[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[apathoid]

How many pilots will it take, is three enough ?

No, I'm not talking about conspiracy theorists, the very people who originated the claim, malcolm. BTW, please do show where George Nelson, Glen Standish and Nila Sagadevin say that the WTC2 aircraft didn't look like a 767-200. I don't think you'll be able to do it. Anyways, I'm talking about people who have spent their lives around airliners and who haven't been exposed to the outlandish claim that the 767-200 in all the WTC vids isn't a 767-200 at all. You wouldn't even have to mention the conspiracy at all, just show a few of the stills which depicted the plane and ask the regulars to identify it. If it's not a UA 762, they should all be able to confirm that, but I'd be impressed if you find a single one who isn't a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who does.

 

[apathoid]

I never stop marvelling at the type of people who think they are able to identify aircraft wreckage from photos alone. Especially heavily damaged engines.

What we have in that picture is only the inner core of the engine (the intact engine is the size of a bus), and jet engine cores tend to look more or less alike.

Hans

Actually, when you take the thrust reversers and cowls off, the JT9/PW4000 is around the size of an SUV as opposed to a bus.

The front part of the hot section back to the combustor is around 30" in diameter and is around a third of the overall length of the uncowled engine(132 inches), or about 43 inches.^*** So basically, the part in malcolm's photo should be 2.5 feet in diameter and around 3.5 feet tall to be a good match for a JT9D sizewise. Looks good to me.

Next?

^*** - I should note that I used PW4000 illustrations for these guesstimates as I don't have access to any JT9D references.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Go to airport, hijack plane, fly it to New York. Is this a viable scenario?

the scenarios you were given were much more in depth than this (i know because i wrote one) but yes, before and on 9/11/2001 this was a viable scenario

would you care to explain why is isnt?

why would it be impossible to get a boxcutter/razor knife, pocket knife, and gps on board a plane where there were no regulations preventing this?

why would men who have recieved combat training not be able to wrest control of an aircraft from a flight crew trained to cooperate with hijackers?

why would a liscensed commercial pilot not be able to navigate to within visual range of 2 of the worlds tallest buildings?

why would a 146,000 pound aircraft travelling at 500+ mph not be able to punch a hole in the side of a building?


also, you have not provided any evidence that a military version of a 767 is any stronger than the civil version (the empty weight of an E-767 is the same as the empty weight of a 767-300, so it doesnt seem like its very heavily modified)

 

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, when you take the thrust reversers and cowls off, the JT9/PW4000 is around the size of an SUV as opposed to a bus.

And the fans. SUV or bus, what is photograped in that New York street is only the battered remains of an engine.

Next?

With these people "next" consists of him repeating his claim as if nothing had happend.

Hans

 

[SpitfireIX]

I have addressed the visual record, here it is again,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html
This is clear visual evidence that the plane was not 175.

I explained to you why this so-called analysis is worthless, yet you continue to use it as evidence without addressing any of my objections. Now please refute the points I made here, or else stop claiming that the above-linked page is anything resembling proof. And for the record, I work as a mechanical designer using SolidWorks, so I am qualified to discuss the issue of directly comparing blueprints with photographs.

 

[CurtC]

That is a crude attempt to 'debunk' previous evidence.
This is concrete evidence that 175 did not hit tower 2.
This engine is a CFM 56,

Malcolm, it was your claim that the measurements of a particular photo proved that the plane was not a 767-200. The paper I posted a link to showed exactly why your web page was flawed. That particular measurement does indicate that it was a model 200, not 300. Further, it estimates the overall length of the plane based on another photo, and that length indicates a model 200, not 300.

Now that you've seen this, you immediately vacate your claims on that page, without a mention.
[SIZE="+1"]
I'd just like to point out that your deciding not to address this issue again is your concession that you were wrong.[/SIZE]

 

[apathoid]

And the fans.

Not really. Take the fan section off and you've got something that is only around 7-8 feet long and 2-4 feet in diameter at most, smaller than a compact car.

SUV or bus, what is photograped in that New York street is only the battered remains of an engine.

Agreed, yet malcolm thinks it's "obviously a CFM 56 and equally obviously not a JT9D"{giggle}. How do you respond to that? There are probably guys who have overhauled these puppies for years who can't ID that section without physically matching up the piece parts.....especially since, as you mentioned earlier, cores from similar class motors(CF6, JT9, PW4000) are not easily distinguished from one another.

With these people "next" consists of him repeating his claim as if nothing had happend.

Hans

I agree, I'll probably be dropping out of this thread as I'm not a fan of the Christophera school of debate.

 

[Tirdun]

1. Raytheon, in Aug 2001, flew a passenger jet, take off – flight around – landing. (Der Spiegel).

Raytheon builds UAVs and UAV flight systems. This is neither nefarious nor all that shocking, especially since Raython puts out press releases on their DoD activities.

2. Raytheon deal in small executive jets, there is no reason for them to fly large passenger planes by remote control.

Raytheon is on of the top 5 largest DoD contractors (depending on how you measure it) in the USA and deals with far more than "small executive jets". This claim is nonsense and akin to claiming that General Motors deals only with "compact cars".

3. There is a very good reason for Raytheon not to interest themselves in flying passenger planes by remote control, because it is against the law.

But there's nothing against automated emergency landing systems. Or automated cargo systems. Or automated military systems. Or automated survey and recon systems. Or a thousand other possible automated flight systems that have nothing to do with civilian passenger flight or flying "armored 767s" into buildings.

7. Offutt AFB, is a joint civilian/military installation
8. Boeing and Raytheon were there.

So were, in all likelihood, dozens of other DoD contractors. I'll bet Grumman was there too. Ditto BAE and L3. I'll bet Honeywell was skulking around somewhere and General Dynamics was even lurking.

9. Boeing has been the subject of RICO law suits for over a decade.

You've yet to reveal what Raytheon and Boeing being at an air base has to do with anything, and sliming Boeing with this claim does nothing to add to your empty claims. Boeing was sued for anticompetitive practices by rival companies, and that claim having merit or no merit does nothing to support your suggestion that they plotted to destroy WTC2.

10. The military prefer daylight take offs.

I prefer strawberry jelly to grape. This proves the HMS Titanic was sunk by the Germans, right? The military also prefers a lack of clouds, rain, a lot of good intelligence, clear dossiers on their enemies and lots of other things that do not apply here.

11. Any commander of an Air Force Base who closed his airport for ‘civilian’ reasons during massive war games, would face disciplinary action.

What. are. you. talking. about?

12. For the first time in history, a civilian politician was placed in direct command of Norad and other parts of the USAF.

The first time in US history that a politician was placed in control of our military was when George Washington was elected president. If you want a man with zero military connection you have to go forward to John Adams, our second president.

13. In order to get a night-time take off from a military airfield, some compelling reason must be given.
14. Private civilian executive jets began arriving at dawn on 9/11, because of a celebrity golf tournament that day.
15. Warren Buffet was persuaded out of retirement to host one last celebrity golf tournament.

The civilian side of the airfield is open 24/7. I fail to see why we should care.

16. Neocons are ...

16-19 are of no consequence to this discussion.

20. So many planes or non-planes were in the sky that morning, that air traffic controllers didn’t know a real plane from a blip on their screen.
21. Air traffic controllers deal only with planes that are about to land in their area.
22. All take offs from Offutt, for both Northern Vigilance, Vigilant warrior and any other reason, would have to be during the night of 9/10 – 9/11.

Source?

I've put you in the driving seat, now what heading is it for New York?
Carry on without turning and we'll soon be in Canada. Anything from 340 to 10
degrees will still put us in Canada. You are now in the pilot's seat. What will be your heading for New York.

How about we follow the Atlantic coastline?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You asked me to consider physics, when I do so, you rear up.
You ask me to produce evidence, I produced visual evidence, here it is again.
The fusilage from the leading edge of the wing to the nose is too long for 175.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
What evidence can you produce to show that 175 did hit the south tower?
I'm not fussy, anything reasonable will do.

I "rear up" at your attempts to shift the burden of proof.

Engines used in the Boeing 767

Pratt & Whitney PW4000
60,200 lb

GE CF6-80C2
62,100 lb

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Info on the CFM56-5A engine:
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/cfm56/index.html
http://www.cfm56.com/index.php?level2=engines&level3=1052
The CFM56-5A is only used on Airbus models A319 and A320.

Info on the GE CF6-80C2 engine:
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/cf6/cf6-80c2.html

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm makes the claim that the engine is a CFM56-5A, but provides no analysis to substantiate that claim.

I'll let the resident experts in digital imagry (gumboot, et al) address http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html though I present the following for the ratios used at the bottom of the page:
Source: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec2.pdf
Nose to engine (for PW): 15.65M
Nose to trailing edge of wingtip: 30.40M+2.29M = 32.69M
=> Engine to trailing edge of wingtip: 32.69M-15.65M = 17.04M
=> Ratio of A:B = 15.65:17.04 = .9184

Nose to engine (for GE): 15.47M
=> Engine to trailing edge of wingtip: 32.69-15.47 = 17.22M
=> Ratio of A:B = 15.47:17.22 = .8983

The main issue I take with the measurements on the amics21.com site, is that no error margin is provided. No analysis is provided to show what distance one pixel covers.

 

[apathoid]

1.
Raytheon, in Aug 2001, flew a passenger jet, take off – flight around – landing. (Der Spiegel).
2.
Raytheon deal in small executive jets, there is no reason for them to fly large passenger planes by remote control.
3.
There is a very good reason for Raytheon not to interest themselves in flying passenger planes by remote control, because it is against the law.
4.
The law requires that the passengers on any flight, have the flight crew present themselves to the passengers, by standing by the entrance door. This is to reassure the passengers, that the crew are not hung over or worse.
5.
No flight crew by the door = no flight.

6.
Raytheon could have no legitimate reason, for flying a large passenger plane by remote control.

(repetitive)False statements bolded.



Raytheon never flew any passenger planes by remote control. This is simply a case of Tr00fers not knowing what the hell they're talking about. Imagine that.

The last section of my remote takeover paper, which Pomeroo linked above, goes over the claims, the systems, what actually took place, and what didn't take place....

 

[CurtC]

I just realized something about a couple of Malcom's initial points:

1.
Raytheon, in Aug 2001, flew a passenger jet, take off – flight around – landing. (Der Spiegel).
2.
Raytheon deal in small executive jets, there is no reason for them to fly large passenger planes by remote control.
3.
There is a very good reason for Raytheon not to interest themselves in flying passenger planes by remote control, because it is against the law.

Apparently, you think that the plane Raytheon flew by remote control was a large commercial plane. Y'know, a small executive jet is also a "passenger jet," and I had assumed that this was the kind of plane flown, without realizing that you somehow thought that it had to be a big commercial jet.

Unless you can provide evidence that this remote-controlled plane was something other than a small executive jet, I will continue to assume that it was that.

ETA: Nevermind, I found the relevant info here. It was a 727, but it was not "remote control," but simply an automated landing system based off GPS. The planes did not take off with the system, and there were pilots on board. Remote control would imply that the people controlling the system were not on the plane. We've had automated landing systems for a long time, what was new about this one was that it was based on Differential GPS and not traditional approach beacons. Ho-hum.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Kirkman:

What, specifically, is your agenda with regard to the events of 9/11?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

malcolm, would you care to describe how you've identified the wreckage as a CFM56 instead of a JT9D? The resemblance is far from obvious to me - the intact CFM56 engine shaft shown differs in quite a few details from the top end of the wreckage, there's no indication of identifying points on the page, in short, there's no explanation other than: "Look at this! Now look at that! Obviously similar!"

If it's so obvious, you should have no trouble pointing out the identifying markers.

 

[Z]

I just realized something about a couple of Malcom's initial points:
Apparently, you think that the plane Raytheon flew by remote control was a large commercial plane. Y'know, a small executive jet is also a "passenger jet," and I had assumed that this was the kind of plane flown, without realizing that you somehow thought that it had to be a big commercial jet.

Unless you can provide evidence that this remote-controlled plane was something other than a small executive jet, I will continue to assume that it was that.

Good catch, Curt.

Raytheon is also a heavy defense contractor, and the DoD has often had their contractors do things that would be 'against the law' for civilians. For example, I'm pretty sure it's against the law to destroy an area one square kilometer in size with airborne shape-charges and shrapnel munitions, but Raytheon's been a part of that too.

What I've noticed is he's shifted focus yet again - because he's been proven wrong yet again. When it became quite clear that his interpretation of the penetrative powers of one material against another is wrong, he shifted to the engine.

Unfortunately for him, the engine remains measure out accurately (I'm told), so that's not evidence for him either.

 

[apathoid]

I'm kinda slow and I rarely read threads like these in their entirety, but I just realized that Malcolm is offering mutually incompatible theories as far as the identity of UA175.

On the one hands he posits this website, which claims that the aircraft is too long, kinda as in too large to be a 767-200. Okay. 100% wrong, but whatever.

Then he cites this page, which claims that the engine section found on Murray St. was too small to be from a 767 and is obviously a CFM56, which powers smaller airliners like the 737 and A320, and has roughly half the thrust rating as as the JT9D.

If thats not bad enough, Malcolm thinks that the plane was a steel "bad boy", making the airplane ridiculously heavy so that the JT9D wouldn't even be powerful enough to get it in the air. Maybe that engine section was from a PW4098, Trent 800 or GE90.....as opposed to a CFM56.



So Malcolm, which is it. Was the plane too long(767-300?) or too small(underpowered 737/A320 steel-reinforced "bad boy")? Help me out.

 

[apathoid]

BTW, please do show where George Nelson, Glen Standish and Nila Sagadevin say that the WTC2 aircraft didn't look like a 767-200. I don't think you'll be able to do it. .

I stand corrected.

Col. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, “The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175”. After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, “That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted.”

Glen Standish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, “The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage”.

Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, “The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767”, confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place.


I'll never underestimate the stupidity of piwot tw00fers ever again. When will I ever friggin' learn....sheesh

 

[CptColumbo]

depends on position, i beleive with legs together and straight, arms at your sides and chin tucked you can get to 400mph, however the maximum possible speed of anyone or anything falling from the roof of the WTC would be about 200mph (9.8m/s^2 for 9.2 seconds)

I added the qualifier on the next post.

I refer you to post 1234.

Again, I was pointing out that the example you gave was flawed, and also shows your lack of knowledge of even general physics. Your other question is a strawman and irrelevant to the discussion of 175.

Allow me to refresh your memory.
16.
Neocons are involved in paedophilia.
17.
Offut AFB is twenty minutes away from Boystown, Omaha.
18.
Boystown is steeped in allegations of paedophilia.
19.
Things occurred (criminal convictions) in the Twin Towers apartment block in Omaha, which is midway between the executive jet landing at Offutt and Boystown, ten minutes from either location.

Besides presenting zero proof that Neocons exist and pretty much everything else in these points, allow me to refresh your memory. If you are refering to the oganization that helps at-risk children that is located in The Village of Boystown, Nebraska (Omaha is not a state), the least you can do is get the name right. Since 2000 it was renamed "Girls and Boys Town."

As others have pointed out you get very little (if anything) correct in your posts.

 

[SOMERLED]

Is that your website?

I noticed with some interest that they have a photo of the CFM56-5A engine, and claim it is used in the 737. This is false.

The CFM56 5-series were designed specifically for Airbus aircraft. The CFM56-5A is specifically designed for the Airbus A320.

The Boeing 737 uses the 3-series (737 400 and 500 series) and 7-series (737 600, 700 and 800 series).

-Gumboot

This is my website.

 

[SOMERLED]

Except the jumpers weren't dropping at 500 mph.

I can't help but notice that you're not answering any of my other points. You can break up other people's posts into segments and answer each points individually, should you choose to. I wasn't talking to myself when writing that post, you know.

Would you kindly refer me to the particular post you mean, number ????
Thanking you in advance.

 

[SOMERLED]

All right, that does it for me, this Kirkman fellow can't be for real.

This thread should be fun to read anyway.

What is unreal about your colleague Gumboot recognising, that the engine that powered the attack plane was a CFM56 ?

Originally Posted by gumboot
Is that your website?

I noticed with some interest that they have a photo of the CFM56-5A engine, and claim it is used in the 737. This is false.

The CFM56 5-series were designed specifically for Airbus aircraft. The CFM56-5A is specifically designed for the Airbus A320.

The Boeing 737 uses the 3-series (737 400 and 500 series) and 7-series (737 600, 700 and 800 series).

-Gumboot