• 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

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

116964d81309224fc1.gif
 
Anders Lindman said:
If I say: this time I will win, then it means that I may have won previously too! So your claim is false.
Click to expand...

Funny. I thought it meant: "this time I will win."

HINT: If you also want to state that you have previously won too, the words "too" or "again" are a good way to do so.
 
Last edited:
Let's take a look at this again:

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173684/_5705_747_engine_comparison04.jpg

That's pretty impressive research imo. It's a definitive match.

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

Then the question is, how is the author of that post sure that the newer type used in Flight 175, the JT9D-7R4D doesn't look like that.

For example, the source WilliamSeger posted: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm seems to be with an image of the OLDER types of JT9D, not the improved 7R4D type.
 
Greedo said:
Funny. I thought it meant: "this time I will win."

HINT: If you also want to state that you have previously won too, the words "too" or "again" are a good way to do so.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see the point now. The expression "this time I will win" usually means that I have lost all the times before. lol. That's not what I meant.
 
Has this been debunked before? Or rather, have these claims been made before? This seems like a stupid thing to suggest, even for truthers.
 
apathoid said:
Namely?

ETA: Wow, a Bell sighting!
Click to expand...
Let's see. 10 years later only internet trolls figured that the engines were wrong and deduced the "perps" were morons that wouldn't consider anyone would notice.

Did I get this right?


And these morons (the trolls) want the world to pay attention to their "theories".

:eek:
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Let's take a look at this again:

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173684/_5705_747_engine_comparison04.jpg

That's pretty impressive research imo. It's a definitive match.

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

Then the question is, how is the author of that post sure that the newer type used in Flight 175, the JT9D-7R4D doesn't look like that.

For example, the source WilliamSeger posted: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm seems to be with an image of the OLDER types of JT9D, not the improved 7R4D type.
Click to expand...


You seem to be under the impression that all submodels of a particular powerplant (say, a JT9D) are scratch built from the ground up using 100% all new parts. That's not the case. Sometimes the only difference in an engine submodel is a thrust rating plug installed on J5 of an EEC rather than J4. Sometimes the only difference is in some accesories(the crap attached to the engine). Sometimes it can be a larger fan diameter for more thrust.

However, one thing in common between submodels of large jet engines tends to be the core. And you are right it looks the same in both styles of JT9D above....and that's expected.

What else do ya got?
 
apathoid said:
You seem to be under the impression that all submodels of a particular powerplant (say, a JT9D) are scratch built from the ground up using 100% all new parts. That's not the case. Sometimes the only difference in an engine submodel is a thrust rating plug installed on J5 of an EEC rather than J4. Sometimes the only difference is in some accesories(the crap attached to the engine). Sometimes it can be a larger fan diameter for more thrust.

However, one thing in common between submodels of large jet engines tends to be the core. And you are right it looks the same in both styles of JT9D above....and that's expected.

What else do ya got?
Click to expand...


What exactly is the "evidence" that the wrong engine was used again?
 
apathoid said:
one thing in common between submodels of large jet engines tends to be the core.
Click to expand...

That's not what the OP in the other thread said. Quite the opposite in this case: "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." -- http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2393287/1/
 
Anders Lindman said:
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).
Click to expand...
Then the onus is on you to show that critical difference. I don't care what any researchers suggest. I do care about actual proof. Not some pic of the internal structure of the engine. You create the comparison pics, with sources, and show that there is no possibility that the engine shown is not what was on the aircraft that crashed into the tower. More importantaly, show how they would be able to plant it without anybody noticing. It's not like it's a passport or something someone can hide in their pants pocket.
 
Bell said:
Did many more planes crash in New York City on 9/11?

And also, did you forget about the engine part numbers, which link the engines to a particular airplane?
Click to expand...
Were these numbers posted on YouTube or the parts delivered to EVERY "truther" for "triple corroborated independent verification"? If not. you're talking out of your arse.

Remember, The investigation is not over until a rank amateur says so.

;)
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
That's not what the OP in the other thread said. Quite the opposite in this case: "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." -- http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2393287/1/
Click to expand...


......and after they redesigned the core, they called it a PW4000. The OP in the thread either needs glasses something fierce, or is lying about who he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom