• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

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.
 
WilliamSeger said:
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:

[qimg]http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/JT9D.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Clearly? Not clear enough to me. What you posted here is more clear: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7160393&postcount=9

Do you have any source for the photo of that engine?
 
Small point. All LAMES have registration numbers.
Did this 'A&P mechanic' produce his number with the claims he made ?
 
Anders Lindman said:
But this looks different:

[qimg]http://i53.tinypic.com/2wei8hg.jpg[/qimg]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aircraft_engine_IP&W_JT9D.jpg
Click to expand...

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:

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.
Click to expand...

I ask again - how so?
 
WilliamSeger said:
[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine2.jpg[/qimg]

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

[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/wtc_engine3.jpg[/qimg]

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

"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-forums/tech_ops/read.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/index.php?showtopic=13951&st=0&p=10747474&#entry10747474
 
NoahFence said:
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?
Click to expand...

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:
Anders Lindman said:
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.
Click to expand...

funny-sports-pictures-quadruple-facepalm.jpg



You're implying theytm set off explosives at the moment of impact?
 
Anders Lindman said:
This time I will win.
Click to expand...
:blush::o:):D:newlol:cs:

Edx said:
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?
Click to expand...

^^This^^

lapman said:
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.
Click to expand...

^^and this^^

Anders Lindman said:
Do you have any source for the photo of that engine?
Click to expand...

:i:

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
But this looks different:
Click to expand...

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.



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

Oh, I almost forgot, you're just desperate to "defeat" "us". :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey, they told the BBC about Building 7, remember?
 
Any chance of addressing my point that this is such a stupid mistake, that it seems the Gov' would have had to be involved?
 
I found more interesting info (I hope it's not disinfo :eek::mad:):

"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/_5705_747_engine_comparison04.jpg

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173685/_09120009_comparison_03.jpg

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173686/_chromalloy01_edit.jpg

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

From: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1829738/1/
 
sadhatter said:
Any chance of addressing my point that this is such a stupid mistake, that it seems the Gov' would have had to be involved?
Click to expand...

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

:rolleyes:
 
lapman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom