Forget it -- he's found a loose thread and will pull on it until his sock unravels completely, leaving him barefooted. Then he'll bitch about the poor quality of socks these days.
Anders, the design and construction of aircraft parts ARE NOT set in concrete, and continue to evolve AFTER the plane in in production. Things get better with time, technology improves, shortcomings become apparent, and fixes are made. I work on fairly common aircraft instruments from one company, and while externally they are the same, internally I have to account for no less than eight separate alterations of internal components. The end user NEVER sees the difference, but I do.
Engines are a component that is just PRIME for improvements, if for no other reasons than they are probably the most labor-intensive part of the planes to maintain, and consume vast amounts of fuel (which is probably the single most expensive consumable entity in flight). Would it surprise me to discover that an airplane had engines that weren't identical to each other? Not one damned bit.
As far as the pilots are concerned, as long as the engines perform the same and react the same to throttle settings, the pilots don't care if they have a Dash-1 version on one wing and a Dash-4 on the other. The only people who care are the mechanics who work on them.
Now, you show us a pretty poor picture of an engine part whose engine has disassembled itself in a high-velocity impact, shown TOTALLY out of context in relation to whatever other parts surrounded itself in the final assembly without any clue as to what orientation it might have been in, or what the investigators may have removed or dismantled from the piece during their investigations, and then talk about a hypothetical "engine cannon" that was somehow smuggled into the WTC.
You're stacking layer upon layer of improbable logistical requirements to support your house of cards, where in reality you need to start looking for what is simpler and more likely. I've seen this happen all too often, where a person has invested too much in a particular theory and is unwilling to step back, look at the actual facts of the situation, and realize that it just ain't happening.
Boeing itself has said the engine in question is interchangeable with others in the 767. This is Boeing here -- you know, the folks who designed and built the plane?
I think you need to quit waving and flapping over the issue and start checking for reds under your bed. Even the small amount of evidence presented here has handed your hiney back to you.
Regards;
Beanbag
You're right. I had missed that.
There were no planes hitting any building.
