JT9D-7J Engine

[Sunstealer]

Count the outer flange holes on both parts.

HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly has 24 holes on the outer flange. The part has to be photographed that way because of the TOBI tubes.

The HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI Configuration 2) is NOT an assembly and therefore cannot be considered to do the same job as the assembly, it is simply a partof an assembly.

Notice it also has 24 holes, which means it bolts to the same section as the assembly. Now what do you notice about the photo compared to the first? That's right the holes are on top whereas the first photo the holes are on the bottom. Therefore this part is photogarphed "upside down" relative to the first part. Therefore it's impossible to see if it has TOBI tubes or whether another part with TOBI tubes is attached to this (and may be others) to form a full assembly.

I bet no truther has contacted P&W to get an answer either. Hint: If you are going to, don't mention 911 or that you are a truther you'll get no response.

 

[DGM]

A mothballed 767 in the desert is expected to have all of its parts intact? That engine is partially disassembled! Perhaps the components in question were removed prior to its being placed in storage?

Actually they expect to see features of a crash stripped engine in a picture of an intact one.

 

[Reactor drone]

Ok, so these guys went essentially to what is a junkyard, took a picture of an engine, and are suspicious because the engine that came off an active jet has more parts?

I think it's the other way. That engine just has the cowling removed so you can't see the features because of all the pipes and engine accessories that are in the way. The previous comparison was of a largely dismantled engine on the wing of a 747 with ports and holes in the casing exposed.

 

[LSSBB]

I think it's the other way. That engine just has the cowling removed so you can't see the features because of all the pipes and engine accessories that are in the way. The previous comparison was of a largely dismantled engine on the wing of a 747 with ports and holes in the casing exposed.

Ahh yes. Still, different circumstances for the engine where the photos were taken.

 

[Checkmite]

By a plain reading of the comment in question (dangerous with Truthers, I know, but I thought it might help), it appears to be saying that there are extra parts on the 747 version of the JT9D that were found on Murray Street that are not present in the picture. Therefore, They (tm) planted the wrong engine.

Right; They smashed up and destroyed a 767 to plant all over the crime scene, except for its engines - they smashed up two completely different engines from a completely different plane for that part of it. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Wolrab]

Then they fired it out of the building from the exact floor and the exact velocity and the exact time as the substitute plane that hit the other side of the building. Clever bastards.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Then they fired it out of the building from the exact floor and the exact velocity and the exact time as the substitute plane that hit the other side of the building. Clever bastards.

It never ceases to amaze me how They (tm) can be so fiendishly clever and yet utterly brain-dead at the exact same time. Clearly They (tm) need to hire an average five-year-old child as an adviser.

 

[beachnut]

... This video explains how one of the radar target planes in the Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian air defense exercises taking place on September 11, 2001 was substituted for United Flight 175 and that the substituted plane was the one that crashed into the South Tower at the World Trade Center. This explains the many eyewitness accounts of the attack plane appearing to be a "military plane" or "cargo plane" and the numerous videos and photographs showing a cylindrical object on the underside of the fuselage that would not have been on a commercial aircraft.

h t t p : / / www(dot)youtube(dot)com/user/SilenceTrugood?feature=watch

The video explains how stupid the author is. The video never explained anything but how the author has no clue what he is talking about. The video is a test for gullibility; if believed the person is gullible and can't do simple research. SilenceTrugood has lost touch with reality on this subject, and it is sad youtube has no rule against lies and stupidity.

Please explain how you were fooled by this nonsense? Which silly claim did you take on faith? All of them. lol, the pod?

As for the engine, you have never proved what engine was on Flight 175. Amazingly, RADAR debunks your video on all counts. 175 was tracked by multiple RADAR sites from takeoff to impact. How do you explain that? You don't, you move on to the next silly claim so stupid it hurts, never thinking about what proves what 175 was. You don't care DNA was found at the crash sites, you don't care real people died, because you googled the "truth", you know 911 was an inside job. But you can't do the physics, the logic, the evidence, RADAR, etc to keep you from falling for lies based on ignorance and fantasy.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Then they fired it out of the building from the exact floor and the exact velocity and the exact time as the substitute plane that hit the other side of the building. Clever bastards.

No no no. They didn't fire it. To much work. "They" just drove it in on the back of a truck, in the middle of the biggest, most visible news event EVAR, pulled off the tarp and kicked it under the scaffolding at the exactly correct distance for an object to have traveled at ~400mph while falling a thousand feet. Easy peasy.

Then, to make it LOOK LIKE it exited the building "They" only had to get access to every single videotape that might have impact footage on it in a five-mile radius, even the one with the word "Friends" sharpied on the label, that was packed away a few days later when the young couple decided to blow off their lease and move the heck out of NYC and only surfaced when the couple unpacked that box months later and decided to watch an old episode of Friends and found they had plunked that particular tape into the camcorder and left it on the balcony filming the towers while dealing with their infant between the first and second impact. Then "They" simply had to CGI in the plane and the two distinct smoke plumes from the "engine" (a spiral trail) and the 100-square-foot piece of fuselage (the larger but intermittent smoke trail) leading to where Evil Elves smuggled it up the freight elevator to the roof of nine-story WTC 5. With Sooper Seekrit Softwarz "They" were easily able to fake utterly consistent trajectories for the plane and both pieces of ejecta in over 30 different videos shot at distances ranging from 150' to 5 miles from the twin towers, at nearly 360 degrees around the event and a multitude of altitudes.

Again, easy peasy. Why bother shooting the engine out of the building?

 

[thedopefishlives]

No no no. They didn't fire it. To much work. "They" just drove it in on the back of a truck, in the middle of the biggest, most visible news event EVAR, pulled off the tarp and kicked it under the scaffolding at the exactly correct distance for an object to have traveled at ~400mph while falling a thousand feet. Easy peasy.

Then, to make it LOOK LIKE it exited the building "They" only had to get access to every single videotape that might have impact footage on it in a five-mile radius, even the one with the word "Friends" sharpied on the label, that was packed away a few days later when the young couple decided to blow off their lease and move the heck out of NYC and only surfaced when the couple unpacked that box months later and decided to watch an old episode of Friends and found they had plunked that particular tape into the camcorder and left it on the balcony filming the towers while dealing with their infant between the first and second impact. Then "They" simply had to CGI in the plane and the two distinct smoke plumes from the "engine" (a spiral trail) and the 100-square-foot piece of fuselage (the larger but intermittent smoke trail) leading to where Evil Elves smuggled it up the freight elevator to the roof of nine-story WTC 5. With Sooper Seekrit Softwarz "They" were easily able to fake utterly consistent trajectories for the plane and both pieces of ejecta in over 30 different videos shot at distances ranging from 150' to 5 miles from the twin towers, at nearly 360 degrees around the event and a multitude of altitudes.

Again, easy peasy. Why bother shooting the engine out of the building?

Wow. When you put it that way, this no-plane business sounds completely bat- crazy.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I asked a DIFbat nopelamer how "They" prevented every single one of the 5 million potential witnesses from pointing a camcorder at the most newsworthy event in the history of news and he responded with "who would film a smoking tower, they went to get a cup of coffee." Yep, he won a stundie.

 

[Freeclimber44]

I want to reply to some (not all as yet) of the questions and/or comments on this thread since my last post of 9/13. In the interest of brevity and readability I'm not going to repeat each post and its poster, but reply to the essential questions or statements posted in chronological order. Those persons having made the posts will recognize them.

1) "The plane seen in all the videos is a Boeing 767-200."
The plane on all videos released to date shows a twin-engine jet passenger or cargo plane of nearly the same dimensions as a Boeing 767-200, but I'm not aware that any video is clear enough to conclusively identify it as such.

2) "A mothballed 767 in the desert is expected to have all of its parts intact? That engine is partially disassembled!"
The cowling on the engine nacelle has been removed exposing the engine, but how can you be sure the engine has been partially disassembled? Here is the link to the photo of the JT9D-7R4D engine on the mothballed 767-200:
http : / / www(dot)flickr(dot)com/photos/unclejefejefe/3399480109/

The crucial section for comparison is the turbine casing just in front of the exhaust sleeve. Here is a link to images of complete JT9D-7R4 series engines. Please examine the last photo in the 2nd row and the 2nd photo in the bottom row.
https : / / www(dot)google(dot)com/#q=jt9d-7r4+engine+images

3) "Ok, so these guys went essentially to what is a junkyard, took a picture of an engine, and are suspicious because the engine that came off an active jet has more parts?"
Not more parts, DIFFERENT parts.

4) "I bet no truther has contacted P&W to get an answer either."
I have placed an inquiry with Pratt & Whitney, but have not yet received a reply. I was able to access the Chromalloy parts "Capability Catalog" online and determined that the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly that Chromalloy manufactures and is visible on the Murray Street engine is NOT a component of the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI, Configuration 2) also manufactured by Chromalloy or vice versa. They are independent and unrelated parts. The HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly is a component of the P&W JT9D-7A/7F/7J engines to the exclusion of all other engines and hence could not be found on any P&W JT9D-7R4D engine.

5) "Right; They smashed up and destroyed a 767 to plant all over the crime scene, except for its engines - they smashed up two completely different engines from a completely different plane for that part of it. Makes perfect sense to me."
There are very serious problems with the aircraft wreckage found on the roof of WTC5 and alleged to be from UA175. This wreckage was not photographed or videotaped until October 25, 2001, a month and a half after 9/11. It was claimed to have been discovered by a team of FEMA investigators headed by Dr.W.Gene Corley, a structural engineer. Corley served as the lead investigator on the FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Study following 9/11. The investigative team released its report on the collapse of the World Trade Center in May 2002. Corley died on March 1, 2013.

http : / / www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=GD3yPKWAajA
In addition to the Natasha Sealy photograph showing only small scattered pieces of debris on the roof of WTC5 after both planes had crashed but before either tower collapsed, there is a video clip taken by Tami Michaels from her room on the 35th floor of the Millenium Hotel at Fulton and Church Streets directly adjacent to WTC5. This video, taken shortly after WTC2 collapsed, clearly shows almost the entire roof of WTC5 and confirms there were only scattered small pieces of debris on it just after the first tower collapsed.
http : / / www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=tbbUFhqmP-k

Acquiring and hauling the tons of aircraft wreckage in the FEMA-produced video and photographs to the roof of WTC5 was a major operation. Although the wreckage could have been brought to the roof in wheelbarrow loads over a few weeks time by a small crew of laborers who likely would not have been noticed within the hundreds of recovery and clean-up workers at the WTC site, finding and collecting aircraft parts that could pass for wreckage of the actual 767 that allegedly struck WTC2 would have required a major degree of organization and co-ordination. Dr.Corley, being deceased, cannot be called to testify about his involvement in this planned deception or anything else, but little-known George Bush crony Joe M. Allbaugh who was FEMA Director from February, 2001 to March, 2003 and other high-ranking officials at FEMA prior to and immediately after 9/11 definitely have some 'splainin to do. Here is a more detailed discussion of this deception:
http : / / pilotsfor911truth(dot)org/forum/index(dot)php?showtopic=21357

6) "Then they fired it out of the building from the exact floor and the exact velocity and the exact time as the substitute plane that hit the other side of the building. Clever bastards."
I do not believe the Murray Street engine wreckage was from one of the engines that powered the attack plane that crashed into WTC2, as relying on the engine to break loose from the plane and be propelled several blocks north of the building would have been too problematic. I think the engine was carried untethered inside the fuselage so that it would break through the shattered nose of the plane after it had penetrated the outside wall of the tower. This would explain why the plane deliberately hit the tower off center so that the engine would miss the dense core and be propelled out through the north wall of the building.

7) "It never ceases to amaze me how They (tm) can be so fiendishly clever and yet utterly brain-dead at the exact same time. Clearly They (tm) need to hire an average five-year-old child as an adviser."
Any one of a thousand possible errors could have caused the wrong type of engine to get loaded onto the pilotless attack plane - yes, it was a drone. Someone may have looked up the wrong engine type or copied the model number down wrong or the wrong engine may have been ordered from a salvage yard or the delivery got mixed up OR someone may have made sure the wrong engine was used to DELIBERATELY drop erroneous evidence and give away the deception.

8) " . . . RADAR debunks your video on all counts. 175 was tracked by multiple RADAR sites from takeoff to impact. How do you explain that?”
RE: UA 175 never switched off its transponder.
There appears to be some confusion regarding that as well:
Quote: "8:46 a.m. New York flight controller Dave Bottoglia is in charge of monitoring both Flights 11 and 175. He's just watched Flight 11's radar blip disappear over New York City, but doesn't yet realize the plane has crashed."Within seconds" of losing Flight 11's blip, he realizes that Flight 175 is also missing. He has another controller take over all his other planes so he can focus on finding Flight 175. He tries contacting the planes several times unsuccessfully. Curt Applegate, sitting at the radar screen next to Bottoglia, sees a blip that might be the missing Flight 11. In fact, it's the missing Flight 175. Right as Bottoglia notices it, its transponder signal turns back on, BUT AT A DIFFERENT SIGNAL THAN BEFORE* (see 8:46 a.m.). MSNBC reports,"There is no longer any question in Bottoglia's mind that he's looking at a second hijacked airliner." He then notices it turn east and start descending. He keeps an eye on it and sees it head right at Delta Flight 2315 He recalls saying to the Delta flight,"Traffic, 2:00, 10 miles. I think he's been hijacked. I don't know his intentions. Take any evasive action necessary." Flight 2315 takes evasive action, missing Flight 175 by less than 200 feet. {MSNBC, 9/11/02 (B)} However, there is no claim that NORAD is notified about the hijacking at this time. According to a NORAD timeline, NORAD is notified by Boston flight control three minutes earlier (see 8:43 a.m.). The 9/11 Commission seems to completely ignore this account from Bottoglia, and has him notice the transponder change at 8:51, instead of as it is happening, as he claims (see 8:51 - 8:53 a.m.)

Flight 175 stops transmitting its transponder signal. It is 50 miles north of New York City, heading toward Baltimore.{8:46:18, Guardian, 10/17/01 "about the same time" as Flight 11 crash, Newsday 9/10/02, 8:47, 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04} However, the transponder is turned off for only about 30 seconds, THEN CHANGED TO A SIGNAL THAT IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR ANY PLANE ON THAT DAY.* {Newsday, 9/10/02} This "allow(s) controllers to track the intruder easily, though they couldn't identify it." {Washington Post 9/17/01}

This is the most succinct and accurate account I have found of the communications and actions taken in the last few minutes of the flight of the attack plane that struck WTC2. UA175's transponder was turned off and then back on twice with a different signal (squawk code) each time. The crucial phrase here is that controllers could . . . track the intruder easily, THOUGH THEY COULDN'T IDENTIFY IT.* American Flight 11 switching its transponder off completely and United Flight 175 switching its transponder off and then back on twice changing its response codes were the necessary manipulations that allowed two target drone aircraft taking part in the Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian air defense exercises taking place to be substituted for the two airliners on Air Traffic Control radar and then continue on to crash into the towers at the World Trade Center. There could have been no other purpose for these target aircraft to have flown in close formation with the two airliners during this time except to switch with them on radar. No other commercial aircraft would have had any need to fly in formation with them and would not have been allowed to. No private aircraft would have been allowed to approach the airliners and none would have been flying at that altitude anyway. And we know that no military aircraft ever intercepted the airliners. That rules out everything in the air but the target drone aircraft.
* My emphasis added. Read the entire post here:
http : / / www(dot)democraticunderground(dot)com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=22175&mesg_id=26035

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... UA175's transponder was turned off and then back on twice with a different signal (squawk code) each time. The crucial phrase here is that controllers could . . . track the intruder easily, THOUGH THEY COULDN'T IDENTIFY IT.* American Flight 11 switching its transponder off completely and United Flight 175 switching its transponder off and then back on twice changing its response codes were the necessary manipulations that allowed two target drone aircraft taking part in the Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian air defense exercises taking place to be substituted for the two airliners on Air Traffic Control radar and then continue on to crash into the towers at the World Trade Center. There could have been no other purpose for these target aircraft to have flown in close formation with the two airliners during this time except to switch with them on radar. No other commercial aircraft would have had any need to fly in formation with them and would not have been allowed to. No private aircraft would have been allowed to approach the airliners and none would have been flying at that altitude anyway. And we know that no military aircraft ever intercepted the airliners. That rules out everything in the air but the target drone aircraft.

Can you direct me to your evidence that two other similar-sized aircraft flew in close formation with UA175 and AA11? Thanks.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

4) "I bet no truther has contacted P&W to get an answer either."
I have placed an inquiry with Pratt & Whitney, but have not yet received a reply. I was able to access the Chromalloy parts "Capability Catalog" online and determined that the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly that Chromalloy manufactures and is visible on the Murray Street engine is NOT a component of the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI, Configuration 2) also manufactured by Chromalloy or vice versa. They are independent and unrelated parts. The HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly is a component of the P&W JT9D-7A/7F/7J engines to the exclusion of all other engines and hence could not be found on any P&W JT9D-7R4D engine.

OK. This goes straight to the heart of the matter. Your claim is that you can positively identify an engine part on the Murray street engine, to the exclusion of any alternative part, and you can positively exclude it as a part ever fitted to the plane which supposedly crashed.

Please show us your proof.

 

[Reactor drone]

4) "I bet no truther has contacted P&W to get an answer either."
I have placed an inquiry with Pratt & Whitney, but have not yet received a reply. I was able to access the Chromalloy parts "Capability Catalog" online and determined that the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly that Chromalloy manufactures and is visible on the Murray Street engine is NOT a component of the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI, Configuration 2) also manufactured by Chromalloy or vice versa. They are independent and unrelated parts. The HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly is a component of the P&W JT9D-7A/7F/7J engines to the exclusion of all other engines and hence could not be found on any P&W JT9D-7R4D engine.

You're right that they're independent, unrelated parts rather than two versions of the same component.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_170744bba1d7d2c2b7.jpg[/qimg]

Just out of interest, which part of this component do you think causes tangential cooling airflow?

Hint- I'm pretty sure you need the bit with the right angled tubes for that.

 

[DGM]

1) "The plane seen in all the videos is a Boeing 767-200."
The plane on all videos released to date shows a twin-engine jet passenger or cargo plane of nearly the same dimensions as a Boeing 767-200, but I'm not aware that any video is clear enough to conclusively identify it as such.

What, do you need to read the registration number?

Anyone that is interested in planes can identify the plane as a 767-200 series. The exact sub-series would be tough but not the base plane.

Just out of curiosity. What type of plane do you think it was?

 

[beachnut]

I want to reply to some ...

RADAR proves all you claims are BS, fantasy, lies or worse. You lost this round because you brought woo to a skeptics forum, and failed to prove a single claim. All your claims failed 12 years ago, when RADAR tracked 11, 175, 77, and 93 from takeoff to the WTC, Pentagon, and PA. Real evidence ignored by you because you pick the easy path of google cut and paste.

Ironically electromagnetic waves foil your lies, science wins, woo lost again. You want to reply by repackaging stupid claims. No matter how many times you tell your repackaged lies, they remain nonsense based on ignorance and BS.

It gets worse when you source the silly lies from democraticunderground?

8) " . . . RADAR debunks your video on all counts. 175 was tracked by multiple RADAR sites from takeoff to impact. How do you explain that?”
RE: UA 175 never switched off its transponder.
There appears to be some confusion regarding that as well:
Quote: "8:46 a.m. New York flight controller Dave Bottoglia is in charge of monitoring both Flights 11 and 175. He's just watched Flight 11's radar blip disappear over New York City, but doesn't yet realize the plane has crashed."Within seconds" of losing Flight 11's blip, he realizes that Flight 175 is also missing. He has another controller take over all his other planes so he can focus on finding Flight 175. He tries contacting the planes several times unsuccessfully. Curt Applegate, sitting at the radar screen next to Bottoglia, sees a blip that might be the missing Flight 11. In fact, it's the missing Flight 175. Right as Bottoglia notices it, its transponder signal turns back on, BUT AT A DIFFERENT SIGNAL THAN BEFORE* (see 8:46 a.m.). ... ...

LOL, big time. The RADAR data is recorded. Confusion on 911 with controllers is valid, 175 changed his code. Do you fly? I do, and the code changing is serious, and will confuse, and piss off the controller big time. I have flown heavy jets (aka 300,000 pound class) since 1976, and investigated accident involving heavy jets; we "pull" the RADAR data for the investigation - after the fact. Your day of confusion is BS, and does not refute RADAR debunks you big time, leaving you will fantasy.

Flight 175 stops transmitting its transponder signal. It is 50 miles north of New York City, heading toward Baltimore.{8:46:18, Guardian, 10/17/01 "about the same time" as Flight 11 crash, Newsday 9/10/02, 8:47, 9/11 Commission Report, 6/17/04} However, the transponder is turned off for only about 30 seconds, THEN CHANGED TO A SIGNAL THAT IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR ANY PLANE ON THAT DAY.* {Newsday, 9/10/02} This "allow(s) controllers to track the intruder easily, though they couldn't identify it." {Washington Post 9/17/01} ...

It appears you have no clue you can get the RADAR data for 911. RADAR data show multiple RADAR sites tracking each aircraft; redundant same time tracking. We have data for 77 from 4 or 5 independent RADAR sites for the final impact at the Pentagon. If you understood the RADAR, you would not be making up wild lies about 911 - you are proved wrong by RADAR and use news reports as your defense for woo? Big error.

This is the most succinct and accurate account I have found of the communications and actions taken in the last few minutes of the flight of the attack plane that struck WTC2. UA175's transponder was turned off and then back on twice with a different signal (squawk code) each time. ...

The RADAR still paints 175 with, or without a transponder code, or transponder off. RADAR proves you wrong, and you don't know why as you google news reports, and fail to use RADAR data.

The crucial phrase here is that controllers could . . . track the intruder easily, THOUGH THEY COULDN'T IDENTIFY IT.*
...

LOL, this is why we collect RADAR data after the incident. We can then TRACK all the flights from takeoff to landing. Thus, with RADAR data we can confirm the missing people on 911, who boarded Flight 175 and were murdered by 5 terrorists, took-off and impacted in the WTC. BINGO, you lost again, and you can't figure it out.

After 911, we take the RADAR data, all of it. And we can track each plane. There were no drones. RADAR proves you wrong, and you google up BS to support your fantasy.

American Flight 11 switching its transponder off completely and United Flight 175 switching its transponder off and then back on twice changing its response codes were the necessary manipulations that allowed two target drone aircraft taking part in the Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian air defense exercises taking place to be substituted for the two airliners on Air Traffic Control radar ...

Wrong, and your fantasy fails. RADAR would show the drones and the change over. Turning off your transponder does not hide an aircraft from RADAR. The complete ignorance of flying, ATC, and RADAR are exposed in your sick failed fantasy.


Now, I see, you are doing 2004 over, and adding super silly drone stuff...
The url you posted was, "Edited on Fri Dec-03-04 09:10 AM by Make7" - 2004? You are behind 6 to 9 years?
The "John Doe II" thread at DU ... (is that, jdx, Balsamo the failed pilot?)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x22175

... http : / / www(dot)democraticunderground(dot)com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=22175& mesg_id=26035 ...

Someone who does not understand RADAR is a source of what?

... , what a silly disrespectful fantasy based on ignorance and nonsense. I can't believe the drone stuff got this stupid. Drones? Now you are blaming the military for 911? I was on active duty on 911, you were doing what?

 

[Justin39640]

Lol
Good thing the Luftwaffe left their transponders on during the Battle Of Britain. Otherwise British RADAR wouldn't have picked them up.

 

[CORed]

When I attempted to make my first post on this thread the following message appeared:

You are only allowed to post URLs (e.g. xxxxxxx) to websites after you have made 15 posts or more.

Note: If you use the built-in "Enhanced Editor" to type your responses and you select a smilie from the smilie list you may find the system will believe you are trying to include an URL in your post. If you experience this problem either use the "Standard Editor" (UserCP>Edit Options>Miscellaneous Options>Message Editor Interface) or add smilies by typing the text alternative e.g.

We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.

I find this to be an arbitrary and utterly ridiculous rule, but apparently there is no way around it and since my post would be missing a huge amount of pertinent information without the links I will wait until I can post what I have as written.

I believe the purpose of the rule is to prevent people (or automated scripts) from registering for this forum for the sole purpose of posting Spam.

 

[twinstead]

Lol
Good thing the Luftwaffe left their transponders on during the Battle Of Britain. Otherwise British RADAR wouldn't have picked them up.

Yea, like you didn't know that the Battle of Britain was an inside job. Wake UP!