Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

Anders, your overlay earlier in the thread did a very poor job of considering perspective. Try this: You can count 20 tubes, and there are 6 flange holes in the same spread as 5 tubes in the area we can see. From this we can conclude there are more flange holes than there are tubes, and 24 is probably a great estimate.
flange.jpg
 
Anders Lindman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Listen to yourself. The greatest CT in the history of the Western World and you use the guys from American Pickers to get an engine that kinda looks like the one they need
 
Wrong or right, it had to get there somehow. Over 26 pieces of video taken from all possible angles at distances of 1 block to over 5 miles by professional and amateur cameras show a consistent narrative: Jet hits tower, fuel explodes, jet engine and one other large part emerge from the opposite side. The vectors, timing, velocity and distances of all these events are consistent with a large jet hitting the tower at 500mph.

In fact, one of the clips shows the tower swaying on impact - not from the initial impact but from the bulk mass of projectile impacting the central core of the tower. The timing is correct.

So what is it? Were ALL those clips faked? What kept one random new yorker from having an uncontrolled camera?
 
Anders Lindman said:
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.
Click to expand...

So they have the money and resources to do the rest of what you're claiming but not even manage to get the correct engine that will be photographed and available for anyone knowledgeable enough to look at and rumble their conspiracy? Why did they even need an engine? If they couldn't find one why wouldn't they just say it got stuck in the building and then got destroyed with the rest of it?

And yet nearly 10 years later and you only have one unsourced, unnamed claimed expert repeated in Rense, that you claim has noticed it looks nothing like a 767 engine?

Maybe your conspiracy makes no frakking sense.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
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.
Click to expand...


At the risk of repeating myself... WE CAN'T

That is, unless you have a time machine to travel back to 9/11. Do you? Well, then go to that tower, and take a photo of that engine planted there. And all the tons of thermite or whatever the heck it is you say brought the towers down. Oh and while you're at it, mind warning the people?
 
oody said:
Anders, your overlay earlier in the thread did a very poor job of considering perspective. Try this: You can count 20 tubes, and there are 6 flange holes in the same spread as 5 tubes in the area we can see. From this we can conclude there are more flange holes than there are tubes, and 24 is probably a great estimate.[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/woodymuller/flange.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

It was not my perspective. It was done with Google SketchUp: http://sketchup.google.com/ :cool:
 
Greedo said:
At the risk of repeating myself... WE CAN'T
Click to expand...
Sure you can. It would require actual research. If I really needed to know I would first find out everyone that had contact with the piece. I would then go talk to them and perhaps see if any parts were saved. The FBI, NTSB, NYPD, State police and Boeing would also be stops along the journey.

For "truthers". one or two pictures on the internet is considered "exhaustive" research. I suspect their techniques are responsible for why the still have "questions".
 
Last edited:
Greedo said:
At the risk of repeating myself... WE CAN'T

That is, unless you have a time machine to travel back to 9/11. Do you? Well, then go to that tower, and take a photo of that engine planted there. And all the tons of thermite or whatever the heck it is you say brought the towers down. Oh and while you're at it, mind warning the people?
Click to expand...

We maybe can't, but an expert can do it easily. He or she would immediately know if those kind of nozzles, 20 of them, is or ever has been used in Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines.

When I feel like it, I may send an email to Pratt & Whitney and ask them.
 
Edx said:
So they have the money and resources to do the rest of what you're claiming but not even manage to get the correct engine that will be photographed and available for anyone knowledgeable enough to look at and rumble their conspiracy? Why did they even need an engine? If they couldn't find one why wouldn't they just say it got stuck in the building and then got destroyed with the rest of it?

And yet nearly 10 years later and you only have one unsourced, unnamed claimed expert repeated in Rense, that you claim has noticed it looks nothing like a 767 engine?

Maybe your conspiracy makes no frakking sense.
Click to expand...

It's a good question about why they would need to plant an engine (at least a core part) and make the effort of having it shoot out of the tower together with a landing gear. I think they needed that to make sure that during the initial staged attack they needed to fool not only ordinary people but also fool experts, at least for a day or two until the story could not be reverted by media or politicians. Why plant both a part of a jet engine and a landing gear? Maybe because it was needed to really secure the plan. Those who planned the event took zero risks.
 
DGM said:
Sure you can. It would require actual research. If I really needed to know I would first find out everyone that had contact with the piece. I would then go talk to them and perhaps see if any parts were saved. The FBI, NTSB, NYPD, State police and Boeing would also be stops along the journey.

For "truthers". one or two pictures on the internet is considered "exhaustive" research. I suspect their techniques are responsible for why the still have "questions".
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. I meant "We can't, at least not with that photograph". That is the only thing he has provided. And Google doesn't spit out a lot.

Also, for "truthers" a "bang"= Explosives.
 
oody said:
Did you count the tubes and holes as I suggested in my graphic? Clearly, the photo has a wider viewing angle than you used in your overlay. Even the best tools will give bad results when the operator uses them with incorrect parameters.
Click to expand...

I started by counting manually like you did, but couldn't get a clear grip of it. So I used Google SketchUp to generate the perspective for me. It's not a perfect match, but I think it's good enough to establish that there are less than 24 holes. To really be sure would require a more precise measurement. I could have messed up the 3D matching, so I'm not 100% sure that there are less than 24 holes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom