Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

[Greedo]

One proof is that there is no official statement confirming that the jet engine is of the correct type.

ROFL. So absence of evidence is presence of evidence? Classic.

That is just absolutely silly. You see, in all likelyhood, they DID confirm the engine is the correct type. They just didn't release it. Why? Because in the aftermath of 9/11, there were more important things than confirming an engine is the engine that was installed in the plane that hit the tower. To do that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[walkyrie]

It needs a bit more explanation. To most people, saying that no plane hit the Pentagon sounds completely unbelievable. And to say that no planes hit the World Trade Center, that's something even Alex Jones and his obedient followers think is completely crazy. And I understand that position, but after having looked at it more closely, then yes, I believe the no plane theory is the most plausible. How? For those new to the idea, start for example by watching this short clip about how the videos showing the plane could have been faked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

Thank you Anders Lindman, I was wondering how the WTC south tower seems to swallow the whole airplane without any apparent crushing effect, this video edit program is very informative and intresting, thank you again

 

[Greedo]

Thank you Anders Lindman, I was wondering how the WTC south tower seems to swallow the whole airplane without any apparent crushing effect, this video edit program is very informative and intresting, thank you again

NOO! I hope you are not serious.

A plane traveling at 504 kts (that's about 900 km/h) will simply be swallowed. Ask the guys here in the forum that can explain the physics involved better than I can. Also -->http://www.debunking911.com/

Do yourself a favour. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137438


Or are you just a sock account of Anders' ?

 

[Greedo]

... Besides, why didn't he FOLLOW the plane with the camera? Did the pilot really only notice the plane when it was that close?! Mightily suspicious if you ask me.

Because he had to react in a split second. He wanted to make sure he get's the plane, following a from that distance very small object travelling at an enormous speed is hard enough. And he had to react quickly. Only suspicious to a paranoid mind.

 

[332nd]

Zero true eyewitnesses of having seen a real plane.

You sure about that?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Hold on a minute...

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v114/woodymuller/flange.jpg[/qimg]

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.

Actually, unless I have mixed it up totally , the distance between 6 nozzles has to be measured because that's 5 spaces. And between 6 nozzles 7 holes should fit in order for there to be 24 holes total. But even then, the holes in the picture are too much separated to be able to be 24 in total and therefore still: there are LESS than 24 holes on the bottom rim.

 

[NoahFence]

Many of the amateur videos were staged. I have posted about that extensively.

Yes. And you've had diarrhea of the brain extensively, too. Just because you say it a bunch don't make it true.

And the people who were there? The THOUSANDS?

 

[Anders Lindman]

ROFL. So absence of evidence is presence of evidence? Classic.

That is just absolutely silly. You see, in all likelyhood, they DID confirm the engine is the correct type. They just didn't release it. Why? Because in the aftermath of 9/11, there were more important things than confirming an engine is the engine that was installed in the plane that hit the tower. To do that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

They did? Now I'm curious. I know that the burden of proof is on me in this thread, but do you have any info about the confirmation of the engine being the correct type?

 

[Drs_Res]

Did you see the problem with your picture yet? You know, the one with the perspective problem?

There are 24 holes on the bottom rim/flange.

 

[Greedo]

They did? Now I'm curious. I know that the burden of proof is on me in this thread, but do you have any info about the confirmation of the engine being the correct type?

I said "in all likelyhood" You see, if it wasn't the right one, that's when they would announce it.

 

[NoahFence]

It needs a bit more explanation. To most people, saying that no plane hit the Pentagon sounds completely unbelievable. And to say that no planes hit the World Trade Center, that's something even Alex Jones and his obedient followers think is completely crazy. And I understand that position, but after having looked at it more closely, then yes, I believe the no plane theory is the most plausible. How? For those new to the idea, start for example by watching this short clip about how the videos showing the plane could have been faked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc

Why do you keep going on about video's?

There were none. Ok, lets live in this fantasy world you've imagined. There were NO VIDEOs of the impact of any aircraft on 9/11.


There were still THOUSANDS of eyewitnesses. Not people on the couch. People on the street. You know, that could walk up and touch the Trade Towers. You're familiar with touch? It's a sensation you can only get by being in the same place as another object.

Ok.

Now - again, there were THOUSANDS of witnesses.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yes. And you've had diarrhea of the brain extensively, too. Just because you say it a bunch don't make it true.

And the people who were there? The THOUSANDS?

Those who saw the actual fireball, not that many, are afraid of being ridiculed, or even worse, having their friends, family members and working associates think of them as crazy if they tell them that they saw no plane even though they saw the fireball explosion, because basically EVERYBODY knows there were planes, because they have seen that on CNN!

I say not that many saw the fireball explosion. What I mean is that not many saw the START, the onset, of the fireball explosion, because they were totally focused on the other tower that was on fire.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Did you see the problem with your picture yet? You know, the one with the perspective problem?

There are 24 holes on the bottom rim/flange.

I beat you to it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7162819&postcount=246

 

[MG1962]

Those who saw the actual fireball, not that many, are afraid of being ridiculed, or even worse, having their friends, family members and working associates think of them as crazy if they tell them that they saw no plane even though they saw the fireball explosion, because basically EVERYBODY knows there were planes, because they have seen that on CNN!

I say not that many saw the fireball explosion. What I mean is that not many saw the START, the onset, of the fireball explosion, because they were totally focused on the other tower that was on fire.

Evidence for the highlighted sections please

 

[Greedo]

Those who saw the actual fireball, not that many, are afraid of being ridiculed, or even worse, having their friends, family members and working associates think of them as crazy if they tell them that they saw no plane even though they saw the fireball explosion, because basically EVERYBODY knows there were planes, because they have seen that on CNN!

I say not that many saw the fireball explosion. What I mean is that not many saw the START, the onset, of the fireball explosion, because they were totally focused on the other tower that was on fire.

That may work with the first impact. However, after the first tower was hit, you can be certain that thousands of people were staring at the WTC.

 

[sadhatter]

Those who saw the actual fireball, not that many, are afraid of being ridiculed, or even worse, having their friends, family members and working associates think of them as crazy if they tell them that they saw no plane even though they saw the fireball explosion, because basically EVERYBODY knows there were planes, because they have seen that on CNN!

I say not that many saw the fireball explosion. What I mean is that not many saw the START, the onset, of the fireball explosion, because they were totally focused on the other tower that was on fire.

And isn't it funny the only people who have no fear of being ridiculed seem to be the ones with no evidence to support their claims.

Not a single person that saw this has the stones, the balls, the cajones , the nads, the brass clankers, the Knackers, the two best friends, or to keep it family friendly, the fortitude of character of you anders.

Does that in and of itself not seem incredibly egotistical, to the point of making its truth be incredibly unlikely? That out of the massive amounts of people that have this information, not a single one has more or equal strength of character as you do.

 

[NoahFence]

Yea, he's a real American hero.

Anders I might suggest that you go take some photos of Bin Laden's body. Don't bother with the SCUBA gear.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That may work with the first impact. However, after the first tower was hit, you can be certain that thousands of people were staring at the WTC.

But the point I was making is that they were staring at the OTHER tower, so most of them missed the onset of the fireball explosion.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Did you see the problem with your picture yet? You know, the one with the perspective problem?

There are 24 holes on the bottom rim/flange.

On a second thought, maybe there really are 24 holes. Check out the blue lines:

Here there are 6 spaces for holes per 5 spaces for nuzzles. Hmm... Could be 24 holes I admit.

 

[Drs_Res]

Did you see the problem with your picture yet? You know, the one with the perspective problem?

There are 24 holes on the bottom rim/flange.

I beat you to it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7162819&postcount=246

No, you did not beat me to anything.

Quickly done in paint using the nozzels, since we can see all of them, to illistrate where your picture is wrong.

See where the lines for the nozzels intersect? See where the lines you drew for the holes intersect? Do you see the spacing between the lines at the top vs. the bottom of the picture?