Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

[apathoid]

What exactly is the "evidence" that the wrong engine was used again?

Beats me. You don't need to look at what was left of the engine to tell it was a JT9D. A United 767-200 struck the South Tower as was captured by dozens of cameras. United used(uses?) JT9Ds on their 767-200s. Saying it was a CFM56 does a couple things for the truther mentioned in the OP. It makes him sounds smart to his truther buddies, and gives him his 15 minutes of truther fame.

But this is really one of those things that should have been put to bed by other truthers, because, as anyone can see by using comparison photographs, that the engine on Murray St is not a CFM56. You don't need to be an A&P working in a powerplant shop to come to that conclusion. You need moderate google skills and eyesight.

 

[Oz1976]

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?

Honestly, the only reason it's not clear enough to you is simply because you don't WANT it to be clear enough. It doesn't matter how much evidence is shown to you, how debunked your OP is, you will refuse to accept it.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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 every rank amateur says so.

ftfy

 

[NoahFence]

So Anders - are you going to explain how you come to the conclusion the wreckage "looks planted" or not?

 

[Nursedan]

Whoa - this changes everything! Thanks for opening my eyes to the Truth!

 

[WilliamSeger]

Yeah, it could be a JT9D, BUT maybe not a JT9D-7R4D, which is a crucial distinction.

Maybe not a JT9D-7R4D? Well, that's some progress since the OP, but "maybe" your theory still needs some more work?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Maybe not a JT9D-7R4D? Well, that's some progress since the OP, but "maybe" your theory still needs some more work?

If I have understood it correctly, the engine part is from a different version than 7R4D! There are 24 holes in the part for the 7R4D compared to 20 in the part found near Ground Zero:

 

[Anders Lindman]

Honestly, the only reason it's not clear enough to you is simply because you don't WANT it to be clear enough. It doesn't matter how much evidence is shown to you, how debunked your OP is, you will refuse to accept it.

It would be very interesting if the jet engine really is of the wrong type, but I want check if that is the case. This previous post possibly indicates a difference: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7160808&postcount=67 (although I could have missed something).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If I have understood it correctly, the engine part is from a different version than 7R4D! There are 24 holes in the part for the 7R4D compared to 20 in the part found near Ground Zero:

No. I'm looking at your pictures and I see the part with the 20 curved nozzles appears to have 24 bolt holes on its outer flange and 48 on its inner flange. The part in the lower photo appears to have 24 bolt holes in its inner flange.

That says to me that these are not at all likely to be two interchangeable versions of the same part. So the lower picture is not what you think it is.

Thanks for playing. Do try again sometime.

 

[apathoid]

If I have understood it correctly, the engine part is from a different version than 7R4D! There are 24 holes in the part for the 7R4D compared to 20 in the part found near Ground Zero:

http://i52.tinypic.com/wj6p7s.jpg

Umm, those two piece parts are part of an assembly; not independent of one another. Dont know where you got that graphic, perhaps give us a source? I'm pretty sure I could find a JT9D IPC Catalog which shows the first part being effective for the JT9D-7R4D.

eta: beaten by Jack by the hedge!

 

[Loss Leader]

Anders - This is a fantastic breakthrough. It's information I had not previously seen before. It really looks to me like the engine found at the World Trade Center did not come from United Flight 175. The implications are really breathtaking.

I have one question: Have you told the passengers of United 175 yet? They'll be so glad to hear that their plane didn't crash. I know that for the past ten years, most of them have been operating under the assumption that they were dead.

They'll be so glad to hear they're not.

 

[Greedo]

Not that I believe in this BS, I really don't. But can anyone debunk the stuff these people put out?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2393287/4/

apparently it is also not even the right plane model

What I find odd is, that Anders doesn't simply follow the simpler logic (especially after reading the mentioned thread) to simply say it's not the right plane.

 

[Greedo]

Anders - This is a fantastic breakthrough. It's information I had not previously seen before. It really looks to me like the engine found at the World Trade Center did not come from United Flight 175. The implications are really breathtaking.

I have one question: Have you told the passengers of United 175 yet? They'll be so glad to hear that their plane didn't crash. I know that for the past ten years, most of them have been operating under the assumption that they were dead.

They'll be so glad to hear they're not.

Anders seems to be a no-planer

 

[beachnut]

"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

False information, an idiotic lie made up by a moron who failed to figure out 911 after 4 years and found 6 years later by you who can't figure out what a jet engine would look lie when it is smashed in an accident with the kinetic energy of a 2,000 pound bomb, as in E=1/2mv². A multi-level failure, you have no clue what you are looking at, so you plagiarize a lie and post it out of ignorance and extreme gullibility.

You were debunked over 6 years ago. You are posting lies from way back.

"In other words as one blogger puts it, the FBI is saying that they are assuming the wreckage is from the hijacked planes and have no records to back it up." [my emphasis] -- From: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2393287/1/

Save RADAR tracks and video tape. RADAR tracked 175 and 11 to the WTC, and video, film, and witnesses confirm jet impacted the WTC. BINGO, proof for all sane and rational people.

 

[Sunstealer]

Umm, those two piece parts are part of an assembly; not independent of one another. Dont know where you got that graphic, perhaps give us a source? I'm pretty sure I could find a JT9D IPC Catalog which shows the first part being effective for the JT9D-7R4D.

eta: beaten by Jack by the hedge!

He doesn't know that aircraft engines have modifications within the same engine designation, so it's quite possible that this is a JT9D-7R4D with a mod for that particular section.

An Illustrated Parts Catalogue (IPC - not to be confused with an "intermediate pressure compressor") would do the job as you say.

Iirc this issue of "the wrong type of engine" was posted by the troll Anders a few months ago and the same conclusions reached. I think in that thread there was a suggestion of an "aircraft engine cannon" that shot the wrong engine type out of the WTC using explosives when "hologram planes" impacted the towers. I kid you not.

Anders is a troll who's main calling seems to be spouting crap and seeing who bites. It's best to ignore him.

 

[fess]

Hey Anders, in your post where you linked out to zetaboards.com, did you happen to read all of the posts? Especially this one;

Going back to the engine details....this is straight from Boeing:

Each 767 is powered by two high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, which are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications.

 

[Greedo]

Hey Anders, in your post where you linked out to zetaboards.com, did you happen to read all of the posts? Especially this one;

Is it morally wrong if I consider this thread entertainment?


Anders, you may find it helpful to read through (yeah, it's hard, cause you know, you need to read, and making sh** up is so much easier)
all the tons of debunkings? I'm an ex CTer (never really into 911 Twoof though) and I have read for hours and hours until I found that what I used to believe in was complete BS. All of it. And I believed in most CTs out there. Anders, what can you lose?
I'm starting to think you're just a troll.

 

[12AX7]

Hey Anders, in your post where you linked out to zetaboards.com, did you happen to read all of the posts? Especially this one;

Going back to the engine details....this is straight from Boeing:

Each 767 is powered by two high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines, which are interchangeable with 747 engines with only minor modifications.

This time I will win.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No. I'm looking at your pictures and I see the part with the 20 curved nozzles appears to have 24 bolt holes on its outer flange and 48 on its inner flange. The part in the lower photo appears to have 24 bolt holes in its inner flange.

That says to me that these are not at all likely to be two interchangeable versions of the same part. So the lower picture is not what you think it is.

Thanks for playing. Do try again sometime.

I thought of that too, that the lower part may be the bottom part and the upper picture showing a part that is mounted on top of that, BUT, the upper part has LESS than 24 holes in its outer bottom ring. So, either way, I win!

 

[Anders Lindman]

Hey Anders, in your post where you linked out to zetaboards.com, did you happen to read all of the posts? Especially this one;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7161255&postcount=79

See my last post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7161255&postcount=79