[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
The only reason you have to consider these "mistakes" of the NWO perpetrators is because you're assuming a conspiracy.



Again, you're being paranoid. Do you have any evidence of this ?



Those are "disturbing" questions only if you assume that coincidences never occur. It's a form of post-hoc reasoning.



Why not ? Because they weren't 100% sure to succeed ?
Click to expand...

I'm not assuming a conspiracy, the evidence points overwhelmingly to a neocon/NWO operation.
Britain has just a few months ago, finished paying off the debts incurred for the Crimean War 1854 -1856.
One or two coincidences maybe, a fistful, not really. The odds on an attack occuring at the same time as an exercise to that effect is in progress. The odds on that alone are astronomical.
 
Blackwell said:
Sorry, Malcolm, but maybe I don't understand your point. I've read this post a couple times, and I don't understand how the passages you quoted (please note my bolding) support your contention that precautions existed. The claim that the warnings were ignored seems to directly contradict your claim that the Pentagon had anti-aircraft defenses in place, and that no plane would be able to get through.
Click to expand...

I think the date is the key here, 1993.
 
ellindsey said:
The Murray street engine fragment appears to consist of the last few stages of the high-pressure compressor section along with some or most of the diffuser. Most of the parts which would be useful in identifying the engine, such as the fan case, are missing from this fragment. It might be possible to determine the diameter of the low-pressure shaft and compressor case from the photos and use those to confirm the engine's identity. It might also be possible to count the number of turbine blade roots visible on the one compressor disk that can be seen on the fragment and match that to one of the candidate engines. I don't have the ability or resources to do either of those accurately.

The only useful distinguishing feature I can make out on this fragment are the large holes spaced around the diffuser case at the bottom of the fragment. From what images I've been able to find these do appear to be present on the JT9D and not on the CFM56, but again I don't have very good data to go on. Detailed plans or a disassembly manual for either of those engines would be extremely useful in conclusively identifying this fragment.
Click to expand...
Why have the authorities not done this?
 
Regnad Kcin said:
None of which supports your assertion that "the roof of the Pentagon is the safest place in the world."

Again, what is your agenda with regard to this topic?
Click to expand...
Topic = my first post (speaks for itself)
or the Pentagon roof (which is just an observation made in passing).
 
apathoid said:
Obviously? Now, I can tell similar sized engines(like the CF6 and PW4060) apart by the appearance of the fan case and position of Electronic Engine Control boxes if the cowls are opened and/or by the cowls themselves. But once the fan section is removed(or ripped away by a violent crash) and core case is damaged/removed, it's near impossible to tell what type of engine it is unless you can positively ID individual parts.

Since it's obvious to you that the section is from a CFM56, and not a JT9D, then you must be an expert on aircraft powerplants - so I'd assume you'd be able to properly ID a multitude of engines just by looking at a single photo of an engine section(whether it be the fan section, hot section, turbine, etc..) after the entire powerplant has been torn down with all accesories removed?




Fan box? Blade box? Ok, so you're not an engine expert, so disregard my last question above.

Since nothing on the CFM56 is "deeper"(except possibly the fan case and the spinner) than it's JT9D counterpart - I believe what you are talking about is the fan section/cool section/low pressure compressor, which is not what is seen in your pictures. And actually, the fan section around 40" long on the JT9D, alot more than "about a foot deep".

malcolm, you are aware that the JT9D is a much larger and more powerful engine than the CFM56, correct? And as such, the CFM56 couldn't adequately power a large widebody twin-jet, especially one with wings made of steel. Can we at least agree on that - that'll be a start...
Click to expand...
Do you always read only half a post and then comment on it, before reading the rest of the post and then commenting on that. Something of a novel way of communicating, don't you think?
Can you show me what the CFM56 does power?
 
ellindsey said:
The Murray street engine fragment appears to consist of the last few stages of the high-pressure compressor section along with some or most of the diffuser. Most of the parts which would be useful in identifying the engine, such as the fan case, are missing from this fragment. It might be possible to determine the diameter of the low-pressure shaft and compressor case from the photos and use those to confirm the engine's identity. It might also be possible to count the number of turbine blade roots visible on the one compressor disk that can be seen on the fragment and match that to one of the candidate engines. I don't have the ability or resources to do either of those accurately.

The only useful distinguishing feature I can make out on this fragment are the large holes spaced around the diffuser case at the bottom of the fragment. From what images I've been able to find these do appear to be present on the JT9D and not on the CFM56, but again I don't have very good data to go on. Detailed plans or a disassembly manual for either of those engines would be extremely useful in conclusively identifying this fragment.
Click to expand...

Two points,
1. Why have the authorities never tipped the engine up? That would settle any disputes.
2. I am satisfied with the evidence here,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
Col G Nelson USAF Ret.
Glen Standish, 20 yrs pilot.
Nila Sagadevin 20 yrs pilot
All three say the attack plane was not 175.
They are backed up by over 50 web sites.
That's plenty enough for me.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Do you always read only half a post and then comment on it, before reading the rest of the post and then commenting on that. Something of a novel way of communicating, don't you think?
Can you show me what the CFM56 does power?
Click to expand...
It was addressed in post #1309 of this thread
. . . The CFM56-5A is only used on Airbus models A319 and A320.
. . .
Click to expand...
 
malcolm kirkman said:
I think the date is the key here, 1993.
Click to expand...
malcolm kirkman said:
There seems to be a collective opinion on here that no precautions existed prior to 9/11. This is just plain incorrect.
Click to expand...

Yes -- 1993 was the year of the WTC bombing. I still don't understand your point -- but I think maybe it's hinging on your use of the word "precautions." I don't think that the collective opinion here is that there weren't warnings prior to 9/11; obviously there were. But the definition of "precaution" is "a measure taken in advance to prevent something dangerous, unpleasant, or inconvenient from happening" -- i.e., anti-aircraft defenses at the Pentagon. You still have not provided a cite to support this.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
I'm not talking about the diameter.
I'm refering to the depth not the diameter.
One's as thick (at the widest part) as a slice of bread. The other as thick as a wedding cake.
Click to expand...


First things first - you are still talking about the wrong section of the engine. MRCHans, CurtC, elllindsey, myself and a few others have commented that the Murray St. engine section is obviously from the core. Do you know what the core is as it refers to jet engines?

Secondly, the picture of the JT9D you've been linking to here depicts a JT9D with the fan case pretty much removed(or more accurately cut away) for a museum exhibit. I can tell this because the fan blades are visible through what should be the case, which is made of titanium. Here is a picture of a JT9D with a real fan case.

Thirdly, the "depth" of the CFM56 fan case is 34", while the diameter is 66". That's all I should need to say to convince you that you are not looking at the fan section of a CFM56.



Do you always read only half a post and then comment on it, before reading the rest of the post and then commenting on that. Something of a novel way of communicating, don't you think?
Can you show me what the CFM56 does power?
Click to expand...


Since you tend to post in rapid-fire spurts, I responded to two of your posts in a single reply. I quoted both posts in their entirety, so I haven't foggiest clue what you are going on about...

The CFM56 powers the following:

type(number of engines)
737-300 thru 900(2)
737 BBJ(2)
A319(2)
A320(2)
A321(2)
A340-200(4)
A340-300(4)

The CFM56, depending on model, is rated at between 18,000~33,000 lbs of thrust.

By contrast the JT9D family is rated between 46,000~56,000 lbs of thrust.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Two points,
1. Why have the authorities never tipped the engine up? That would settle any disputes.
2. I am satisfied with the evidence here,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
Col G Nelson USAF Ret.
Glen Standish, 20 yrs pilot.
Nila Sagadevin 20 yrs pilot
All three say the attack plane was not 175.
They are backed up by over 50 web sites.
That's plenty enough for me.
Click to expand...

Because there were witnesses who saw an aircraft crash into the tower. Because an airline is missing a particular airplane of a particular model, and whose description matches that of the plane seen to have crashed into the tower.

And besides:
How in the F do you know nobody looked? Have you read every report made on everything that happened that day? I sure haven't. Don't you think the airline would have looked, or maybe the flight investigators? Do you have access to all those reports? Why don't you go see if they were made, and who you can get them from? I'd bet you dollars to donuts that if you do, you'll find that some one looked, checked a serial number against the records of the airplane and found that the scrap pile from Murray street came from one of its engines, marked on a check list and went on to something else.

However, I would also bet dollars to donuts that you won't even try to find out. The chances are far too good that your fantasy world would collapse on collsion with reality.
 
Last edited:
MortFurd said:
What's funny about the term "tensile strength?"
Click to expand...

Tensile strength is the ability to hold itself together whilst being pulled apart.
You hang weights on things to test the tensile strength.
It's a materials ability to withstand being pulled apart.
A mars bar has pretty good tensile strength for a snack, a slice of bread hasn't.
What's tensile strength got to do with anything?
 
Slayhamlet said:
Your first post is a series of bald assertions. You have not substantiated any of them.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ.
I said 175 didn't hit the south tower.
I have produced over 50 web sites that say the same thing, on this page alone.
I said the attack planes came from Offutt AFB. I am in the process of showing this.
In all of this, no one has produced one scintila of evidence to the contrary.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Two points,
1. Why have the authorities never tipped the engine up? That would settle any disputes.
2. I am satisfied with the evidence here,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
Col G Nelson USAF Ret.
Glen Standish, 20 yrs pilot.
Nila Sagadevin 20 yrs pilot
All three say the attack plane was not 175.
They are backed up by over 50 web sites.
That's plenty enough for me.
Click to expand...



1. If they haven't, it's probably because the identification of the airplane/engine is not in dispute.

2. Appeal to authority. Wanna get my attention? Find some CFM56 or JT9D engine shop mechanics who agree with you. I can give you a phone number to one of the biggest engine shops in the world if you'd like.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Tensile strength is the ability to hold itself together whilst being pulled apart.
You hang weights on things to test the tensile strength.
It's a materials ability to withstand being pulled apart.
A mars bar has pretty good tensile strength for a snack, a slice of bread hasn't.
What's tensile strength got to do with anything?
Click to expand...
Well, gee. It's just one of the major characterstics of the strength of metal. When you push in on your empty beer can, the metal stretches. You are in effect PULLING metal from other places as you push in on one spot. If you were to hang up a sheet of aluminum in a frame such that it were well supported and couldn't move, you could slam it with a sldge hammer. How much effort it would take to hammer through or tear down the aluminum sheet depends on (among other things) the tensile strength of aluminum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom