JT9D-7J Engine

MrRandomGuy

Student
M
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
45
It seems like the "wrong engine" claim on Murray and Church street has taken a different turn than what I've seen in the past. Now instead of the prior claims a truther has claimed that it's a JT9D-7J using this site:

http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/09/murray-street-engine.html

as well as this video saying the first 1 minute and 40 seconds is relevant to his point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX0e_AplhWw

I pointed the Truther to this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208381 and encouraged him to register on the forum to debunk what was said in the thread with his evidence. He has yet to do so and made the excuse "oh the thread is over 2 years old it would be redundant posting blah blah blah."

So I'M creating this thread for him, because I have several questions of my own about this claim.

- Is it possible that a 767 does use the JT9D-7J model of engine around that time period or later? If so are there examples of this?

- What is the difference between the JT9D-7J and the JT9D-7R4D?

- The Truther claims that the FAA and United Airlines say the engine is JT9D-7R4D. I can't seem to find this and am wondering if they really did confirm it was that type of engine, or if that's just something the Truther pulled out of thin air.

I think that's about it for the moment. The reason I'm not posting in the existing thread is because while the claim is similar it is not exactly the same thing and I'm not sure if bumping year old threads is frowned upon here.

P.S. I think the wrong engine claim is complete bull and I'm posting the claim on here because I know it's going to be refuted by people who are far more knowledgeable in this area than I will ever be.

Thanks in advance guys!
 
Last edited:
Given the obvious relativity of the two engines (they're both clearly iterations of the same engine, JT9D-7x; and I would go as far as expecting most of their parts to be interchangeable), I would say this claim is too negligible to spend serious time on until someone can explain what makes them think they can tell the burned-up remains of each type of engine apart in a way that can't be explained by the above characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, if one burned, then dropped, both a Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo and a Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, from 1000 feet above ground, I wonder how easy it would be to tell which is which?
 
MrRandomGuy said:
- The Truther claims that the FAA and United Airlines say the engine is JT9D-7R4D. I can't seem to find this and am wondering if they really did confirm it was that type of engine, or if that's just something the Truther pulled out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Why are you looking for statements in which they claim to have identified the engine as a JT9D-7R4D?
If he claims that the FAA and the airline said that then its up to him to reference where those two entities issued such a statement. No second hand sources now. Finding a truther website that says that the FAA said it does not count. Original source for such claims counts.
 
jaydeehess said:
Hmmm, if one burned, then dropped, both a Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo and a Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, from 1000 feet above ground, I wonder how easy it would be to tell which is which?
Click to expand...
From a single frame pulled from a low-def video capture? For a Truther, 100%
;)
 
Greedo said:
[qimg]http://i52.tinypic.com/wj6p7s.jpg[/qimg]

Okay. Isn't the part labelled HPT Stage 1 cooling duct assembly

supposed to be screwed on the part labelled HPT 1 Stage cooling duct?

What exactly is wrong with the part found near GZ? I'm getting confused :D
Click to expand...

I think this post from the old thread pretty much covers it. They're comparing a cooling duct to a cooling duct assembly.
 
That engine is now hanging in a museum in Washington. It was not buried as stated in the video.

pb-110831-911exhibit-jc-04photoblog900.jpg


The information from the website you posted came from this thread at pumpitout.

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

If you follow the thread to the end you will find the truthers saying this:

Inquisitive - Darren had an engine mechanic help him and concluded the engine is not suspicious. that is why he no longer looks into it with the same vigour.

noozilander - you put words into Darren's mouth then claim you want him to speak for himself.


Ask yourselves: Why has Pilots for 9/11 Truth not got the engine front and centre in their presentations? Because it is not speculative. The engine is the correct engine. There are photos of this engine everywhere. There's no smoking gun here.
Click to expand...

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2393287/6/
 
MrRandomGuy said:
- Is it possible that a 767 does use the JT9D-7J model of engine around that time period or later? If so are there examples of this?
Click to expand...

According to the TCDS, no. There might be a STC out there that allows it, but there isn't any to the best of my knowledge.

MrRandomGuy said:
- What is the difference between the JT9D-7J and the JT9D-7R4D?
Click to expand...

You would have to check their relevant TCDS, but the primary difference is that the JT9D-7R4D are located on Boeing 767s and JT9D-7J are not.

MrRandomGuy said:
- The Truther claims that the FAA and United Airlines say the engine is JT9D-7R4D. I can't seem to find this and am wondering if they really did confirm it was that type of engine, or if that's just something the Truther pulled out of thin air.
Click to expand...

According to the TCDS:

A1NM said:
Engines: 2 Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7R4D, JT9D-7R4
E, JT9D-7R4E4, PW4052, PW4056, PW4060A, or 2 General
Electric CF6-80A, CF6-80A2, CF6-80C
2-B2, -B4, -B6 or CF6-80C2B4F,
-
B6F, -B7F.
Click to expand...
As to whether the specific engine was mounted on any of the aircraft on 9/11 and found on location, that I can not say.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Why are you looking for statements in which they claim to have identified the engine as a JT9D-7R4D?
If he claims that the FAA and the airline said that then its up to him to reference where those two entities issued such a statement. No second hand sources now. Finding a truther website that says that the FAA said it does not count. Original source for such claims counts.
Click to expand...

Good point you're right, I shouldn't have to look for the original statements (though curiosity did get the better of me however and I sure as hell tried.)

Reactor drone said:
I think this post from the old thread pretty much covers it. They're comparing a cooling duct to a cooling duct assembly.
Click to expand...

Probably why people fall for this scam so easily.

waypastvne said:
snip
Click to expand...

I think we can call this post a successful rebuttal of the claim - and using a few Truthers as a way to debunk it was a very nice touch.
 
When I attempted to make my first post on this thread the following message appeared:

You are only allowed to post URLs (e.g. xxxxxxx) to websites after you have made 15 posts or more.

Note: If you use the built-in "Enhanced Editor" to type your responses and you select a smilie from the smilie list you may find the system will believe you are trying to include an URL in your post. If you experience this problem either use the "Standard Editor" (UserCP>Edit Options>Miscellaneous Options>Message Editor Interface) or add smilies by typing the text alternative e.g. :)

We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.

I find this to be an arbitrary and utterly ridiculous rule, but apparently there is no way around it and since my post would be missing a huge amount of pertinent information without the links I will wait until I can post what I have as written.
 
You can post your links as www(dot)name(dot)com and we will fix them for you.

Let's just hope it's worth it...
 
Freeclimber44 said:
I find this to be an arbitrary and utterly ridiculous rule...
Click to expand...

Well, since you need to burn up another 14 posts perhaps you could start a thread to discuss why that rule exists and whether it serves a useful purpose or is indeed merely arbitrary and ridiculous.
 
I will try that, but on other sites you have to put a space between almost every character in a link in order to post it.
I'd also like to know why if you don't click something on a thread within almost every minute you have to go log in again.
 
Here are 4 sites stating that the engines on N612UA, the United Airlines Boeing 767-200 alleged to have crashed into WTC2, the South Tower, were Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D :

http : / / www(dot)airfleets(dot)net/ficheapp/plane-b767-21873(dot)htm

http : / / aviation-safety(dot)net/database/record(dot)php?id=20010911-1

http : / / www(dot)planespotters(dot)net/Production_List/Boeing/767/21873,N612UA-United-Airlines(dot)php

http: / / registry(dot)faa9(dot)gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results(dot)aspx?NNubertxt=612UA

The last one is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Registry page for N612UA and states that the engine manufacturer was Pratt & Whitney and the engine model number was 52054 which is apparently the FAA's own engine model code. In order to find out what engine type that number matches, I had to do my own cross-checking. I found another plane having engines of that model number.

A deregistered A310-222 Airbus with registration N449FE also had P&W model 52054 engines. The ONLY type of P&W engines installed on the Airbus A310-200/222 are the JT9D-7R4D. So 52054 matches to the P&W JT9D-7R4D engine. 4 independent sources including the FAA Registry confirms N612UA had Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines. I don't believe there can be any rational dispute as to the type of engines on N612UA.

This video concisely presents the problem of the anomalous components on the wrecked "Murray Street" engine:

http : / / www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=YPO3TqQyZsU

In addition to the engine having the wrong type cooling duct, several components on the diffuser casing of the engine were found to be exact matches to the P&W JT9D-7J engine installed exclusively on Boeing 747's.

http: / / z3(dot)ifrm(dot)com /46/112/0/p173684/_5705_747_engine_comparison04(dot)jpg

The photo shows 8 parts matching those on a P&W JT9D-7J engine on a Boeing 747 as is apparent from the forward section of the fuselage in view.
 
Freeclimber44 said:
I find this to be an arbitrary and utterly ridiculous rule, but apparently there is no way around it and since my post would be missing a huge amount of pertinent information without the links I will wait until I can post what I have as written.
Click to expand...

This is a standard precaution against spammers trying to advertize their wares. As others said, provide the link in a broken format, and one of us will be happy to make it a normal link. :)
 
Freeclimber44 said:
Here are 4 sites stating that the engines on N612UA, the United Airlines Boeing 767-200 alleged to have crashed into WTC2, the South Tower, were Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D :

http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b767-21873.htm

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-1

http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/767/21873,N612UA-United-Airlines.php

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=612UA

The last one is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Registry page for N612UA and states that the engine manufacturer was Pratt & Whitney and the engine model number was 52054 which is apparently the FAA's own engine model code. In order to find out what engine type that number matches, I had to do my own cross-checking. I found another plane having engines of that model number.

A deregistered A310-222 Airbus with registration N449FE also had P&W model 52054 engines. The ONLY type of P&W engines installed on the Airbus A310-200/222 are the JT9D-7R4D. So 52054 matches to the P&W JT9D-7R4D engine. 4 independent sources including the FAA Registry confirms N612UA had Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines. I don't believe there can be any rational dispute as to the type of engines on N612UA.

This video concisely presents the problem of the anomalous components on the wrecked "Murray Street" engine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPO3TqQyZsU

In addition to the engine having the wrong type cooling duct, several components on the diffuser casing of the engine were found to be exact matches to the P&W JT9D-7J engine installed exclusively on Boeing 747's.

http://z3.ifrm.com/46/112/0/p173684/_5705_747_engine_comparison04.jpg

The photo shows 8 parts matching those on a P&W JT9D-7J engine on a Boeing 747 as is apparent from the forward section of the fuselage in view.
Click to expand...

Do you have a photo showing that those feature aren't present on a P&W JT9D-7R4D? The same engine family will share a lot of common features.
 
Last edited:
Freeclimber44 said:
Here are 4 sites stating that the engines on N612UA, the United Airlines Boeing 767-200 alleged to have crashed into WTC2, the South Tower, were Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D :

http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b767-21873.htm

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-1

http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/767/21873,N612UA-United-Airlines.php

http://registry.faa9.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNubertxt=612UA

The last one is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Registry page for N612UA and states that the engine manufacturer was Pratt & Whitney and the engine model number was 52054 which is apparently the FAA's own engine model code. In order to find out what engine type that number matches, I had to do my own cross-checking. I found another plane having engines of that model number.

A deregistered A310-222 Airbus with registration N449FE also had P&W model 52054 engines. The ONLY type of P&W engines installed on the Airbus A310-200/222 are the JT9D-7R4D. So 52054 matches to the P&W JT9D-7R4D engine. 4 independent sources including the FAA Registry confirms N612UA had Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines. I don't believe there can be any rational dispute as to the type of engines on N612UA.

This video concisely presents the problem of the anomalous components on the wrecked "Murray Street" engine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPO3TqQyZsU

In addition to the engine having the wrong type cooling duct, several components on the diffuser casing of the engine were found to be exact matches to the P&W JT9D-7J engine installed exclusively on Boeing 747's.

http://z3.ifrm.com/46/112/0/p173684/_5705_747_engine_comparison04.jpg

The photo shows 8 parts matching those on a P&W JT9D-7J engine on a Boeing 747 as is apparent from the forward section of the fuselage in view.
Click to expand...

There we go, links fixed.
 
I'm confused. Obviously the plane was not a 747.

What are they digging at here? Do they know for sure there were no design changes in that engine over the many years it was produced?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they haven't run this by the engineers at Pratt & Whitney yet.
 
The image they show as the cooling duct that the plane should have had is actually a revision. (it says so on the drawing).



N612UA was produced in around the time of this revision. The earlier design looks exactly like the one on the Murray St engine.

This is old stuff. If I get a chance later I'll dig up the research I did on this a few years ago. If I remember correctly it still had the little nozzles but they are just not pictured (in this part view). Remember, this is a part of an assembly. So either way the duct looks the same.
 
Last edited:
MrRandomGuy said:
It seems like the "wrong engine" claim on Murray and Church street has taken a different turn than what I've seen in the past. Now instead of the prior claims a truther has claimed that it's a JT9D-7J using this site:

http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/09/murray-street-engine.html

as well as this video saying the first 1 minute and 40 seconds is relevant to his point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX0e_AplhWw

I pointed the Truther to this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208381 and encouraged him to register on the forum to debunk what was said in the thread with his evidence. He has yet to do so and made the excuse "oh the thread is over 2 years old it would be redundant posting blah blah blah."

So I'M creating this thread for him, because I have several questions of my own about this claim.

- Is it possible that a 767 does use the JT9D-7J model of engine around that time period or later? If so are there examples of this?

- What is the difference between the JT9D-7J and the JT9D-7R4D?

- The Truther claims that the FAA and United Airlines say the engine is JT9D-7R4D. I can't seem to find this and am wondering if they really did confirm it was that type of engine, or if that's just something the Truther pulled out of thin air.

I think that's about it for the moment. The reason I'm not posting in the existing thread is because while the claim is similar it is not exactly the same thing and I'm not sure if bumping year old threads is frowned upon here.

P.S. I think the wrong engine claim is complete bull and I'm posting the claim on here because I know it's going to be refuted by people who are far more knowledgeable in this area than I will ever be.

Thanks in advance guys!
Click to expand...

So the conspirators were idiot savants, smart enough to do the conspiracy but not smart enough to plant the right evidence.
 
Freeclimber44 said:
... This video concisely presents the problem of the anomalous components on the wrecked "Murray Street" engine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPO3TqQyZsU
Click to expand...
The video by SilenceTrugood is nonsense. It would be hard to dumb down a video more, but SilenceTrugood can do it. Other SilenceTrugood videos make the idiotic claim of the 175 flight POD. Woo woo is alive at SilenceTrugood video collection.

The video concisely proves the author prefers fantasy.

Which idiotic statement can be backed with real evidence to prove the engine was not from 175, which is proved by RADAR and photographic evidence (not to mention physics for the trajectory of the engine that traveled throught the WTC at an initial speed of 590 mph). How can someone present a fantasy and ignore reality after 12 years?

Did you fall for this fantasy?

SilenceTrugood video is stupid, it needs no debunking. Feel free to take the best woo and support it with some "evidence".

Freeclimber44 said:
In addition to the engine having the wrong type cooling duct, several components on the diffuser casing of the engine were found to be exact matches to the P&W JT9D-7J engine installed exclusively on Boeing 747's.

http://z3.ifrm.com/46/112/0/p173684/...mparison04.jpg

The photo shows 8 parts matching those on a P&W JT9D-7J engine on a Boeing 747 as is apparent from the forward section of the fuselage in view.
Click to expand...
lol, did you fall for it?

747 and 767 can use the same engines. 767 is a heavy jet with 2 engines, a 747 has 4 engines. I must of missed where the engine from 175, can't be from 175, when RADAR, video, and photographic evidence proves the engine was from 175. Was the federal registry used to see what engine parts were what for 175? lol, a very shallow myopic study by a truther is evidence for gulliblity, not what engine parts were or weren't on 175.

...

How did the truthers explain away RADAR data which verifies 175 from takeoff to impact? How do they fall for idiots who claim the engine is not from 175? This is the same as arguing about which reindeer Santa will replace to gain more thrust. Fantasy.

http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_...et-engine.html
The web site with the idiotic last statement.

Unless I'm missing something, that engine did not come from Flight 175.
So, then, what struck the South Tower? And, uh, where is Flight 175?

LOL, he has an open mind, and he is missing his mind.
Click to expand...
Wave hands, make silly claims.

What an idiotic statement. RADAR data proves 175 impacted the WTC, and the presentation is BS. 12 years of failure, new gullible followers sign up for idiotic claims, and fantasy.


The accident (not an accident) summary section from the NTSB lists a Pratt & Whitney PW4062 as the engine. However the NTSB was not required to do an accident investigation for crime, an on-purpose crash. Oh noes... which engine was it?

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/pe1txkiphsnqbxmzxtzwc0551/X09072013120000.pdf
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/vug1ab55fng4sv2he10tblzf1/C09072013120000.pdf

Did they fake the DNA too?
What we have here is a failure to understand the simplicity of 19 nuts for UBL doing 911. Instead, we need a plot with literally thousands of people faking evidence, remote controlling aircraft, planting a million thermite ceiling tiles and a bit of PNAC rant. After 12 years belief in 911 truth claims is the a great litmus test for gullibility.
This woo is from 4 years ago? It is starting to go bad.

Why do 911 truthers not have the guts to tell flight 175 friends and family their loved ones and friends did not die from impacting the WTC? The no action movement, 911 truth. If you need complete disrespect and ignorance, 911 truth remains the leader.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I'm confused. Obviously the plane was not a 747.

What are they digging at here? Do they know for sure there were no design changes in that engine over the many years it was produced?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they haven't run this by the engineers at Pratt & Whitney yet.
Click to expand...

Essentially their argument boils down to the car sitting in my driveway isn't my car because the spark plugs aren't factory.
:rolleyes:
 
LSSBB said:
Truthers guys would call it a conspiracy if it involved my son's 2001 Elantra, because he put an aftermarket air intake on the engine.
Click to expand...


Eek! That is a conspiracy! :eye-poppi

At least it's not a souped up Dodge Neon. :confused: lol
 
It's more like they're comparing an exhaust manifold to an exhaust pipe from different cars that use the same basic engine. They've both got the word exhaust in so they must be the same part but they look suspiciously different.

ETA- That's not to mention that their argument is completely the wrong way around. In order to show that it wasn't a 767s engine they look at 747 engines and components and point out similarities. For their argument to be valid they should be looking at 767 engines and pointing out differences. They have never once shown that the TOBI duct assemblies aren't present in the 767 engines.
 
Last edited:
If people are really interested in what the TOBI duct assy. on a JT9D-7R4 series engine looks like Lewis University had one donated earlier this year for their aviation school. I'm sure that will be getting pulled apart and rebuilt frequently so the people claiming that engine type doesn't have the Tangential tube assy. could look for their evidence there.
 
This is to follow up my previous post with some more specific information. Again the links are in "broken form" since I have not yet reached my required 15 posts. Please excuse this inconvenience.

Here is a photo of a JT9D-7R4 series engine partially exposed mounted on an aircraft:

http : / / www(dot)flickr(dot)com / photos / unclejefejefe/3399480109/

The photo tag identifies it as a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D on an Air Canada 767-200 in storage at Mojave Airport in California. None of the 8 parts found on the JT9D-7J engine on the Boeing 747 that corresponded to parts on the Murray Street Engine are visible on this engine.

The following page goes into greater depth on the photos of the Murray Street Engine:

http : / / ckpi(dot)typepad(dot)com / christopher_king/2009/12/lets-cover-that-murray-street-engine-one-more-time.html

This video explains how one of the radar target planes in the Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian air defense exercises taking place on September 11, 2001 was substituted for United Flight 175 and that the substituted plane was the one that crashed into the South Tower at the World Trade Center. This explains the many eyewitness accounts of the attack plane appearing to be a "military plane" or "cargo plane" and the numerous videos and photographs showing a cylindrical object on the underside of the fuselage that would not have been on a commercial aircraft.

h t t p : / / www(dot)youtube(dot)com/user/SilenceTrugood?feature=watch
 
Freeclimber44 said:
This is to follow up my previous post with some more specific information. Again the links are in "broken form" since I have not yet reached my required 15 posts. Please excuse this inconvenience.

Here is a photo of a JT9D-7R4 series engine partially exposed mounted on an aircraft:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unclejefejefe/3399480109/

The photo tag identifies it as a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D on an Air Canada 767-200 in storage at Mojave Airport in California. None of the 8 parts found on the JT9D-7J engine on the Boeing 747 that corresponded to parts on the Murray Street Engine are visible on this engine.

The following page goes into greater depth on the photos of the Murray Street Engine:

http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher...-that-murray-street-engine-one-more-time.html

This video explains how one of the radar target planes in the Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian air defense exercises taking place on September 11, 2001 was substituted for United Flight 175 and that the substituted plane was the one that crashed into the South Tower at the World Trade Center. This explains the many eyewitness accounts of the attack plane appearing to be a "military plane" or "cargo plane" and the numerous videos and photographs showing a cylindrical object on the underside of the fuselage that would not have been on a commercial aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SilenceTrugood?feature=watch
Click to expand...
The plane seen in all the videos is a Boeing 767-200.

I asked before but you didn't answer, what does Pratt & Whitney have to say about this?

I bet the "researchers" that made these videos never thought to ask. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Freeclimber44 said:
None of the 8 parts found on the JT9D-7J engine on the Boeing 747 that corresponded to parts on the Murray Street Engine are visible on this engine.
Click to expand...

The (corrected) link doesn't appear to be working for me right now, so perhaps you could just tell me instead: Do you mean that parts which you can see in the link are identifiably not the same as the equivalent parts on the Murray Street engine, or do you merely mean that your linked picture does not show those parts?

This may seem a ridiculously trivial question, but this thread has already been there, done that and has the tee shirt.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The (corrected) link doesn't appear to be working for me right now, so perhaps you could just tell me instead: Do you mean that parts which you can see in the link are identifiably not the same as the equivalent parts on the Murray Street engine, or do you merely mean that your linked picture does not show those parts?

This may seem a ridiculously trivial question, but this thread has already been there, done that and has the tee shirt.
Click to expand...

By a plain reading of the comment in question (dangerous with Truthers, I know, but I thought it might help), it appears to be saying that there are extra parts on the 747 version of the JT9D that were found on Murray Street that are not present in the picture. Therefore, They (tm) planted the wrong engine.
 
Plainly that is the implication, but it is suspiciously ambiguous in a sadly familiar way.

Strictly, all the post says is that none of the parts is visible. Well, my car has a piston engine, but you can take all the pictures of the engine you like and pistons will not be visible. So maybe it has a different kind of engine...

Also there is still a distinct lack of evidence for differences between JT9D-7J parts and JT9D-7R4D parts. Most of this thread was a complete waste of time as it never compared like with like.

What this thread needs to give it a shot from the defibrilator is credible evidence that parts visible on the Murray Street engine were never fitted to a JT9D-7R4D engine.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Plainly that is the implication, but it is suspiciously ambiguous in a sadly familiar way.

Strictly, all the post says is that none of the parts is visible. Well, my car has a piston engine, but you can take all the pictures of the engine you like and pistons will not be visible. So maybe it has a different kind of engine...

Also there is still a distinct lack of evidence for differences between JT9D-7J parts and JT9D-7R4D parts. Most of this thread was a complete waste of time as it never compared like with like.

What this thread needs to give it a shot from the defibrilator is credible evidence that parts visible on the Murray Street engine were never fitted to a JT9D-7R4D engine.
Click to expand...

And that, we will never get, because the only people who know for certain what the differences are between a -7J and a -7R4D are the people that build them, and I doubt any of those are going to waste their time coming here to explain it. All we'll ever have is inconclusive photographs and innuendo.

ETA: I looked at the photograph in question and looked at the tag associated with it by the poster. A mothballed 767 in the desert is expected to have all of its parts intact? That engine is partially disassembled! Perhaps the components in question were removed prior to its being placed in storage? How about we start comparing apples to apples and compare the parts from a fully assembled, fully functional -7R4D with the parts found or not found on Murray St.?
 
Last edited:
thedopefishlives said:
And that, we will never get, because the only people who know for certain what the differences are between a -7J and a -7R4D are the people that build them, and I doubt any of those are going to waste their time coming here to explain it. All we'll ever have is inconclusive photographs and innuendo.

ETA: I looked at the photograph in question and looked at the tag associated with it by the poster. A mothballed 767 in the desert is expected to have all of its parts intact? That engine is partially disassembled! Perhaps the components in question were removed prior to its being placed in storage? How about we start comparing apples to apples and compare the parts from a fully assembled, fully functional -7R4D with the parts found or not found on Murray St.?
Click to expand...

Ok, so these guys went essentially to what is a junkyard, took a picture of an engine, and are suspicious because the engine that came off an active jet has more parts? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom