Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

ApolloGnomon said:
So can you address the following questions based on your initial premis?

1) what method was used to deliver the engine to Church and Murray St.

2) How is it that all the clips in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg show an airplane hitting a tower

3) and many of those clips show a projectile emerging from the building and flying to Church and Murray street, with a spiralling motion?
Click to expand...

See previous posts in this thread.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
So can you address the following questions based on your initial premis?

1) what method was used to deliver the engine to Church and Murray St.

2) How is it that all the clips in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg show an airplane hitting a tower

3) and many of those clips show a projectile emerging from the building and flying to Church and Murray street, with a spiralling motion?
Click to expand...



1) Anders thinks there were explosives "behind" the engine, wich was placed in the tower and catapulted to murray street :rolleyes:;)

2) I'm willing to bet my butt that Anders will say CGI.

3) See 1)

Damn, "debating" twoofers is fun :D endless fun
 
Anders Lindman said:
It can be tricky to measure times in the video since I believe the frame rate has been slowed down for the start of the fireball explosion to make it look more convincing. Plus sound of jet engine added.
Click to expand...

What you're saying here is that, since the evidence contradicts your theory, you assume that the evidence has been doctored. With that in mind, what's the point in asking for evidence that disproves this particular theory? Why wouldn't you just assume that this evidence has also been doctored?
 
Anders Lindman said:
... BUT if it can be shown that the JT9D-7R4D engine doesn't have anything near the look of the cooling duct assembly found, then that's a prove of the engine being of wrong kind.
Click to expand...


Yes, Anders. Yes. We've established that. I think on... Page 1? The problem is, it can't be shown.

ETA:
What you're saying here is that, since the evidence contradicts your theory, you assume that the evidence has been doctored. With that in mind, what's the point in asking for evidence that disproves this particular theory? Why wouldn't you just assume that this evidence has also been doctored?
Click to expand...

He's done that already in this thread. Twoofer perception of reality ftw.
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
So can you address the following questions based on your initial premis?

1) what method was used to deliver the engine to Church and Murray St.

2) How is it that all the clips in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg show an airplane hitting a tower

3) and many of those clips show a projectile emerging from the building and flying to Church and Murray street, with a spiralling motion?
Click to expand...

Anders Lindman said:
See previous posts in this thread.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. And even if you did address ALL those points, they're all scattered about. Please, just summarize your thoughts on these 3 points so we know where we stand.
 
Ray Brady said:
What you're saying here is that, since the evidence contradicts your theory, you assume that the evidence has been doctored. With that in mind, what's the point in asking for evidence that disproves this particular theory? Why wouldn't you just assume that this evidence has also been doctored?
Click to expand...

The evidence fits my theory! Listen to the sharp bang in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNRatnY5ymM Is that the sound of a plane crashing into a building? :confused: No way. It's the sound of explosives used to shoot out a part of a jet engine plus a landing gear out from the tower.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
No, you didn't. And even if you did address ALL those points, they're all scattered about. Please, just summarize your thoughts on these 3 points so we know where we stand.
Click to expand...


1) what method was used to deliver the engine to Church and Murray St.

Answer: Explosives.

2) How is it that all the clips in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg show an airplane hitting a tower

Answer: Computer graphics.

3) and many of those clips show a projectile emerging from the building and flying to Church and Murray street, with a spiralling motion?

Answer: Explosives.
 
edx said:
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?
Click to expand...


bump
 
Greedo said:
Yes, Anders. Yes. We've established that. I think on... Page 1? The problem is, it can't be shown.
Click to expand...

Of course it can be shown. Any expert on this would be able to immediately either show a part that looks the same or report that no such part exists or have existed for the JT9D-7R4D.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The evidence fits my theory! Listen to the sharp bang in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNRatnY5ymM Is that the sound of a plane crashing into a building? :confused: No way. It's the sound of explosives used to shoot out a part of a jet engine plus a landing gear out from the tower.
Click to expand...

1) how much explosive would be required to accelerate a jet engine to 425 mph (my estimate, back-figured from the flight time to Church and Murray while falling 80 stories)

2) what method woud be used to impart a spiralling motion to that jet engine?

3) how would you control the explosion timing to EXACTLY mimic a jet engine travelling through a building after impact?

4) Please explain the inward-bend of the columns at point of impact

5) You still haven't addressed teh many clips in the "all known footage" video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg
 
Anders - you realize that live TV can't be modified, right?

EVEN IF IT COULD

You do realize there were untold THOUSANDS of people on the ground, (hundreds of thousands?) and in their offices looking at the trade centers when the 2nd plane came in, right?
 
Edx said:
bump
Click to expand...

Because the perpetrators perhaps could only get hold of an older version of the jet engine part on the black market. Recently I have found that many such engines are for sale, so it's probably no problem to get hold of the right type, but anyway.
 
NoahFence said:
Anders - you realize that live TV can't be modified, right?

EVEN IF IT COULD

You do realize there were untold THOUSANDS of people on the ground, (hundreds of thousands?) and in their offices looking at the trade centers when the 2nd plane came in, right?
Click to expand...

As explained in September Clues only 5 major television networks showed the second plane hitting the WTC live, and with very crude 2D graphics planes inserted into the live (delayed with about 5 seconds to allow for synchronization with the fireball explosion) video feeds. So it was the video feeds to those networks that were hijacked, not real planes.

Find me an eyewitness report of the second plane hitting the South Tower and I will take a look at it (and claim it is a false witness report :D).
 
Anders Lindman said:
The evidence fits my theory!
Click to expand...

You just said "I believe the frame rate has been slowed down for the start of the fireball explosion to make it look more convincing. Plus sound of jet engine added."

If the evidence fits your theory, why do you believe it's been altered?
 
Anders Lindman said:
1) what method was used to deliver the engine to Church and Murray St.

Answer: Explosives.

2) How is it that all the clips in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg show an airplane hitting a tower

Answer: Computer graphics.

3) and many of those clips show a projectile emerging from the building and flying to Church and Murray street, with a spiralling motion?

Answer: Explosives.
Click to expand...


YES YES YES! Me was right :cs: Twoofer predictability - priceless.



NoahFence said:
I say this with all sincerity - seek help.
Click to expand...

^^THIS^^THIS^^THIS^^THIS^^THIS^^THIS^^THIS^^THIS^^THIS^^
 
Anders Lindman said:
As explained in September Clues only 5 major television networks showed the second plane hitting the WTC, and with very crude 2D graphics planes inserted into the live (delayed with about 5 seconds to allow for synchronization with the fireball explosion) video feeds. So it was the video feeds to those networks that were hijacked, not real planes.

Find me an eyewitness report of the second plane hitting the South Tower and I will take a look at it (and claim it is a false witness report :D).
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg show an airplane hitting a tower

many of these clips were taken by personal cameras in the hands of the citizens of lower manhattan.

Please choose from the following:
1) All clips were surrendered to "them" for modification

2) All occupants of lower manhattan belong to "them"

Might I suggest taking a few minutes and ACTUALLY WATCHING the video I've provided?
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
This is not addressing the question. This is waving at it as your ride past on your tricycle.
Click to expand...

First I want to establish if the jet engine found near ground zero is of the wrong type or not. Because it would be interesting if it is of the wrong type.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom