Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

Anders Lindman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Based on your previous work I suspect you don't know how many different pieces of plane were ejected from the building.
 
Anders Lindman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Regurgitating a point that has nothing to do with what i said is not addressing the point. Try again. The fact still stands that the only way an organization would make a mistake like that is if the people involved were being chased double time by scantily clad women while doing it.
 
sadhatter said:
Regurgitating a point that has nothing to do with what i said is not addressing the point. Try again. The fact still stands that the only way an organization would make a mistake like that is if the people involved were being chased double time by scantily clad women while doing it.
Click to expand...

Wish I could blame MY mistakes on that . . .
 
Sunstealer said:
Doesn't matter what you did it with it's still wrong. 24 holes it is, there's no getting away from it. Why so hard to admit your mistake?
Click to expand...

I need some better source to really be sure. The problem is that I can't find it on the Internet. And I don't want to bother doing much more research than that.
 
sadhatter said:
Regurgitating a point that has nothing to do with what i said is not addressing the point. Try again. The fact still stands that the only way an organization would make a mistake like that is if the people involved were being chased double time by scantily clad women while doing it.
Click to expand...

I think we need to contact Pratt & Whitney or something like that to really be sure.
 
Anders, 6 flange holes in the same spread as 5 tubes equals 24 flange holes with 20 tubes. What's the problem? Why are you still pushing this thread?

Anders Lindman said:
I need some better source to really be sure. The problem is that I can't find it on the Internet. And I don't want to bother doing much more research than that.
Click to expand...


Which is the major problem with truther-type research.


Anders Lindman said:
.....This time once again I will win FAIL.
Click to expand...
 
ApolloGnomon said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have already watched all those videos. There are a few live shots. And 20 or 40 amateur video clips, something like that. Yes, they were all doctored. Not all at first, for example I suspect one YouTube clip actually shows the fireball explosion without a plane (I have posted about that in some other thread), but fairly quickly all those 40 or something amateur video clips were edited and computer graphics planes inserted plus sound added. Wouldn't that have required a LOT of cover-up? Sure, but when you can get the entire U.S. government to do the cover-up, then to doctor a few videos is a piece of cake.
 
Björn Toulouse said:
Anders, 6 flange holes in the same spread as 5 tubes equals 24 flange holes with 20 tubes. What's the problem? Why are you still pushing this thread?




Which is the major problem with truther-type research.
Click to expand...

A more precise measurement is needed than that. Besides, the 24 holes or not is not the crucial question. A more interesting question imo is if the JT9D-7R4D can have such an engine part or not.
 
Hold on a minute...

flange.jpg


It's obvious that 6 holes at the bottom take up MORE space than 5 nozzles. 5 * 4 = 20. 6 * 4 = 24. The problem is that 6 times 4 holes don't fit around the perimeter. Conclusion: There are LESS than 24 holes in the bottom rim.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I have already watched all those videos. There are a few live shots. And 20 or 40 amateur video clips, something like that. Yes, they were all doctored. Not all at first, for example I suspect one YouTube clip actually shows the fireball explosion without a plane (I have posted about that in some other thread), but fairly quickly all those 40 or something amateur video clips were edited and computer graphics planes inserted plus sound added. Wouldn't that have required a LOT of cover-up? Sure, but when you can get the entire U.S. government to do the cover-up, then to doctor a few videos is a piece of cake.
Click to expand...

I know asking you for evidence of anything is a waste of time, so instead I'd like to point out that JUST ONE person coming forward with "unedited" video would blow the whole thing open. So what did "they" do to prevent that from happening? Don't you see the big, glaring illogical hole in this "theory?" The "entire US governement" is not capable of controlling every single citizen with a cheap camcorder.

Doctoring "a few videos" isn't the difficult part - the hard thing is to
a) get hold of all videos shot in lower manhattan and new jersey for the entire morning
b) prevent the release of undoctored video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom