Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

Looks like he's turned back to that "wrong engine" nonsense :D

Anders, the guy that said it is not the correct part, can surely prove it, right?

Contact Pratt & Whitney about it, please do so. http://www.pw.utc.com/products/commercial/jt9d.asp

Click that little button saying "contact info" and drop those guys a line, you'll get your answer, and they get a good laugh.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
So you would testify in court that you saw a plane hit the South Tower in real life?
Click to expand...
Anders, thousands upon thousands of people from several miles around in one of the more densely populated places on earth watched a second plane fly into a large and very obvious landmark, with their own eyes, in real life. YouTube is not the repository of real life. Real life existed before YouTube, and continues independently of it. Wake. Up. Stop insulting the dead and the living witnesses with your stupidity.
 
EventHorizon said:
You post lie after lie and then call people who witnessed a very traumatic event liars. You are a disgusting human being. Congratulations on being the first to make my ignore list.
Click to expand...

I think he's winning in the Charlie Sheen rulebook.

Including me, that's three that I count using him as the inaugural ignore....
 
leftysergeant said:
Got proof? It is an angular object and it changes shape. Inconsistant with a mre patch of light.
Click to expand...

I just watched that video for the heck of it (can't say I saw anything suspicious). What troubles me though, is that it seems 90% of the comments are by total believers. I can remember back in my time as a tinfoiler, how that would have totally convinced me! These people write with such certainty, that for someone that doesn't understand (or simply hasn't studied) the physics that brought the towers down, this would be totally convincing! This is particulary dangerous for kids, wich after all, make up a large part of the YouTube community.

I get angry when I only see comments like "This Is a waste of time! Bye now if you don't think 9/11 was a inside job your a dumb ******! 1st look there is no way in hell them planes could fly that low above sea level that fast without falling apart! Their would be no plane left to fly into the building! 2nd no way in hell after the impact of the towers, planes are still in the air for a hour without a intercept!"



Someone who has no critical thinking skills and/or has no knowledge about aircraft, kinetic energy and so on will easily fall for these idiots. :mad:

It really troubles me. It seems the twoofers and other CTers get more and more believers, simply due to this general anti government sentiment, at least here in Germany.

Everything can so easily be explained by science. Only the layman doesn't understand such science, and it takes actual research, while listening to / or reading a twoofers idiotic rant how the gubmint is evil and how teh illuminati are gonna kill us all is sooo much easier. And once again, quoting Penn Jillette "At first these theories are so damn sexy"...
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Looks like solid evidence.
Click to expand...

Looks like nothing. "Evidence" would show a difference between the correct part and the part fitted to the 9/11 engine. You can post all the pictures you like of irrelevant engine parts, but they don't add up to anything so far.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Looks like nothing. "Evidence" would show a difference between the correct part and the part fitted to the 9/11 engine. You can post all the pictures you like of irrelevant engine parts, but they don't add up to anything so far.
Click to expand...

Looks like Anders still doesn't understand the difference between baseless claims and evidence. Obviously he doesn't get the difference between evidence and proof either.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not at all. That witness who said that "nothing hit the building" said that in agitation on 9/11. Soon after that, after having seen a plane on TV, he may have become silent about that claim in order to not appear having gone crazy.
Click to expand...
He didn't say that. He said "I didn't see a plane".

Do I need to explain the difference to you?

Hans
 
I did a bit of digging and it appears that P&W had some issues in the HPT of the JT9D-7R4 engine. See here http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986 - 3070.html?search=turbine rotor

There would have been modification to this area without a doubt. The above diagram doesn't show a TOBI configuration (although it is a simplified diagram) so I suspect that one was introduced in a modification at a later stage. Makes sense because the TOBI would fit very close to the air seals.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Looks like nothing. "Evidence" would show a difference between the correct part and the part fitted to the 9/11 engine. You can post all the pictures you like of irrelevant engine parts, but they don't add up to anything so far.
Click to expand...

What?! You're kidding, right? Did you compare the images? Once again:

Here is the OLD design, NOT used in Boeing 767s (the curved pipes are called TOBI nozzles EDIT: NO, my mistake. It's the NEW design that is called TOBI - Tangential On-Board Injection): http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p201479/TOBI_Nozzles_1977.jpg

Here, too, is the old design, not used in Flight 175: http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173686/_chromalloy01_edit.jpg

Here is the jet engine core found near Ground Zero: http://ckpi.typepad.com/.a/6a00e00982d2c988330120a5bf5468970c-500wi

This is what the NEW kind of TOBI nozzles, used in 767s, look like : http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p185290/TOBI_config1_7R4_1985.jpg

The new design is not at all like the curved nozzles found on the engine part near Ground Zero. I call that solid evidence.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
I did a bit of digging and it appears that P&W had some issues in the HPT of the JT9D-7R4 engine. See here http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986 - 3070.html?search=turbine rotor

There would have been modification to this area without a doubt. The above diagram doesn't show a TOBI configuration (although it is a simplified diagram) so I suspect that one was introduced in a modification at a later stage. Makes sense because the TOBI would fit very close to the air seals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what the poster on the other forum posted about. He posted this picture: http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p185290/TOBI_config1_7R4_1985.jpg which is the same as in the article. He called it TOBI design. And from the news article you posted:

"A modification to the turbine cooling air system ... increases the airflow of the HTP cooling air duct is required."

HTP Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly: http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173686/_chromalloy01_edit.jpg
 
Anders Lindman said:
What?! You're kidding, right? Did you compare the images? Yes. Yes I did. Did you?
Once again:

Here is the OLD design, NOT used in Boeing 767s (the curved pipes are called TOBI nozzles): http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p201479/TOBI_Nozzles_1977.jpg OK. Old design.

Here, too, is the old design, not used in Flight 175: http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173686/_chromalloy01_edit.jpg Uh, no. That's not the same design. The nozzles are shorter and wider at the base. A different design. Can't you see that?

Here is the jet engine core found near Ground Zero: http://ckpi.typepad.com/.a/6a00e00982d2c988330120a5bf5468970c-500wi OK.

This is what the NEW kind of TOBI nozzles, used in 767s, look like : http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p185290/TOBI_config1_7R4_1985.jpgWhere? I can't see it in that picture. Please indicate exactly where in that picture you can see the new design of nozzles.

The new design is not at all like the curved nozzles found on the engine part near Ground Zero. I call that solid evidence. You give no indication of what part of that drawing you believe to be the new nozzle design. You appear merely to assume they ought to be in the drawing somewhere but you can't see anything that looks like them. That's not solid evidence of anything except of you having no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
My comments in red.
 
More about the TOBI nozzles:

"It is easy to mistake a JT9D-7R4 for a JT9D-7 engine.....as a matter of fact, very easy. The thrust ratings are similar as well. Fortunately, this engine opened up right where I needed to see to make a positive verification - the high pressure turbine and turbine cooling section. The turbine "nozzles" or "vanes" as sometimes called are the hottest part of any aircraft engine. They can be limiting on how powerful and reliable an engine can perform. TOBI (Tangential On-Board Injection) was a newer technology used on the 7R4 engines.....it is not evident in the photo's." -- From: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2204402586&topic=8445
 
Anders Lindman said:
It's a light sequence with randomized intensity to not make it look too conspicuous.
Click to expand...

It's a piece of litter, blowing in the breeze.

As the video progresses, it clearly continues on its path, passing in front of the foreground building. That building is 55 South Street, which is about 1km away from the WTC. That puts your "light sequence" somewhere in mid air over the East River, far, far away from the twin towers.

(The above is not aimed at Anders, who already knows all this but pretends not to, but rather at anyone who's curious and hasn't seen it debunked before.)
 
Jack by the hedge said:
My comments in red.
Click to expand...
He hasn't got a clue as to what he's looking at! He doesn't realise that the image he claims is the new TOBI design doesn't contain a TOBI. It's simply indicating where the HCF failure has been occurring; namely on the 4th knife edge of the 2nd HPT air seal which is the older design pre-modification. They introduced a new air seal as part of the mod.

In fact I doubt he could point to where a TOBI should be on that diagram.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom