Engines found in new york

[pdoherty76]

someone posted this at 911 blogger, i hadnt heard this before. Lets see it debunked

" Popular Mechanics, while mentioning that an engine from the South Tower airliner landed in the street, neglected to show an engine photo, engine street location, and engine positive identification. Just by identifying undamaged parts from the damaged engine positive identification of the engine was made in the article: However, the engine identified, a CFM56, is the primary engine of the Boeing 737 not the Boeing 767 alleged to have struck the South Tower.
Shortly after the article was posted, a Boeing 767 airliner mechanic emailed that he concurred with the engine identification and that it was not from a Boeing 767.
Excerpts from his email:
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.
THOSE ENGINES ON THE STREET IN NEW YORK DID NOT COME OFF A 767."
Take a look at the photo. This is physical evidence that must be addressed.

http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

 

[apathoid]

someone posted this at 911 blogger, i hadnt heard this before. Lets see it debunked

" Popular Mechanics, while mentioning that an engine from the South Tower airliner landed in the street, neglected to show an engine photo, engine street location, and engine positive identification. Just by identifying undamaged parts from the damaged engine positive identification of the engine was made in the article: However, the engine identified, a CFM56, is the primary engine of the Boeing 737 not the Boeing 767 alleged to have struck the South Tower.
Shortly after the article was posted, a Boeing 767 airliner mechanic emailed that he concurred with the engine identification and that it was not from a Boeing 767.
Excerpts from his email:
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.
THOSE ENGINES ON THE STREET IN NEW YORK DID NOT COME OFF A 767."
Take a look at the photo. This is physical evidence that must be addressed.

http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

I am a mechanic and have 4 years experience overhauling 767s and 737's. I've done probably 30 engine removals/installs of both the CF6 and CFM56 on the 767/737....and those most certainly arent from a CFM56.

Besides, the videos show a 767 hitting the South Tower - I know a 767 when I see one.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am a mechanic and have 4 years experience overhauling 767s and 737's. I've done probably 30 engine removals/installs of both the CF6 and CFM56 on the 767/737....and those most certainly arent from a CFM56.

Besides, the videos show a 767 hitting the South Tower - I know a 767 when I see one.

There's a young gentleman in my World of Warcraft guild who has a saying for this, I believe it goes "You got PWNED, mutha-f___a!!!"

 

[Gravy]

I'm sorry, but I'm reserving judgment. I don't know how anyone can say that apathoid has more credibility than "someone posted this at 911blogger." And has rense.com ever misled anyone? I think not.

 

[TjW]

Remember, after Renseing, spit.

 

[Gravy]

Remember, after Renseing, spit.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am confused...

Anonymous Mechanic:

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.
THOSE ENGINES ON THE STREET IN NEW YORK DID NOT COME OFF A 767."

So he is saying the engine that was found was not from a 767. The article says the engine was a CFM56, which he says the 767 doesnt use.

And we have apathoid:

I am a mechanic and have 4 years experience overhauling 767s and 737's. I've done probably 30 engine removals/installs of both the CF6 and CFM56 on the 767/737....and those most certainly arent from a CFM56.

Besides, the videos show a 767 hitting the South Tower - I know a 767 when I see one.

Bolding mine.

So apathoid are you saying that (1) 767s do use CFM56 (the other guy says they dont) and (2) the engine shown is NOT a CFM56, as the article says it is?

I am not getting it?

TAM

 

[kookbreaker]

So apathoid are you saying that (1) 767s do use CFM56 (the other guy says they dont) and (2) the engine shown is NOT a CFM56, as the article says it is?

I am not getting it?

TAM

CFM56 engines are used in 737s a plane apathoid mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

So apathoid are you saying that (1) 767s do use CFM56 (the other guy says they dont) and (2) the engine shown is NOT a CFM56, as the article says it is?

In other words, Popular Mechanics wrongly identified the engine.

 

[RandFan]

someone posted this at 911 blogger, i hadnt heard this before. Lets see it debunked

(see above) Ok, now that it is debunked what is your response?

 

[apathoid]

I am confused...

Anonymous Mechanic:


So he is saying the engine that was found was not from a 767. The article says the engine was a CFM56, which he says the 767 doesnt use.

And we have apathoid:


Bolding mine.

So apathoid are you saying that (1) 767s do use CFM56 (the other guy says they dont) and (2) the engine shown is NOT a CFM56, as the article says it is?

I am not getting it?

TAM

Kookbreaker has it right. Sorry for the confusion, TAM.

1) The 767 uses JT9Ds, CF6s, PW4000s and RB211s, but not CFM56s.

2) In no way is the engine pictured, in the links above, a CFM56. Its way too large and the fancase isnt nearly the right proportion(the fancase of the CFM56 is over half the length of the engine itself). The turbine disc hub also appears to be much too large to be from a CFM56, but its hard to tell size in that particular pic.

 

[kookbreaker]

In other words, Popular Mechanics wrongly identified the engine.

No, they did not. Popular Mechanics does not mention the type of engine:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

From the Pop Mech article:

In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.

To the best of my knowledge, PM never mentions what kind of engine it is. Don't blame them for the mistakes of kooks.

 

[kookbreaker]

(see above) Ok, now that it is debunked what is your response?

I wouldn't expect a reply to this, even when his suspension ends.

 

[twinstead]

(see above) Ok, now that it is debunked what is your response?

He will change the subject. It is common

 

[StoneWT]

He will change the subject. It is common

How dare you insult pdoherty! He is a respected member (posts are routinely mocked due to lack of substance) of this forum. He possesses a (fabricated) college degree. When has he ever changed the subject? It's not like theories he posted in another topic were solidly debunked and he decided to create a flurry of topics on other subjects. Hmm...

 

[Gravy]

For the record, the university didn't say "he's a phony." They just said they had no record of him.

 

[uk_dave]

For the record, the university didn't say "he's a phony." They just said they had no record of him.

I suppose that he still might have gone there.....

....just no one noticed.

 

[twinstead]

How dare you insult pdoherty! He is a respected member (posts are routinely mocked due to lack of substance) of this forum. He possesses a (fabricated) college degree. When has he ever changed the subject? It's not like theories he posted in another topic were solidly debunked and he decided to create a flurry of topics on other subjects. Hmm...

I stand chastized...

 

[RandFan]

I wouldn't expect a reply to this, even when his suspension ends.

I never expect much of anything from CT folks.

 

[Checkmite]

Argument debunked in 1 page. It's just not even fun anymore.