Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

[Anders Lindman]

I'm sure someone has asked this...

Anders, HOW did 'they' get an airliner engine and landing gear into the WTC to subsequenty "shoot it out"?

Did the use the elevators?

Smuggle it in piece by piece in breifcases?

Do tell.

Using the elevators I guess. In pieces if necessary. Explosives were also probably placed OUTSIDE of the facade, to create the cookie cutter shapes of planes: http://image.shutterstock.com/displ...of-a-corporate-office-skyscraper-43138870.jpg So it's theoretically possible that they could have brought parts into the buildings that way too.

 

[fitzgibbon]

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.

I think I've found the source of your problems

 

[fitzgibbon]

The plane must start to "partially smash" and must start to "partially explode" OUTSIDE the south tower,but the fact that the airliner disappear fully utterly and completely inside the south tower and denn the explosion developed fully inside the WTC south building , tell me that the video have been edited

In exactly what span of time would you posit the fireball to expand to the size seen? How far would a body moving the speed of UA175 have moved in that time? Still think it was fixed in post?

 

[Anders Lindman]

And when these match up as well, Anders wins again! Because maybe the planes were dis-assembled and parts planted in advance of the holographic/fake plane "crash" and ejected from the towers by explosives. Or serial-numbered "doubles" were manufactured. Is it turtles all the way down?

No, then I fail completely, IF the information is correct. They can lie you know.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Easy huh? Why haven't you posted your findings? Ohhh, I get it. You mean to say it's easy for the gubmint to do that, and since they haven't done so, well.......you get the idea.

Here's an idea: just admit you were wrong! Jeez, I know it takes a man to be able to do that, but it really isn't hard. I'd be humiliated if this was my thread.

I'm sure that the jet engine was planted because no plane hit the WTC. So the serial numbers on those parts cannot be the same as on Flight 11 or Flight 175.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Seriously dude? TV Fakery? And the eyewitness? The thousands of us that watched from the streets of NY? Ya know, all the people that worked in Manhattan that day that flooded the streets after the first impact? I guess what, we were all given some kind of hallucinogen? The planes were holograms over missiles right? Yet they made these perfect plane shaped impact holes on the buildings? I guess the firefighters in the Naudet footage looked up, saw a missile, and were all like "Sigh, those pesky missiles keep flying around NY all the time" cause ya know, they casually returned to what they were doing till that "missile" impacted. Nothing strange there...

Really? No planes? Really?

Such an absolute abhorent idea.

Show me one credible eyewitness report from someone claiming to have seen a plane crash into the WTC.

 

[abaddon]

No, then I fail completely,

Never a truer word spoken.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Here's one:

I watched the second plane hit WTC 2.

On television, I'm sure.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I am studing that video of the airplane hitting WTC South tower , apparently is a edited video because the airplane must start to explode outside and before the whole airplane completely and utterly disappear inside the building, but what we can see in that edited video is the airplane completely and utterly disappear inside the south tower and after that, the explosives inside the building are detonated


.

They talk about that from about 11:10 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Y4zfl8yy4

 

[abaddon]

On television, I'm sure.

He explicitly stated he saw it in person. What is wrong with you?

 

[KDLarsen]

Are you sure ?, the plane in this video got smashed against a wall and ..... better see the video to check what happened to the plane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

Sigh.

The purpose of that test was to make nuclear power plants safer in the event of an airplane crashing into them. The whole point of it was the show that an airplane would disintegrate, rather than compromising the structural integrity of the power plant.

So unless you're going to start suggesting that the WTC were in fact secret nuclear power plants, I'm going to go ahead and suggest it's a poor comparison.

 

[abaddon]

They talk about that from about 11:10 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Y4zfl8yy4

argumentum ad youtubem. Have you no proposition of your own? must you always rely on the lowest common denominator?

 

[EventHorizon]

He explicitly stated he saw it in person. What is wrong with you?

You already answered that:

Here is a theory:

Anders simply ramps up the woo in an attempt to get members angry enough to post ban-able content.

Seriously; nobody could believe the things he says he believes. He has to be trolling.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am studing that video of the airplane hitting WTC South tower ,

We're all deliriously happy that someone with no training and experience in image and video analysis is finally looking into the South tower impact videos.

Your complete lack of qualifications will be a welcome break from those who have been to school and have years of experience telling us it's a plane hitting a building.

 

[Anders Lindman]

argumentum ad youtubem. Have you no proposition of your own? must you always rely on the lowest common denominator?

I have posted a lot about that in other threads. One example I have used is that a crude analogy would be a raw egg hitting a tennis rack at high speed. Would the egg splash somewhat across the surface of the racket? Of course it would.

 

[Oz1976]

Show me one credible eyewitness report from someone claiming to have seen a plane crash into the WTC.

You're a waste of effort. If you can't comprehend what I and others have said, it's not worth the time. You can never be convinced, you blatantly disregard what people say, have fun living with unicorns.

 

[Anders Lindman]

He explicitly stated he saw it in person. What is wrong with you?

Wrong? I'm skeptical. What's wrong about being skeptical?

 

[Oz1976]

I have posted a lot about that in other threads. One example I have used is that a crude analogy would be a raw egg hitting a tennis rack at high speed. Would the egg splash somewhat across the surface of the racket? Of course it would.

And your analogy is horribly innacurate and flawed. Egg thrown against Tennis racket vs... 425,000 pound jet airliner traveling 500 kt/h smashing into a steel frame mesh...physics was not your strongest class was it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You're a waste of effort. If you can't comprehend what I and others have said, it's not worth the time. You can never be convinced, you blatantly disregard what people say, have fun living with unicorns.

My position is that all eyewitnesses who say they have seen a plane hit the WTC in real life are either lying or mistaken.

 

[Oz1976]

Wrong? I'm skeptical. What's wrong about being skeptical?

You're not skeptical, you're delusional. You're accusing 10's of 1000's (minimum) of us New Yorkers that witnessed the event in the flesh of either being 1) compulsive liars 2) brainwashed or 3) drugged on hallucinogens.