Jet engine of wrong type found near Ground Zero

Jack by the hedge said:
It's a piece of litter, blowing in the breeze.

As the video progresses, it clearly continues on its path, passing in front of the foreground building. That building is 55 South Street, which is about 1km away from the WTC. That puts your "light sequence" somewhere in mid air over the East River, far, far away from the twin towers.

(The above is not aimed at Anders, who already knows all this but pretends not to, but rather at anyone who's curious and hasn't seen it debunked before.)
Click to expand...

I have already discussed that in another thread. The continued 'path' is a copy and paste video editing of the sequence to make it look less suspicious.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I have already discussed that in another thread. The continued 'path' is a copy and paste video editing of the sequence to make it look less suspicious.
Click to expand...

I expect this is a waste of time, but enlighten me:

How come you can just make whatever claims you please, but we have to show proof?

Hans

PS: now I know why I had Anders on my ignore list for a while.
 
Sunstealer said:
He hasn't got a clue as to what he's looking at! He doesn't realise that the image he claims is the new TOBI design doesn't contain a TOBI. It's simply indicating where the HCF failure has been occurring; namely on the 4th knife edge of the 2nd HPT air seal which is the older design pre-modification. They introduced a new air seal as part of the mod.

In fact I doubt he could point to where a TOBI should be on that diagram.
Click to expand...

I learned from the Facebook post above that TOBI is the new design and have corrected one of my previous posts. So, doesn't this mean that the TOBI replaces the old kind of curved nozzles? That's what I think the poster on the other forum meant by: "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
 
Anders Lindman said:
I have already discussed that in another thread. The continued 'path' is a copy and paste video editing of the sequence to make it look less suspicious.
Click to expand...

So any feature in a video which you can crowbar into your fantasy is "real", but any inconvenient parts which show it to be garbage are automatically "faked". In this case, a fluttering piece of litter becomes your sinister "sequence of lights" as it passes in front of the WTC windows, but becomes "copy and paste" video fakery as it continues serenely on its way beyond the WTC. Truly pathetic.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I will stick to the topic in this thread.
Click to expand...

Will you? Yet a mere handful of posts ago, you were gleefully telling us that we were either liars or deluded if we saw the second plane dive into WTC2.

Remember this:

Anders Lindman said:
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).
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd testify in court. Albeit, I'd be one of hundreds of people (nay, thousands) who could do so and I cannot fathom why my particular tale would be any more pertinent or appropriate than all of theirs.

But, yes, should I be requested, I would testify to what I saw in court. And I could pull in an easy dozen co-workers from that day who saw the same thing.

We were looking at Tower 1 as you correctly surmised. I remember thinking for a moment that one of the choppers circling around the tower (could've been police or other - I don't know) was making a helluva noise when a couple of us realized that that din was coming from over our right shoulders, more or less from the direction of Liberty Park (South of the Colgate Clock), and it flew into view - and at least several people said something to the effect of "OMG, it's another one!" We watched as the plane picked up speed with the engines noisily gunning, and arced into an area near the southeast corner of Tower 2. We saw it. Period. It wasn't a hologram, a missile, or a pigeon (Hi, MaGZ!) - it was a honking great jet passenger airliner that made a honking great hole and a honking great explosion (sound and fury, both).
 
Foolmewunz said:
Will you? Yet a mere handful of posts ago, you were gleefully telling us that we were either liars or deluded if we saw the second plane dive into WTC2.

Remember this:



Yes, I'd testify in court. Albeit, I'd be one of hundreds of people (nay, thousands) who could do so and I cannot fathom why my particular tale would be any more pertinent or appropriate than all of theirs.

But, yes, should I be requested, I would testify to what I saw in court. And I could pull in an easy dozen co-workers from that day who saw the same thing.

We were looking at Tower 1 as you correctly surmised. I remember thinking for a moment that one of the choppers circling around the tower (could've been police or other - I don't know) was making a helluva noise when a couple of us realized that that din was coming from over our right shoulders, more or less from the direction of Liberty Park (South of the Colgate Clock), and it flew into view - and at least several people said something to the effect of "OMG, it's another one!" We watched as the plane picked up speed with the engines noisily gunning, and arced into an area near the southeast corner of Tower 2. We saw it. Period. It wasn't a hologram, a missile, or a pigeon (Hi, MaGZ!) - it was a honking great jet passenger airliner that made a honking great hole and a honking great explosion (sound and fury, both).
Click to expand...

I don't believe any eyewitness testimony of planes hitting WTC. The reason I watch videos with witness testimonies is that they are usually from very early on, often recorded the same day on 9/11 2001. With respect, I don't think you would expect me to blindly trust any poster on a forum like this.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I don't believe any eyewitness testimony of planes hitting WTC. The reason I watch videos with witness testimonies is that they are usually from very early on, often recorded the same day on 9/11 2001. With respect, I don't think you would expect me to blindly trust any poster on a forum like this.
Click to expand...

So you blindly trust youtube. Says a lot, thanks.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So any feature in a video which you can crowbar into your fantasy is "real", but any inconvenient parts which show it to be garbage are automatically "faked". In this case, a fluttering piece of litter becomes your sinister "sequence of lights" as it passes in front of the WTC windows, but becomes "copy and paste" video fakery as it continues serenely on its way beyond the WTC. Truly pathetic.
Click to expand...

Ok, sigh, off topic again: did you see my previous post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7164659&postcount=392

Especially notice the video with the light sequence edited OUT, except for a single light 'blip' as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4wsjKbYTQ

Fluttering piece of litter?!
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, sigh, off topic again: did you see my previous post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7164659&postcount=392

Especially notice the video with the light sequence edited OUT, except for a single light 'blip' as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4wsjKbYTQ

Fluttering piece of litter?!
Click to expand...

Image noise magnified by compression artifacts. If this is the only video you ever watch, you might think it's unique. But it ain't.

Notice how those "blips" are perfect squares, aligned with the image frame, that look like they'd be about 3 meters across if they were actual objects or lights?
 
This is my last post in this thread; you cannot argue with this level of either blatant trolling or outright ignorance. Many of you have way more patience than I do.

Anders Lindman is the 'Gecko45' of this forum (those of you familiar with firearms forums will recognize the name, if not, Google will explain it).

Anders: What you are doing here is despicable. You are not on any campaign to find 'truth' or uncover some vast conspiracy. What you are doing is smearing the names and memories of those lost on 9/11. By your asinine theories, you belittle and diminish those who died on that day. Further, you insult those that witnessed the event, some right here in this thread.

Per the usual CTer mentality, you cannot accept that extremist Islamic terrorists exploited our security weaknesses, planned and subsequently carried out a massive attack on the United States. You must construct some vast and absolutely unbelievable alternative with no proof other than some videos posted by fellow CTers with equally questionable intelligence and motives.

Finally, you shame yourself by exposing your incomprehension. I don't know if these were your goals or not, but you have 'won' with these endeavors. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Elypsis44 said:
This is my last post in this thread; you cannot argue with this level of either blatant trolling or outright ignorance. Many of you have way more patience than I do.

Anders Lindman is the 'Gecko45' of this forum (those of you familiar with firearms forums will recognize the name, if not, Google will explain it).

Anders: What you are doing here is despicable. You are not on any campaign to find 'truth' or uncover some vast conspiracy. What you are doing is smearing the names and memories of those lost on 9/11. By your asinine theories, you belittle and diminish those who died on that day. Further, you insult those that witnessed the event, some right here in this thread.

Per the usual CTer mentality, you cannot accept that extremist Islamic terrorists exploited our security weaknesses, planned and subsequently carried out a massive attack on the United States. You must construct some vast and absolutely unbelievable alternative with no proof other than some videos posted by fellow CTers with equally questionable intelligence and motives.

Finally, you shame yourself by exposing your incomprehension. I don't know if these were your goals or not, but you have 'won' with these endeavors. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

I BELIEVE that the story about 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia is false. I also believe that no planes hit the WTC towers.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, sigh, off topic again: did you see my previous post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7164659&postcount=392

Especially notice the video with the light sequence edited OUT, except for a single light 'blip' as shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4wsjKbYTQ

Fluttering piece of litter?!
Click to expand...

Did I see your previous post? You quote me in the second link in your previous post.

You quote me pointing out that the artefacts you think are the same in the two clips cannot in fact be the same. Both flashes appear to align with approximately the same point on the WTC, but they occur at different times. QED they are not the same events.

One occurs 3 seconds before impact. The other occurs two seconds in slow motion before impact (i.e. much less than 2 seconds in real time).

One is a piece of litter more than 1km away from the WTC, blowing up the East River. The other is an analogue videotape flaw, rendered as a bright, square pixel by conversion to a compressed digital format.

The end.
 
AJM8125 said:
So you blindly trust youtube. Says a lot, thanks.
Click to expand...

That was sort of my point. Youtube is the source, of course, of course and nobody should ever question the source unless, of course, that source is the famous Mr. Ed.

Anders, you blindly trust people who say things like "Nothing hit that building!" (I paraphrase) because you want to trust them. You want so badly to believe that you're aching to trust them. Yet, as you noted, they have no more credibility than some guy on a forum claiming he's posting from Hong Kong and stating that he saw planes hit.

Why does a moron on Youtube achieve the Lindman credibility quotient? Because he agrees with you.

You're not looking for evidence. You're looking for confirmation.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Did I see your previous post? You quote me in the second link in your previous post.

You quote me pointing out that the artefacts you think are the same in the two clips cannot in fact be the same. Both flashes appear to align with approximately the same point on the WTC, but they occur at different times. QED they are not the same events.

One occurs 3 seconds before impact. The other occurs two seconds in slow motion before impact (i.e. much less than 2 seconds in real time).

One is a piece of litter more than 1km away from the WTC, blowing up the East River. The other is an analogue videotape flaw, rendered as a bright, square pixel by conversion to a compressed digital format.

The end.
Click to expand...

Did you see the posts I linked to? It describes how some of the videos have been slowed down (slow motion). So the timing is not real time.

EDIT: Oh, now I see. Yes, the second post was a reply to you. lol. Yes, I don't have the will to go over that again, but the videos are not real time.
 
Last edited:
Elypsis44 said:
This is my last post in this thread; you cannot argue with this level of either blatant trolling or outright ignorance. Many of you have way more patience than I do.

Anders Lindman is the 'Gecko45' of this forum (those of you familiar with firearms forums will recognize the name, if not, Google will explain it).

Anders: What you are doing here is despicable. You are not on any campaign to find 'truth' or uncover some vast conspiracy. What you are doing is smearing the names and memories of those lost on 9/11. By your asinine theories, you belittle and diminish those who died on that day. Further, you insult those that witnessed the event, some right here in this thread.

Per the usual CTer mentality, you cannot accept that extremist Islamic terrorists exploited our security weaknesses, planned and subsequently carried out a massive attack on the United States. You must construct some vast and absolutely unbelievable alternative with no proof other than some videos posted by fellow CTers with equally questionable intelligence and motives.

Finally, you shame yourself by exposing your incomprehension. I don't know if these were your goals or not, but you have 'won' with these endeavors. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

Did it really take more than 400 posts to come up with that suspicion?
 
How difficult can it be to determine if a part like this can be used in a 767 engine? :confused::confused::confused: http://209.85.62.24/46/112/0/p173686/_chromalloy01_edit.jpg

I have searched a lot on the Web and sure, found many discussions about it, stretching YEARS back, yet basically very little concrete confirmation or denial. Frustrating! :mad: I'm starting to suspect that the info posted about this on the Internet is some kind of disinfo/smokescreen campaign.

One alternative would be to contact Pratt & Whitney directly about it, but I don't know what to ask for.

I give up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom