Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

Here a woman says: "That was another American Airline." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2B2NamwCFQ

Yet, did she actually see the plane, or is she just making an assumption?

Then later in the video a man (from what sounds like a news program on a radio or television set nearby) says at about 0:58: "I didn't see a plane hit the building but I did see an explosion occur."
 
Here a woman says "holy ****" like an amateur actor delivering a beforehand prepared line: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHiSPXPNHTA

Also notice the diagonal line of lights running across the facade before the explosion. That's a time and position marker (not a bird or something like that as some people have claimed).
 
In this video no definite statement of the witnesses actually having seen a plane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnzDcixTiek

Here a man says (it's a bit hard for me to hear clearly this one): "...we saw it with our own eyes...": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyt-oUTQLd8 And they are talking about a second plane. Sounds a bit staged. I believe it's a false witness report.

And in this next video the same guy who said: "You know what the deal is with that." at the end of the previous video is in this video too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYm5aeq9NH4 So, what's the deal with that? :confused: Did they run out of extras, and had to use this man twice? And the same cameraman is AGAIN saying that he didn't know that a second plane had hit. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

And in this video the guy being interviewed says he saw the second plane hit on TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBYqh1ECpq4
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
My position is that all eyewitnesses who say they have seen a plane hit the WTC in real life are either lying or mistaken.
Click to expand...

That has a remarkable resemblance to my position regarding you.

As there are many thousands of independent witnesses and vast amounts of corroborating evidence but you are a lone attention-seeking internet troll, I think I have the probabilities in proper perspective.
 
Back to topic:

"If this really is an engine from a Boeing 767, why do we call it the wrong engine? Because the degree of corrosion on the surface of the metal and the deformations of the fairly delicate peripheral tubular structures are more indicative of having been kicked around in an aviation graveyard for some 3 to 10 years than violently traversing the interior of a steel-framed building!"

From: http://www.nc911truth.org/foto/cores.html
 
"The author is George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (Retired)

Explores the absence of serial-numbered time-change parts from any of the 9/11 crash sites and the refusal of the US authorities to engage with the issue. No matter the speed and catastrophic nature of the impacts it is certain that such identifiable parts would have survived. It is also certain that the US authorities DID collect sufficient debris to guarantee that there would be such identifiable parts in their posession.
...
This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane. "

From: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Aircraft_Parts_and_the_Precautionary_Principle
 
Did Anders just sextuple post? :p


The Internet can be a very bad thing if it gets into the wrong hands.

Calling 9/11 witnesses liars makes you look like a total *******.

I mean even for a truther, heck, even for a no-planer this is pretty disrespectful, and even though I didn't witness 9/11 first hand, I am almost offended by this outrageous claim.

Sort your life out dude. I don't care whether you're just a troll or you're actually that delusional, either way: Get off the internet.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Impossible airplane speeds, impossible maneuvers, impossible impacts, suspicious radar data, NORAD slow reaction, Flight 175 still flying in the air after supposedly having crashed into the South Tower, ALMOST impossibly bad computer graphics insertions etc.
Click to expand...
All of this is garbage debunked a billion times. Boring troll is boring. Again.
Anders Lindman said:
Maybe they are lying because it would be embarrassing for them to NOT have seen any plane when they saw the fireball explosion. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you as a police officer tell people that you saw the fireball but didn't see any plane?! When the plane could clearly be seen on CNN. People would think you had gone bonkers and you could even lose your job! Seriously.
Click to expand...
O rly? You think that weak-as-water idea has any merit when you quote a guy below who adamantly claims he saw the fireball but no plane? (Clue: witnesses who saw the impact from the opposite side to the approach did not see the approaching plane as there was a frikkin' great big tower in the way.)

Anders Lindman said:
In this clip a man says: "I saw it." And he talks about a second plane. But could it be a planted witness?
Click to expand...
Only in your fantasy land.
Listen to other man before that. It sounds like he is saying in an agitated voice (from about 0:08): "That blew up, that just blew that building up. Ain't nothing hit that building. Nothing hit that building."
Click to expand...
Which destroys your claim that all the witnesses, like good little sheep, would obediently agree they saw a plane.
Many of the amateur videos were staged, so witness videos like this one could also have been staged.
Click to expand...
Fantasy.
Anders Lindman said:
Here a woman says: "That was another American Airline." Yet, did she actually see the plane, or is she just making an assumption?
Click to expand...
You are the one making assumptions. Ridiculous ones.
Then later in the video a man (from what sounds like a news program on a radio or television set nearby) says at about 0:58: "I didn't see a plane hit the building but I did see an explosion occur."
Click to expand...
So your claim is dead and buried.
Anders Lindman said:
Here a woman says "holy ****" like an amateur actor delivering a beforehand prepared line:
Click to expand...
Your delusion is showing.
Also notice the diagonal line of lights running across the facade before the explosion. That's a time and position marker (not a bird or something like that as some people have claimed).
Click to expand...
I have already wasted enough time debunking that particular lunacy.
Anders Lindman said:
Here a man says... "...we saw it with our own eyes..." ... And they are talking about a second plane. Sounds a bit staged. I believe it's a false witness report.
Click to expand...
And nobody who isn't certifiable takes your opinion seriously.
 
Anders Lindman said:
"...the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane."
Click to expand...

Give me one good reason why governments should waste their time and taxpayers money pandering to every vexatious demand of a few fringe nutcases, who will never accept any evidence which doesn't support their fantasy and will only move the goalposts and start demanding the next in an infinite series of proofs?
 
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Here a man says... "...we saw it with our own eyes..." ... And they are talking about a second plane. Sounds a bit staged. I believe it's a false witness report.
Click to expand...

You believe all sorts of peculiar things, don't you?
 
Anders Lindman said:
"...the degree of corrosion on the surface of the metal and the deformations of the fairly delicate peripheral tubular structures are more indicative of having been kicked around in an aviation graveyard for some 3 to 10 years than violently traversing the interior of a steel-framed building!"
Click to expand...

Evidence?

No?

Business as usual, then.
 
Anders Lindman said:
On television, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

No, Anders. In real life, just as I said in the post after the one you quoted.

Now, we got us a problem here. I'm a good old boy of Jewish Sicilian extraction. And t'ain't no one gonna call me a liar without me gettin' Izzy and Schlomo and Dominic and Paulie Pots and Pans to go over and have a little talk with 'em (if ya get my drift).

So what is it, Anders? I'm a liar? I'm going to say that the credibility factor with the posters here is probably a slight degree (say 99:1) in my favor.

Alternate theory: Or you're a troll, making crap up as you go along.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Here a woman says: "That was another American Airline." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2B2NamwCFQ

Yet, did she actually see the plane, or is she just making an assumption?

Then later in the video a man (from what sounds like a news program on a radio or television set nearby) says at about 0:58: "I didn't see a plane hit the building but I did see an explosion occur."
Click to expand...

What is it with The Truth and YouTube? Why would you pay any more attention to that or the other Youtube interviews than the number of people on these forums who witnessed the event. (There are at least a few of us.)

I was not on Fifth Avenue (no one on 5th could've seen the second plane hit), nor downstairs in Manhattan from the towers. I was across the river, just about due west, with an unobstructed clear sky. I saw it, along with a dozen or so other people who were looking out of the arced picture windows in our offices there (10 Exchange Place, Jersey City) - you can find the building on GoogleEarth, I'm sure.

It was a plane, Anders. A big ol' jet passenger plane. I'm not a plane spotter and don't know the difference between a 757, 767, 727, or 747. It was a big muthahumpin' plane that didn't belong at that low an altitude, at that speed, in that location, and it curled right into Tower 2, coming in from behind us as we looked east across the river, and was gunning its engines as it went into the tower.

We saw it.



Does the above sound "staged". Like a "lie". "Delusional"?

You are effectively pissing on the graves of the people I knew (and those I didn't know) who died in the conflagration that day. Stop it. Find another hobby. Kumquat farming, for instance.
 
Foolmewunz said:
No, Anders. In real life, just as I said in the post after the one you quoted.

Now, we got us a problem here. I'm a good old boy of Jewish Sicilian extraction. And t'ain't no one gonna call me a liar without me gettin' Izzy and Schlomo and Dominic and Paulie Pots and Pans to go over and have a little talk with 'em (if ya get my drift).

So what is it, Anders? I'm a liar? I'm going to say that the credibility factor with the posters here is probably a slight degree (say 99:1) in my favor.

Alternate theory: Or you're a troll, making crap up as you go along.
Click to expand...

So you would testify in court that you saw a plane hit the South Tower in real life? It's a bit tricky to use the right words. Some witnesses say: "Saw it with my own eyes" which could mean: saw it on television with my own eyes. To say: saw it in real life seems a more safe expression. That can hardly mean seeing it on television (although some could even argue that).
 
HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly:

http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173686/_chromalloy01_edit.jpg

I found an interesting comment about that:

"Regardless of the history of the 7R4 engine, the component at the top with the tube-like array of elbows is NOT 7R4 anything. That HPT Stage 1 Air Duct cooling assembly is pre 7R4 design and I'm certain at this point a 7(A/F/J) series engine. The 7J has the highest thrust rating and is comparable to the 7R4D." -- From: http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1829738/15/#post428430

7R4 means the type of engine used on the Flight 175 Boeing 767. If the poster is correct, then the engine found near Ground Zero is of the WRONG type.
 
Holy Marconi, I will have to flip-flop again. The jet engine may really be of the wrong type after all. And in turn it could mean that the perpetrators couldn't get hold of anything newer on the black market (or at some junkyard).
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Which destroys your claim that all the witnesses, like good little sheep, would obediently agree they saw a plane. Fantasy.
Click to expand...

Not at all. That witness who said that "nothing hit the building" said that in agitation on 9/11. Soon after that, after having seen a plane on TV, he may have become silent about that claim in order to not appear having gone crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom