap attached to the engine). Sometimes it can be a larger fan diameter for more thrust.

However, one thing in common between submodels of large jet engines tends to be the core. And you are right it looks the same in both styles of JT9D above....and that's expected.

What else do ya got?
Click to expand...


What exactly is the "evidence" that the wrong engine was used again?
 
apathoid said:
one thing in common between submodels of large jet engines tends to be the core.
Click to expand...

That's not what the OP in the other thread said. Quite the opposite in this case: "Many years later, P&W decided to work with NASA in the development in a new technology to improve engine performance and reliability. This improvement was made specifically to this section of engine." -- http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2393287/1/
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yeah, it could be a JT9D, BUT maybe not a JT9D-7R4D, which is a crucial distinction. One possibility is that if it was planted, then they only managed to get hold of an older type of that engine as suggested by some researchers (see posts above).
Click to expand...
Then the onus is on you to show that critical difference. I don't care what any researchers suggest. I do care about actual proof. Not some pic of the internal structure of the engine. You create the comparison pics, with sources, and show that there is no possibility that the engine shown is not what was on the aircraft that crashed into the tower. More importantaly, show how they would be able to plant it without anybody noticing. It's not like it's a passport or something someone can hide in their pants pocket.
 
Bell said:
Did many more planes crash in New York City on 9/11?

And also, did you forget about the engine part numbers, which link the engines to a particular airplane?
Click to expand...
Were these numbers posted on YouTube or the parts delivered to EVERY "truther" for "triple corroborated independent verification"? If not. you're talking out of your arse.

Remember, The investigation is not over until a rank amateur says so.

;)
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
That's not what the OP in the other thread said. Quite the opposite in this case: "Many years later, P&W decided to work with NASA in the development in a new technology to improve engine performance and reliability. This improvement was made specifically to this section of engine." -- http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2393287/1/
Click to expand...


......and after they redesigned the core, they called it a PW4000. The OP in the thread either needs glasses something fierce, or is lying about who he is.
 
Greedo said:
What exactly is the "evidence" that the wrong engine was used again?
Click to expand...

Beats me. You don't need to look at what was left of the engine to tell it was a JT9D. A United 767-200 struck the South Tower as was captured by dozens of cameras. United used(uses?) JT9Ds on their 767-200s. Saying it was a CFM56 does a couple things for the truther mentioned in the OP. It makes him sounds smart to his truther buddies, and gives him his 15 minutes of truther fame.

But this is really one of those things that should have been put to bed by other truthers, because, as anyone can see by using comparison photographs, that the engine on Murray St is not a CFM56. You don't need to be an A&P working in a powerplant shop to come to that conclusion. You need moderate google skills and eyesight.
 
dgm said:
were these numbers posted on youtube or the parts delivered to every "truther" for "triple corroborated independent verification"? If not. You're talking out of your arse.

Remember, the investigation is not over until a every rank amateur says so.

;)
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
Whoa - this changes everything! Thanks for opening my eyes to the Truth!
 
WilliamSeger said:
Maybe not a JT9D-7R4D? Well, that's some progress since the OP, but "maybe" your theory still needs some more work?
Click to expand...

If I have understood it correctly, the engine part is from a different version than 7R4D! There are 24 holes in the part for the 7R4D compared to 20 in the part found near Ground Zero:

wj6p7s.jpg
 
Oz1976 said:
Honestly, the only reason it's not clear enough to you is simply because you don't WANT it to be clear enough. It doesn't matter how much evidence is shown to you, how debunked your OP is, you will refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...

It would be very interesting if the jet engine really is of the wrong type, but I want check if that is the case. This previous post possibly indicates a difference: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7160808&postcount=67 (although I could have missed something).
 
Anders Lindman said:
If I have understood it correctly, the engine part is from a different version than 7R4D! There are 24 holes in the part for the 7R4D compared to 20 in the part found near Ground Zero:
Click to expand...

No. I'm looking at your pictures and I see the part with the 20 curved nozzles appears to have 24 bolt holes on its outer flange and 48 on its inner flange. The part in the lower photo appears to have 24 bolt holes in its inner flange.

That says to me that these are not at all likely to be two interchangeable versions of the same part. So the lower picture is not what you think it is.

Thanks for playing. Do try again sometime.
 
Anders Lindman said:
If I have understood it correctly, the engine part is from a different version than 7R4D! There are 24 holes in the part for the 7R4D compared to 20 in the part found near Ground Zero:

http://i52.tinypic.com/wj6p7s.jpg
Click to expand...


Umm, those two piece parts are part of an assembly; not independent of one another. Dont know where you got that graphic, perhaps give us a source? I'm pretty sure I could find a JT9D IPC Catalog which shows the first part being effective for the JT9D-7R4D.

eta: beaten by Jack by the hedge!
 
Last edited:
Anders - This is a fantastic breakthrough. It's information I had not previously seen before. It really looks to me like the engine found at the World Trade Center did not come from United Flight 175. The implications are really breathtaking.

I have one question: Have you told the passengers of United 175 yet? They'll be so glad to hear that their plane didn't crash. I know that for the past ten years, most of them have been operating under the assumption that they were dead.

They'll be so glad to hear they're not.
 
Not that I believe in this BS, I really don't. But can anyone debunk the stuff these people put out?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2393287/4/

apparently it is also not even the right plane model :rolleyes:

What I find odd is, that Anders doesn't simply follow the simpler logic (especially after reading the mentioned thread) to simply say it's not the right plane.
 
Loss Leader said:
Anders - This is a fantastic breakthrough. It's information I had not previously seen before. It really looks to me like the engine found at the World Trade Center did not come from United Flight 175. The implications are really breathtaking.

I have one question: Have you told the passengers of United 175 yet? They'll be so glad to hear that their plane didn't crash. I know that for the past ten years, most of them have been operating under the assumption that they were dead.

They'll be so glad to hear they're not.
Click to expand...

Anders seems to be a no-planer :rolleyes:
 
Anders Lindman said:
"WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767
...
I am an A&P mechanic for a major airline. I overhaul 767's. The engines are NOT from a 767. No 767 in existence uses CFM56's. Not enough power to lift a '67." -- From: http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm
Click to expand...
False information, an idiotic lie made up by a moron who failed to figure out 911 after 4 years and found 6 years later by you who can't figure out what a jet engine would look lie when it is smashed in an accident with the kinetic energy of a 2,000 pound bomb, as in E=1/2mv2. A multi-level failure, you have no clue what you are looking at, so you plagiarize a lie and post it out of ignorance and extreme gullibility.

You were debunked over 6 years ago. You are posting lies from way back.


Anders Lindman said:
"In other words as one blogger puts it, the FBI is saying that they are assuming the wreckage is from the hijacked planes and have no records to back it up." [my emphasis] -- From: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2393287/1/
Click to expand...
Save RADAR tracks and video tape. RADAR tracked 175 and 11 to the WTC, and video, film, and witnesses confirm jet impacted the WTC. BINGO, proof for all sane and rational people.
 
Last edited:
apathoid said:
Umm, those two piece parts are part of an assembly; not independent of one another. Dont know where you got that graphic, perhaps give us a source? I'm pretty sure I could find a JT9D IPC Catalog which shows the first part being effective for the JT9D-7R4D.

eta: beaten by Jack by the hedge!
Click to expand...
He doesn't know that aircraft engines have modifications within the same engine designation, so it's quite possible that this is a JT9D-7R4D with a mod for that particular section.

An Illustrated Parts Catalogue (IPC - not to be confused with an "intermediate pressure compressor") would do the job as you say.

Iirc this issue of "the wrong type of engine" was posted by the troll Anders a few months ago and the same conclusions reached. I think in that thread there was a suggestion of an "aircraft engine cannon" that shot the wrong engine type out of the WTC using explosives when "hologram planes" impacted the towers. I kid you not.

Anders is a troll who's main calling seems to be spouting crap and seeing who bites. It's best to ignore him.
 
Hey Anders, in your post where you linked out to zetaboards.com, did you happen to read all of the posts? Especially this one;

Going back to the engine details....this is straight from Boeing:

Each 767 is powered by two high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, which are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications.
Click to expand...
 
fess said:
Hey Anders, in your post where you linked out to zetaboards.com, did you happen to read all of the posts? Especially this one;
Click to expand...


Is it morally wrong if I consider this thread entertainment? :D


Anders, you may find it helpful to read through (yeah, it's hard, cause you know, you need to read, and making sh** up is so much easier)
all the tons of debunkings? I'm an ex CTer (never really into 911 Twoof though) and I have read for hours and hours until I found that what I used to believe in was complete BS. All of it. And I believed in most CTs out there. Anders, what can you lose?
I'm starting to think you're just a troll. :drool:
 
fess said:
Hey Anders, in your post where you linked out to zetaboards.com, did you happen to read all of the posts? Especially this one;

Going back to the engine details....this is straight from Boeing:

Each 767 is powered by two high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, which are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications.
Click to expand...



OhSnap.gif


applause.gif




Anders Lindman said:
This time I will win.
Click to expand...

cuckoo.png
 
Jack by the hedge said:
No. I'm looking at your pictures and I see the part with the 20 curved nozzles appears to have 24 bolt holes on its outer flange and 48 on its inner flange. The part in the lower photo appears to have 24 bolt holes in its inner flange.

That says to me that these are not at all likely to be two interchangeable versions of the same part. So the lower picture is not what you think it is.

Thanks for playing. Do try again sometime.
Click to expand...

I thought of that too, that the lower part may be the bottom part and the upper picture showing a part that is mounted on top of that, BUT, the upper part has LESS than 24 holes in its outer bottom ring. So, either way, I win!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom