Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 12:27 PM

"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[/quote]

RecoveringYuppy · 7th May 2011, 12:31 PM

You must have cut and pasted "rense.com". If you'd actually typed the letters yourself something would have caught your attention.

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

You must have cut and pasted "rense.com". If you'd actually typed the letters yourself something would have caught your attention.

That's no proof that the claim is false. As I said: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=55

This time I will win.

Edx · 7th May 2011, 12:40 PM

So an unknown "airliner mechanic" says its not from a Boeing 767 posted on Rense of all places, and you think thats all you need?

Why do you have such low standards of evidence Anders?

My first question would be why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?

Isn't it more likely that this claim is nonsence, even if there was no plane?

NoahFence · 7th May 2011, 12:41 PM

So what's the suggestion? That a 767 hit the tower, but a 737 engine was planted 3 blocks away?

Quad4_72 · 7th May 2011, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

"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

I looked at my reply window trying to think of something witty to respond with for like 5 minutes. I got nothin. The stupid dripping off your post just leaves me at a loss for words.

Quad4_72 · 7th May 2011, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

So what's the suggestion? That a 767 hit the tower, but a 737 engine was planted 3 blocks away?

He is just asking question. I know, it hurts my head as well.

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

So an unknown "airliner mechanic" says its not from a Boeing 767 posted on Rense of all places, and you think thats all you need?

Why do you have such low standards of evidence Anders?

My first question would be why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed when they know people will take pictures of it and someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?

Isn't it more likely that this claim is nonsence, even if there was no plane?

Let's not jump the gun. Is the jet engine (part) of the wrong type, i.e. not an engine for a 767?

WilliamSeger · 7th May 2011, 12:47 PM

It's a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D:

ETA: ... which is one of the standard 767 engines: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

So what's the suggestion? That a 767 hit the tower, but a 737 engine was planted 3 blocks away?

The suggestion is that I would like to see some debunking of the claim in the OP.

Edx · 7th May 2011, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

The suggestion is that I would like to see some debunking of the claim in the OP.

Seems like someone did that already, so what now? Why did you already declare victory before you even bothered to check?

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine2.jpg

It's a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D:

http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine3.jpg

ETA: ... which is one of the standard 767 engines: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm

But this looks different:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai...P%26W_JT9D.jpg

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

Seems like someone did that already, so what now? Why did you already declare victory before you even bothered to check?

See my previous post.

leftysergeant · 7th May 2011, 01:01 PM

Rernse is not usually considered an authoritative source. They are not picky about facts over there. I have even seen "evidence" presented there to the effect that Auschwitz was not all that bad a place to sit out a world war.

The turd making that claim needs to offer some proof of who he is and where he works or we are all at liberty to dismiss him as an utter fraud, on a par with Bollyn and Hufschmid.

sadhatter · 7th May 2011, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

So an unknown "airliner mechanic" says its not from a Boeing 767 posted on Rense of all places, and you think thats all you need?

Why do you have such low standards of evidence Anders?

My first question would be why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?

Isn't it more likely that this claim is nonsence, even if there was no plane?

If i ran an rpg game, and the villain did something so stupid, so idiotic , so obviously designed to be a clue to something, my players would leave because of the lack of realism that the villain is presenting. And this is an a narrative in which dragons, magic , and gods exist.

In the real world the thought that any person of average intellect, let alone the heads of a big evil corporation , would make such a stupid, obvious, mistake , is so silly it will spontaneously generate the benny hill theme.

Have fun with your three legged, one eyed, mange infested, malnourished, toothless paper tiger. Me i will stick to real issues instead of just inventing an easy villain to be the crummy Agent smith to my crummy neo.

sadhatter · 7th May 2011, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

The suggestion is that I would like to see some debunking of the claim in the OP.

In the nature of Ade Edmonson , walks over to the op, shrugs his shoulders and points " Ta da".

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Rernse is not usually considered an authoritative source. They are not picky about facts over there. I have even seen "evidence" presented there to the effect that Auschwitz was not all that bad a place to sit out a world war.

The turd making that claim needs to offer some proof of who he is and where he works or we are all at liberty to dismiss him as an utter fraud, on a par with Bollyn and Hufschmid.

I'm a bit doubtful about Rense.com as a source myself, but I would like to see evidence that proves the claim wrong.

WilliamSeger · 7th May 2011, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

But this looks different:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2wei8hg.jpg

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai...P%26W_JT9D.jpg

Nope, not different; just a different angle. The other photo shows fairly clearly the part found on Murray St.: the compressor and front of the combustor section. It's near the center of this diagram:

Dog Town · 7th May 2011, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

This time I will win.

Nope!

lapman · 7th May 2011, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

But this looks different:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2wei8hg.jpg

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai...P%26W_JT9D.jpg

Wow, you should acually open your eyes when looking at a picture. Are you telling us that you don't know the difference between the outside and the inside of an engine? Yours is a cut away showing the internals while Williams show the external portions of the engine that matches the pic of the engine that was found at GZ.

Myriad · 7th May 2011, 01:19 PM

This claim in a nutshell:

The engine found near Ground Zero was an all-busted-up engine. (Sorry for the technical language.)

Boeing 767s don't use all-busted-up engines. Their specifications call for not-even-slightly-busted-up engines.

Therefore, the engine found near Ground Zero could not have come from a 767.

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Nope, not different; just a different angle. The other photo shows fairly clearly the part found on Murray St.: the compressor and front of the combustor section. It's near the center of this diagram:

http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/JT9D.gif

Clearly? Not clear enough to me. What you posted here is more clear: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...93&postcount=9

Do you have any source for the photo of that engine?

lapman · 7th May 2011, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Clearly? Not clear enough to me. What you posted here is more clear: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...93&postcount=9

Do you have any source for the photo of that engine?

Of course it wouldn't be "clear enough" to you. It goes against your fantasy, so you immediately dismiss it.

George 152 · 7th May 2011, 01:57 PM

Small point. All LAMES have registration numbers.
Did this 'A&P mechanic' produce his number with the claims he made ?

NoahFence · 7th May 2011, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

But this looks different:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2wei8hg.jpg

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai...P%26W_JT9D.jpg

I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not an authority on aircraft engines.

NOW

In the "other" thread, you left us breathless with your ability to look at two different scenes of aircraft wreckage, and spot which was planted and which wasn't:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
I found some strange things in the reported radar data. And how many radar stations have in fact produced any recorded radar data of the alleged second plane? Thousands of witnesses? I doubt it. The phone calls have been shown to be possibly fakes. Wreckage parts suspiciously looking as having been planted.

I ask again - how so?

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine2.jpg

It's a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D:

http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine3.jpg

ETA: ... which is one of the standard 767 engines: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm

"In fact all United Airline 767's were equiped with JT9D 7R4Ds."

"...this engine that is puported to have come from United Airlines Flight 175 on 9/11/01....

Has a cooling duct assembly that belongs to either a JT9D 7A or a JT9D 7F or a JT9D -7J"

From: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...d.main/259303/

That means that the engine is NOT from a JT9D 7R4D.

More info:

"A175 is listed as:

B767-222 #N612UA B# 21873, PW JT9D-7R4D, Mode 3A 1470 > 3020 > 3321"

From: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10747474

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not an authority on aircraft engines.

NOW

In the "other" thread, you left us breathless with your ability to look at two different scenes of aircraft wreckage, and spot which was planted and which wasn't:

I ask again - how so?

I have explained that in other threads. For example the jet engine part shoots out from the WTC tower with a bang indicating explosives used. But I want to first check if the jet engine is of the wrong type or not.

NoahFence · 7th May 2011, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I have explain that in other threads. For example the jet engine part shoots our from the WTC tower with a bang indicating explosives used. But I want to first check if the jet engine is of the wrong type or not.

You're implying they^tm set off explosives at the moment of impact?

Greedo · 7th May 2011, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

This time I will win.

Originally Posted by Edx

So an unknown "airliner mechanic" says its not from a Boeing 767 posted on Rense of all places, and you think thats all you need?

Why do you have such low standards of evidence Anders?

My first question would be why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane?

Isn't it more likely that this claim is nonsence, even if there was no plane?

^^This^^

Originally Posted by lapman

Wow, you should acually open your eyes when looking at a picture. Are you telling us that you don't know the difference between the outside and the inside of an engine? Yours is a cut away showing the internals while Williams show the external portions of the engine that matches the pic of the engine that was found at GZ.

^^and this^^

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Do you have any source for the photo of that engine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
But this looks different:

What is it with you CTers and perspective?

Seriously. Too many airline mechanics would notice this. Not to mention all the other aviation nuts out there.

Okay, lets assume your CT is right, just for a second. Let's see how this went. Teh evul bosses order an engine to be placed near ground zero. Okay, for that they need an engine. They will ask someone who has an idea about aircraft engines (I don't assume teh evul NWO bosses have aircraft engines just lyin' around) "Hey, we need an engine for a 767." and the aircraft dude will say "No Problem, here is an engine for a 767 (hands engine over to evul bosses)." Or, as you suggested, he says: "Sorry, I only have an engine for a 737, will that do?" and teh evul bosses say "Yes! With this we can prove just how stupid and blind the sheeple are! Long live the NWO!"

So when did the NWO policy on leaving hints just because they can change from subliminal messages and symbols (wich really don't mean anything) to obvious mistakes wich really hundreds of thousands of people can immediately point to?

Or are you suggesting the NWO simply screwed up? Hmm, the evil conspirators that have been going on for decades and not screwed up once, now make this massive mistake? Seems unlikely.

Why would they need to place that engine there anyway? I assume you are a "no-planer". If so, please seek help.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

This time I will win.

Oh, I almost forgot, you're just desperate to "defeat" "us".

NoahFence · 7th May 2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Or are you suggesting the NWO simply screwed up? Hmm, the evil conspirators that have been going on for decades and not screwed up once, now make this massive mistake? Seems unlikely.

Hey, they told the BBC about Building 7, remember?

sadhatter · 7th May 2011, 02:23 PM

Any chance of addressing my point that this is such a stupid mistake, that it seems the Gov' would have had to be involved?

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 02:25 PM

I found more interesting info (I hope it's not disinfo

):

"The name of the component is HPT Stage1 Cooling Duct Assembly. There is a history behind this assembly as I began to read more. This component was part of the early JT9D-7 series engines that were used in development of Boeing's 747 line of aircraft. The "7" series engines have gone through many revisions but are exclusively used on 747's. 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. Tangential On-Board Injection (TOBI or "R" for Radial) was the newest improvement to reduce nozzle temperatures by over 2% which could open the door for a more powerful engines based on the "7" series engine. The new model of engine would be called 7R4+Revision Letter. The 7R4D engine is the one that is specified for United Airlines Boeing 767's.

The engine found at Church and Murray didn't seem to be a 7R4D.....it seemed to be a 7J. The only way to confirm this is to search for the engine and take a look at the diffuser casing to verify a match. This was another needle in a haystack but I found it......a photo of a stripped down 747 engine at an outdoor museum. The diffuser casing is a perfect match!

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173684...mparison04.jpg

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173685...parison_03.jpg

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173686...loy01_edit.jpg

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173687/_chromalloy02_edit.jpg"

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

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Any chance of addressing my point that this is such a stupid mistake, that it seems the Gov' would have had to be involved?

What the Rense article said, that the engine was a CFM56, may be wrong. So it could be a JT9D, BUT perhaps not a JT9D-7R4D which was used in the UA Flight 175 767 airliner. See recent previous posts.

Captain_Swoop · 7th May 2011, 02:31 PM

So I assume you will be reporting this discovery and your evidence to the FBI?

Bell · 7th May 2011, 02:32 PM

Did someone bump this thread from 2006?

Sword_Of_Truth · 7th May 2011, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

This time I will win.

Your acknowledgement that you have lost every other time is noted.

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

So I assume you will be reporting this discovery and your evidence to the FBI?

I'm not an expert, so I can't tell if the claims are correct. For example, this part is claimed to NOT be from the exact type of engine in Flight 175: http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173685...parison_03.jpg

It would be VERY interesting if that claim is correct.

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Your acknowledgement that you have lost every other time is noted.

If I say: this time I will win, then it means that I may have won previously too! So your claim is false.

DGM · 7th May 2011, 02:46 PM

Let's see if I got this.

Anders Lindman post something (anything) and people respond. Has he ever posted anything that even remotely required a response (that has not been done hundreds of times)?

<looks at ignore list, evaluates the names (4) on that list, decides NOT to change criteria for adding names>

Anders Lindman · 7th May 2011, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by lapman

Wow, you should acually open your eyes when looking at a picture. Are you telling us that you don't know the difference between the outside and the inside of an engine? Yours is a cut away showing the internals while Williams show the external portions of the engine that matches the pic of the engine that was found at GZ.

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).

7th May 2011, 12:27 PM	#1
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero "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[/quote]

7th May 2011, 12:40 PM	#4
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	So an unknown "airliner mechanic" says its not from a Boeing 767 posted on Rense of all places, and you think thats all you need? Why do you have such low standards of evidence Anders? My first question would be why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane? Isn't it more likely that this claim is nonsence, even if there was no plane?
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	Last edited by Edx; 7th May 2011 at 12:54 PM.

7th May 2011, 12:42 PM	#6
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,354	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman "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 I looked at my reply window trying to think of something witty to respond with for like 5 minutes. I got nothin. The stupid dripping off your post just leaves me at a loss for words.
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,354	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken Last edited by Quad4_72; 7th May 2011 at 12:44 PM.

7th May 2011, 12:43 PM	#7
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,354	Originally Posted by NoahFence So what's the suggestion? That a 767 hit the tower, but a 737 engine was planted 3 blocks away? He is just asking question. I know, it hurts my head as well.
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 6,354	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

7th May 2011, 12:47 PM	#9
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	It's a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D: ETA: ... which is one of the standard 767 engines: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm
	Last edited by WilliamSeger; 7th May 2011 at 12:49 PM.

7th May 2011, 12:31 PM	#2
RecoveringYuppy Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 14,185	You must have cut and pasted "rense.com". If you'd actually typed the letters yourself something would have caught your attention.

7th May 2011, 12:36 PM	#3
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy You must have cut and pasted "rense.com". If you'd actually typed the letters yourself something would have caught your attention. That's no proof that the claim is false. As I said: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=55 This time I will win.

7th May 2011, 12:41 PM	#5
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	So what's the suggestion? That a 767 hit the tower, but a 737 engine was planted 3 blocks away?

7th May 2011, 12:46 PM	#8
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by Edx So an unknown "airliner mechanic" says its not from a Boeing 767 posted on Rense of all places, and you think thats all you need? Why do you have such low standards of evidence Anders? My first question would be why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed when they know people will take pictures of it and someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane? Isn't it more likely that this claim is nonsence, even if there was no plane? Let's not jump the gun. Is the jet engine (part) of the wrong type, i.e. not an engine for a 767?

7th May 2011, 12:55 PM	#11
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman The suggestion is that I would like to see some debunking of the claim in the OP. Seems like someone did that already, so what now? Why did you already declare victory before you even bothered to check?
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642

7th May 2011, 12:57 PM	#12
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine2.jpg It's a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D: http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine3.jpg ETA: ... which is one of the standard 767 engines: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm But this looks different: From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai...P%26W_JT9D.jpg

7th May 2011, 01:00 PM	#13
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by Edx Seems like someone did that already, so what now? Why did you already declare victory before you even bothered to check? See my previous post.

7th May 2011, 01:01 PM	#14
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Rernse is not usually considered an authoritative source. They are not picky about facts over there. I have even seen "evidence" presented there to the effect that Auschwitz was not all that bad a place to sit out a world war. The turd making that claim needs to offer some proof of who he is and where he works or we are all at liberty to dismiss him as an utter fraud, on a par with Bollyn and Hufschmid.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

7th May 2011, 01:01 PM	#15
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,694	Originally Posted by Edx So an unknown "airliner mechanic" says its not from a Boeing 767 posted on Rense of all places, and you think thats all you need? Why do you have such low standards of evidence Anders? My first question would be why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane? Isn't it more likely that this claim is nonsence, even if there was no plane? If i ran an rpg game, and the villain did something so stupid, so idiotic , so obviously designed to be a clue to something, my players would leave because of the lack of realism that the villain is presenting. And this is an a narrative in which dragons, magic , and gods exist. In the real world the thought that any person of average intellect, let alone the heads of a big evil corporation , would make such a stupid, obvious, mistake , is so silly it will spontaneously generate the benny hill theme. Have fun with your three legged, one eyed, mange infested, malnourished, toothless paper tiger. Me i will stick to real issues instead of just inventing an easy villain to be the crummy Agent smith to my crummy neo.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,694

7th May 2011, 01:03 PM	#16
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,694	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman The suggestion is that I would like to see some debunking of the claim in the OP. In the nature of Ade Edmonson , walks over to the op, shrugs his shoulders and points " Ta da".
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,694

7th May 2011, 01:07 PM	#17
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Rernse is not usually considered an authoritative source. They are not picky about facts over there. I have even seen "evidence" presented there to the effect that Auschwitz was not all that bad a place to sit out a world war. The turd making that claim needs to offer some proof of who he is and where he works or we are all at liberty to dismiss him as an utter fraud, on a par with Bollyn and Hufschmid. I'm a bit doubtful about Rense.com as a source myself, but I would like to see evidence that proves the claim wrong.

7th May 2011, 01:12 PM	#18
WilliamSeger Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 5,092	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman But this looks different: http://i53.tinypic.com/2wei8hg.jpg From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai...P%26W_JT9D.jpg Nope, not different; just a different angle. The other photo shows fairly clearly the part found on Murray St.: the compressor and front of the combustor section. It's near the center of this diagram:

7th May 2011, 01:15 PM	#19
Dog Town Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,862	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman This time I will win. Nope!
Dog Town Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,862

7th May 2011, 01:15 PM	#20
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman But this looks different: http://i53.tinypic.com/2wei8hg.jpg From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai...P%26W_JT9D.jpg Wow, you should acually open your eyes when looking at a picture. Are you telling us that you don't know the difference between the outside and the inside of an engine? Yours is a cut away showing the internals while Williams show the external portions of the engine that matches the pic of the engine that was found at GZ.
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	__________________ They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

7th May 2011, 01:19 PM	#21
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 19,977	This claim in a nutshell: The engine found near Ground Zero was an all-busted-up engine. (Sorry for the technical language.) Boeing 767s don't use all-busted-up engines. Their specifications call for not-even-slightly-busted-up engines. Therefore, the engine found near Ground Zero could not have come from a 767.
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

7th May 2011, 01:34 PM	#22
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Nope, not different; just a different angle. The other photo shows fairly clearly the part found on Murray St.: the compressor and front of the combustor section. It's near the center of this diagram: http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/JT9D.gif Clearly? Not clear enough to me. What you posted here is more clear: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...93&postcount=9 Do you have any source for the photo of that engine?

7th May 2011, 01:38 PM	#23
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Clearly? Not clear enough to me. What you posted here is more clear: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...93&postcount=9 Do you have any source for the photo of that engine? Of course it wouldn't be "clear enough" to you. It goes against your fantasy, so you immediately dismiss it.
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	__________________ They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

7th May 2011, 01:57 PM	#24
George 152 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 5,012	Small point. All LAMES have registration numbers. Did this 'A&P mechanic' produce his number with the claims he made ?
George 152 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 5,012

7th May 2011, 01:58 PM	#25
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman But this looks different: http://i53.tinypic.com/2wei8hg.jpg From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai...P%26W_JT9D.jpg I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not an authority on aircraft engines. NOW In the "other" thread, you left us breathless with your ability to look at two different scenes of aircraft wreckage, and spot which was planted and which wasn't: Quote: Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post I found some strange things in the reported radar data. And how many radar stations have in fact produced any recorded radar data of the alleged second plane? Thousands of witnesses? I doubt it. The phone calls have been shown to be possibly fakes. *Wreckage parts suspiciously looking as having been planted.* I ask again - how so?

7th May 2011, 02:01 PM	#26
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine2.jpg It's a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D: http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine3.jpg ETA: ... which is one of the standard 767 engines: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm "In fact all United Airline 767's were equiped with JT9D 7R4Ds." "...this engine that is puported to have come from United Airlines Flight 175 on 9/11/01.... Has a cooling duct assembly that belongs to either a JT9D 7A or a JT9D 7F or a JT9D -7J" From: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...d.main/259303/ That means that the engine is NOT from a JT9D 7R4D. More info: "A175 is listed as: B767-222 #N612UA B# 21873, PW JT9D-7R4D, Mode 3A 1470 > 3020 > 3321" From: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10747474

7th May 2011, 02:04 PM	#27
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by NoahFence I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not an authority on aircraft engines. NOW In the "other" thread, you left us breathless with your ability to look at two different scenes of aircraft wreckage, and spot which was planted and which wasn't: I ask again - how so? I have explained that in other threads. For example the jet engine part shoots out from the WTC tower with a bang indicating explosives used. But I want to first check if the jet engine is of the wrong type or not.
	Last edited by Anders Lindman; 7th May 2011 at 02:08 PM.

7th May 2011, 02:08 PM	#28
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I have explain that in other threads. For example *the jet engine part shoots our from the WTC tower with a bang indicating explosives used.* But I want to first check if the jet engine is of the wrong type or not. You're implying they^tm set off explosives at the moment of impact?

7th May 2011, 02:10 PM	#29
Greedo Too weird to live, too rare to die Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 2,603	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman This time I will win. Originally Posted by Edx So an unknown "airliner mechanic" says its not from a Boeing 767 posted on Rense of all places, and you think thats all you need? Why do you have such low standards of evidence Anders? My first question would be why do you think these conspirators would intentionally plant an engine that wasn't from a Boeing 767 in the streets in order to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed .... especially when they know people will take pictures of it and then someone could just stand up and say that it couldn't be from that plane? Isn't it more likely that this claim is nonsence, even if there was no plane? ^^This^^ Originally Posted by lapman Wow, you should acually open your eyes when looking at a picture. Are you telling us that you don't know the difference between the outside and the inside of an engine? Yours is a cut away showing the internals while Williams show the external portions of the engine that matches the pic of the engine that was found at GZ. ^^and this^^ Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Do you have any source for the photo of that engine? Quote: Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post But this looks different: What is it with you CTers and perspective? Seriously. Too many airline mechanics would notice this. Not to mention all the other aviation nuts out there. Okay, lets assume your CT is right, just for a second. Let's see how this went. Teh evul bosses order an engine to be placed near ground zero. Okay, for that they need an engine. They will ask someone who has an idea about aircraft engines (I don't assume teh evul NWO bosses have aircraft engines just lyin' around) "Hey, we need an engine for a 767." and the aircraft dude will say "No Problem, here is an engine for a 767 (hands engine over to evul bosses)." Or, as you suggested, he says: "Sorry, I only have an engine for a 737, will that do?" and teh evul bosses say "Yes! With this we can prove just how stupid and blind the sheeple are! Long live the NWO!" So when did the NWO policy on leaving hints just because they can change from subliminal messages and symbols (wich really don't mean anything) to obvious mistakes wich really hundreds of thousands of people can immediately point to? Or are you suggesting the NWO simply screwed up? Hmm, the evil conspirators that have been going on for decades and not screwed up once, now make this massive mistake? Seems unlikely. Why would they need to place that engine there anyway? I assume you are a "no-planer". If so, please seek help. Originally Posted by Anders Lindman This time I will win. Oh, I almost forgot, you're just desperate to "defeat" "us".
	Last edited by Greedo; 7th May 2011 at 02:16 PM.

7th May 2011, 02:20 PM	#30
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	Quote: Or are you suggesting the NWO simply screwed up? Hmm, the evil conspirators that have been going on for decades and not screwed up once, now make this massive mistake? Seems unlikely. Hey, they told the BBC about Building 7, remember?

7th May 2011, 02:23 PM	#31
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,694	Any chance of addressing my point that this is such a stupid mistake, that it seems the Gov' would have had to be involved?
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,694

7th May 2011, 02:25 PM	#32
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	I found more interesting info (I hope it's not disinfo ): "The name of the component is HPT Stage1 Cooling Duct Assembly. There is a history behind this assembly as I began to read more. This component was part of the early JT9D-7 series engines that were used in development of Boeing's 747 line of aircraft. The "7" series engines have gone through many revisions but are exclusively used on 747's. 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. Tangential On-Board Injection (TOBI or "R" for Radial) was the newest improvement to reduce nozzle temperatures by over 2% which could open the door for a more powerful engines based on the "7" series engine. The new model of engine would be called 7R4+Revision Letter. The 7R4D engine is the one that is specified for United Airlines Boeing 767's. The engine found at Church and Murray didn't seem to be a 7R4D.....it seemed to be a 7J. The only way to confirm this is to search for the engine and take a look at the diffuser casing to verify a match. This was another needle in a haystack but I found it......a photo of a stripped down 747 engine at an outdoor museum. The diffuser casing is a perfect match! http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173684...mparison04.jpg http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173685...parison_03.jpg http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173686...loy01_edit.jpg http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173687/_chromalloy02_edit.jpg" From: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1829738/1/

7th May 2011, 02:29 PM	#33
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by sadhatter Any chance of addressing my point that this is such a stupid mistake, that it seems the Gov' would have had to be involved? What the Rense article said, that the engine was a CFM56, may be wrong. So it could be a JT9D, BUT perhaps not a JT9D-7R4D which was used in the UA Flight 175 767 airliner. See recent previous posts.

7th May 2011, 02:31 PM	#34
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	So I assume you will be reporting this discovery and your evidence to the FBI?

7th May 2011, 02:32 PM	#35
Bell Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 21,050	Did someone bump this thread from 2006?

7th May 2011, 02:36 PM	#36
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,494	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman This time I will win. Your acknowledgement that you have lost every other time is noted.