• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

You must have cut and pasted "rense.com". If you'd actually typed the letters yourself something would have caught your attention.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
"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
Click to expand...

I looked at my reply window trying to think of something witty to respond with for like 5 minutes. I got nothin. The stupid dripping off your post just leaves me at a loss for words.
 
Last edited:
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 to fake evidence that a Boeing 767 crashed when they know people will take pictures of it and 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...

Let's not jump the gun. Is the jet engine (part) of the wrong type, i.e. not an engine for a 767?
 
wtc_engine2.jpg


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

wtc_engine3.jpg


ETA: ... which is one of the standard 767 engines: http://www.tavansaz.com/JT9D_E.htm
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
The suggestion is that I would like to see some debunking of the claim in the OP.
Click to expand...

Seems like someone did that already, so what now? Why did you already declare victory before you even bothered to check?
 
Rernse is not usually considered an authoritative source. They are not picky about facts over there. I have even seen "evidence" presented there to the effect that Auschwitz was not all that bad a place to sit out a world war.

The turd making that claim needs to offer some proof of who he is and where he works or we are all at liberty to dismiss him as an utter fraud, on a par with Bollyn and Hufschmid.
 
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...

If i ran an rpg game, and the villain did something so stupid, so idiotic , so obviously designed to be a clue to something, my players would leave because of the lack of realism that the villain is presenting. And this is an a narrative in which dragons, magic , and gods exist.

In the real world the thought that any person of average intellect, let alone the heads of a big evil corporation , would make such a stupid, obvious, mistake , is so silly it will spontaneously generate the benny hill theme.

Have fun with your three legged, one eyed, mange infested, malnourished, toothless paper tiger. Me i will stick to real issues instead of just inventing an easy villain to be the crummy Agent smith to my crummy neo.
 
leftysergeant said:
Rernse is not usually considered an authoritative source. They are not picky about facts over there. I have even seen "evidence" presented there to the effect that Auschwitz was not all that bad a place to sit out a world war.

The turd making that claim needs to offer some proof of who he is and where he works or we are all at liberty to dismiss him as an utter fraud, on a par with Bollyn and Hufschmid.
Click to expand...


I'm a bit doubtful about Rense.com as a source myself, but I would like to see evidence that proves the claim wrong.
 
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...
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.
 
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